Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Most of the stuff in this thread is pretty much correct, and is basically the "how realistic do you want your wargame to be"' camp.

The only thing that is outright BAD (like really gak) is the Holofields wargear.

 Gnarlly wrote:


Your memory is definitely better than mine. I think the big change from 3rd to 4th regarding assault was doing away with "Rhino rush" from 3rd edition where any unit could assault from any transport. 4th changed the disembarking rules so that you could only immediately assault after a transport moved when the transport was open-topped or a Land Raider.

LOL. I still have all the rulebooks for 3rd - 6th. I just pulled them out to see if I was correct. I actually never played 3rd. I only played a handful of 4th edition games before 5th dropped. I just remember lots of discussions about the balance between shooting and melee across the editions. Most of the time when talking about melee in 5th, people would wax nostalgic about how cool it was to keep a good melee unit protected from shooting by bouncing into new combats all the time in 4th. Tau players had a different perspective of course.

I always think of the loss of 3rd's rhino rush in terms of changes to the vehicle rules, not melee rules. Combat itself seems much the same, they just took away the delivery method by making transports bad in 4th. Then in 5th transports became important (and survivable) again, but they still weren't good at delivering melee units.

Double check the leadership check to shoot anything but the closest model. I believe there is specific notes in it saying you can ignore that rule if firing on a vehicle/monstrous creature. If I'm remembering right, it would mean that while an Infantry Squad could block you from firing on the Command Squad behind it, it could not block you firing on the Leman Russ that is also behind it.

 kurhanik wrote:
Double check the leadership check to shoot anything but the closest model. I believe there is specific notes in it saying you can ignore that rule if firing on a vehicle/monstrous creature. If I'm remembering right, it would mean that while an Infantry Squad could block you from firing on the Command Squad behind it, it could not block you firing on the Leman Russ that is also behind it.

Yep, entirely correct. You could select either the closest Infantry squad or closest Vehicle/MC automatically. LD test required only if you wanted to select a target further away. Most of the times you could eyeball it, but occasionally you had to measure. That could conflict with the rule of no premeasuring when targeting. But hey, Warhammers' rules have never been airtight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Full size in spoiler:

Spoiler:

That's a fantastic set of diagrams Insectum.

Man I preferred 4th's approach.

Aye, and let's not forget the rules for partially obscured units:

Sometimes, a unit will only be partially in cover (ie, some of the models are in or behind cover and some of them are in the open). If there are more models that can be hit in cover than there are outside it, then the unit may make Cover Saves for the entire unit. If this is not the case, then none of the unit may take Cover Saves.

So if one model is outside of cover, but two are behind it, they ALL have cover. Instead of: "Hey, I can see one guy's gun barrel! So everyone is exposed!".

You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

 Arschbombe wrote:
I always think of the loss of 3rd's rhino rush in terms of changes to the vehicle rules, not melee rules.

It 100% was. The TVR changed how assaulting from vehicles worked. Until that came about, assaulting from vehicles remained the same even under the TAR.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:


Your memory is definitely better than mine. I think the big change from 3rd to 4th regarding assault was doing away with "Rhino rush" from 3rd edition where any unit could assault from any transport. 4th changed the disembarking rules so that you could only immediately assault after a transport moved when the transport was open-topped or a Land Raider.

LOL. I still have all the rulebooks for 3rd - 6th. I just pulled them out to see if I was correct. I actually never played 3rd. I only played a handful of 4th edition games before 5th dropped. I just remember lots of discussions about the balance between shooting and melee across the editions. Most of the time when talking about melee in 5th, people would wax nostalgic about how cool it was to keep a good melee unit protected from shooting by bouncing into new combats all the time in 4th. Tau players had a different perspective of course.

I always think of the loss of 3rd's rhino rush in terms of changes to the vehicle rules, not melee rules. Combat itself seems much the same, they just took away the delivery method by making transports bad in 4th. Then in 5th transports became important (and survivable) again, but they still weren't good at delivering melee units.

Cool. I've also never played 3rd actually, though I still have the rulebooks and codexes for 3rd-5th. I started in early 2nd, took a break, and came back right when 4th had just been released. But I've heard and read quite a bit about the 3rd edition era.

 kurhanik wrote:
Double check the leadership check to shoot anything but the closest model. I believe there is specific notes in it saying you can ignore that rule if firing on a vehicle/monstrous creature. If I'm remembering right, it would mean that while an Infantry Squad could block you from firing on the Command Squad behind it, it could not block you firing on the Leman Russ that is also behind it.

Large Targets

Many units carry tank-busting weapons like missile launchers or lascannon, and are able to spot marauding vehicles, walkers, or large creatures with ease. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you can declare that your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery, and monstrous creatures (these are the only unit types you can target this way, collectively referred to as "Large Targets"). If you choose to target Large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target.

4th BRB p.19

Apologies for bringing up ProHammer here... but as that project has evolved I've been finding myself sliding back closer to 4th edition, and even 3rd edition in some ways, despite having started with 5th.

The number of things that were sticking points in 3rd and 4th edition from a rule standpoint were, all things considered, fairly minimal. 3rd had some wild stuff with assaulting out of vehicles, that needed to be toned down, and 4th swung a little too hard against transports. And 5th probably swing too far back the other way.

But 3rd and 4th rulesets felt like they were more dynamic to play. Given that my last year and half of games has almost entirely been using ProHammer, I'm feeling much more connection to the 3rd/4th rule ethos than I am to the 5th and later.

With ProHammer we're trying to bring out the best of the older editions and make it what they could've been.

For example regarding transports. Why not allow charging out of transports? It's such a cinematic and fun thing to do, and there are of course risks with the strategy (especially if you aren't allowing pre-measuring distances). But at the same token, can rules be tweaked to shave off the effectiveness a little? For instance in ProHammer, you can charge out of a transport after the transport has moved, however you lose all charge bonus unless the transport was listed as an assault vehicle.

Similarly, we played around with melee resolution and consolidation moves. You can consolidate into enemy units (ala 3rd and 4th edition). However, during the charge sub-phase, the active player can withdraw therir units before/between/after resolving other charges. So you have the option at least to break off from your opponent.

Apologies, this is all bit of nostalgia fueled rambling.

 Mezmorki wrote:

For example regarding transports. Why not allow charging out of transports? It's such a cinematic and fun thing to do, and there are of course risks with the strategy (especially if you aren't allowing pre-measuring distances). But at the same token, can rules be tweaked to shave off the effectiveness a little? For instance in ProHammer, you can charge out of a transport after the transport has moved, however you lose all charge bonus unless the transport was listed as an assault vehicle.

The answer to that was and is pretty obvious, no? Vehicles moved at twice the speed of infantry, so charging out of a transport would double the speed of any melee unit (while also preventing it from losing models on the way to a target). What risks do you perceive that would not already apply to footslogging melee units? The slim chance of the vehicle dying and injuring the transported unit? Well worth it compared to the unit itself taking shots.

In the context of 4th edition charging out of a vehicle makes transported melee units universally superior to footslogging ones, when both options should have pros and cons that balance each approach against the other. There absolutely could have been ways to achieve that balance, but just making transports the clear best choice ain't it.

 Mezmorki wrote:
For example regarding transports. Why not allow charging out of transports? It's such a cinematic and fun thing to do, and there are of course risks with the strategy (especially if you aren't allowing pre-measuring distances). But at the same token, can rules be tweaked to shave off the effectiveness a little? For instance in ProHammer, you can charge out of a transport after the transport has moved, however you lose all charge bonus unless the transport was listed as an assault vehicle.

Could a case of:

Vehicle has not moved = Unit disembarks, move, shoot, and can declare a charge.
Vehicle has moved = Unit can disembark and shoot.
Vehcle has moved fast = Unit cannot disembark.

Assault Vehicles: Units that disembark from a non-fast-moving vehicle with this rule can still move as normal after disembarking and declare a charge during their turn.

Maybe even allow Open-Topped vehicles a similar sort of thing, but at any speed with perhaps a risk/reward (jump out and charge, but chance of suffering a wound, like dangerous terrain). So Orks can go screaming mad out of a Trukk barrelling along at full speed, whereas Termies can launch an assault from a Land Raider, but not at max speed.

Well, with the ProHammer tweak, the tradeoff is that if you charge out of a transport after the transport has moved, you lose your charge bonus. Which for many units can be 1/3rd of it's attack total.

Part of it might be designing the rules to my biases. But I don't see much point in "foot slogging" melee troops in the first place that don't either deep strike, or infiltrate, or have scout abilities, or else are just cheap enough to mass into a large block where taking a bunch of casualties (orks, tyranids) on the way in is anticipated (and where you usually have a way to provide cover for them on the approach).

So I guess I look at it less about trying to balance pro's and con's and more about just being honest that foot slogging melee troops probably aren't a great idea in the first place in most situations, and why cater to a bad idea?

You don't think there's a place in the game for giant mobs of Orks or Tyranids?

 Arschbombe wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
Double check the leadership check to shoot anything but the closest model. I believe there is specific notes in it saying you can ignore that rule if firing on a vehicle/monstrous creature. If I'm remembering right, it would mean that while an Infantry Squad could block you from firing on the Command Squad behind it, it could not block you firing on the Leman Russ that is also behind it.

Large Targets

Many units carry tank-busting weapons like missile launchers or lascannon, and are able to spot marauding vehicles, walkers, or large creatures with ease. To represent this, when it comes to choosing a target you can declare that your unit wishes to target enemy vehicles, artillery, and monstrous creatures (these are the only unit types you can target this way, collectively referred to as "Large Targets"). If you choose to target Large Targets then other units can be ignored in terms of determining the closest target. A Leadership test is still required to target anything other than the closest Large Target.

4th BRB p.19

I forget, was needing the Split Fire rule to, well, split your fire still in 3e/4e? I remember that being the other targeting bugbear of at least some of the earlier editions (IIRC one of the most common bits of listbuilding advice for Guard was "make sure your <unit> has one UND ONLY VON type of enemy it wants to shoot at because you either shoot your lascannon at the tank or the lasguns at the cultists, but you can't ever do both").

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
For example regarding transports. Why not allow charging out of transports? It's such a cinematic and fun thing to do, and there are of course risks with the strategy (especially if you aren't allowing pre-measuring distances). But at the same token, can rules be tweaked to shave off the effectiveness a little? For instance in ProHammer, you can charge out of a transport after the transport has moved, however you lose all charge bonus unless the transport was listed as an assault vehicle.

Could a case of:

Vehicle has not moved = Unit disembarks, move, shoot, and can declare a charge.
Vehicle has moved = Unit can disembark and shoot.
Vehcle has moved fast = Unit cannot disembark.

Assault Vehicles: Units that disembark from a non-fast-moving vehicle with this rule can still move as normal after disembarking and declare a charge during their turn.

Maybe even allow Open-Topped vehicles a similar sort of thing, but at any speed with perhaps a risk/reward (jump out and charge, but chance of suffering a wound, like dangerous terrain). So Orks can go screaming mad out of a Trukk barrelling along at full speed, whereas Termies can launch an assault from a Land Raider, but not at max speed.

I think you just described the 4th edition rules nearly exactly as they are. Troops can disembark so long as the vehicle didn't move over 12". The above would let troops disembark when moving "fast" (above 12"?) but take some damage potentially.

The ProHammer tweaks this to let you charge out of non-assaault and non-open-topped vehicles too, but you lose your charge bonus.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Full size in spoiler:

Spoiler:

That's a fantastic set of diagrams Insectum.

Man I preferred 4th's approach.

Thanks. I made it a while ago to have in my back pockrt for the occasional discussion about TLOS (and why it's terrible )

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Aye, and let's not forget the rules for partially obscured units:

Sometimes, a unit will only be partially in cover (ie, some of the models are in or behind cover and some of them are in the open). If there are more models that can be hit in cover than there are outside it, then the unit may make Cover Saves for the entire unit. If this is not the case, then none of the unit may take Cover Saves.

So if one model is outside of cover, but two are behind it, they ALL have cover. Instead of: "Hey, I can see one guy's gun barrel! So everyone is exposed!".

I really loved the assumptions made there. The idea that your troops are acting defensibly/sensibly on their own accord, and taking advantage of cover any way that they can was really nice.

Then they went completely opposite in 5th, with "closest models take the wounds" where you get a bunch of fiddly stuff when moving units around, tough models tanking for the rest of the unit, and tracking per-model wound allocation. Barf. Just, barf.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I think you just described the 4th edition rules nearly exactly as they are. Troops can disembark so long as the vehicle didn't move over 12". The above would let troops disembark when moving "fast" (above 12"?) but take some damage potentially.

You may be right.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The ProHammer tweaks this to let you charge out of non-assaault and non-open-topped vehicles too, but you lose your charge bonus.

Hmm... that's an interesting compromise.

I'm at work now so can't check, but what does ProHammer do with assaulting from Deep Strike (if anything)?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I can't be sure, but I want to credit the change to Any Chambers leaving. Reading his design notes for various editions and systems leaves me the impression that he had clear-minded design directions a fairly hollistic executions. I think he left late 4th, iirc. Of course there's a whole team involved, but I recall Mr. Chambers being referred to as the "40k overfiend", making me think he was the "design director/lead" keeping a handle on things. I really have no idea though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Then they went completely opposite in 5th, with "closest models take the wounds" where you get a bunch of fiddly stuff when moving units around, tough models tanking for the rest of the unit, and tracking per-model wound allocation. Barf. Just, barf.

Like I said to Gad above, you really have to wonder what changed between then and now (or even, as you pointed out, then a 5th).

The rules were just so... simple, then all of a sudden they change the methods of allocating wounds, then Nobz and Grey Knight Paladins came along, and it just went to gak.

Worse, they don't seem to have ever attempted to go back. Even with 9th now, you really can't fast-roll saves and then apply damage, as you have to apply all hits to a single model until it fails, then move onto the next, and so on.

 Mezmorki wrote:

The ProHammer tweaks this to let you charge out of non-assaault and non-open-topped vehicles too, but you lose your charge bonus.

Still doesn't seem like much of a compromise.

In 4th (through... 7th? I can't really remember) a unit cannot just walk out of combat. Once melee is joined the units are generally stuck there until one is destroyed or falls back. The win condition* for a melee unit was usually to make it to combat, rather than to have an ultraviolent first round of combat, like it is now. The extra mobility is pretty much always going to be better than +33% offence in the first round of combat.

It's cool to see you openly state you're designing in favour of your preferences, but also sort of horrifying for anyone who plays an army that wants to use melee units on foot. That's such a huge thematic slice of the universe.

* well, more like "success condition" since we're talking about individual units

I just want to throw out a suggestion to really re-read your USRs.

4th edition doesn't have the "RUN" rule. So only armies/units that have fleet of foot/claw/hoof whatever can make moves during the shooting phase.

Things like counter attack were where a unit with this rule gets to use the pile in move when assaulted, instead of everyone having the pile in move and getting +1 attack if they have the counter attack usr.

Its little things like this that I feel really stripped armies of their individualistic combat flavor when 5th edition dropped.

As for the last few posts talking about consolidating into combat, We liked the way it worked in 4th because it rewarded CC units actually doing their job and if the opponent kept his units too close together, stream rolling could happen. However, often it seemed a little too powerful of a maneuver. So to balance this, my group let the unit that was consolidated into make a shooting attack (if it was their turn) against the unit making the consolidation move. The shooting attack was made as if the unit had moved (so no heavies or blast weapons) and template weapons hit every model. (be careful consolidating into a unit with a flamer). Casualties are removed as normal, however no LD check ever took place for fall back as the unit was too busy charging into combat.

IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance. Choose the edition in which there are the codexes you like the most.

I prefer 3rd and 5th over 4th for example beacuse my armies had a codex in 3rd and a 5th editions. Orks got a codex in 4th to be fair but it was released at the very end of the edition with 5th in mind, and it's basically a 5th edition codex.

 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.

Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.

Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.

As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue. GK might have been extremely popular then, when they were the shiny new toys but now they're not that common and their range is pretty old.

There was OP stuff in 3rd and 4th as well. I've never experienced personally but it is known that the chaos 3.5 codex is one of the best examples in terms of cheese and broken lists in the history of 40k. And chaos stuff is definitely popular and common, even now that most of the builds are bottom tiers. As another example I find 4th eldars much more problematic than 5th GK as they are one of the basic and most common factions. AM as well.

Shooting is vastly different in earlier editions. There's (almost) no split fire--everyone in the squad has to fire at the same thing. There's no pre measuring, so if you declare shooting at a unit and it's out of range, oh well. There's the scatter dice, there's barrage weapons where you're flipping plates around a central impact, etc.

There's the 18/24 rule for deployment--you can only deploy greater than 18" (not exactly but more than) if your enemy cannot see the unit. Otherwise, has to be more than 24. In essence, no first turn charges. No charging out of deepstrike (unless space marines with drop pods, I think...).

Weapon types matter quite a bit as to what you can do. Assault weapons can move and shoot. Heavy weapons cannot shoot if you move (at all--no snapshots or a BS penalty)--and if any models in your unit move, it counts as all of them moving. Rapid fire weapons if you move MUST fire twice--you can't choose to fire your bolter at 24 inches once because you're out of the 12 inch rapid fire.

Two close combat weapons or CCW+pistol give an extra attack. There's an extra attack on the charge.

There's still initiative to consider, which is modified by charging into cover which is remodified by if the charger has grenades, which is re-remodified by certain defender grenades.

I want to say that in 4th rending was still on to hit rolls, so beware of genestealers and wyches that roll it because they are hands down the deadliest melee units in the game at the time (though expensive points-wise and usually made of glass).

I think terrain had weird rules for LOS blocking, with three levels of blocking behind it but had to be more than six inches deep if in cover to be obscured.

Also, generally have to roll to see how far you go through cover. Everyone generally moves 6" a phase, eldar and tyranids have fleet so they can forgo shooting to run (and can still charge afterwards).

Cover is super important, because GW has always had the problem of handing out too many AP's even in this edition, so things that ignore your save will be what's firing at its intended target. Don't be surprised if some of your units don't get a single save the entire game.

FOC is the only way to build your army. 1 HQ+2 troops is required. You can have at max 2 HQ's, 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 fast attack, 3 heavies. In theory you can have a second FOC if you fill out enough of a first one but in practice you'll never see it.

In 4th edition, 1500 points was considered the standard game size, not 2000.

Instant death is a thing. If someone takes an attack double or more of their toughness and fails a wound, they just die. Same with force weapons (though believe they have to make a psychic test first). Lots of things immune to instant death.

And, as always, remember that each rule you read in the book, Space Marines will either have that rule, have access to a better rule, or be able to ignore that rule. ATSKNF being better than fearless for example. Despite general grumpiness, MEQs in this edition are a pain to remove outside of dedicated AP3 weapons, massed volleys of fire to have them fail saves, or dedicated melee specialists. MEQs may not be cost effective in damage but they often take a surprising amount of effort to neuter, especially if they camp in cover.

Some of the rules interact very strangely on some models. For example, Broodlord does not have fleet so when it joins a group of genestealers, they cannot fleet. The Tyranid Warrior's bio-plasma attack technically rends if it has rending claws on the off chance it rolls a 6 on its attack

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm at work now so can't check, but what does ProHammer do with assaulting from Deep Strike (if anything)?

With respect to assaulting, you can assault after deep striking (gasp!) but like assaulting from vehicles you lose your charge bonus.

More importantly, ProHammer reworks the deep strike rules (not surprisingly!). The short version is that you place a central model from the deep striking unit, and then roll to scatter (remember, scatter dice only "hit" 1/3 of the time). If the central model scatters onto impossible terrain or on top of or within 2" of an enemy model, a "mishap" occurs. A "mishap" means your opponent get's to place to the central model anywhere within 12" of the original drop location. Once the central model is placed, other models are placed "packed in" in a small foot print around the central model.

It's both less punishing (since you don't have situations where you just outright lose a unit to a mishap) but still has some tension and risk/reward.

 Jayden63 wrote:

As for the last few posts talking about consolidating into combat, We liked the way it worked in 4th because it rewarded CC units actually doing their job and if the opponent kept his units too close together, stream rolling could happen. However, often it seemed a little too powerful of a maneuver. So to balance this, my group let the unit that was consolidated into make a shooting attack (if it was their turn) against the unit making the consolidation move. The shooting attack was made as if the unit had moved (so no heavies or blast weapons) and template weapons hit every model. (be careful consolidating into a unit with a flamer). Casualties are removed as normal, however no LD check ever took place for fall back as the unit was too busy charging into combat.

I wish I could snap my fingers and have everyone grok the ProHammer ruleset

I mentioned earlier the rules we use have to be understand in the broader context. ProHammer does have an entire reactive fire system, which lets you units that are charged make a round of limited fire against their charging unit (I should add there is even reactive fire against being shot as well), in exchange for losing the imitative in melee and any cover bonuses. The units shooting NEXT turn is also limited if they use reactive fire.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

The ProHammer tweaks this to let you charge out of non-assaault and non-open-topped vehicles too, but you lose your charge bonus.

Still doesn't seem like much of a compromise.

In 4th (through... 7th? I can't really remember) a unit cannot just walk out of combat. Once melee is joined the units are generally stuck there until one is destroyed or falls back. The win condition* for a melee unit was usually to make it to combat, rather than to have an ultraviolent first round of combat, like it is now. The extra mobility is pretty much always going to be better than +33% offence in the first round of combat.

It's cool to see you openly state you're designing in favour of your preferences, but also sort of horrifying for anyone who plays an army that wants to use melee units on foot. That's such a huge thematic slice of the universe.

* well, more like "success condition" since we're talking about individual units

Again, ProHammer in context.

In ProHammer, you can withdraw a unit at the start of your own assault phase (same sub-phase where you declare charges). Of course the unit breaks and can be pursued. But you can do things like charge into the melee engagement with a 3rd unit, and then withdraw the unit originally locked. The enemy unit, still being engaged now with the 3rd unit, can't pursue. It acts as somewhat as a counter-balance to consolidating into melee combat.

EDIT: Also - ProHammer added running (per 5th edition) back into the mix, so footslogging units can close distance more quickly in comparison to the original 3rd/4th rules where there was no running. That makes a difference too.

 Blackie wrote:
As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue.

If no one stabs anyone, then the knives aren't really sharp! Arsenic isn't poisonous if no one ingests it!

The book was broken. The temperament of the people playing it, or just choosing not to use it, doesn't make it less broken. Imbalances within a game aren't just down to how people play.

 waefre_1 wrote:

I forget, was needing the Split Fire rule to, well, split your fire still in 3e/4e? I remember that being the other targeting bugbear of at least some of the earlier editions (IIRC one of the most common bits of listbuilding advice for Guard was "make sure your <unit> has one UND ONLY VON type of enemy it wants to shoot at because you either shoot your lascannon at the tank or the lasguns at the cultists, but you can't ever do both").

This was still present in 5th. Units fired all of their weapons at one enemy unit. So it was more efficient to equip units with similar weaponry as much as possible. The classic example is devastator squads. You'd want to go with 4 missile launchers instead of 1 ML, 1 lascannon, 1 multimelta and 1 heavy bolter (which is what you could do with the kit). In 5th Long Fangs had a splitfire rule if they had a Sergeant (pack leader?) IIRC and I think Tau commanders had a piece of war gear that allowed a unit to split fire too.

Another thing about 4th edition was 6-man Las/Plas squads.

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.

Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.

As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly.

I would say the LOS rules and the wound allocation rules alone make them quite different.

I'd also disagree about Chaos 3.5. Imo the only abusive build there was the Iron Warriors one, but even then it was more irritating than actually good. The Eldar Skimmers were worse. With Chaos 3.5 they could build lots of odd skew lists, but they all had pretty severe vulnerabilities (most of which were related to expense points-wise). The AP proliferation during 5th, coupled with TLOS made for a worse experience. Leafblower, GK Psykannon Spam, and the other irritants like Lash-Prince and the Jaws Of The World Wolf(?) made 5th ed more problematic, imo.

Plus I'll take access to Kroot Carnivore lists, Feral Orks, and the Vehicle Design Rules over the Blood-and-Wolf-naming conventions introduced in 5th

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.

Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.

Eh. Rhino parking lots in 5th weren't that fun, no, but I don't think they were that much of an outlier against some of the Craftworlds shenanigans or Iron Warriors in 3rd. All three are pretty functional if nobody's going out of their way to break them. Even playing GK in 5th isn't that bad if you're not doing Musical Wounds Paladins or Crowe!Purifier spam.