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.

 Silverthorne wrote:

I don't see how there would be any argument-- it was like 1.5 pages worth of rules, you only had to memorize the depth into which models in large area terrain could see out of it, and the length of terrain through which LOS could be drawn. Literally 2 pieces of information. If that was too much to grasp and the group had frequest arguments about it, I'd be curious as to how they managed to utilize the far more complicated parts of the ruleset. Unfortunately what you say doesn't jive with the facts about the LOS rules in 4th, and this is easily verifiable.

The arguments largely came from the fact that a lot of players read the rules and thought that the size categories applied all of the time, when they actually just applied to area terrain and close combats with the rest of the game using TLOS.

The "not enough terrain" canard is pointless. You could literally cover a board with jungle terrain and it would still be possible to draw true LOS through almost any distance of it when you get a model eye view. Blocking true LOS neaningfully doesn't just require buckets and buckets of terrain (which, by the way, had an entire other set of consequences for the game you are not even considering for some reason, like heavily nerfing tracked vehicles, totally boning armies without lots of grenade access, and making horde armies a massive chore to play) it really requires specially built terrain with large, slabby, windowless buildings.

In earlier editions, forest bases blocked LOS through them... models could shoot in and out, but not through. That allowed forest bases to serve as LOS blockers without the need for Size categories. And it's not at all difficult to make buildings, hills, rocky outcrops, piles of equipment, statues, and any number of other things that block LOS without resorting solely to 'slabby, windowless buildings'.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanixis wrote:

See my experience was exactly the opposite. LOS arguments increased by about four fold when I switched to 5e and probably accounted for a least half of all rules related arguments I had in 5th edition. And how could it be any other way? Implementing TLOS on the table top was just downright finicky, constantly having to check "model's eye" viewpoint, grab laser pointers, crouch down to get weird view angles of the table and the like. Its a rule that looks great on paper but is terrible in practice.

TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules in every edition of 40K to date. It wasn't something new to 5th edition. The only things that have really changed from edition to edition are how area terrain works with the LOS rules, and the specifics of when to treat models and/or units as being in cover.


While it certainly has its issues, frankly, I think the complaints about it being 'finicky' are generally somewhat overblown.

Why were RT and 2nd excluded from even being options on the poll? O.o

Also, I voted 5th. I played the most games and had the most fun in that edition. I'm not skilled enough to speak to balance or even effectiveness of individual units though.

Vaktathi wrote:3E has similar problems to 4th, only moreso (hooray rhino rush assault spam!), but I liked the concept of all the army lists in one book.

I can't stand everyone calling it the Rhino Rush. EVERYONE could fling forward like that, and Eldar were probably the most vicious with it. Blood Angels had the one transport that could travel more than 12" and deploy charging troops, not every Marine player was a Blood Angels player.

Sal4m4nd3r wrote:When was "consolidating into close combat" removed? Removing that small but valuable aspect of assault phase was frustrating.

Congrats! you just destroyed the unit you were fighting! Reward? oh, you're getting shot to gak.

I got consolidated into once, I never let my squads stand within 6" of each other ever again.

 Just Tony wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:3E has similar problems to 4th, only moreso (hooray rhino rush assault spam!), but I liked the concept of all the army lists in one book.

I can't stand everyone calling it the Rhino Rush. EVERYONE could fling forward like that, and Eldar were probably the most vicious with it. Blood Angels had the one transport that could travel more than 12" and deploy charging troops, not every Marine player was a Blood Angels player.

Sal4m4nd3r wrote:When was "consolidating into close combat" removed? Removing that small but valuable aspect of assault phase was frustrating.

Congrats! you just destroyed the unit you were fighting! Reward? oh, you're getting shot to gak.

I got consolidated into once, I never let my squads stand within 6" of each other ever again.

But wasn't consolidation in 3rd 2d6 inches? Or am I mis-remembering. I remember the updated Assault rules (the basis of 4th edition) reduced the range, but didn't eliminate it..

Could have sworn consolidation was 3", I mean, why would you pursue if consolidation was the same distance? I'll have to check the main book when I can.

 Just Tony wrote:
Could have sworn consolidation was 3", I mean, why would you pursue if consolidation was the same distance? I'll have to check the main book when I can.

Consolidation may have been, but the abused rule in 3rd edition was sweeping advance. It was set up like fantasy where anytime you broke or wiped out an enemy unit you made a 2d6" sweeping advance which could be used to contact other units. This move was reduced to 1d6" in fourth edition.

I'm pretty sure.

 insaniak wrote:

In earlier editions, forest bases blocked LOS through them... models could shoot in and out, but not through. That allowed forest bases to serve as LOS blockers without the need for Size categories.

But that is still not TLOS, now is it? Its a form of abstracted line of sight, just implemented slightly differently. In 4e terms this would just be the equivalent of setting all of your area terrain to size 3. At the end of the day, there needs to be a mechanism by which you can block line of sight through a terrain piece even though you can physically see through it, and for 5e and beyond this mechanism is entirely absent. If you don't have numerous terrain pieces with solid walls several inches in both length and height you simply aren't going to break up LOS properly under TLOS rules.

Fifth. It was only really made worse by power creep, but it's not like later or earlier editions were any better in that regard.

Phanixis wrote:

But that is still not TLOS, now is it? Its a form of abstracted line of sight, just implemented slightly differently.

Sure. I don't have a problem with certain things being abstracted where there is a valid reason for it (in the case of area terrain, it's useful because of the impossibility of building properly representational terrain that is still functional for placing miniatures)

My issue with 4th edition wasn't with area terrain LOS being abstracted, it was with the way it was done being needlessly complicated. A rule that says 'You can't draw LOS through area terrain' is functionally much more efficient than implementing a Size Category system that doesn't actually matter because all of your area terrain is the same Size anyway...

At the end of the day, there needs to be a mechanism by which you can block line of sight through a terrain piece even though you can physically see through it, and for 5e and beyond this mechanism is entirely absent. If you don't have numerous terrain pieces with solid walls several inches in both length and height you simply aren't going to break up LOS properly under TLOS rules.

There doesn't need to be... There's no specific reason that area terrain has to block LOS (there are other terrain options for that, like buildings or rocks), it's just something that a lot of players prefer.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Could have sworn consolidation was 3", I mean, why would you pursue if consolidation was the same distance? I'll have to check the main book when I can.

Consolidation may have been, but the abused rule in 3rd edition was sweeping advance. It was set up like fantasy where anytime you broke or wiped out an enemy unit you made a 2d6" sweeping advance which could be used to contact other units. This move was reduced to 1d6" in fourth edition.

I'm pretty sure.

The rule for sweeping advance allowed you to rush forward 2D6 after a fleeing foe, or towards the enemy after destroying a unit. The down side to this was that the ENTIRE ARMY could shoot the unit that swept into enemy troops. I personally had a unit of Veterans shot to ribbons because of a sweeping advance.

 Just Tony wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Could have sworn consolidation was 3", I mean, why would you pursue if consolidation was the same distance? I'll have to check the main book when I can.

Consolidation may have been, but the abused rule in 3rd edition was sweeping advance. It was set up like fantasy where anytime you broke or wiped out an enemy unit you made a 2d6" sweeping advance which could be used to contact other units. This move was reduced to 1d6" in fourth edition.

I'm pretty sure.

The rule for sweeping advance allowed you to rush forward 2D6 after a fleeing foe, or towards the enemy after destroying a unit. The down side to this was that the ENTIRE ARMY could shoot the unit that swept into enemy troops. I personally had a unit of Veterans shot to ribbons because of a sweeping advance.

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

Consolidations were 3", 2d6" directly towards the enemy unless the enemy died.
In 4th I believe it was d6+Init. It was how transports were impacted that killed the rhino rush, not CC. Many powerful CC units were still seen commonly in 4th edition. It wasn't until 5th that the game began to tilt heavily towards shooting.

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

 insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

That sounds like 4th but I could be wrong, I do remember my swooping hawks being nicknamed the sweeping hawks. They could easily destroy 4-5 units a game with their fast speed and access to sustained assault, which was flat out a broken ability and not in theme on them. But a lot of fun. If you could shoot at them they would have been awful, but I stopped using them in 4th since skimmers became king.

I don't remember running into any opponents who thought that, but it was nice seeing combat units earn 2-3x their points if you could deliver them right. And watching IG players have to carefully consider their troop placement since moving hurt rapid fire but you really did NOT want someone consolidating or sweeping into unit after unit and destroying 3-4 units with their one melee guys. Now it feels that, with attrition through overwatch and deadlier guns, I'm lucky if my melee units make their own points back once delivered if they aren't a death star. A sad change.

5th was great, formations and money hammer didn't rule the game. The only imbalance was armies like the dark angels having a long out of date and poor quality codex.

They should have stuck with 5th and just released updated army codex books... with no formations. Keep formations in apocalypse where they belong, along with super heavies, low, flyers, etc.

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

It was indeed 3rd, though 4th may have contained the same rule. Basically if you swept you would get shot by damn near the entire army the following term, unless the sweep happened on the opponent's turn.


And as far as fighting combat twice being far too OP for GW? Read 7th Ed. WFB.

I'm having a hard time remembering, mainly because you had 3rd edition...3rd edition with trial assault rules (commonly referred to as 3.5) and then 4th which adopted those rules. So somewhere in there...

I do remember occasionally have an Eldar unit move 6", fleet another D6 (6") assault (I think this moved another 6") and then sweeping advance 2D6" (occasionally rolling 10-12"). It meant some units ended up absurdly far up the table...mostly by accident.

 Just Tony wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

It was indeed 3rd, though 4th may have contained the same rule. Basically if you swept you would get shot by damn near the entire army the following term, unless the sweep happened on the opponent's turn.


And as far as fighting combat twice being far too OP for GW? Read 7th Ed. WFB.

I just double checked my 3rd edition rulebook, and I'm not seeing ANY rule to that effect. All it says if you touch another unit you count as engaged with that unit in close combat, which would prevent shooting. I checked my 4th edition rulebook too, just to make sure, and didn't see anything there (page 43, sweeping advances/consolidation). In fact, in 4th, it specifically says you can not fire.
I checked BRs from back then too, and don't see any mention of this what so ever. ]

I mainly played Wolves, Eldar, and Nids in 3rd. If this is a real thing I can't believe I never encountered it, or don't remember it. My Hawks should have died over and over.

I remember the major rule changes being everyone in 2" can swing, can't move the unit after the transport moves, sweeping advances are I+d6, consolidate is d6 even if unit is wiped. I played a lot in 3rd, and I really can't recall this rule ever existing. It would have made assault armies awful if it did, since they could kill, at best, one unit. That and you lacked fire points...half the unit could fire. I would think that would have been the strategy if you could fire into assault. It was easy for a fast unit like warp spiders to surround a transport, detonate it, and every model inside dies automatically since it can't be placed.

Tbh I remember firing into assault being a Skaven thing only, and every IG player wishing they could do it since it's fluffy.

I'm not sure about your reference to 7th WFB. Magic has been broken in WFB for several editions now, mainly suicide mages casting IF top tier spells like Purple Sun or something similar. Nothing like init save or die under a template when you play ogres or lizards.

Akiasura wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

It was indeed 3rd, though 4th may have contained the same rule. Basically if you swept you would get shot by damn near the entire army the following term, unless the sweep happened on the opponent's turn.


And as far as fighting combat twice being far too OP for GW? Read 7th Ed. WFB.

I just double checked my 3rd edition rulebook, and I'm not seeing ANY rule to that effect. All it says if you touch another unit you count as engaged with that unit in close combat, which would prevent shooting. I checked my 4th edition rulebook too, just to make sure, and didn't see anything there (page 43, sweeping advances/consolidation). In fact, in 4th, it specifically says you can not fire.
I checked BRs from back then too, and don't see any mention of this what so ever. ]

I mainly played Wolves, Eldar, and Nids in 3rd. If this is a real thing I can't believe I never encountered it, or don't remember it. My Hawks should have died over and over.

I remember the major rule changes being everyone in 2" can swing, can't move the unit after the transport moves, sweeping advances are I+d6, consolidate is d6 even if unit is wiped. I played a lot in 3rd, and I really can't recall this rule ever existing. It would have made assault armies awful if it did, since they could kill, at best, one unit. That and you lacked fire points...half the unit could fire. I would think that would have been the strategy if you could fire into assault. It was easy for a fast unit like warp spiders to surround a transport, detonate it, and every model inside dies automatically since it can't be placed.

Tbh I remember firing into assault being a Skaven thing only, and every IG player wishing they could do it since it's fluffy.

I'm not sure about your reference to 7th WFB. Magic has been broken in WFB for several editions now, mainly suicide mages casting IF top tier spells like Purple Sun or something similar. Nothing like init save or die under a template when you play ogres or lizards.

The rule definitely existed at some point. Whether it was 3rd, 3rd with new assault rules, or 4th, I can't remember. You could only do it if the opponent sweeping advanced into a unit on their own turn (maybe it's in the shooting rules... I'm at work and bookless). So if they swept the same turn they charged, they counted as a viable unit to shoot on your turn. If they swept on the enemy's, turn this rule didn't apply.

Also, keep in mind that shooting wasn't as powerful in 3rd. You could only rapid fire or shoot 24" with a basic weapon if you were stationary. So, if you chose to target the heck out of that unit, you were giving up a lot of mobility. And there was nearly as much AP2 and AP3 shooting. Marines surviving after getting shot a bunch was more common.

Hm. It could be 3rd with new assault rules, I don't have that book in front of me, but I'm looking at 3rd and 4th right now and don't see it. Unless it's not in the combat section. Those books were a bit all over the place, and near the end of third I had a ton of extra material on me.

I'm not speaking about marines, I played assault eldar and nids as well. My swooping Hawks died to a light breeze being t3 with a 4+ save, yet they rolled combat lines and were my mvp. It's the only edition i got to use them so much. I used gene stealers as well, and those aren't much tougher.

Still, a leman Russ firing into combat would devastate a marine squad. Star cannons would do the same if enough fired as well. Assault cannons could do damage as well, I have a hard time believing this never came up in any br in 3rd or 4th.

Is quoting from a book verbatim against the posting rules here? As soon as I can get to my 3rd Ed. book, I will post the exact rules. Right now, though, my book is a 45 minute drive from me, even if I wasn't at work.

For old editions I don't see why it would matter

Since qoting is the only way to solve questions on YMDC, no.

Just don't put in everything about that rule, just the relevant line. And especially not the whole page.

5E for me was the most enjoyable, followed by 7th.

I didn't mind the wound-allocation shenanigans either...

For me, I'm hoping that in 8th edition:
-vehicles and MC becomes more resilient... somehow.
-5E Fleet rule (run/assault in same turn)
-bloody clarify the psychic phase
-5E opentop vehicles/disembarkment rules (ie, DE skimmer moves 12", and allows 3" disembarment)... may have to tweak assault rule (still rolling 2D6 to charge?).

 Elbows wrote:
I'm having a hard time remembering, mainly because you had 3rd edition...3rd edition with trial assault rules (commonly referred to as 3.5) and then 4th which adopted those rules. So somewhere in there...

I do remember occasionally have an Eldar unit move 6", fleet another D6 (6") assault (I think this moved another 6") and then sweeping advance 2D6" (occasionally rolling 10-12"). It meant some units ended up absurdly far up the table...mostly by accident.

Pfft. That's slow.

Blood Angel Rhino moves 18". Men inside get out 2". They shoot. Then they charge 6". Then they sweeping advance 2d6".

Didn't vehicles suffer Black Rage as well? IIRC, they do, so add D6 to the pre charge travel.

Part of the reason why I liked 4th edition the best was it seemed the most tactical to me. Generalship was important, not list design.

A few examples - Character sniping. Yes, by using vehicles and the like block LOS to a unit except the heavy weapon guy, then shoot at the unit and usually take him down do to just forcing enough saves.

Yes, some players hate sniping, but it was a skill, involving moving units and vehicles to line up that shot. Movement mattered.

2" kill zone - My favorite tactic was making a HTH character that could wipe out his killzone, but not kill the entire unit in the turn they charged. Then the next phase knock out the rest of the unit in your opponents turn. Thus saving the unit from return fire.

Again, this took tactical thinking. Back then you could choose to not use special weapons you armed your charcter with. So you ajusted the character to fit the unit you were attacking if it was an elite squad or a blob squad.

You could still assault out of a transport, provided it didn't move that turn. So if you were worried that the nearest enemy unit was going to kill your transport thus making you subject to entanglement, you just disembarked behind it. It made you have to think about what might happen.

The target priority rule was pretty good. Your units had to pass a leadership test if they wanted to shoot at a smaller model over a larger one if the larger one was closer. This made units have to shoot at that AV14 battlewagon if it was closer than the mob of boys behind it (if they failed their LD check). Which was kind of cool as it made the LD stat important for all armies and not ignored like anything fearless or with ATSKNF.

I remember my biggest butt hurt moment in 5th when I had a unit of CSM locked in combat with some SM. The CSM won the combat, the SM failed their LD check, so we had to sweep. Well, back in 4th edition you could choose to just let the unit go, but in 5th you were forced to sweep. Thus if we caught them, we stay locked, but if we loose they run and we can then consolidate into the objective thus winning the game.

In short, the only way I could win the game is if I fail all my rolls. That just seemed wrong on many levels. 5th removed many of the choices that helped the game feel like the general mattered.

I really don't think your first two examples are good examples of tactical thinking or generalship. Its gamesmanship. Its finding loopholes and exceptions and extenuating circumstances in the rules to create a very specific outcome using those rules. There's nothing inherently tactical about lining up vehicles in such a specific fashion to force saves on one model, nor does moving an assault model in such a way to abuse a particular way the assault rules function.

A real tactical element would be to look at naval wargames. You can play a naval wargame with zero terrain because the primary outcome is decided by who out-maneuvers the opponent at the right time in their optimal firing arcs and range. That is generalship and tactics. Predicting where your opponent will be three turns in advance by forcing him into an area you want through placement of torpedoes and small flanking elements, just to bring the big guns to bear during the right turn so you maximize damage before he can dish it back. None of this looking for weird glitches in the rules to pluck out a single model that happens to carry a bigger gun.

Tactics should be a skill someone can use in the game without having such a deep knowledge of the rules as to use mechanics that are frankly counter-intuitive. I can drop someone into an X-wing game, and the rules being as simple as they are leave only the player's ability to out-think their opponent. There's no moment where a player has to stop and ask "is that how the rules work?" or "that seems weird and doesn't make much sense".

Its the same way people talk about how 7th introduced a tactical layer to the game by going back to model by model movement and casualty removal. As if micro-managing a blob of 30 guardsmen so that the special weapons happen to be one line of guardsmen after the front rank is a particular breath-taking or deep tactical skill. Its rules knowledge, nothing more.

40k has always been tactically shallow. The board is too small for the weapon ranges, the terrain requirements have never been strict and frankly wouldn't be followed anyways, the movement has barely mattered when you combine board size with weapon ranges, and the game has progressively removed player involvement by adding in random charts and dice rolling. For 40k to even pretend to be a tactical exercise of any note, you'd need to either dramatically reduce the model count of an average game and triple the average LoS blocking terrain, then allow players to have reactionary actions in the opposing players turn, or double the playing area, and alter weapon ranges so that ranges make sense, but offer significant modifiers for optimal or combat ranges. Choices that have repercussions. Decisions that matter that don't require a random dice roll. But I've literally described several other games, which are all universally considered to be not only simpler to play, but offer more tactical depth.

Character sniping by moving rhinos perfectly isn't a tactic or a skill. Its a loophole.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Part of the reason why I liked 4th edition the best was it seemed the most tactical to me. Generalship was important, not list design.

A few examples - Character sniping. Yes, by using vehicles and the like block LOS to a unit except the heavy weapon guy, then shoot at the unit and usually take him down do to just forcing enough saves.

Yes, some players hate sniping, but it was a skill, involving moving units and vehicles to line up that shot. Movement mattered.

2" kill zone - My favorite tactic was making a HTH character that could wipe out his killzone, but not kill the entire unit in the turn they charged. Then the next phase knock out the rest of the unit in your opponents turn. Thus saving the unit from return fire.

Again, this took tactical thinking. Back then you could choose to not use special weapons you armed your charcter with. So you ajusted the character to fit the unit you were attacking if it was an elite squad or a blob squad.

Hrm, most of this feels like gaming the artificialities rules more than anything else, as Blacksails noted.

You could still assault out of a transport, provided it didn't move that turn. So if you were worried that the nearest enemy unit was going to kill your transport thus making you subject to entanglement, you just disembarked behind it. It made you have to think about what might happen.

This mostly boiled down to just not using transports if you weren't a skimmer army, because a single penetrating hit forced a disembarkation and a pinning test and cover saves didn't exist, best you could get is a 4+ roll to downgrade to a glancing hit.

The target priority rule was pretty good. Your units had to pass a leadership test if they wanted to shoot at a smaller model over a larger one if the larger one was closer. This made units have to shoot at that AV14 battlewagon if it was closer than the mob of boys behind it (if they failed their LD check). Which was kind of cool as it made the LD stat important for all armies and not ignored like anything fearless or with ATSKNF.

It also made playing armies like IG absurdly hard, because the armies that relied most on shooting were also the ones that were easiest to bungle Target Priority on, while the armies that generally had very high Ld also generally relied far less on that shooting. It also made no sense for units that didn't have weapons capable of hurting the closer big thing.

I remember my biggest butt hurt moment in 5th when I had a unit of CSM locked in combat with some SM. The CSM won the combat, the SM failed their LD check, so we had to sweep. Well, back in 4th edition you could choose to just let the unit go, but in 5th you were forced to sweep.

I can't remember this situation myself, but looking at the 4E rulebook on page 43 where it describes sweeping advances, it doesn't look like there was a choice in 4E either.

 Blacksails wrote:
I really don't think your first two examples are good examples of tactical thinking or generalship. Its gamesmanship. Its finding loopholes and exceptions and extenuating circumstances in the rules to create a very specific outcome using those rules. There's nothing inherently tactical about lining up vehicles in such a specific fashion to force saves on one model, nor does moving an assault model in such a way to abuse a particular way the assault rules function.

A real tactical element would be to look at naval wargames. You can play a naval wargame with zero terrain because the primary outcome is decided by who out-maneuvers the opponent at the right time in their optimal firing arcs and range. That is generalship and tactics. Predicting where your opponent will be three turns in advance by forcing him into an area you want through placement of torpedoes and small flanking elements, just to bring the big guns to bear during the right turn so you maximize damage before he can dish it back. None of this looking for weird glitches in the rules to pluck out a single model that happens to carry a bigger gun.

Your navel battle is exactly what was happening on the table in those first two examples. The movement phase mattered. You needed to know your gun ranges and be able to estimate them so you can snipe the only models that you wanted to hit. No pre measuring, you pretty much had to know what 12, 24, and ,36" looked like. It's a skill. You had to move your unit so that when your hth guy assaulted he only got stuck in with the.models he could kill and limit the back lash. So instead of weapon ranges you needed to pretty much know how to stop exactly 5.5" away so when you charge you have a better command of who is fighting. Back then the movement phase mattered, especially since there was no running or enemy pile in moves on your assault. Just like your navel battles. It was all about positioning and limiting return fire.

40k has always been tactically shallow..

I would never dream of refuting this statement. 40k never has been overly deep and you right that a lot of it is knowing the rules and how to exploit them to your best advantage. However having said that, earlier editions had a greater impact or should I say importance on model placement and what each of those models.could do than the current rule set of roll the dice and see if you even get to make the choice in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:

The target priority rule was pretty good. Your units had to pass a leadership test if they wanted to shoot at a smaller model over a larger one if the larger one was closer. This made units have to shoot at that AV14 battlewagon if it was closer than the mob of boys behind it (if they failed their LD check). Which was kind of cool as it made the LD stat important for all armies and not ignored like anything fearless or with ATSKNF.

It also made playing armies like IG absurdly hard, because the armies that relied most on shooting were also the ones that were easiest to bungle Target Priority on, while the armies that generally had very high Ld also generally relied far less on that shooting. It also made no sense for units that didn't have weapons capable of hurting the closer big thing.

I realize that it effected some armies more than others. My chaos guys rocking the Ld10 didn't feel the pinch nearly as often as my Ld7/8 Orks. But those were codec issues not core rule issues. Tau could even spend a markerlight hit to ignore having to make the check with their low leadership. And while some people complained that it forced guys to shoot with guns incapable of hurting it, these are also the same guys who failed their LD check... So yeah, maybe that huge tank with all the guns right in front of them did unnerved them enough to make a poor choice. Where as the unit next to them steeled themselves enough to pick a better target, represented by making their LD check. But you want to talk about unfair. Fifth edition introduced the idea that exploding vehicles actually had a strength value. Thus higher T models got an innate advantage over lower T models. No points adjustments were ever made. And you could argue a fluff reason for the elegance of the 4+ for everyone in that vehicle designers take their passengers into consideration and add in safe guards against.catastrophic explosions to protect their living cargo.

It was even worse making perils a S6 hit. Sucks to be Eldar with the whole double T instadeath.

I have to go with 7th.

5th was good, it played relatively smoothly, but there was far too much BS. Everything was 4+ cover, rampant 4+ FNP, wound allocation shinanigans, vehicle rules were a complete joke, blah blah blah.

7th feels better overall. Each edition has its issues for sure, but for me 7th, albeit a little bloated, has far less issues.

If a new edition were to use a core rules set as a template, 7th would be the way to go. Take a scalpel to it, cut things like Look Out Sir! and a swath of the special rules and you would end up with a very good core rules set.

My point being, 5th edition requires complete rewrites to a fair amount of its core machanics, 7th just needs some fat trimmed off and some minor clarifications.

What each of these editions has in common is that it's the codex's that are causing the biggest problems.