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.

Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

stonehorse wrote:Also the system didn't have flyers and superheavies, those while being nice models should be locked into apocalypse sized games, or Epic. In a lot of ways it is a combination of codex and scale creep that breaks the systems, each edition has been an attempt to patch the core rules to accommodate the editions made in the Codexes.

leopard wrote:Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

I see quotes like this, and I wonder if we played the same game.

The Baneblade has had homebrew rules in 28mm since exactly 10 minutes after its introduction in epic, and the demand signal for such things was so strong that the 28mm Baneblade got a model and rules in 2nd edition (Inquisitor Magazine issue 16). Citadel Journal 11 also included rules for the Baneblade before it was moved from Armourcast (when the license was pulled) to Forge World, when it entered the Imperial Armour floppy book. It stayed with Forge World till Apocalypse, when it was ported out of 28mm 40k in late 4e, then in late 5e was ported back in to 40k with the Battle Missions book allowing you to field a company of 3 against a 1500 point 40k army.

So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st, which didn't have any vehicles at all except homebrew essentially, and were only not part of 40k for a portion of late 4th/early-mid 5th.

Just because you never saw them doesn't mean they weren't there. And I do concede that they've become easier to take (used to be 1 max 25%, like Forge World's Horus Heresy series), but also easier to kill, barring perhaps its 2nd edition iteration.

Ultimately 8th has been great for both me and my gaming group. The tournaments we host and travel to have had higher participation and we've got a pretty consistent influx of new players looking to learn the game as well.

8th isn't perfect by any means - terrain needs a lot of TLC, I'd like to see slightly more restrictions on list composition, pure armies need a boost as compared to soup, and I'd like to see a little more nuance to the psychic phase. Those things said I've been playing it consistently since launch and I've enjoyed it the entire time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

stonehorse wrote:Also the system didn't have flyers and superheavies, those while being nice models should be locked into apocalypse sized games, or Epic. In a lot of ways it is a combination of codex and scale creep that breaks the systems, each edition has been an attempt to patch the core rules to accommodate the editions made in the Codexes.

leopard wrote:Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

I see quotes like this, and I wonder if we played the same game.

The Baneblade has had homebrew rules in 28mm since exactly 10 minutes after its introduction in epic, and the demand signal for such things was so strong that the 28mm Baneblade got a model and rules in 2nd edition (Inquisitor Magazine issue 16). Citadel Journal 11 also included rules for the Baneblade before it was moved from Armourcast (when the license was pulled) to Forge World, when it entered the Imperial Armour floppy book. It stayed with Forge World till Apocalypse, when it was ported out of 28mm 40k in late 4e, then in late 5e was ported back in to 40k with the Battle Missions book allowing you to field a company of 3 against a 1500 point 40k army.

So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st, which didn't have any vehicles at all except homebrew essentially, and were only not part of 40k for a portion of late 4th/early-mid 5th.

Just because you never saw them doesn't mean they weren't there. And I do concede that they've become easier to take (used to be 1 max 25%, like Forge World's Horus Heresy series), but also easier to kill, barring perhaps its 2nd edition iteration.

They may have been there, but they weren't part of the envisioned rules, but rather an addition bolted on later, and then only with opponents permission.

I remember seeing the armourcast stuff at Gamesday (95 I think), and that is as far as it got, at the time I lived in West Yorkshire, which has a large player base. I think one person made the Baneblade for 2nd edition, it was used a few times and then shelved. It wasn't fun, as the scope of the game couldn't handle superheavies, the same is true of 3rd edition, it was used a few times and then went back to collecting dust.

Yes, there were conversions and chapter approved rules for them, but remember a lot of the chapter approved stuff needed opponents permission, as they were trial rules and as such imbalanced the gameplay. At least now Superheavies can be handled due to the new wound chart, still comes as a shock seeing them on the battlefield for what is essentially a platoon/company level game.

 stonehorse wrote:
They may have been there, but they weren't part of the envisioned rules, but rather an addition bolted on later, and then only with opponents permission.

I remember seeing the armourcast stuff at Gamesday (95 I think), and that is as far as it got, at the time I lived in West Yorkshire, which has a large player base. I think one person made the Baneblade for 2nd edition, it was used a few times and then shelved. It wasn't fun, as the scope of the game couldn't handle superheavies, the same is true of 3rd edition, it was used a few times and then went back to collecting dust.

Yes, there were conversions and chapter approved rules for them, but remember a lot of the chapter approved stuff needed opponents permission, as they were trial rules and as such imbalanced the gameplay. At least now Superheavies can be handled due to the new wound chart, still comes as a shock seeing them on the battlefield for what is essentially a platoon/company level game.

Damn near everything in 40k beyond "basic dudes" was bolted on to the game before 3rd edition, and I don't think they were that good in 3rd edition. In fact, having played one most of the time, I can vouch they weren't. Forge World was incredibly conservative with the rules. If you'd like, we could arrange a 3rd edition game some time into the future to test it - I still have my floppy 3rd Edition Imperial Armour book with the Baneblade rules in it. The only remarkable thing was the structure points, so you had to "kill" it 3 times to finish it off. But weapon destroyed results worked just fine, so it could be swiftly disarmed, and it was 634 points if I remember correctly, which was four times the price of a single Leman Russ. It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

And the idea of "needing opponent's permission" is as true now as it ever was. Back in the day, special characters needed opponent's permission, as did myriad other things, from the entire assault phase (at least in the second half of 3rd Edition) to the differences between Space Marine Chapters from Index Astartes. Even today, you need "opponent's permission" to play the game, or bring certain units. I always ask my opponents if they don't mind fighting my superheavies, even today, which is the same question I asked them in 3rd.

As for your last point: 40k is a company scale game, and in the fluff, there are superheavy tank companies. I'm honestly not surprised at all. It's like being surprised to see an Abrams tank in a company scale game, or an IS-2.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I've played a Baneblade in my army since I was able to beg, borrow, and steal the money from my parents, and I find the idea that they were somehow "foreign" to the game, or "not designed at the scale" or something like that, to be bonkers. They've been playing in 28mm 40k longer than I have, and longer than most players have played.

8th edition is pretty darn fantastic. Is it the best? I don't know. I LOVED 4th edition. It might be a tie. But 8th COULD be the best if it just fixed a few things.

My biggest gripe with 8th is the terrain/LoS rules. Bring back 4th edition's area terrain line of sight rules and 8th would be the best edition easily.

I also prefer the scale of 3rd/4th era. I was actually happy when they increased the scale of the game at that time from the skirmishy level of 1st/2nd, but it's kind of gone off the rails at this point.

I'm incredibly happy to see the end of templates, facings, and vehicle armor values. One happy system for everything. I love that they brought back damage values, but I do wish they were a little less random. Replace every instance of D3 with a flat 2 and every instance of d6 with a flat 3 (or d3+1 or d3+2). I find all the d3 attacks that do d3 damage or d6 attacks that do d6 damage a little to swingy for my tastes.

But other than terrain/LoS they're just niggles. It's damn good version of 40k.

4th is still my favorite edition. 3rd, espesically 3.5, was really good too. As was 5th. I took a break from the hobby in 6th (break was not due to the game itself btw), it was still good, but I remember disliking many of the changes from 5th. I only played two-three games in 7th, and I hated how the FOC was gone and how they included a bunch of bloated gimmicks.

8th has removed the parts I really liked about 3rd-7th (armor values, templates), kept the soup I hated from 7th, and introduced a bunch of bloat like stratagems, tactical objectives and a psychic phase.
Some things are really nice though, like save modifiers and damage being brought back from 2nd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

I have that old IA floppy book too. "Warmachines" were their own detachment, and according to the 3rd ed rulebook you could only bring multiple detachments in games of more than 2k points. A "detachment" then was simply another FOC, but in the case of warmachines like Baneblades and other super heavy tanks, they were 1-3 per detachment.
You're right that they were incredibly underpowered - with the super heavy damage tables you could still one shot them by getting multiple chain reactions. It's main strength VS a normal tank was that it could fire all of it's guns, at different targets if needed, and on the move. A Leman Russ would have to stay stationary to fire its main gun (at least until TVR), and then couldn't fire any other weapons that turn.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

I have that old IA floppy book too. "Warmachines" were their own detachment, and according to the 3rd ed rulebook you could only bring multiple detachments in games of more than 2k points. A "detachment" then was simply another FOC, but in the case of warmachines like Baneblades and other super heavy tanks, they were 1-3 per detachment.
You're right that they were incredibly underpowered - with the super heavy damage tables you could still one shot them by getting multiple chain reactions. It's main strength VS a normal tank was that it could fire all of it's guns, at different targets if needed, and on the move. A Leman Russ would have to stay stationary to fire its main gun (at least until TVR), and then couldn't fire any other weapons that turn.

Okay, awesome! I had it kinda correct, except the 3 heavy support slots. Not sure where that came from, but still 2k plus games (2001+ to clarify my meaning) and the fact that I remembered it being bad, generally. Was it actually 634 points? That's the one I'm the most excited to check if I remember but I have to look at the book, which isn't with me at the moment.

634, you were right on the money!
Also, for what it's worth, it could ignore "low walls and hedges" when moving.

Panzergraf wrote:
634, you were right on the money!
Also, for what it's worth, it could ignore "low walls and hedges" when moving.

BADASS! I remember things like the points costs but not how to bring them in an army, oh well. I'm old, and stuff, mmkay? And yes, I remember that. In fact, I fondly remember them destroying terrain they rolled over? That sounds like a houserule, if it's not an actual rule. My friends at the time found the thing kickass and would let it bulldoze over quite a few things that probably weren't "low walls" so much as "buildings"

This is my first edition, so I would say... yes?

It's been pretty easy for my wife and I to pick up and play, even without a ton of wargaming experience. It's been easy to start out small and frighteningly easy to incorporate more and more units into our games. There are a bunch of different army builds that we both want to try.

I can't speak much compared to previous editions, but I can say that this edition hits all the right notes for us, and we're really enjoying it.

Archebius wrote:
This is my first edition, so I would say... yes?

It's been pretty easy for my wife and I to pick up and play, even without a ton of wargaming experience. It's been easy to start out small and frighteningly easy to incorporate more and more units into our games. There are a bunch of different army builds that we both want to try.

I can't speak much compared to previous editions, but I can say that this edition hits all the right notes for us, and we're really enjoying it.

Makes sense. i think that was one of the primary focus of the new age of roundtree trying to make the games accessible to new players

the greybeards set in their ways are going to hate it or dislike it.

I think the 8th edition rules are great but I'm surprised at the sheer amount of FAQ, errata and Chapter Approved changes that have been made already during the first year.

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

Except the damage spill over outside of like 2 weapons and mortal wounds. but then its kinda the same thing in that big damage weapons are inefficient against chaff and chaff weapons are pretty inefficient against tanks.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

Everything you said is wrong. In 40K the weapons actually have favourable targets. Strength & toughness mechanic ensures that weapons perform differently against different foes, and wounds not spilling ensures that you cannot use heavy hitting guns like lascannons to cleave hordes. None of this is case in AOS, where the damage output of an attacking unit is largely independent of the unit being targeted. It is like the designers intentionally tried to make a game where your choices do not matter.

I will always have a place in my heart for 2nd edition. It was great fun. Objectively... 8th is the best.

Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

Hordes in AoS tend to be poor targets for heavy hitters just by virtue of those hitters being generally less efficient point-for-wound outside of horde-specific measures. Wound spillage and a leadership phase that actually does something means that hordes have to be more careful and can't tie up big toys for free, but putting Archaon into a horde of Skaven Slaves is going to lose you a lot of games.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

 Fafnir wrote:
Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

This is just plain crazy. 40K statlines absolutely add more depth. The strength & toughness matter greatly and are a huge factor in determining target priority. AOS needs a ton of convoluted rules for extra rules for each unit to achieve a fraction of complexity 40K core rules provide.

Oh, and if you think AP beyond -2 doesn't matter, you have obviously never played marines... or fielded any vehicles for that matter.

Oh, and flamers kill more points worth of guardsmen than they kill Intercessors (that's our modern marine benchmark.)

And speaking of pointless stats, AOS separate wound and hit rolls are epitome of pointlessness. It serves no purpose to have two static rolls, you could easily combine them without affecting the odds.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

This is just plain crazy. 40K statlines absolutely add more depth. The strength & toughness matter greatly and are a huge factor in determining target priority. AOS needs a ton of convoluted rules for extra rules for each unit to achieve a fraction of complexity 40K core rules provide.

Oh, and if you think AP beyond -2 doesn't matter, you have obviously never played marines... or fielded any vehicles for that matter.

Oh, and flamers kill more points worth of guardsmen than they kill Intercessors (that's our modern marine benchmark.)

And speaking of pointless stats, AOS separate wound and hit rolls are epitome of pointlessness. It serves no purpose to have two static rolls, you could easily combine them without affecting the odds.

Well AP3 being the most common, most elite models would of been taking a 5+ anyway (2+ terminator armor types or 3+ in cover) if anything it makes the ubiquitous 5+ invul less valuable.

eh AOS to hit and to wound matter in that some armies do gain different benefits synergies and effects that change depending on circumstances.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, it's not 4th edition.

However, it's vastly superior to anything 6th and 7th could have dreamed of.

Truth!

8th only seems "best" because 6th and 7th were steaming piles

 Fafnir wrote:
Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes,

You know, I've always wondered how flamers got to be anti-horde when their actual real life purpose is clearing bunkers. Machine guns are the true anti-horde. It's a shame flamers don't ignore cover. Frag grenades should ignore it too for that matter.

Dandelion wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes,

You know, I've always wondered how flamers got to be anti-horde when their actual real life purpose is clearing bunkers. Machine guns are the true anti-horde. It's a shame flamers don't ignore cover. Frag grenades should ignore it too for that matter.

As far as I’m aware it’s not standard practice to “sweep” flame throwers into crowds of people, it would be devastatingly effective at clearing riots and large numbers of closely packed people.

I do agree they should ignore cover and drag grenades, or maybe some interactions with cover, extra D3 hits if enemy is in cover or something, it would cement them as weapons designed to clear that kind of area.

In the extended rules, Cities of Death, flamers and grenades apply the max number of hits (So always 6 hits) to enemies in cover.

Thats why we always play with the extended rules of Cities of Death (But not the stratagem). They add so much more to the game, and unlike the other extended rules, they fell like a natural adition to the basic rules, and not a "expansion" for an alternative experience.

No, it's not.

 Galas wrote:
In the extended rules, Cities of Death, flamers and grenades apply the max number of hits (So always 6 hits) to enemies in cover.

Thats why we always play with the extended rules of Cities of Death (But not the stratagem). They add so much more to the game, and unlike the other extended rules, they fell like a natural adition to the basic rules, and not a "expansion" for an alternative experience.

Cities of Death rules all day mate! But the auto 6 attacks only applies to grenades... (it should have been flamers too )
Fortunately, house ruling is always an option. If people can mod video games, then I can mod a tabletop game.

Which brings me back to the topic: 8th edition is just an ok game as a whole, but it is a very solid foundation for tweaking and adding rules. Terrain is very easy to do on your own, and the BRB even tells you to make your own up. (eg lava river being impassible despite not actually being a rule) So obscurement to hit modifiers are definitely an option.

Also, if I don't like how something works I can just change it. Take tanks for example: tanks should be able to effectively screen infantry, instead they are encouraged to park behind the infantry. So I'd give them the ability to shoot while still in combat, and withdraw and still shoot. Boom, the perfect screen. Now I can start playing a game with a semblance of real tactics.
The only difficulty is arriving at a consensus.

Agreed, 8th isnt the final draft but its a solid 8th draft. In my circle a lot of people think 8th will just be continually updated and will never be replaced by a 9th. A lot of people see the rules as a living document this time around, where i never got that impression during 7th.

Its mentalitiez like this that make games like skyrim sell forever

TBH I Would say 5th.
But my biggest gripe is unlike previous editions finding all your rules has become a living hell as previously your rules were BRB/Codex/FAQ and now in 8th's BRB/Index/Codex/FAQ/Designernotes/CA and more to follow
I would not mind GW making a 8.1 rulesbook (just rules no gak like CA pls) that would consolodate all the faq's and rules updates into the rulebook instead of just expanding and make it even more convoluted then 7th. Then 8th could become a contender

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st

The Baneblade was introduced into late 1st edition (the "targeting template" vehicle rules) in WD 129 in 1990. In addition, I'm pretty sure the original rules for vehicles in the core rulebook would be able to handle any vehicle currently made in plastic. It might have been nigh-undefeatable for a mob of scabby space pirates, but you could do it. Certainly White Dwarf used to have loads of pictures of vehicles that would be the size of "super-heavy" vehicles in later editions- Tony Cottrell's converted AT-STs, for example.

I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game