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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There was that time I didn’t turn up because anxiety took a run up at my Nads?

That was a one sided outcome. And I don’t begrudge it!

You been on the juice ?

Martel732 wrote:
Both systems have tons of problems. Killing power can dominate either system.


If scoring is at the end, I have all game to table you.

Well you are welcome to try, but that also mean i have all game to do it back to you and also play an actual game beyond turn 2....and you seem to forget that those random turn 6s and 7s change the game dynamic from wins to loses and ties more often than not with end objective scoring

We found that too. Put enough terrain on the board and playing the game starts to get tactical.

Yes it did make the game very tactical in 3rd-7th, not so much with 8th. since terrain has almost no effect on the game (unless it is a huge solid blocking LOS item). a +1 to armor is negligible as is not risking dangerous or difficult terrain that hampers movement. coupled with how fast many units can move now.

It was a tournament, pre codex orks. I faced 3 knights and Magnus, that was it, 4 models. My army was some tankbustas in trukks, a battle wagon with big shootas, 50 orks, some killa kans and 3 rokkit buggies. The deployment was corner to corner. The terrain had a base in the middle that blocked vehicle movement but not line of sight. Since my rokkits were limited to 24 inch range I had to drive around the terrain/walk after the trukks were blown. I think i did in total 12 wounds to a knight and 4 wounds to magnus no kills. Da jumping boys did not help.

In the end i retreated some surivors to my corner just to camp out the rest of that very one sided match.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 DarkHound wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think if anything it highlights the difference between scenario play and straight kill-em-all games, and what a well designed tournament pack can add.

We threw a couple of events with a carefully designed scenario pack and afterward "tournament practice" meant trying to not win a game before turn 3, because you'd win the game but lose out on tournament points if you won too quickly.

A straight kill-em-all can be decided before either army is even deployed, tournament play can change what constitutes a win by enough to make the game worth playing anyway.

I'm pretty sure that's why most tournament rules have clauses in the event of tabling/concession that the remaining player gets the full points possible. Sometimes this is more granular and stipulates they play the remaining turns out by themselves so that models actually have to move to objectives/deployment zones within the game time limit.

You missed the point, we specifically avoided doing that exact thing to discourage super-tuned/heavy alpha-strike lists. Table someone in the first couple of turns or shred them so badly they don't see a point in continuing and you only get 5-10 tournament points. Go the full five turns and you could wind up with 20+. It strongly encouraged building and playing more defensively instead of trying to walk out of turn one with an insurmountable advantage.

No.

We did something similar for a narrative campaign and all it encouraged was people conceding before the game started if they knew they were going to lose because the opponent got less points than if they'd fought a proper battle, meaning that the territory was taken over less quickly (we had points ratchet up per side until one side got a certain superiority level). It became common to duck games by surrendering over the discord before the game was even played, because that meant the opponent got fewer points.

Doing that in my circles would get you quick & public dis-invite for attempting to ruin everyones fun. How many pts the other guy did/didn't get would no longer be of any concern of yours.

I think my most one-sided game was in a doubles tournament we were running at the club, I ended up paired with someone I knew was the most casual of the cas - back in the days when marines were awful and conscripts were OP, and he ran like all sniper scouts with camo cloaks plus Telion as troops, vanvets with 1 guy of each melee loadout, a jump pack captain and chaplain, and 1 of each weapon devastators and that was basically it.

So I made it my goal to win 1 game and pulled out my most crazy competitive gak, which was taking all my vostroyans and running them all as two monstrous conscript blobs, plus mortar teams and some barebones battlecannon russes.

We ended up winning that whole tournament, and a couple of the games were just unbearably silly with the Orders system allowing conscripts to just hose people off the board and sprint onto objectives and a bunch of crazy crap.

My very first game of 8th edition was also my most one-sided. I played an imperial guard list with a stormlord packed to the brim with 18 lascannon heavy weapon teams (and maxed sponsons), with Yarrick standing outside of it and a whole bunch of infantry squads surrounding it.

The other player used Tyranids including genestealers, and a mix of big nasties.

I proceeded to bog down the genestealers with overwatch and bodies on the first turn and then shot every threat off the board with the insane amounts of lascannons and vulcan megabolter fire. He conceded at the end of round 2.

 aphyon wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Both systems have tons of problems. Killing power can dominate either system.


If scoring is at the end, I have all game to table you.

Well you are welcome to try, but that also mean i have all game to do it back to you and also play an actual game beyond turn 2....and you seem to forget that those random turn 6s and 7s change the game dynamic from wins to loses and ties more often than not with end objective scoring

We found that too. Put enough terrain on the board and playing the game starts to get tactical.

Yes it did make the game very tactical in 3rd-7th, not so much with 8th. since terrain has almost no effect on the game (unless it is a huge solid blocking LOS item). a +1 to armor is negligible as is not risking dangerous or difficult terrain that hampers movement. coupled with how fast many units can move now.

I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

For me it was probably a game with my Salamanders against Knights. As in, I got tabled in turn 2 or three, I believe. Honestly, I never really stood a chance. That however was massively faciliated due to a misunderstanding on my part. It was the first time I played with my current group, to which I was invited by friend of mine telling me that we would play a few games. Turns out, we were playing a tournament and a more fluffbunny-SM list (mind you, that was back in 2018, so no supplements) that consisted mainly of units I liked/had paint on stood no chance to a couple knights
It was all good though. Also, it is not as if I am a good player, like, at all^^

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

To be fair, SOME cover should be able to be affected by AP.

A minimal change to make cover a bit more meaningful might be that cover adds +1 to your save AND reduces the AP of incoming attacks by 1, to a minimum of 0. Still doesn't help Harlequins or Daemons, and still benefits Marines more than Guardsmen or Orks, but hey, it's an idea.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

To be fair, SOME cover should be able to be affected by AP.

A minimal change to make cover a bit more meaningful might be that cover adds +1 to your save AND reduces the AP of incoming attacks by 1, to a minimum of 0. Still doesn't help Harlequins or Daemons, and still benefits Marines more than Guardsmen or Orks, but hey, it's an idea.

To be fair a lot of the issue is excessive AP and GW failing to understand the values was in AP1 and 2 now with armies that are imune to it, the game feels even more wonky.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

Which just prove the point and historical fact that GW had it right before and all they did, like they do in every edition change, is take good rules that were fine and throw them away.


I could list core rules through the last 5 editions that should have been in EVERY version of the game. but usually only existed in one or a few.

Ice_can wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

To be fair, SOME cover should be able to be affected by AP.

A minimal change to make cover a bit more meaningful might be that cover adds +1 to your save AND reduces the AP of incoming attacks by 1, to a minimum of 0. Still doesn't help Harlequins or Daemons, and still benefits Marines more than Guardsmen or Orks, but hey, it's an idea.

To be fair a lot of the issue is excessive AP and GW failing to understand the values was in AP1 and 2 now with armies that are imune to it, the game feels even more wonky.

A lot of flaws can be chalked up to "GW is not very competent."

Not everything-even good designers make mistakes, and no game is perfect. But still-GW makes a lot of mistakes.

 aphyon wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

Which just prove the point and historical fact that GW had it right before and all they did, like they do in every edition change, is take good rules that were fine and throw them away.


I could list core rules through the last 5 editions that should have been in EVERY version of the game. but usually only existed in one or a few.

Agreed. Their are lots of old rules I wish were kept, but the old ap/armour save and cover save systems are at the top of my personal list.

Agreed. Their are lots of old rules I wish were kept, but the old ap/armour save and cover save systems are at the top of my personal list.

I am right there with you on that. it's why i am teaching new players who only know 8th to play older editions with some house rules that put back in the best of the core rules. i actually want the terrain to be a real effect on the game. it adds so much more to the experience. i have had many good times even using mysterious terrain rules from 6th, even when i am on the receiving end of them.

Don't even get me started on the hot mess that importing fantasy dice pools/phases for psychic abilities into 6th/7th was, when a base LD check and straight forward "use it in the proper phase" worked just fine in the previous editions.

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

What it should represent should not hinder the game from being good. If not being able to represent 19th century napoleonic standoff meant the game being more balanced and not decided at list building (i.e. whoever brought the most biggest, baddest and meanest guns capable of turn 1 army wipe), I would more than welcome such change.

Our house currently employs about 25-40% terrain coverage, with at minimum 1 medium LOS (6"×4") and two scatters per 2'x2' squares. Even at 50% coverage the board is not too crowded (with terrain). Also, another added benefit of heavy terrain presence is that it acts as a deterrent for people who play 200 boyz army where its just not that fun to play against.

Cities of death game with concealed deployment.

I place all three of my maulerfiends on one side of the map to charge up the field (It's a gutter run game so I have to get to his board edge to win). All of his tanks end up deployed on the same side within 18" and I have first turn. took out 2 tanks and roughed up a third, he scratched me back a bit but upon learning in my turn they would get a wound back, bringing the 2 most damaged back to their highest attack profile, he called it there.

My dark angels vs custodes bike spam with loyal 32. I think I killed about 6 guardsmen.

Start of 8th, My Space Wolves vs Tau, i had lots of Wulfen and Thundercav, everything died in his shooting phase or when chargeing, only the Deepstrike Arjac Rockfist made it in with chargeing through a building for no overwatch. Then he fell back killed him too. Game over start turn 3 i killed 2 squads of firewarriors..

Not much have changed since then, thats why i feel the battle is allready lost bigtime when they said 9th is basicly just refined 8th (not to mention they had ZERO sell points for assault armies in their 9 good things video, with 9" charge range i dont care for outflank reserves, because i know alot of expensive units is just gonna stand there eating bullets as they have done for 3 years). So...yeah another solid handfull of years with fallback, and gunlines... What a kick in the nuts for elite melee armies (and now also horde melee armies) with the extra extra buffs for Leman Russ.

Im not even sure what to do at this point, i have Non-Shootmaris Space Wolves army (5000 points) and World Eaters+Khorne Daemons (7000 points), and none of them work and probably never will .

m not even sure what to do at this point, i have Non-Shootmaris Space Wolves army (5000 points) and World Eaters+Khorne Daemons (7000 points), and none of them work and probably never will

You have many options. Aside from playing other better game systems, to keep enjoying your 40K game experience play a previous edition you like better rather it be skirmish 2nd ed or one of the army style games that were 3rd-7th.

the good news is those editions will never again be FAQ'd into oblivion. they will never invalidate any of your minis or their capabilities and since they are effectively complete you will have everything available to play them all the time.


I just gifted a 3.5 chaos codex to a buddy of mine who plays a dedicated khorne army. once the pandemic lockdown lets us get back to gaming at the FLGS we are going to use it to play in core 5th edition with a few house rules (read the best rules from the compatible editions 3-7) and i think he will have a much more enjoyable experience playing an assault army that actually can do what it is designed to do on TT with less overall dakka in the number of shots being fired, the comparable drop in the number of wounds and ridiculous re-rolls as well as terrain that directly effects the game.

 aphyon wrote:

m not even sure what to do at this point, i have Non-Shootmaris Space Wolves army (5000 points) and World Eaters+Khorne Daemons (7000 points), and none of them work and probably never will

You have many options. Aside from playing other better game systems, to keep enjoying your 40K game experience play a previous edition you like better rather it be skirmish 2nd ed or one of the army style games that were 3rd-7th.

the good news is those editions will never again be FAQ'd into oblivion. they will never invalidate any of your minis or their capabilities and since they are effectively complete you will have everything available to play them all the time.


I just gifted a 3.5 chaos codex to a buddy of mine who plays a dedicated khorne army. once the pandemic lockdown lets us get back to gaming at the FLGS we are going to use it to play in core 5th edition with a few house rules (read the best rules from the compatible editions 3-7) and i think he will have a much more enjoyable experience playing an assault army that actually can do what it is designed to do on TT with less overall dakka in the number of shots being fired, the comparable drop in the number of wounds and ridiculous re-rolls as well as terrain that directly effects the game.

I like what you are saying.

Do you have a document with what you have made? (dont worry i dont care for spelling errors or anything), i really just want to enjoy my favorite armies/models and their lore, and it seems like you got a good headstart on how to do exactly just that or atleast inspiration.

(sorry for offtopic folks)

 Brutallica wrote:
Start of 8th, My Space Wolves vs Tau, i had lots of Wulfen and Thundercav, everything died in his shooting phase or when chargeing, only the Deepstrike Arjac Rockfist made it in with chargeing through a building for no overwatch. Then he fell back killed him too. Game over start turn 3 i killed 2 squads of firewarriors..

Not much have changed since then, thats why i feel the battle is allready lost bigtime when they said 9th is basicly just refined 8th (not to mention they had ZERO sell points for assault armies in their 9 good things video, with 9" charge range i dont care for outflank reserves, because i know alot of expensive units is just gonna stand there eating bullets as they have done for 3 years). So...yeah another solid handfull of years with fallback, and gunlines... What a kick in the nuts for elite melee armies (and now also horde melee armies) with the extra extra buffs for Leman Russ.

Im not even sure what to do at this point, i have Non-Shootmaris Space Wolves army (5000 points) and World Eaters+Khorne Daemons (7000 points), and none of them work and probably never will .

Assault does work in 8th it's just very janky and takes a lot of micromanagement of rules jank to make it work, it's shortend to wrap and trap but it does work, though with the nee terrain rules I suspect that getting across the board is supposed to be way easier.

 Brutallica wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

m not even sure what to do at this point, i have Non-Shootmaris Space Wolves army (5000 points) and World Eaters+Khorne Daemons (7000 points), and none of them work and probably never will

You have many options. Aside from playing other better game systems, to keep enjoying your 40K game experience play a previous edition you like better rather it be skirmish 2nd ed or one of the army style games that were 3rd-7th.

the good news is those editions will never again be FAQ'd into oblivion. they will never invalidate any of your minis or their capabilities and since they are effectively complete you will have everything available to play them all the time.


I just gifted a 3.5 chaos codex to a buddy of mine who plays a dedicated khorne army. once the pandemic lockdown lets us get back to gaming at the FLGS we are going to use it to play in core 5th edition with a few house rules (read the best rules from the compatible editions 3-7) and i think he will have a much more enjoyable experience playing an assault army that actually can do what it is designed to do on TT with less overall dakka in the number of shots being fired, the comparable drop in the number of wounds and ridiculous re-rolls as well as terrain that directly effects the game.

I like what you are saying.

Do you have a document with what you have made? (dont worry i dont care for spelling errors or anything), i really just want to enjoy my favorite armies/models and their lore, and it seems like you got a good headstart on how to do exactly just that or atleast inspiration.

(sorry for offtopic folks)

I'll PM you shortly

1000pt game on a 4x4 table Index SoB vs. Guard. Celestine killed 600points of his army by herself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I said *enough terrain*. Huge LoS blocking items and ruins everywhere, to the point that getting LoS is a challenge and tanks don't have many lines of advance.

The game should not require massive amounts of terrain to function. It's meant to represent everything from cramped city-fights (like what you're describing) to clashes on open battlefields.

No, the game shouldn't require loads of terrain, it just needs good terrain rules. Like maybe actual cover saves that aren't affected by ap....

Which just prove the point and historical fact that GW had it right before and all they did, like they do in every edition change, is take good rules that were fine and throw them away.


I could list core rules through the last 5 editions that should have been in EVERY version of the game. but usually only existed in one or a few.

Agreed. Their are lots of old rules I wish were kept, but the old ap/armour save and cover save systems are at the top of my personal list.

The old cover rules were gak too, don't kid yourself. They just seem fine now because you're not dealing with 2+++ rerolling ghostkeels and stuff.

The old armor system was a MASSIVE STEAMING PILE. There were only 3 realistic levels of armor penetration: Does pierce SM armor, doesn't pierce SM armor, and instant kill. The current system is much better.

I agree that they need a new cover system but lets not rose tint the past.

The problem with the current system is that AP is progressively less effective, yet progressively more expensive.

The old cover rules were gak too, don't kid yourself. They just seem fine now because you're not dealing with 2+++ rerolling ghostkeels and stuff.

The old armor system was a MASSIVE STEAMING PILE. There were only 3 realistic levels of armor penetration: Does pierce SM armor, doesn't pierce SM armor, and instant kill. The current system is much better.

I agree that they need a new cover system but lets not rose tint the past.

Having played 40K since 3rd and a host of other systems that use various armor and cover mechanics i have to say i 100% disagree with everything you said. the current system is a steaming pile of garbage.


Part of the tactics of actual tabletop play is knowing what units/weapons to use it which fight, and best use of the various cover available. with AV rating from 10-14 you are able to do damage with weapons from strength 4-10 dependent on the target AV.

Don't even get me started on the garbage that is the re-roll bubbles of 8th. the only real save re-roll that existed in 3rd-5th was the eldar psyker ability "fortune" that could only target one unit for one turn. that means you have at most 2 farseers giving save re-roll to 2 units.

When it comes to hard fixed saves VS the imported fantasy armor reduction (anybody remember the base 1+ save?) saves, since you take the best save available the all or nothing approach was far easier to track and remember with cover once again becoming an integral part of tabletop tactics.

8th is a terrible edition for the depth needed in a 28mm army game. it works fine with epic scale because it is simplified enough to keep the game moving for such a large number of units

 aphyon wrote:
Part of the tactics of actual tabletop play is knowing what units/weapons to use it which fight, and best use of the various cover available. with AV rating from 10-14 you are able to do damage with weapons from strength 4-10 dependent on the target AV.

That's pretty misleading. AV10 was pretty rare, mostly reserved for vehicles' rear armor. That means that vehicles were actually immune to small arms fire. Therefore 5th edition skewed extremely heavily toward mechanized lists, every infantry unit in a transport. A walking infantry unit couldn't fire further than 12" (old Rapid Fire only got max distance standing still, Heavy weapons couldn't fire unless the entire unit stood still) so had no board presence.

You ended up taking anti-tank weapons in every possible option. Even then there was no way to force a vehicle to die. You rolled on a D6 table where 1-2 dealt no damage, and a "wound" (penetration) roll equal to the AV was a glancing hit that had -2 on the table. For that reason, your only hope was to roll on the damage table as much as possible. Autocannons were king for de-meching armies, and Meltaguns were the default special weapon.

To be clear, it's not that you had to know which option was the best to apply in a situation, it's that there were no options. Some weapons could deal damage, most could not.

I guess I should also point out that infantry hordes didn't really exist. They were bad even against other lists that defaulted to so much anti-tank. They were slow across the board, had no range, and no durability. Plus it's unimaginably tedious to play minding the 2" spacing for a hundred models, since most lists had blast templates and flamers even incidentally. Hull-mounted flamers were 5 point choice that covered that weakness. Orks played 1500 points composed of 2 giant Nob Biker units with Lootas spam, Tyranids played Nidzilla, IG played Mech.

If you're thinking "well, what about assault armies?" Yeah. Exactly. They weren't super relevant because everybody was in transports. The situation was basically the same now as it was back then: you take a lot of shooting anti-tank and hope you crack enough transports.

Don't even get me started on the garbage that is the re-roll bubbles of 8th. the only real save re-roll that existed in 3rd-5th was the eldar psyker ability "fortune" that could only target one unit for one turn. that means you have at most 2 farseers giving save re-roll to 2 units.

That's true, there were very little synergies between units at all. In fact, most commanders actually didn't do anything including fight in close combat. Any stray Powerfist ignored armor and instantly killed the commander (and every close combat unit took a Powerfist on the sergeant for this very reason). Mostly you took psykers or Chaplains or such just to have some semblance of utility. It's not that we didn't want re-roll bubbles and utility auras; we took them at literally every opportunity.

When it comes to hard fixed saves VS the imported fantasy armor reduction (anybody remember the base 1+ save?) saves, since you take the best save available the all or nothing approach was far easier to track and remember with cover once again becoming an integral part of tabletop tactics.

Yeah, I remember literally every unit having a 4+ cover save at all times, which could not be mitigated or reduced. It was actually kind of the Achilles heel of any heavy infantry armies. They invested all these points into a 3+ armor save, where an Ork with his 6+ actually gets a 4+ for free. It also meant that armor penetration was an irrelevant mechanic. Basically it came down to: ranged weapons needed high volume of fire to beat cover saves, and close combat weapons had a blanket "ignores armor saves" property.


Man I'm way off topic.

In 5th the ork kan wall was very much a highly competitive horde army for games up to 1500 points.

That's pretty misleading. AV10 was pretty rare,

land speeders, war walkers, sentinels, trukks, chimera sides..not as rare as you think

That means that vehicles were actually immune to small arms fire.

As they should be! the entire point of an armored vehicle is to protect it (and its occupants) against small arms fire, especially for IFVs and transports. WWI tanks were dead meat to cannons because they were specifically designed with protection against small arms(specifically the machinegun) in mind in the begining.

Therefore 5th edition skewed extremely heavily toward mechanized lists, every infantry unit in a transport. A walking infantry unit couldn't fire further than 12" (old Rapid Fire only got max distance standing still, Heavy weapons couldn't fire unless the entire unit stood still) so had no board presence.

2 points
1 movement-not true. cav and beasts moved 6 but assaulted 12 and many units also had fleet. they could move, then run and then charge.
2.heavy and rapid fire weapons-this is why i am a supporter of house ruling in the better rules form other editions to make 5th better, IE snap fire for heavy weapons and maintaining max range with rapid fire weapons while moving but only getting the double shot at half range from 6th/7th

You ended up taking anti-tank weapons in every possible option.

So proper tactical options like a real army force has used since the second world war.

Even then there was no way to force a vehicle to die.

It is a game of tactics and chance built into dice rolls. there is always a way to kill a vehicle. keep in mind they only had effectively 1 wound and monsterous creature out-performed them in every way.

You rolled on a D6 table where 1-2 dealt no damage,

Except that it did-to the crew- it kept the tanks form moving and/or shooting

and a "wound" (penetration) roll equal to the AV was a glancing hit that had -2 on the table. For that reason, your only hope was to roll on the damage table as much as possible.

Yes and you could kill through cumulative damage or instant kill with a pen hit....you are just proving my point that it was a better system. far more realistic and immersive feeling than a trooper taking out a main battle tank with his side arm.

To be clear, it's not that you had to know which option was the best to apply in a situation, it's that there were no options. Some weapons could deal damage, most could not.

Actually there were many more options, to the point where armies had an entire armory to choose from. it is more accurate to say some weapons could do damage to everything including the hardest things (usually with less shots..a las cannon killed everything equally well, it just only had 1 chance to do it) while others designed to kill smaller squishy things could not hurt the harder things. again there were lots of options based on the units role and the targets they were optimized to fight.

I guess I should also point out that infantry hordes didn't really exist.

The hell they didn't tyranids and horde imperial guard were some of the hardest armies to face in 5th. both could bring in massive numbers of cheap infantry, some of which could flank or come back on the table after dying and still afford to bring in big units and heavy weapons. if you worried about the latter you often got tar-pitted and shut down by the hordes.

If you're thinking "well, what about assault armies?" Yeah. Exactly. They weren't super relevant because everybody was in transports. The situation was basically the same now as it was back then: you take a lot of shooting anti-tank and hope you crack enough transports.

Wow...no.... assault armies were hell to face because they could get to you and not be shot off the table at the end of turn 2 by the stupid amount of shooting in 8th. they also didn't stubb their toes on open ground when they were only 4" away from an enemy unit via the stupid random charge range mechanic.

most commanders actually didn't do anything including fight in close combat. Any stray Powerfist ignored armor and instantly killed the commander (and every close combat unit took a Powerfist on the sergeant for this very reason). Mostly you took psykers or Chaplains or such just to have some semblance of utility. It's not that we didn't want re-roll bubbles and utility auras; we took them at literally every opportunity

Your memory is a bit fuzzy, most named characters and even options for home made ones had the ability to get invul saves, be eternal warriors, had massively better stats in CC and provided army wide buffs on performance (not just a re-roll bubble).

Yeah, I remember literally every unit having a 4+ cover save at all times, which could not be mitigated or reduced. It was actually kind of the Achilles heel of any heavy infantry armies. They invested all these points into a 3+ armor save, where an Ork with his 6+ actually gets a 4+ for free. It also meant that armor penetration was an irrelevant mechanic. Basically it came down to: ranged weapons needed high volume of fire to beat cover saves, and close combat weapons had a blanket "ignores armor saves" property.

Actually cover saves ranged from a 3+ to a 6+ without special modifiers. their were alot of different types of terrain to match up to those stats, your description sounds a bit more based on the terrain you choose to use and not whats available. hard cover combined with blocking LOS, dangerous and difficult terrain (as well as mysterious which i enjoy) actually made using terrain have a very tactical effect on the game.

Again proving that it was a better system.

In 5th the ork kan wall was very much a highly competitive horde army for games up to 1500 points.

Well it didn't hurt that the grots in those Kans could actually hit things they shot at.

I remember how hard it was to face an infantry list a buddy ran that all had cybork bodies...nobs and boys with a 5++ just could not kill them.