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.

Marines were in 6th/7th what Eldar were in 8th.

Crappy codici with that one or two interactions or units that if spammed makes for a competitive list.

I distinctly remember CWE players complaining about being one trick Alaitoc flyer spammers.
Same for marines pre 8th. Out of multiple codexes you could count on your hands the number of units they used. And you would have many fingers to spare.

Well, most of the armies had just a handful of builds/models that were competitive in 7th. Even eldar had like 8-9 OP unit and a lot of trash stuff. 7th eldar lists all looked very similar.

Tau were also relying on the same limited array of models. Dark eldar were on the same boat, they could be ok by spamming venoms, reavers , ravagers/flyers and coven stuff while half codex was flat out unplayable.

Tyranids used to spam hive tyrants, etc...

SM had way more decent builds that the majority of the other factions. That shouldn't be surprising considering that they had a huge roster and they've always been GW's posterboys. Problem with 7th is that lack of FAQ made OP lists OP for almost the entire edition. That's why a lot of stuff that was actually good was considered bad, it couldn't compete with the cheesiest things but was enough to blast a lot of other existing stuff. SM roster had several units that fell in that category, even if they don't fit their most OP list with 300 points of free stuff. Not everyone played eldar or tau.

When I played SW, instead of the other two armies I had (orks, dark eldar) I always had the feeling that I was playing a different game. They had tons of powerful tools and combinations that worked compared to the other factions, and I didn't get access to a lot of OP stuff that vanilla marines had.

 Galas wrote:
I'm saying that 40k was always designed to be extremely easy to just "solve", offensively speaking.

You had a ton of variety in your weapon options and profiles but not really that much variety in your defensive profiles. I'm not talking about other stuff like making armeis play different with morale etc...

But in 40k, for all editions, in general, your only relevant targets would be:
-Cheap crap to kill hordes (or templates or flamers or stuff that ignores cover but really it wasn't that neccesary to go full spec to kill cheap light infantry)
-Kill marines
-Kill vehicles (And most armies had one weapon profile that did excel at that job)

I can understand your point insectium. "As most guns are extremely deadly most infantry is the same because they nearly all die the same to them". At the end of the day when a leman russ battle cannon is shotting at you, does it really matteer if you are in power armour or IG infantry? You are gonna be blasted anyway.

But at the same time I believe thats just... too boring. But as I said, I'm more of a light walkers, infantry and bikers guy. I really don't... like vehicles that much. (Thats why I played fantasy more, more relevance for the lowly grunts. Even a dragon is not that far in power from a knight than a heavy tank from a futuristic soldier)

EDIT: I'll add that I'm talking 5th onward. I never played 1-4, but I played fantasy and MESBG much more.

Nice post Galas^ Let me see if I can meet it appropriately.

1: Part of the "shooting at all infantry feels the same" is a huuuge problem of the post 8th design paradigm, of it's own making. As noted, in earlier editions there were dedicated anti-horde weapons that were very effective at defeating horde-type infantry. This has to do with the earlier AP system combined with actual Template and Blast weapons. When those combined with both the Morale and the Sweeping Advance mechanics, target "defensive profiles" were more diverse. Flamers just didn't work on Marines the way they worked against GEQ, for example, and Sweeping Advance didn't work at all. BUT, notably, within the same paradigm, if a GEQ squad actually got the drop on a Marine squad and fired a solid volley of Lasguns into them, they could be rewarded with a kill or two. I think that last bit is really important, you don't want your basic guys, even as Guardsmen, to feel so totally useless.

2: In 8th, the proposed solution to killing GEQ has just been MOAR bullets. Twin linked weapons shoot double the number of shots now. The new Primaris tanks are festooned with low strength, high rate of fire weapons. Morale is just not as devastating (particularly the Sweeping Advance thing is gone). And the new AP system has hurt Marines in particular since there are a number of high-volume-of-fire weapons that in the prior editions would have left Marines with a 3+ save, where as now they get pinged to a 4+ and sometimes 5+ (especially in the case of the Intercessor AP -2 Bolt Rifle capacity). At the same time the new paradigm has left GEQ with a save against weapons that formerly punched right through their armor, and they even get a save vs. things like Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (crazytown, imo). Heck, a Heavy Bolter even has the same to-wound roll against a Space Marine and Guardsmen, further squishing the two together, resulting in one of the most jarring differences between pre and post 8th ed.

Pre 8th, Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .333 = .6 w
Guardsmen 3 x .83 = 2.49 w

Post 8th Heavy Bolter (BS agnostic) vs.
Marine 3x .666 x .5 = .999 w
Guardsmen 3x .666 x .83 = 1.65 w

The relationship between the two profiles has become really squashed. A Space Marine was 4X as tough vs. a Heavy Bolter in pre-8th, vs. not even twice as tough in post 8th. In addition, in the case of the Heavy Bolter, the additional Wound for SM doesn't even address this, as the HB now does 2W!

Now, there are faults with the old system, it's true. One of the related issues was that Marines in cover didn't get ANY benefit against low AP weapons, which is a pretty glaring issue. But gosh, the old system sure made the defensive profiles count for a lot more, with fewer mechanics.

But more to my main issue. 2W doesn't really help Space Marines against many of these mid-strength or high strength weapons that are aimed at them, and therefore doesn't vastly improve the feeling of defensive-stat-homogeny that you mention in relationship to high powered weapons. Yes, a D3D Battlecannon will roll a 1 sometimes for Damage, but 2/3 of the time the Space Marine dies anywyas. Autocannons did 2D already, and the Guardsman still gets a save against it. But what 2W REALLY punishes is the basic rifles and CC attacks of every other infantry out there, Space Marines included. And you know how people (even in this thread) complain/ed about "bolters being useless"? Well, 2W Space Marines also make Bolters feel more useless, once again, while also taking a dump on everyone else's infantry at the same time.


Related, but one step abstracted:
When you say that there's an issue of "too boring" in relation to engaging defensive profiles with high power ranged weapons. I would say that that's also an issue with the current design paridigm, as mechanically the "proper" way to deal with both targets is often "moar bullets". But in contrast, the previous system using Flamers and Sweeping Advances to get a GEQ infantry, was (personal opinion), fething fun! Being forced to close with the enemy, laying templates down and seeing them pop out of existence with little rolling (no to-hit, no saves), and Sweeping Advancing multiple squads at once was gloriously rewarding from a gameplay experience perspective. In a paradigm like that, instead of just shooting MOAR bullets, the reward was in closing with the opponent and really giving it to them in CQB. Different targets, and using not just different weapons but more meaningfully different tactics.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So I've never played Fantasy, so I couldn't really be sure, but one theory in response to what you're saying is that the weapons regularly deployed in 40k are far more powerful than those of Fantasy. Like a S8 in 40k might be 4 times as powerful as a S8 in 40k. Covering a higher range of power with the same digits means that the range on the lower end gets squashed.

That theory is kind of torpedoed out of the water by the fact that GW has suggested in earlier editions to field Fantasy armies as Feral World armies, up to and including the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex having an Appendix army that is literally just a Warhammer Fantasy army.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I dunno man, I've been playing against my friends with marines for years and it wasn't till they had 2W that they themselves said they "feel" like marines now. So it's not only about my immersion but for my opponents as well.

Fair, but two counterpoints:

1: Marines in the "fluff", novels etc have inflated over the years. Its called "bolter porn" for a reason.

2: Go ask an Eldar player about their experience with Banshees, and if they "feel" like Banshees should feel. Or if even Shuriken Catapults "feel" how they should feel.

If marines have been "over exaggerated" for years wouldn't that now be the norm or general idea making them what they are now?

Well what if you were a fan of a different faction? A faction whose elite infantry, in earlier times, could go toe to toe with Marines in a meaningful way? Just "sucks to be you?" Like, even in the novels (I haven't read many) I wonder how many Guardsman it takes to take down a Marine with Lasguns. What's your take? Atm Guardsman average a single Marine kill with no fewer than 40(!) shots. That seems ludicrous to me. Game-table wise, is that a rewarding experience for the Guardsman player?

 fraser1191 wrote:
For what it's worth I don't think Banshees are very immersive, same with shurikens.
When I saw the new rules back when the new kit came out I wasn't too impressed. If there are newer rules I don't know them, but I also haven't been looking.

But this isn't about Banshees and my answer is that they're pretty meh in the immersion corner anyway.

So what's your point? Because Banshees a unit I assume we both agree could use some lovin is underwhelming and therefore marines should also be?

Every core infantry unit is hit hard with 2w Marines. Even Marines, since their Bolters only do 1w. Remember all that complaining about "bolters feel useless"? Well it's that, except across the board for basic infantry of all factions.

Given how many people have worked on both over the years, I'm sure the answer is comfortably both 'yes,' and 'no,' and 'whatever floats your boat.'

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So I've never played Fantasy, so I couldn't really be sure, but one theory in response to what you're saying is that the weapons regularly deployed in 40k are far more powerful than those of Fantasy. Like a S8 in 40k might be 4 times as powerful as a S8 in 40k. Covering a higher range of power with the same digits means that the range on the lower end gets squashed.

That theory is kind of torpedoed out of the water by the fact that GW has suggested in earlier editions to field Fantasy armies as Feral World armies, up to and including the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex having an Appendix army that is literally just a Warhammer Fantasy army.

Are they still cross-playable like that? My understanding is that AoS and 40K are rather diverged mechanically these days.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So I've never played Fantasy, so I couldn't really be sure, but one theory in response to what you're saying is that the weapons regularly deployed in 40k are far more powerful than those of Fantasy. Like a S8 in 40k might be 4 times as powerful as a S8 in 40k. Covering a higher range of power with the same digits means that the range on the lower end gets squashed.

That theory is kind of torpedoed out of the water by the fact that GW has suggested in earlier editions to field Fantasy armies as Feral World armies, up to and including the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex having an Appendix army that is literally just a Warhammer Fantasy army.

Are they still cross-playable like that? My understanding is that AoS and 40K are rather diverged mechanically these days.

Not as diverged as you'd believe. There's some minutiae differences, but for actually playing the game overall, the major difference mechanically is the actual wounding mechanics(chart in 40K vs flat result in AoS). The layout may look different, but you could very easily convert most of the stats from one into the style of the other. They're much closer rules-wise now than they were during the 40K 3-7 and the Fantasy 6-8 years despite still having the same statline, hence the claims that AOS is used as a test bed for upcoming 40K rules(many changes in AOS preceded the same or similar rules showing up in 40K).

^A difference in wounding mechanic seems particularly salient. What's the difference?

There are no S and T stats in AoS.

Instead weapons have a flat wounding mechanic, similar to BS.

Phoenix guards for example wound on 3+. Period.

Other differences are that there is no WS and BS. Instead the roll needed to hit is a stat of the weapon. Same for the attacks in melee. I honestly prefer them like this.

Spoletta wrote:
Marines were in 6th/7th what Eldar were in 8th.

Crappy codici with that one or two interactions or units that if spammed makes for a competitive list.

I distinctly remember CWE players complaining about being one trick Alaitoc flyer spammers.
Same for marines pre 8th. Out of multiple codexes you could count on your hands the number of units they used. And you would have many fingers to spare.

Given that the Gladius formation required no fewer than 5 units to start taking the three potential free transports that were available, and that's only one of the competitive builds from one of the books, I'm gonna say that's not really accurate. Also, is a SM army that demands Tactical, Assault and Devastator squads really "spammy" when that's literally 80% of the chapter makeup? I sorta think it was one of the more "appropriate" builds for SM, even if the formation (edition, really) was crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
There are no S and T stats in AoS.

Instead weapons have a flat wounding mechanic, similar to BS.

Phoenix guards for example wound on 3+. Period.

Other differences are that there is no WS and BS. Instead the roll needed to hit is a stat of the weapon. Same for the attacks in melee. I honestly prefer them like this.

That's divergent enough for me to say that the systems aren't really comparable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
There are no S and T stats in AoS.

Instead weapons have a flat wounding mechanic, similar to BS.

Phoenix guards for example wound on 3+. Period.

Other differences are that there is no WS and BS. Instead the roll needed to hit is a stat of the weapon. Same for the attacks in melee. I honestly prefer them like this.

That's divergent enough for me to say that the systems aren't really comparable.

Having a static To Hit built into the weapon's stat is literally the same has having static WS/BS, it's just on a different part of the unit entry. Again, the only real salient difference is how wounding works and that's an easy enough "fix" if you're really looking to play the systems together.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
There are no S and T stats in AoS.

Instead weapons have a flat wounding mechanic, similar to BS.

Phoenix guards for example wound on 3+. Period.

Other differences are that there is no WS and BS. Instead the roll needed to hit is a stat of the weapon. Same for the attacks in melee. I honestly prefer them like this.

That's divergent enough for me to say that the systems aren't really comparable.

Having a static To Hit built into the weapon's stat is literally the same has having static WS/BS, it's just on a different part of the unit entry. Again, the only real salient difference is how wounding works and that's an easy enough "fix" if you're really looking to play the systems together.

The lack of S and T and the wound mechanics is the big deal. The original conjecture is that the two systems might be using a different wounding "scale".

Much less relevant is the to-hit thing, although does any unit use the same weapons as a different unit? In 40K you have a Marine with Bolt Pistol hitting on 3+, a Captain hitting with same on 2+ and a Guardsman hitting on 4+, possibly even a cultist hitting on 5+?

Yeah but the fixed To Wound is not a good idea.

There should be a difference between a Gretchin and a Great Unclean One. One of them should be harder to damage than the other.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the fixed To Wound is not a good idea.

There should be a difference between a Gretchin and a Great Unclean One. One of them should be harder to damage than the other.

I tend to argue the same is true on the to-hit side of things - definitely in melee, and ideally at range, too.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original conjecture is that the two systems might be using a different wounding "scale".

No, the original conjecture was that Strength X in one system was different than that same Strength X in another and the evidence we have shows GW doesn't think it is.

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the fixed To Wound is not a good idea.

There should be a difference between a Gretchin and a Great Unclean One. One of them should be harder to damage than the other.

I tend to argue the same is true on the to-hit side of things - definitely in melee, and ideally at range, too.

Agree. BS/WS vs an Evasion stat, similarly to how S and T work together, could be a great idea if properly developed. Hitting a land raider or a gretchin shouldn't be equally possible.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
There are no S and T stats in AoS.

Instead weapons have a flat wounding mechanic, similar to BS.

Phoenix guards for example wound on 3+. Period.

Other differences are that there is no WS and BS. Instead the roll needed to hit is a stat of the weapon. Same for the attacks in melee. I honestly prefer them like this.

That's divergent enough for me to say that the systems aren't really comparable.

Having a static To Hit built into the weapon's stat is literally the same has having static WS/BS, it's just on a different part of the unit entry. Again, the only real salient difference is how wounding works and that's an easy enough "fix" if you're really looking to play the systems together.

The lack of S and T and the wound mechanics is the big deal. The original conjecture is that the two systems might be using a different wounding "scale".

Much less relevant is the to-hit thing, although does any unit use the same weapons as a different unit? In 40K you have a Marine with Bolt Pistol hitting on 3+, a Captain hitting with same on 2+ and a Guardsman hitting on 4+, possibly even a cultist hitting on 5+?

All weapons in AoS are bespoken.
The concept of "Standard" weapons used by multiple models doesn't exist.

Well there are "swords" and the like.

A Sword on a Steam Tank Commander hits on a 5+. A Sword on a Freeguild Guard hits on a 4+, for example (from the same army list).

Conversely the strength and toughness thing doesn't matter that much, really.

40k is already most of the way there (everything can wound everything and it is just a matter of a few pips on the dice). Saves and Wound Count are equally capable of representing a unit's durability. In some ways I respect AoS for this, because it models durability pretty well without the extra step of 40k. I mean heck, every time I mention the Baneblade being less durable than the Russ people are like "it has more wounds so it's not". Ergo, wound count *alone* can be a measure of durability.

But it is a bit jarring for normal 40kers.

 Blackie wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the fixed To Wound is not a good idea.

There should be a difference between a Gretchin and a Great Unclean One. One of them should be harder to damage than the other.

I tend to argue the same is true on the to-hit side of things - definitely in melee, and ideally at range, too.

Agree. BS/WS vs an Evasion stat, similarly to how S and T work together, could be a great idea if properly developed. Hitting a land raider or a gretchin shouldn't be equally possible.

I'm not a fan of an "Evasion" stat, but something I've been workshopping lately is adding a caveat to the native rolls of 2+ or 6+ bits for hitting and wounding.

For example: A unit that is hitting on 2+, before any modifiers, should get some kind of bonus. It's an extremely accurate unit, right? Whether that be an "ignore the first negative modifier" to their hit rolls or being able to ignore Look Out Sir or whatnot, it could be an interesting addition.

The Wounding bit...that one feels the easiest to make it more interesting.
Wounding on a 6+ before modifiers? Subtract 1 from the damage dealt, to a minimum of 0 damage being dealt. This does not however block out effects that trigger on that 6+ like Mortal Wounds that are specific v a certain enemy type or the like.
Wounding on a 2+ before modifiers? Add 1 to the damage being dealt. This does not apply to Mortal Wounds inflicted as part of the roll. Doubling out someone's Toughness should have some kind of perk but it doesn't need to be flat MWs or just rolling better.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but the fixed To Wound is not a good idea.

There should be a difference between a Gretchin and a Great Unclean One. One of them should be harder to damage than the other.

I tend to argue the same is true on the to-hit side of things - definitely in melee, and ideally at range, too.

Agree. BS/WS vs an Evasion stat, similarly to how S and T work together, could be a great idea if properly developed. Hitting a land raider or a gretchin shouldn't be equally possible.

I'm not a fan of an "Evasion" stat, but something I've been workshopping lately is adding a caveat to the native rolls of 2+ or 6+ bits for hitting and wounding.

For example: A unit that is hitting on 2+, before any modifiers, should get some kind of bonus. It's an extremely accurate unit, right? Whether that be an "ignore the first negative modifier" to their hit rolls or being able to ignore Look Out Sir or whatnot, it could be an interesting addition.

The Wounding bit...that one feels the easiest to make it more interesting.
Wounding on a 6+ before modifiers? Subtract 1 from the damage dealt, to a minimum of 0 damage being dealt. This does not however block out effects that trigger on that 6+ like Mortal Wounds that are specific v a certain enemy type or the like.
Wounding on a 2+ before modifiers? Add 1 to the damage being dealt. This does not apply to Mortal Wounds inflicted as part of the roll. Doubling out someone's Toughness should have some kind of perk but it doesn't need to be flat MWs or just rolling better.

My initial thoughts here are what is possibly wounding on a natural 6 that isn't D1? the only time it ever comes into relevance is small arms into vehicles etc. which doesn't happen that often anyway in my experience and wounding on a natural 6 is enough of a punishment. I'm not against your suggestions in concept but I just feel these scenarios are either paid for already in the profile in terms of hitting on 2's or are already enough of a rare reward/punishment in terms of the wound rolls. If you want to dissuade people shooting bolters at knights I think you'll need a more robust change.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The original conjecture is that the two systems might be using a different wounding "scale".

No, the original conjecture was that Strength X in one system was different than that same Strength X in another and the evidence we have shows GW doesn't think it is.

They appear to use totally different systems, so I'm inclined to say there's enough room for a divergence of scale. It's a tangential topic though, so I'm not really concerned about it's relation to 2w SM.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm not a fan of an "Evasion" stat, but something I've been workshopping lately is adding a caveat to the native rolls of 2+ or 6+ bits for hitting and wounding.

The point of an Evasion stat is that things aren't equally easy/hard to hit, due to their speed, dimensions and reflexes. Just like things aren't equally easy/hard to wound.

A tiny gretchins should be harder to hit than a massive land raider, and yet both BS and WS hit on the same value against those opposite kinds of targets. GW just decided to compensate that with different mechanics, like -1 to hit or invulns, instead of introducing a mechanic that was similar to the S vs T system. Which is fine, except very few units have rules that grant those benefits and for the vast majority of targets there's a flat to hit value, regardless of the units' dimensions, speed and reflexes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Every core infantry unit is hit hard with 2w Marines. Even Marines, since their Bolters only do 1w. Remember all that complaining about "bolters feel useless"? Well it's that, except across the board for basic infantry of all factions.

I can't say that I've noticed this much with my Necrons.
Within my core infantry my space-robot skelies have plenty of shots with enough AP &/or plenty of melee attacks with plenty+ of AP to get the job done.
I carve through 2w SMs just fine.
And with this recent Balance update? Now I have more core.

 Insectum7 wrote:

When you say that there's an issue of "too boring" in relation to engaging defensive profiles with high power ranged weapons. I would say that that's also an issue with the current design paridigm, as mechanically the "proper" way to deal with both targets is often "moar bullets". But in contrast, the previous system using Flamers and Sweeping Advances to get a GEQ infantry, was (personal opinion), fething fun! B

in theory: fine.

In practice: it was INCREDIBLY easy to scythe down MEQ infantry with both weight of attacks (e.g. ork boyz) and spammed good AP weaponry like plasma and pie plates, while the inevitable "everyone has an easy way to negate LD in the strategy layer" like a blobbed up platoon with a...whatever 30pt priest? made the whole 'use sweeping advances to clear out light infantry' just nonsense.

In actuality, people just used "moar bullets" (e.g. paskisher) to deal with GEQ and "moar bullets/spammed low AP" (lasplas spam, kan wall, etc) to destroy MEQs.

There's a reason everything just kind of glorbed into endless parking lot lists in 5e and monster spam/deathstar lists in 7e when vehicles got hull point'd out of existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so we're clear on the "scot take" here:

I agree older editions were more fun if you have 2 people uninterested in breaking the game/playing for advantage. Like if you just used dice to randomly determine each unit in each list then either 4th or 5th would be great fun.

9th and 8th do a vastly better job of curbing the hideously imbalanced gak games TFGs could subject people to in older editions.

I have seen you explain the op gak from 5-7, but can you share your memories of what you had problems with in 4th?

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

When you say that there's an issue of "too boring" in relation to engaging defensive profiles with high power ranged weapons. I would say that that's also an issue with the current design paridigm, as mechanically the "proper" way to deal with both targets is often "moar bullets". But in contrast, the previous system using Flamers and Sweeping Advances to get a GEQ infantry, was (personal opinion), fething fun! B

in theory: fine.

In practice: it was INCREDIBLY easy to scythe down MEQ infantry with both weight of attacks (e.g. ork boyz) and spammed good AP weaponry like plasma and pie plates, while the inevitable "everyone has an easy way to negate LD in the strategy layer" like a blobbed up platoon with a...whatever 30pt priest? made the whole 'use sweeping advances to clear out light infantry' just nonsense.

In actuality, people just used "moar bullets" (e.g. paskisher) to deal with GEQ and "moar bullets/spammed low AP" (lasplas spam, kan wall, etc) to destroy MEQs.

There's a reason everything just kind of glorbed into endless parking lot lists in 5e and monster spam/deathstar lists in 7e when vehicles got hull point'd out of existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so we're clear on the "scot take" here:

I agree older editions were more fun if you have 2 people uninterested in breaking the game/playing for advantage. Like if you just used dice to randomly determine each unit in each list then either 4th or 5th would be great fun.

9th and 8th do a vastly better job of curbing the hideously imbalanced gak games TFGs could subject people to in older editions.

I do believe you're thinking about 5th onward, which were primo moar-bullets inflation AND more LOS at the same time. "paskisher" gives it away, I think.

lol. I straight up forgot you guys' particular Grog of Choice is 4th edition, which I played maybe 3 games of before 5e dropped.

Sure, whatever, it's probably the best one ever, perfect in every way and the unwashed idiot masses just cant recognize its genius.

Who cares. Honestly, I'm a bit sick of this gak, i'm gonna just put the Old Ed Best Ed crew on block for a few weeks.

As far as answering a genuine question goes, I am disappointed.

I only played a handful of games of 4th (no FLGS), but wasn’t invulnerable skimmer spam the cheese of the day?