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.

The combat sequence are hit rolls, wound rolls, and save rolls for each attack. I feel the current edition is pretty good. The past editions based on the summary seem pretty complicated and swingy. Ideas like an expert duelist is being harder to hit in melee should be represented by unit rules and not by fundamental game rules. I feel the same about armor values and D weapons.

Here's a summary by Gemini for those who never played Oldhammer:


1. The Simulation Era (1st & 2nd Edition)

In the early days, 40K functioned more like a skirmish RPG. The sequence was heavy on modifiers and lookup tables.

Hit Rolls: Used a Weapon Skill (WS) vs. Weapon Skill table for melee. Shooting used Ballistic Skill (BS), but it was a calculated stat (e.g., BS 4 meant you needed a 3+). Crucially, there were dozens of modifiers for cover, movement, and range.

Wound Rolls: Used a Strength (S) vs. Toughness (T) table.

Save Rolls: Armor saves were modified by the Strength of the attack. If you had a 3+ save and were hit by a Strength 4 weapon, your save might become a 4+. This made high-strength weapons naturally better at shredding armor.

2. The "Classic" Era (3rd – 7th Edition)

This era introduced the "stat line" we recognize today and focused on speed to accommodate larger army sizes.

Hit Rolls: Shooting became a fixed check based on BS (e.g., BS 3 always hits on a 4+). Melee still used a comparison table, but it was simplified: if your WS was higher, you usually hit on a 3+; if equal, a 4+; if lower, a 5+.

Wound Rolls: Used a standardized S vs. T table that remained virtually unchanged for nearly 20 years.

Save Rolls: This era introduced "All or Nothing" AP (Armor Penetration). Every weapon had an AP value (e.g., AP 3). If your Armor Save was equal to or worse than the AP, you got no save at all. If your armor was better, you got your full save. There was no middle ground.

3. The Modern Era (8th & 9th Edition)

Games Workshop blew up the old rules to make the game more accessible and "lethal."

Hit Rolls: The WS/BS table was scrapped. Units now have a fixed "To Hit" characteristic (e.g., WS 3+, BS 2+). You no longer compare your skill to the enemy's skill to determine the base hit roll.

Wound Rolls: The S vs. T math was widened.

S>2×T = 2+

S>T = 3+

S=T = 4+

S<T = 5+

S><½T = 6+

Save Rolls: The game returned to the Save Modifier system (now called AP). A weapon with AP−2 reduces a 3+ save to a 5+. This eliminated the "all or nothing" feel of previous editions.

4. The Simplified Era (10th Edition - Current)

The current edition kept the 8th/9th sequence but adjusted the "lethality" and scale.

Hit Rolls: Remains a fixed stat on the datasheet.

Wound Rolls: The math is the same as 8th/9th, but Toughness values were significantly increased across the board (e.g., Tanks went from T8 to T12) to make anti-infantry weapons less effective against vehicles.

Save Rolls: Remained a modifier system (AP), but the amount of AP available on weapons was "squashed" (reduced) to prevent units from being wiped off the board too easily.

Of those, the 3rd-7th approach is my preference mainly just for the compared WS values and the old Strength vs Toughness chart. The former did some elegant things for certain pieces of wargear (banshee masks lowering WS meant that you both hit more often and were harder to hit in return.) The latter meant that each point of Strength on a weapon was more likely to matter. Ex: Going from S4 to S5 wasn't irrelevant when facing a T3 army.

That said, I feel like my "dream" version would incorporate elements from several of these.

Like I said, I liked the opposed WS and the old to-wound chart, but I also like the idea of modifiers being more prevalent. Bonuses for units that held still and aimed or have the high ground. Penalties for units that advanced or are shooting into cover, etc.

Although saying that, I'm also open to a lot of those effects being represented by range/targeting rules rather than being modifiers to the to-hit roll.

I liked the WS comparison.

I also like the fact that we are using a larger range of stats these days for S/T. Which would not have worked well with the old wound charts.

I like the flavor of the real old stuff, but not in a game with as many models as we have now.

Pros/cons to each version.

 Calbear wrote:
Games Workshop blew up the old rules to make the game more accessible and "lethal."

I strongly disagree with the idea that the post-7th approach is more lethal. Sweeping Advance allowed a good round of melee to completely wipe out an enemy unit, and the way vehicles were handled (particularly in editions where you automatically hit rear armor) made it viable for units that weren't particularly melee-capable on paper to knock out a tank with meltabombs. The potential for high damage output combined with relative safety from shooting incentivized hiking up the board to engage in melee.

AP modifiers, fixed hit values, and attacks out the wazoo haven't made up for the loss of these core mechanics. Currently melee is instead incentivized through the objective system rather than damage potential.

That said, I agree with Nevelon that there are pros and cons to each approach. The baby steps towards alternating activation in the 8th-onwards implementation are probably my favorite part of it.

Anything that removes the need for charts is an improvement in my mind.

Sweeping Advance allowed a good round of melee to completely wipe out an enemy unit

Or a meh round of combat. IIRC, you just had to kill a single model more than your opponent to win combat and potentially sweep. So if the dice were feeling humorous, you could kill, for instance, a single necron warrior and then potentially wipe out the other 19 in a sweeping advance.

AP modifiers, fixed hit values, and attacks out the wazoo haven't made up for the loss of these core mechanics.

Tangent: I do wonder if they're trying to do so though. Like, is the reason for all the extra attacks, AP, etc. in melee just so that melee actually *ends* now that sweeping advance doesn't exist as a mechanic for wrapping up melee fights? I don't think many people want to go back to sweeping advances (at least not initiative-based ones), but I do wonder what a version of 40k with mechanics for defeating enemy units without necessarily killing every last model would look like.

As catbarf says - the key point of the "classical era" was that combat was designed around winning it by a small number and then sweeping the whole opponent. Or being able to crack thin 10 AV rear armour with melta bombs/power fists.

It was very lethal - but different. In 8th this was swapped to "a proper assault unit should just kill what it charges" - which required more attacks, better average damage output etc.

I think the modern system is better - but arguably thats because there were so many issues with the old system - especially paying for things that then didn't pan out. I.E. "My Klaivex is WS6 to your WS4, so... I'm hitting on 3s and you are still hitting on 4s. And I'm initiative 6, but since I charged over a bit of rubble, I'm going last. What's that? Grenades? Sorry must have left them with my other spikes."

GW could admittedly have fixed this (and there were various bandages and attempts across the two decades) but it was just a bit dumb. There were so many assault units that were just... bad at assault. Much like the endless debate over AP. I'm happy to accept it *could* work - but much less willing to say it ever really did.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

AP modifiers, fixed hit values, and attacks out the wazoo haven't made up for the loss of these core mechanics.

Tangent: I do wonder if they're trying to do so though. Like, is the reason for all the extra attacks, AP, etc. in melee just so that melee actually *ends* now that sweeping advance doesn't exist as a mechanic for wrapping up melee fights? I don't think many people want to go back to sweeping advances (at least not initiative-based ones), but I do wonder what a version of 40k with mechanics for defeating enemy units without necessarily killing every last model would look like.

The problem has always been wanting to create a back and forth while the game doesn't really have enough turns for there to be enough combat phases for that to play out. Generally I like the idea of there being a bit more back and forth rather than charges being decisive and a bit of rocket tag, but when I play Sigmar I do get this sense where resolving combat is kind of all I'm really doing in the game. It does feel like the system best suited to testing out the kind of mechanics you're talking about though.

I think a key element of the change to 3e was combat by squad, whereas rogue trader and 2e was fought model by model.

In 2e 5 marines vs 10 orks was resolved one marine at a time, sometimes fighting solo other times outnumbered.

In 3e onwards it was just 5x marines vs 10x orks.

OP lacks the main downside of the 3-7th era, that there was nothing you could really do in CC. It was just running into each other and then throwing dice until one side was wiped, no player agency whatsoever. 6th introduced challenges, but those didn't really help at all.

It's probably the main improvement of the 8th+ era that at least in CC IGOUGO has been broken up a bit. I also like that they moved to the whole hit spectrum from 2+ to 6+, while the older WS table resulted in 90% of the time you'd have to roll a 3+ or a 4+. (IIRC HH 2nd edition improved the table to include more 5+).

 LunarSol wrote:
Anything that removes the need for charts is an improvement in my mind.

The charts were actually pretty basic formulae, and tbh unneeded. I think some people found having them convenient.

Like Strength to Toughness comparison just stepped up by one per pip of difference, and had a grace of one extra on the high end, and rolling a 1 always failed on the low end. S 4 wounded T4 on a 4+, 5 on a 5+, 6 on a 6+, and then the "grace" of T7 on a 6+. After 3 higher T than S, wounding was impossible. S4 Bolter could not hurt a T8 Wraithlord.

WS comparison was a little different, but no more complicated. The trick of it iirc is that a model only hit on a 5+ if the opposing WS more than doubled their own. Like my Marines would roll a 4+vs anything with a WS up to 8, but only hit a Bloodthirster on a 5+ because its WS was 9, more than double.

It wasn't rocket science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
OP lacks the main downside of the 3-7th era, that there was nothing you could really do in CC. It was just running into each other and then throwing dice until one side was wiped, no player agency whatsoever.

You could choose what weapons you were fighting with if you had multiple, and that could be a big deal. (Does my character fight first with his chainsword and strike first at higher initiative? Or does he wait to go last and use his Powerfist?). You could also control the Assault somewhat when models had a fixed 6" charge, as you could choose to hold back a bit on your prior movement, and only get a few models into combat to make it more of a holding action, rather than sweep through the opponent and be exposed to fire next turn.

Otherwise I liked that you didn't have too much agency, because as a commander, why would you? The troops make their own decisions and I don't want to get bogged down with fiddly details.

I really kinda hate the gameyness of 8+ assault phase. Why does my choice to fight first with these models over here effect the outcome of this fight on the other side of the table. It's BS, honestly. The more I think about it the more I hate it.

Hmm. Good question.

2nd Ed was fun, but by no means neat.

3rd Ed was dull and boring with an even worse version of All Or Nothing AP. Not to mention forcing your classical Terminator Squad to Fight Last. However that last point is more my general distaste for that era’s penchant for rendering elite infantry ded weedy.

I’ve barely played since….8th, I think? So I can’t and shan’t offer much of an opinion.

But? Whether it’s CCW having their own AP rating and relative perks, or a straight Save Modifier? Those are both notable improvements on the rather dull 3rd/4th Ed.

It just adds design space. Whether it’s Chainswords granting Shred (2nd Ed Heresy, allowing re-roll of failed to wounds), or -1 Save Modifier, Really Big Weapons having at least a chance of causing multiple wounds or what have you? It allows weapons, and the squads wielding them, to feel more distinct.

Otherwise, other than volume of attacks? Guardsmen, Storm Guardians, Dark Eldar Warriors, Hormagaunts and pretty much any S3 models all feel weedy in a punch up, and quite samey. Largely capable of bothering most light to medium infantry, but outside of overwhelming numbers? Kinda useless against Heavy infantry.

Sure, save and strength modifiers and that baked into weapons doesn’t suddenly change them into Deadly Ninja Warriors. Nor should they. But they do allow the more dedicated combat versions (Storm Grauniads, Wyches, Hormies) to feel distinct as chaff clearers. That when piling in to give say, Guard Squads, Shoota Boyz, Firewarriors etc, like they’re going to be on a serious upper hand.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
OP lacks the main downside of the 3-7th era, that there was nothing you could really do in CC. It was just running into each other and then throwing dice until one side was wiped, no player agency whatsoever. 6th introduced challenges, but those didn't really help at all.

It's probably the main improvement of the 8th+ era that at least in CC IGOUGO has been broken up a bit. I also like that they moved to the whole hit spectrum from 2+ to 6+, while the older WS table resulted in 90% of the time you'd have to roll a 3+ or a 4+. (IIRC HH 2nd edition improved the table to include more 5+).

I'm not sure that opening up the range to the extreme ends was a good idea.

This is basically why they capped hit modifiers to 1, because it would push a unit to a 6+ to hit to easily. When your chance of hitting is so low it's negligible it's not really a useful statistic. You don't need to use every value on a dice range for stat differences to matter when they're comparing to one another.

It doesn't matter if a WS3 model hits a WS4 model on a 4+, if the opposite hits on 3+. The relative effectiveness is what's important. It also doesn't matter that those guard are hitting at the same rate as grotz on WS2. Because the quality difference appears when they fight each other and guard begin hitting on 3+.

The 3rd ed hit chart was a very good tool for relative quality difference. It didn't give you a straight linear WS2+ vs WS3+ vs WS4+ which visually LOOKS like it differentiates units from one another.

But just as how 3rd ed hit on 5+ rarely, modern 40k still restricts poor to hit rolls a lot, so that the effective range of values is 3+, 4+, 5+ anyway. 2+ is almost always a character and 6+ is on useless units. Basically these rules had built in hit modifiers based on what the WS of either side was.

Now there is a lot less tactical consideration in melee, as you always know you are going to hit on X+ no matter who you strike against. Watching 2 characters kill each other based on who got to active who first because they will hit with all their attacks, is IMO pretty underwhelming as a play experience.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Otherwise, other than volume of attacks? Guardsmen, Storm Guardians, Dark Eldar Warriors, Hormagaunts and pretty much any S3 models all feel weedy in a punch up, and quite samey. Largely capable of bothering most light to medium infantry, but outside of overwhelming numbers? Kinda useless against Heavy infantry.

Some of them would fight first, some simultaneously, and some after those heavy ingantry. That made a pretty big difference, especially in a paradigm when the popular heavy infantry only had one wound.

Also count me in on preferring a mix and match of different mechanics of those eras.

I would like WS comparison to came back, but Initiative can still stay dead as far as I care. Sweeping advances, like anything involving morale, were badly implemented (and also changes from edition to edition).

Entire threads have been dedicated to AP vs modifiers, and my personal opinion is while AP can potentially be a better system, not in a setting dominated by Power Armored Marines. That being said I would like cover saves to be back.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Otherwise, other than volume of attacks? Guardsmen, Storm Guardians, Dark Eldar Warriors, Hormagaunts and pretty much any S3 models all feel weedy in a punch up, and quite samey. Largely capable of bothering most light to medium infantry, but outside of overwhelming numbers? Kinda useless against Heavy infantry.

Some of them would fight first, some simultaneously, and some after those heavy ingantry. That made a pretty big difference, especially in a paradigm when the popular heavy infantry only had one wound.

Kinda? I5 over I4 is nice. But still limited when you’re typically 4+, 5+, 3+. I mean, to remove a single Marine? You “need” 3 wounding hits. Which means you need 9 hits. Which means you need 18 attacks.

The Marines however (going WS4 Guardians, I don’t want to cripple them back to 3rd Ed!) just need 4+, 3+, 5+. Which are much better odds than you’re getting. Unit of now 9 Marines (you killed one) is throwing out 10 attacks (Vet Sarge, innit), for 5 hits, 3 wounds, probably two dead squishy bois, and that’s you lost the combat. Hence pretty weedy when you can’t modify, only deny, an armour save.

And to get those 18 attacks to statistically slot a single Marine? You need 9 lads, on the charge. Even if you can get a squad of 10 Storm Guardians into combat untouched? You still only get 30 attacks.

Or instead, you throw in the more resilient, more attack throwing and harder hitting Striking Scorpions in, where the odds definitely swing in your favour.

Of course, all “in vacuum” considerations, and don’t take into account buffs, perks, psychic shiftiness and one or both sides being beaten up beforehand.

But there was a reason you rarely, if ever, saw Storm Guardians take the field.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And to get those 18 attacks to statistically slot a single Marine? You need 9 lads, on the charge. Even if you can get a squad of 10 Storm Guardians into combat untouched? You still only get 30 attacks.

6 on the charge to get 18. A full squad gets you 30, as you say, which is close to killing 2 (and gets you to two kills of you add in pre Assault shooting).

Charging a squad of five Marines, if you net those 2 kills before the Marines fight back, means the 3 remaining only average .666 kills back. The Guardians have a reasonable chance of not taking any casualties, winning the combat and ensuring the Marines don't get to act next turn.

Guardsmen in the same scenario with their fewer attacks and lower initiative instead have a much higher chance of losing the combat, potentially being subsequently broken, and run down.

Even though the Storm Guardians aren't a favorite unit, those litte differences matter quite a bit! Also the Storm Guardians vs the Guardsmen would also show how different they are.

WS comparison was a little different, but no more complicated. The trick of it iirc is that a model only hit on a 5+ if the opposing WS more than doubled their own. Like my Marines would roll a 4+vs anything with a WS up to 8, but only hit a Bloodthirster on a 5+ because its WS was 9, more than double.

I will say that when we initially switched to flat WS values in 8th instead of opposed WS values, I was reluctantly in favor of it because the to-hit chart was something players (especially new players) were *constantly* having to double-check. The formulas that were obvious and simple for some of us just refused to click for some people.

But three editions in after the switch... those same people who were constantly checking the opposed WS table *still* can't remember the 8th-9th to-wound formula. So at this point, I'd rather just have the better mechanic back (opposed WS) as it seems some people are just going to struggle to remember that sort of thing no matter how much you simplify it.

Kinda? I5 over I4 is nice. But still limited when you’re typically 4+, 5+, 3+. I mean, to remove a single Marine? You “need” 3 wounding hits.

It kind of varied from unit to unit. A cheeky power sword on a sybarite with a pistol and furious charge meant that my 5-man kabalite unit could actually kill off a marine or two with modest luck before said marines could swing back. Which in 5-man squad scuffles could make the outcome of the fight surprisingly swingy. It also had the benefit of making the high-initiative units feel like they were actually involved in the fighting rather than just patiently waiting to be butchered like they are in 10th.

I'm not advocating for a return to initiative, but I do find the 8th-10th "initiative" system more frustrating than the old one. Outside of extreme examples, your tough-but-slow units usually had some survivors left over to swing back before they lost combat, and the squishy high-initiative guys got to at least try and drag some enemies down before they got overwhelmed.

I do wonder if something like sweeping advance might work if you just divorced it from the initiative stat. So you could wipe out enemy squads without making things lethal enough to chew through all those saves/wounds, but you also didn't have the feelsbad of eldar being basically guaranteed to sweep necrons, etc.

 Calbear wrote:

1. The Simulation Era (1st & 2nd Edition)

Hit Rolls: Used a Weapon Skill (WS) vs. Weapon Skill table for melee.

I thought 2nd Ed was D6 per A+outnumber bonus, highest D6+WS wins, re-roll parries, apply modifiers (crits, fumbles), winner scores hits equal to the difference in scores?

 Baragash wrote:

 Calbear wrote:

1. The Simulation Era (1st & 2nd Edition)

Hit Rolls: Used a Weapon Skill (WS) vs. Weapon Skill table for melee.

I thought 2nd Ed was D6 per A+outnumber bonus, highest D6+WS wins, re-roll parries, apply modifiers (crits, fumbles), winner scores hits equal to the difference in scores?

Yeah that's right. And Initiative is used as a tiebreaker.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Sweeping Advance allowed a good round of melee to completely wipe out an enemy unit

Or a meh round of combat. IIRC, you just had to kill a single model more than your opponent to win combat and potentially sweep. So if the dice were feeling humorous, you could kill, for instance, a single necron warrior and then potentially wipe out the other 19 in a sweeping advance.

Especially in 7th with all its super durable death stars, the opposite was often the case. You charged your melee unit into 20 necron warriors, they took one casualty, then accidentally killed two opposing models back and proceeded to sweep your entire unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And to get those 18 attacks to statistically slot a single Marine? You need 9 lads, on the charge. Even if you can get a squad of 10 Storm Guardians into combat untouched? You still only get 30 attacks.

6 on the charge to get 18. A full squad gets you 30, as you say, which is close to killing 2 (and gets you to two kills of you add in pre Assault shooting).

Charging a squad of five Marines, if you net those 2 kills before the Marines fight back, means the 3 remaining only average .666 kills back. The Guardians have a reasonable chance of not taking any casualties, winning the combat and ensuring the Marines don't get to act next turn.

Guardsmen in the same scenario with their fewer attacks and lower initiative instead have a much higher chance of losing the combat, potentially being subsequently broken, and run down.

Even though the Storm Guardians aren't a favorite unit, those litte differences matter quite a bit! Also the Storm Guardians vs the Guardsmen would also show how different they are.

To be fair, I was assuming 10 man Marine squads. Which admittedly wasn’t necessarily the norm. Either due to min-max boredom, or Combat Squadding.

Wyldhunt wrote:

AP modifiers, fixed hit values, and attacks out the wazoo haven't made up for the loss of these core mechanics.

Tangent: I do wonder if they're trying to do so though. Like, is the reason for all the extra attacks, AP, etc. in melee just so that melee actually *ends* now that sweeping advance doesn't exist as a mechanic for wrapping up melee fights?

Sort of? Removing the ability to wipe out a unit by winning a combat, or stay safe by being locked in combat, defanged melee so hard that there was little incentive to run up the board eating gunfire the whole time just to get one round of combat before you die. Melee got incremental lethality boosts to make it actually useful again, and then the objective structure was changed in a way that makes melee useful for seizing and holding objectives.

Wyldhunt wrote:I will say that when we initially switched to flat WS values in 8th instead of opposed WS values, I was reluctantly in favor of it because the to-hit chart was something players (especially new players) were *constantly* having to double-check. The formulas that were obvious and simple for some of us just refused to click for some people.

But three editions in after the switch... those same people who were constantly checking the opposed WS table *still* can't remember the 8th-9th to-wound formula. So at this point, I'd rather just have the better mechanic back (opposed WS) as it seems some people are just going to struggle to remember that sort of thing no matter how much you simplify it.

Yeah, I've never understood why people are so against tables- they're a play aid that allows for relatively complex formulae to be expressed without requiring any mental math, something most gamers seem to have little tolerance for nowadays. And 40K's to-hit and to-wound tables were a far cry from, like, the sprawling mess of Advanced Squad Leader. I don't mind the current to-hit and to-wound system for shooting, but it does bother me a little that having high skill at melee provides no defense whatsoever. The archetype of the skilled duelist doesn't exist in 40K; you're either a beefcake or a glass cannon.

I think the loss of play aids in general has been detrimental to the game. The two-sided quick reference sheets that came with older editions were great for learning the game and remembering the important mechanics, not just providing tables for reference.

I like 3rd edition combat sequence for units, but I think that 2nd edition combat is really fun for character vs character duels, it just needs a few adjustments, the current edition where its like... a set "to hit" for attacks is just dumb, like... two units with a 2+ to hit going against each other? they're so bad-ass at combat that they are bad at defending themselves from being hit in combat? WS vs WS and check a table is better.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


I feel like my "dream" version would incorporate elements from several of these.

I'm very much in this camp as well.

1/2nd are conceptually my favourite, but take so long to work through because of how fiddley they are, it's impractical for any kind of large scale game.

3-7th Struck a nice balance of flavour and functionality in general, but I was never a fan of the all or nothing armour and cover saves.

8/9thth: I liked a lot of the changes, additional wounds and Ap modifiers to make units and weapons more varied, but power creep scaled too hard and everything died so fast.

10th: In general, I think 10th has struck a decent balance and is probably what I'd consider the "best" iteration, however I do think that it has strayed into too simple territory with the homogenization of a lot of formerly unique weapons and abilities.

2e combat "fixed" for duels.
New system. Roll 1d6 for each "attack", each 5-6 counts as +2, each 3-4 counts as +1, 1-2 adds nothing. Total the score from the dice +WS, the winner lands a number of hits equal to the difference.
Higher initiative wins a tie and lands one hit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 Calbear wrote:

1. The Simulation Era (1st & 2nd Edition)

Hit Rolls: Used a Weapon Skill (WS) vs. Weapon Skill table for melee.

I thought 2nd Ed was D6 per A+outnumber bonus, highest D6+WS wins, re-roll parries, apply modifiers (crits, fumbles), winner scores hits equal to the difference in scores?

Yeah that's right. And Initiative is used as a tiebreaker.

I'll take your word for it, like I said. I never played any 40K edition prior to 8th edition. And the summary was written by an AI.

OT: Sweeping Advance sounds like a terrible mechanic for what I've heard about it. It mostly invalidates both durability and lethality of melee encounters, and instead makes it luck based by saying whoever kill with slightly more units get to wipe the entire squad, whether they're grots or Custodes. If melee is too much of a deadlock, just increase the lethality of melee focused units. I feel the same way about the old instant death rule. It just makes the durability Or stats of a lot of units almost irrelevant. Stuff like that if they exist in the current game. Should only be on enhancements or stratagems.

Sweeping Advance itself was fine, as it typically required a pretty crushing victory in the first round of combat.

It was when you could also consolidate into combat after combat that it was boring.

A Marine type force, against a Horde type force could, with not too much luck, simply consolidate into combat after combat after combat, and so hide from enemy firepower once it pulled off that initial charge.

That meant combat heavy armies had ways to cross the board super quickly? My memory is far too many games boiling down to whether I could cripple transports and/or annihilate incoming units in the first turn or two. Because once in combat? You were cooked.

Also worth considering that early 40k was based on the core of WHFB with guns. So while sweeping advance might seem out of place in a futuristic skirmish game, it makes perfect sense in its rank and flank roots.

The problem with Sweeping Advance is the same as the rest of all the morale related mechanics, pretty much everyone except Imperial Guard and Tau ignored it.