My gaming group decided to stick with 7th instead of moving forward with 8th. Since these are the only people that I TT game with, obviously I stuck with 7th as well.
I have not even seen the rules for 8th, but I'm curious now that it's been out for a while, what do you think? Was it an improvement over 7th? What's better, what's worse? Interested to see how it's been received now that people have been playing it for a while.
It's a much slimmer ruleset. Faster to play by a fair margin (although looking rules up tends to be replaced with looking up unit datasheets).
I understand USR's became a bit bloated, but they could have kept a couple of pages worth and slimmed the datasheets down.
Balance is improved, but there's still some off-kilter between units and factions. But they have shown they're willing to address that with FAQ and Errata (and fairly quickly as well).
I'm anticipating them dealing with Brimstones and Conscript spam in short order.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
40k just one of several TT games we play so there's no real feeling of need to keep up with the newest stuff. For example, the games I play are more LoTR than anything else lately.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
A small recommendation from me: If you guys don't want to spend a lot of money, the five indexes and a rulebook are all you really need. While it has some outliers (conscripts), it's largely balanced and simple. The impending codex releases look like they're gonna shove some of the needless bloat back into the game, so missing out on them isn't too much of a biggie.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.
There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.
Lance845 wrote: 7th is a miserable train wreck. 8th isn't perfect but basically anything is better than 7th and 8th is a lot more then just a little bit better.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggles with learning new things.
No real need to be judgemental about my group We have legit reasons for not upgrading, and it's not like we are bothered that other people decided to move on to 8th. In fact I hope everyone who upgraded to 8h is having a blast with it!
8th switches out some problems with 7th for others, adds rules that don't make sense, and is fairly bland and lifeless as a whole. For me, the biggest issues with 8th are that cover is fairly pointless, and the Psychic Phase is worse than the 7e one in terms of scaling. Also, the emphasis on "buff stacking" is far more prevalent, point costs are whackadoo, and the whole thing deels like we're paying to beta test.
Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.
8th is not the same game as 7th, at all.
The models play roughly the same, but everything has the same type of stat-line now, making comparisons much easier.
There are no tables to refer to, apart from a simple S vs T comparison.
Codexes might bring some of the 7th bloat back, but every unit's ability and weapons are (nearly) all on their unit page. And even those are being put in the boxes with the models.
BaconCatBug wrote: Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.
So not wanting to spend a bunch of $ on a game we sometimes play, not wanting to make a drastic upgrade from a game we already really like, this is petulance?
If you're enjoying 8th, more power to you, for my part.
8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.
I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.
8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.
The salty troll is real. It's totally not "petulant" to call people names for not playing the version of the game you want.
Yeah for the pretty low investment you should definitly get into 8th. I've so far enjoyed it much more than 7th. Only downfall is the indexs are clunky, hopefully that is changed with codexs.
They went a little too simple ("everything can wound everything" and "vehicle facing doesn't matter" are the two complaints I hear most often) but it's the best edition I've played since 5th. If C:SM is any indication, there's going to be really cool things you can do with limited resources that aren't points to give your army upgrades. An example is how you can spend command points (most non-horde armies will have have maybe about 4-6 of these) to turn your SM Captain into a Chapter Master. Just struck me as an interesting new resource to add depth to the game without actually breaking the hell out of it (yet).
Ultimately, I really just wish 5th would just come back though.
I feel like claiming it's expensive to upgrade is a bit of an excuse. Its like 15 bucks for an relevant Index and the core rules are free.
But otherwise its much better than 7th. I playes 2 games of 7th and they were miserable. I've already played three times as many games of 8th and basically all my groups other games have fallen to the wayside for it. I really like command points and stratagems as a system.
I don't believe the game is simpler either, just that people are still playing it as if its simple and then complaining because they lost. It's certainly streamlined but I'm finding that I'm actually having to think during my games rather than pointing and clicking. Likewise I'm noticing in battle reports that people are having trouble adjusting to the changes to vehicles especially.
On that note, I really like the changes to ranged weapons now. They've struck a good balance between the statlines. You can't just take a bunch of lascannons, pop all the vehicles on turn one and then turn them on infantry, it takes concentrated fire to kill a vehicle quickly and it takes a good volume of firepower to keep infantry under control and most things can't do both. Despite people saying "anything can hurt anything" they very rarely do. I've yet to see a lasgun volly even wound a tank.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.
I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.
8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.
I would actually compare 8th to 7th as Go vs Monopoly; the former has a simple ruleset that begets more thinking than it seems, while the latter has a ton of rules trying to encompass everything, but has no tactical depth (note that tactical depth is different from strategic depth; the former happens during the game, the latter happens during army building).
daedalus wrote: I know I demand realism in any game about superhuman space catholics, gundam aliens, space tolkien, and demons.
"Hard realism" and "cinematic realism" are two different things. It's one thing for Luke Skywalker to be able to cut a hole into an AT-AT and toss a Thermal Detonator inside it without being blasted to smithereens. It's another when a giant tank runs into an infantryman and comes to a halt like a carnival go-cart, or a fortress with guns sticking on opposite ends of it can fire all of them from the same direction.
Or to use another classic cinematic example, let's consider Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. There was this iconic action montage where Harrison Ford rode a horse on a cliffside, and was up against a Nazi tank with sponsons. He ducked and weaved until he could place a giant rocm in one of the sponsons, causing it to misfire when it targeted him. In 8th Edition, this would definitely be his Last Crusade, because the tank could shoot him from any part of its hull!
I was mostly just joking around. I get what you're saying, but I'd argue any sort of sense of realism even in that category was vastly overrated in 7th as well. I mean, I quit because 7th got so bad, but I recall scenes where entire armies would dump their weapons into something, only to all of it bounce off the 2++ rerollable. That might be exaggerated somewhat in the fogginess of memory, but there were situations where it got pretty stupid.
On the other hand, now flame throwers are an effective anti-air weapon and artillery can fire their cannons out of the side of their treads. I guess it all depends on how much the abstraction bothers you.
There is a small advanced rules section and a section on types of play (Open, Narrative and Matched play) If your playing with points to build your armies your playing Matched play.
Also, there is a small section on Advanced Terrain that most people use as standard. To Summarize (If your in terrain (Ruins, Woods, Craters) as infantry most of the time you get -1 cover save) otherwise some items do special things.
The only other part is the Datasheets. Which currently is the indexes except for Space Marine.
Game play wise, it is a solid version of the game. It is fun to play and brings alot of the missing armies back into play. It did weaken up Tau and Eldar. And strengthened Orcs and Tyranids.
It isn't without flaws, as can be seen by having to FAQ that flyers couldn't allow you to be counted on the board. This is because players created metas of just taking 5 Stormravens. A behavior of the players not the game designers. Game designers intent was you only really have 2 flyers in your army.
Also, for people heavy into psychic phase. The reduction of powers may cramp their style. As the entire game is streamlined. This means the 7th edition psychic phase was seriously toned down. .
OP:
Basic rules are here:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Battle-Primer-2017-ENG Full rulebook is ~$115, usually less at FLGS.
Getting the relevant index is ~$50, usually less at FLGS ($30 at mine) and it includes many armies in each.
So expense is definitely not worse than in the past.
I like how the game plays, probably is my favorite since 2nd edition(??!!).
Good: The behavior/flavor of units and weapons have been preserved with this new system.
No templates or deviation! Just roll dice, no game delaying "partially or fully under the template" or deviation moments.
You can squish your models in big blobs and not have to do the careful 2' spacing: NO templates.
Morale is a huge mechanic in this game (unless you are Orks grouped together...). Failure does not destroy a unit but it does kill off models.
Do need to keep track of how many models killed in that phase for how much of a negative modifier is applied to a morale save
Deep-strike or it's variants work with little or no messing about.
Vehicles are big tough things again, a Rhino may actually get to deliver the troops to where they planned on going.
Troops are back to being hit-points for the unit, strip off what you want and characters cannot join a unit, THEREFORE positioning of models are almost irrelevant EXCEPT if the character model is the closest unit it can be shot at unless it is sniper rifles then you are always good.
Shoot with pistols in shooting phase even when in melee!
The charging unit attacks first (makes figuring out charging worthwhile again).
Note: All charging units attack first, then first non-charge unit goes first on who's turn it is. Makes that spending 2 command points to steal to go first a big deal.
Command points simply used for re-rolls is a fine bonus for structured forces.
Fixed the WS / BS stats so you roll above the amount to hit. No opposing WS skill stuff like S vs T... easier for the new people and possibly easy for us old folk to adapt to.
Bad/Weird: Some "reality" bending stuff:
- Flamers are the best for shooting aircraft (auto-hit).
- All and any weapons can shoot from any part of the model.
- A unit must be completely in area terrain or no cover save is granted.
- Unless stated otherwise: any special auras, repair abilities or orders cannot be used when embarked in a vehicle.
- Uses true line of sight. We are ready to add to tree area terrain the special "solid wall of trees" model to add to it.
- When a unit is shot at, even models out of line of sight or range can be removed when wounded (this may not be a bad thing, but is an "issue" for a friend of mine).
- Some units simply state they can target units out of line of sight (range only), no penalties, just roll to hit... my Whirlwinds were terribly exciting again which may not be a bad thing...
Overall:
I wish they scrapped the I go / you go rule but pretty much everything else seems to work ok.
I do have to play Psychic phase stuff a bit more.
A serviceable rule-set and I genuinely have fun with (Black Templar vs Orks for a few battles, MEAN!).
Why shouldnt a tank get cover outside of ruins, if the shooting unit is inside the ruin, and the tank is not fully visible for them ? It worked in 7th, removed in 8th.
The wound allocation makes no sense in 8th, it was more realistic in 7th. How can a model die which is not in LOS ? How can a model die which is not in CC ?
Anything can hurt anything. It makes no sense for ork boyz to be able to kill a land raider with their crude axes and blunt swords, whatever they have. It makes no sense that 600 conscripts can take down a titan with their flashlights.
The damage chart is somewhat unfair. If a unit has T4 it doesnt matter if the weapon has S5, S6 or S7, they all have the same chance to wound. Why should a S7 weapon (which is usually more expensive) have the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon ? This was better balanced in 7th. This gets worse the higher the toughness is.
In 7th you needed LOS to the hull of a vehicle, the gun didnt count. In 8th all you need to see is a tiny bit of the gun.
Why do vehicle have to suffer the same penalty of -1 to shoot when they move and fire a heavy weapon as infantry does ? Makes no sense.
In 7th infantry out in the open could drop to the ground, and get a cover save, which makes sense. They cant do that anymore in 8th, unrealistic.
In 8th all tanks need is LOS from the hull, and they can shoot all their weapons, they couldnt do that in 7th. Makes no sense, unrealistic.
In 8th Infantry can embark and disembark from a vehicle from anywhere, they couldnt in 7th. Unrealistic.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: 8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.
I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.
8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.
I would actually compare 8th to 7th as Go vs Monopoly; the former has a simple ruleset that begets more thinking than it seems, while the latter has a ton of rules trying to encompass everything, but has no tactical depth (note that tactical depth is different from strategic depth; the former happens during the game, the latter happens during army building).
I wouldn't say that conscript mathhammer is "more thinking than it seems." lol. I mean, at least 7E forced you to position your scatbike spam properly, position models to avoid blasts/flamers, that sort of thing. But really, when all is said and done, I don't say this to be harsh on 8th edition, but I do think it gets overrated and I think there was a real missed opportunity to take the good from 7E and put it with the positive changes 8E has brought without losing a lot of what made games interesting.
Why shouldnt a tank get cover outside of ruins, if the shooting unit is inside the ruin, and the tank is not fully visible for them ? It worked in 7th, removed in 8th.
The wound allocation makes no sense in 8th, it was more realistic in 7th. How can a model die which is not in LOS ? How can a model die which is not in CC ?
Anything can hurt anything. It makes no sense for ork boyz to be able to kill a land raider with their crude axes and blunt swords, whatever they have. It makes no sense that 600 conscripts can take down a titan with their flashlights.
The damage chart is somewhat unfair. If a unit has T4 it doesnt matter if the weapon has S5, S6 or S7, they all have the same chance to wound. Why should a S7 weapon (which is usually more expensive) have the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon ? This was better balanced in 7th. This gets worse the higher the toughness is.
In 7th you needed LOS to the hull of a vehicle, the gun didnt count. In 8th all you need to see is a tiny bit of the gun.
Why do vehicle have to suffer the same penalty of -1 to shoot when they move and fire a heavy weapon as infantry does ? Makes no sense.
In 7th infantry out in the open could drop to the ground, and get a cover save, which makes sense. They cant do that anymore in 8th, unrealistic.
In 8th all tanks need is LOS from the hull, and they can shoot all their weapons, they couldnt do that in 7th. Makes no sense, unrealistic.
In 8th Infantry can embark and disembark from a vehicle from anywhere, they couldnt in 7th. Unrealistic.
Why should a tank get cover at all when the thing shooting it will blow through most types of cover?
Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.
Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.
The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.
So shooting a vehicles gun does no damage?
Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.
IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions? Either way is just a mechanical choice neither is more "realistic"
You're right about the realism for targeting from tanks, but why should vehicles be subject to mechanics that other units are not? Either all models should require LOS from their front facing and their weapon, or nothing should. GW opted for the simple nothing should.
Depended on the vehicle, many vehicles were close to anywhere, open topped were anywhere (and you could do this in 7th, it was just a penalty), this really isn't a huge hit on realism for most vehicles.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I wouldn't say that conscript mathhammer is "more thinking than it seems." lol. I mean, at least 7E forced you to position your scatbike spam properly, position models to avoid blasts/flamers, that sort of thing. But really, when all is said and done, I don't say this to be harsh on 8th edition, but I do think it gets overrated and I think there was a real missed opportunity to take the good from 7E and put it with the positive changes 8E has brought without losing a lot of what made games interesting.
Well every edition will have a list for the braindead dice rollers. But trying to overcome stuff and the synergies that have developed (and, going by the salty posts on this forum, consistently confounded some people) has far more depth than 7th's "Shoot everything then run for the objective" gameplay.
Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.
I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.
Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.
I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.
The internal balance is hideously fubar though, and this is the same forum that complains that the top BAO Necron list was #46.
I am unsure how to describe this but I found 6th and 7th to be "unplayable" compared to 8th.
There were so many grey zones in the old rules that if it was not for the "roll for it" rule we would still be arguing.
Simple rules does not equal a simple game.
Chess has simple rules for each piece, we are more complex than that.
I think we are in good territory here for "hidden complexity" within the game rather than being limited to army list building represents %80 of your win probability.
Other than the new rule-set look-up delays we had very few grey-zone discussions, the rules seemed pretty clear.
My competitive gamer side was very happy with things being a bit more clear-cut.
My "fluff" gamer side was happy because all the miniatures and weapons all behaved in a very similar fashion with different rules.
I dunno, would anyone who has played 3 games or more of the new addition still prefer a prior edition?
I think I may never go back, the indexes are a great baseline to start from if we get all freaky about the new codex books coming out.
Genuinely interested in your opinion, I am oddly VERY happy with these rules.
8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? We've seen one codex so far, that's hardly "codex creep". You don't need "multiple books" for armies because there aren't books out at all anyway. You need exactly two books, the index/codex and the rulebook, to play an army. If you want to take legacy options, then you need a 3rd book, oh noes the horror! Exactly like 7th where you needed 543 books!
Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.
I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.
There isn't much of a difference for me between 7th and 8th. Instead of Tau and Eldar shooting me off of the table in 1-2 turns its Imperial Guard and Tau.
I live in the East Bay. About 25 miles from Game Kastle, about 15 miles from Black Diamond, and others. The meta out here is competitive, so everyone runs these factions. I play against Astra Militarum, Tau, and Harlequins. That's it.
Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.
I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.
The internal balance is hideously fubar though, and this is the same forum that complains that the top BAO Necron list was #46.
Yes internal balance is more or less the same it has been sadly. But external balance is a slight improvement.
jasper76 wrote: My gaming group decided to stick with 7th instead of moving forward with 8th. Since these are the only people that I TT game with, obviously I stuck with 7th as well.
I have not even seen the rules for 8th, but I'm curious now that it's been out for a while, what do you think? Was it an improvement over 7th? What's better, what's worse? Interested to see how it's been received now that people have been playing it for a while.
Definitely better than 7th. Probably better than anything since 3rd.
As released it had a few issues, but they were less significant than most editions, with the exception of a few problem units.
They seem pretty intent on screwing the pooch with the codexes though. So the real problem (army/codex balance, with a double helping of internal balance problems due to restricted traits/stratagems/relics), seems set to bleed through again. And at double pace since they're rushing marines out the door.
Why shouldnt a tank get cover outside of ruins, if the shooting unit is inside the ruin, and the tank is not fully visible for them ? It worked in 7th, removed in 8th.
The wound allocation makes no sense in 8th, it was more realistic in 7th. How can a model die which is not in LOS ? How can a model die which is not in CC ?
Anything can hurt anything. It makes no sense for ork boyz to be able to kill a land raider with their crude axes and blunt swords, whatever they have. It makes no sense that 600 conscripts can take down a titan with their flashlights.
The damage chart is somewhat unfair. If a unit has T4 it doesnt matter if the weapon has S5, S6 or S7, they all have the same chance to wound. Why should a S7 weapon (which is usually more expensive) have the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon ? This was better balanced in 7th. This gets worse the higher the toughness is.
In 7th you needed LOS to the hull of a vehicle, the gun didnt count. In 8th all you need to see is a tiny bit of the gun.
Why do vehicle have to suffer the same penalty of -1 to shoot when they move and fire a heavy weapon as infantry does ? Makes no sense.
In 7th infantry out in the open could drop to the ground, and get a cover save, which makes sense. They cant do that anymore in 8th, unrealistic.
In 8th all tanks need is LOS from the hull, and they can shoot all their weapons, they couldnt do that in 7th. Makes no sense, unrealistic.
In 8th Infantry can embark and disembark from a vehicle from anywhere, they couldnt in 7th. Unrealistic
Anything that penetrates tank armor really should be able to penetrate a hedge row.
Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?
This has some merit, but we're also dealing with (admittedly bad) fluff where a Wave Serpent got taken down by kids throwing rocks.
By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon? It's always been like that, it's just changed. If anything, this makes it MORE reasonable by spreading the cap out to higher strength weapons.
The "hull" of a vehicle spawned countless arguments. I can't hate GW for trying to do something about it, even if I agree with you personally.
I agree with the move and shoot thing for vehicles. 7th was not vehicle movement/shooting rules done right though. If anything, that was probably 5th.
I also miss going to ground. It appears to be the hazards of "lets simplify everything".
For that matter, it's unrealistic that infantry and mosterous creatures could shoot from any part of their body as well. In the name of realism, perhaps we should also implement a cumbersome facing element as well?
As the concept of a vehicle was entirely reduced to a single featureless unit indistinguishable from any other model in the game, there wasn't really much that could be done about it, unfortunately.
Why should a tank get cover at all when the thing shooting it will blow through most types of cover?
GW didnt remove cover for vehicles, and it should work both ways, no matter where the vehicle is, inside or outside of the terrain. The shooting unit has the same view of the vehicle, no matter if they are inside, or outside of the terrain.
Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.
Only models which are within LOS should be able to get killed, it wouldnt hurt 8th. Instead of thinking, and delaying the game, which models to remove you would just remove those who actually can be attacked.
Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.
Maybe a balance thing, but still unrealistic. Damaging a vehicle yes, but not kill it.
The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.
No, i dont want auto-wounds. Its unrealistic that a S7 weapon has the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon.
Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.
In 7th tanks had better chances to hit, or could fire more guns, when they only moved half their movement value. Makes sense, if you dont move fast you are giving the gun crew more time to aim. This has been removed. You are sitting in a chair, and move a joystick, you are more "comfortable" than outside. You know there is a thick metal hull to protect you. Outside its loud, gunfire, explosions and shrapnel, all around you, the enemy is rushing towards you, and you also have to carry and aim that heavy weapon.
IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions?
Yes it makes sense, because it is realistic. I suggest you watch some war movies. Whenever infantry gets fire upon, they drop to the ground, or seek cover.
Games between a fluffy army and an optimized army are not much closer and not auto-lose like they were in 7th. I'm not punished for taking my melee World Eaters now, in fact I'm like a kid in a candy store!
andysonic1 wrote: Games between a fluffy army and an optimized army are not much closer and not auto-lose like they were in 7th. I'm not punished for taking my melee World Eaters now, in fact I'm like a kid in a candy store!
In fact, your world eaters are gonna get a pretty big buff with the upcoming codex.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.
There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.
I will say that if you are going to do retro 40k, IMO 5th is way better than 7th. Sure, you'll lose some 7th-edition toys unless you do a compatibility patch, but you won't have to deal with all the broken, ridiculous stuff that 7th had.
Anything that penetrates tank armor really should be able to penetrate a hedge row.
If you want to shoot something, you need to see it first. Its not about penetration. You probably dont have time to aim properly because there is gunfire and explosions around you. The more you see, the easier it is to aim, and hit. If you see less, you dont hit as good.
Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?
Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.
By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon?
Once you reach a certain damage level you get hurt automatically, or you are incinerated right away, doesnt matter if its a nuke, or 1 million degrees hot plasma.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
40k just one of several TT games we play so there's no real feeling of need to keep up with the newest stuff. For example, the games I play are more LoTR than anything else lately.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
If you like Lotr you will be happy with 8th Edition, as it took some Elements of it. It feels much closer to Lotr, as it now is easy to learn, but hard to handle. Concerning Balance Lotr is still the better game though. While 7th Edition was more like watching an Action movie, in 8th and Lotr you have to apply actually tactics. And the scenarios are great, I hope they expand on that.
Short answer is 8th is rushed out, flavorless, and kinda goofy (see a 3 story tall monster cannot assault something an the second floor and vehicles fire all weapons from hull corners.
It is simpler, however I am eagerly awaiting the full "unlocked" game with all the codexes. I feel like it's going to be a common thing to see people try to run at least 9 CP due to the couple dozen stratagems they could use.
GW didnt remove cover for vehicles, and it should work both ways, no matter where the vehicle is, inside or outside of the terrain. The shooting unit has the same view of the vehicle, no matter if they are inside, or outside of the terrain.
The cover rules apply the same to all models not just vehicles. They made cover harder to get for everything. So given that it is fine for vehicles, they removed intervening terrain as cover to make things more clear cut
Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.
Only models which are within LOS should be able to get killed, it wouldnt hurt 8th. Instead of thinking, and delaying the game, which models to remove you would just remove those who actually can be attacked.
Why is this needed? the current system works fine and allows the defending player more choice in who to remove (no LOS sniping through gamey mechanics like blocking your own LOS with a vehicle to kill the heavy/special/sarge) As I said it represents those out of LOS models moving up to fill in for their compatriots/moving the whole time, the squad is turning the corner and getting mowed down as they do so. Maybe you could restrict casualties from any 1 squad to the number of models they can see, but not just those models. Besides, you as the defender can choose to remove those models first to reduce further shooting from other squads, or even the same squad if it has various weapons. Explosive weapons and flamers would still hit things around corners as well.
Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.
Maybe a balance thing, but still unrealistic. Damaging a vehicle yes, but not kill it.
There is no functional difference in this game between the ability to damage something and to kill something. Damage = causing wounds, loss of all wounds = death, so is your argument that small arms should never be able to remove the final wound from something?
The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.
No, i dont want auto-wounds. Its unrealistic that a S7 weapon has the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon.
No it isn't, at least not anymore unrealistic than it was in the last 4 editions where S7 and S9 wounded T5 or below the same. SO again what you are saying is either "I never liked the to wound chart and 7th wasn't any more realistic than 8th." which sure I could go with that it is the result of a D6 system. OR "I'm ok with things wounding the same as long as that value is either a 2+ or a 6+, because somehow that is more realistic than a 3+/5+ being more prevalent."
Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.
In 7th tanks had better chances to hit, or could fire more guns, when they only moved half their movement value. Makes sense, if you dont move fast you are giving the gun crew more time to aim. This has been removed. You are sitting in a chair, and move a joystick, you are more "comfortable" than outside. You know there is a thick metal hull to protect you. Outside its loud, gunfire, explosions and shrapnel, all around you, the enemy is rushing towards you, and you also have to carry and aim that heavy weapon.
There are no rules for different movement distances for units in this edition other than advancing, so given that they are always faster than infantry it makes sense that it is hard for a moving shooting platform to hit a "moving" target. If we wanted true realism big vehicles should be easier to hit, infantry might have a -2 on the move and tanks -1, small targets would be harder to hit, etc. Since we don't have rules at that complexity them being the same is a fine-representation.
IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions?
Yes it makes sense, because it is realistic. I suggest you watch some war movies. Whenever infantry gets fire upon, they drop to the ground, or seek cover.
And if they are getting bombed with explosions they still die. Really getting those few extra rolls mostly just slows down the game. I could go either way on it, but it isn't a big deal in the realism factor compared to some immersion breaking stuff in past editions.
Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?
Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.
For someone who wants "realism" you lack imagination to make it so. The models are not only "moving" during the movement phase, they aren't statues they are moving the whole time things are happening.
If you want to shoot something, you need to see it first. Its not about penetration. You probably dont have time to aim properly because there is gunfire and explosions around you. The more you see, the easier it is to aim, and hit. If you see less, you dont hit as good.
That's still reflected somewhat with TLOS (for however little it actually comes up). Regardless, in a world where you have superhuman space catholics that have automatic carbine rocket launchers firing shells described as anywhere from the thickness of a finger to the thickness of a soda can, some sort of thermal imaging goggles or auspexes or whatever you want to call them don't feel that unreasonable.
Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?
Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.
Eh. Abstraction and hand-waving. I don't see a significant difference in that and just saying "well, that guy in the back jumped on the mounted gun to replace the guy you shot off it, like in movies!"
By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon?
Once you reach a certain damage level you get hurt automatically, or you are incinerated right away, doesnt matter if its a nuke, or 1 million degrees hot plasma.
But Strength and AP aren't the same thing. Like a witchblade that's S9 but a guardsman could save against it, or a Space Marine that could walk away unscathed from a S10 storm eagle rocket landing directly atop him. I've never actually seen a reasonable GW explanation of what it means to get wounded or not get wounded anyway, so I'm not sure what the difference in "fluff terms" is between a 16.6% chance and a 33.3% chance for an autocannon to not do "something" to a space marine. It was as much abstraction then as it is now. It's just different abstraction.
I dunno. There's definitely a lot of abstraction, but you have to accept that in something like this. It's not a combat simulator, it's a beer and pretzels game set in a future hodgepodge of science fiction elements, fantasy, and a little bit of high octane nightmare fuel made casual. While some of the changes do bug me a little, I guess I don't fundamentally see it as anything I can really take THAT seriously. I am sorry that you can't feel the same way.
8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? We've seen one codex so far, that's hardly "codex creep". You don't need "multiple books" for armies because there aren't books out at all anyway. You need exactly two books, the index/codex and the rulebook, to play an army. If you want to take legacy options, then you need a 3rd book, oh noes the horror! Exactly like 7th where you needed 543 books!
One dex that a boosted the power level of that army - the following dexes are doing the same thing from the leaks.
The Chosen Ones (with a Dex) get the boost - others don'y - how is that not Power Creep.
Some of my Armies (ie the non marine ones) will not get a dex with all the shiny new power boosts and options unitl 2018.
Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.
Eh. Abstraction and hand-waving. I don't see a significant difference in that and just saying "well, that guy in the back jumped on the mounted gun to replace the guy you shot off it, like in movies!"
And really, the alternative to this was 7th's thing where the guy with the missile launcher died, and the other four guys in the squad who are standing right next to him look at the missile launcher sitting there, saying, "I'm an elite super strong Space Marine, but the Codex Astartes clearly says that a tactical squad was only supposed to have ONE heavy weapon space marine in it. We could REALLY use someone manning that missile launcher, but I don't want to get in trouble!"
IMO it isn't any better then 7th. It mostly trades flavor for balance. Every thing it 8th is really samey which makes it easier to balance, though it still isn't, my main problem with 8th is that it is really bland, and the core rules are not anymore inherently balanced then 7th, so they could have made a better game by spending their efforts rebalancing all the 7th edition codexes which were the problem with 7th. Instead they scraped everything to release a flawed rule set were the only real difference between units is weather or not 'they can fly'.
As i personally whitnessed GW slaughter the living gak out of Fantasy, i was VERY skeptic about 8th because Sigmar just plain sucks. But i must admit 8th is very great, and their stance towards it (solid FAQ and clarifications) looks VERY promising.
Assault phase is still too weak for non horde armies :( But overall 8/10 from me, best edition since i started in 5th edition. A plesant surprise
NL_Cirrus wrote: IMO it isn't any better then 7th. It mostly trades flavor for balance. Every thing it 8th is really samey which makes it easier to balance, though it still isn't, my main problem with 8th is that it is really bland, and the core rules are not anymore inherently balanced then 7th, so they could have made a better game by spending their efforts rebalancing all the 7th edition codexes which were the problem with 7th. Instead they scraped everything to release a flawed rule set were the only real difference between units is weather or not 'they can fly'.
The core rules are more balanced than 7th. The core rules in 7th made all MCs inherently superior to vehicles, and all super heavies inherently superior to non-superheavies. The Core rules in 7th included the psychic phase which did not function unless both players brought roughly the same number of psykers. The core rules in 7th included the mechanics that allowed for tanking characters and battle brother ally synergy. The core rules in 7th also included the broken BRB psychic powers. That is not to say they could not have stayed closer in still balanced things, however, without a huge rewrite they would have had issues with porting the 7th ed codices still functioning in the game, so unless they still replaced all those rules with the bland indices to start the edition nothing would have been fixed as far as rebalancing the codices, and any rules changes would need to have been considered in the context of the existing codex rules and their functionality.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That said in response to the OP, if 7th works for your group (and it can in a small closed non-competitive group) I would stay there unless your group desires to adopt the new rules and models as they are released. Especially if it isn't your main game.
jasper76 wrote: FWIW, GWs business model seems to be power creep. That's how they get you to buy new box and new units.
I highly doubt 8th is going to break away from this model, because it's a model that works and keeps veteran players buying new stuff.
It does not only seem to be, it simply is. I quit buying rulebooks after 5th. Do I still play 40K? Occasionally oldhammer. And now to your verdict...
Crimes:
- Refuses to buy the latest versions of 40K.
- Refuses to buy the new and shiny 40K Stormcasts.
- Has the guts to say so in a public forum.
- Badmouthes as a whole GW´s business model.
Verdict:
GW goon squad dispatched to your home. They will burn your copies of your outdated 40K rulebooks while you are watching and force you to join the happy 8th crowd. Resistance is futile.
jasper76 wrote: FWIW, GWs business model seems to be power creep. That's how they get you to buy new box and new units.
I highly doubt 8th is going to break away from this model, because it's a model that works and keeps veteran players buying new stuff.
This is pretty much true. The only other thing than powercreep that can generate sales, is when they reset the mess every decade or so with a clean slate edition. We are in the early beginning of the creep cycle.
I'm not sure I ever buy GW having a codex creep as a business model for sales. If that were true:
- new models/units would always be OP to sell more they aren't. As often as not they are complete garbage.
- new codices would always be better than the previous codex, they aren't.
- power creep would need to be the best method of sales, it isn't
They would do much better with a reasonably balanced game where they release cool new models for all factions, and they tweak styles of play for various armies. In fact as often as not their codices are likely to reduce model sales, because if that cool looking expensive model sucks on the table, many people will skip buying it. Moreso than people buying the new shiny for armies they don't play. Super competitive folk that really care about creep are a minority in this game, GW would sell more models if all units were solid, than they every will by making some new models crap and some OP.
The only thing I would be willing to credit GW with is skewing the game towards particular classes of models, and I'm not even sure this is intentional.
5th was vehicles
6th-7th was big MCs\model kits
8th thus far seems to be flyers/cheap infantry
If other than that for a long time GWs sales model seemed to be "increase the scale of the game" so that the same point size allowed for more units. 8th has moved away from that.
Breng77 wrote: The Core rules in 7th included the psychic phase which did not function unless both players brought roughly the same number of psykers.
The real issues with 7e Psy were "all or nothing" success thresholds for casting and denial, the system favoring batteries funneling Warp Charge into a few supercasters due to slow WC returns combined with a "single pool", and emphasis on summoning and blessings over the others (since they were harder to deny). With 8th, Psychic Focus means if you want to do something besides spam Smite, you want the best caster possible to ensure you succeed in the first place. For Chaos, Magnus is even more of an autoinclude than in 7th.
Breng77 wrote: The core rules in 7th included the mechanics that allowed for tanking characters and battle brother ally synergy.
And 8th means said characters cannot even be targeted until you kill *every* model that is closer. We have Daemons and Magnus lists, and Conscriptspam Imperial Superfriends nowadays, the main difference being Space Wolves are playing second fiddle to Bobby G and Celestine.
However, without a huge rewrite they would have had issues with porting the 7th ed codices still functioning in the game.
The fixes could be more gradual. Make Grav Stun on 6s instead of Immobilize, replace Instant death/Eternal Warrior/vehicle explodes/etc with "do an extra d3 wounds/HP" and give vehicles +2 HP and you're clean there. Add a "rule of 3" that says an Invulnerable Save cannot be "improved" to better than 3++, and pare down charts.
Consolidate "special rules." Bombing runs, skyslash attacks, vector strikes, Swooping hawk Intercepts, etc, should have just been a generic "fly-by attack." Change rules so you know what they do just by looking at their name. Things like When(charging): +1 Strength, instead of Furious Charge, and clear out rules that sound similar but do different things. ("Aren't all Crusaders Zealots?" "Technically the Zealots were a *Jewish* uprising..."), and iteratively pare down, rather than creating a messy keyword system where 5 Deathwatch and 1 Terminator take up 12 transport slots!
GW really doesn't do that. They want a degree of longevity in their customers' collecting habits and that's better served with iterative updates over editions. The Stormcast in AoS and the Primaris Marines just seem that way they released the 'starter set' models first.
If you want to see power creep as a business model, you can compare to FFG's X-Wing, with every new ship coming with a new and exciting upgrade that would actually work really well with a ship you already have and shifts the meta around insanely.
Even GW's most egregious examples (like the sky hammer annihilation force) came packaged with models you'd be able to use in that formation.
It's infinitely more playable than 7th, and somehow infinitely more boring as well. I wouldn't go back to 7th myself, but also I'm already tired of 8th. If your group is good with 7th, knows the rules and gets along, you're not missing much aside from a different meta and primaris marines everywhere.
dosiere wrote: you're not missing much aside from a different meta and primaris marines everywhere.
I don't even like the idea of Primaries Marines. I already have bigger space marines on Terminator bases called Terminators (haven't kept up with the fluff though)
Melissia wrote: At least you're not having to put up with the ridiculous "OH EM GEE PARIMIS MARNIES AER GONAN REPALCE SPESH MRAINES!" fearmongering.
I'm seeing the extreme opposite. "Oh, you're looking at marines? Have you heard about the Primaris Marines? See a lot of people think they're just bigger marines but really..." "Oh, you're familiar. Well, it's what everyone's playing nowadays. They look really co..." "Oh, you just want the box of chibi marines. Okay :("
I know the guy was just a little too excited, but I am solidly the opposite.
If regular space marines go away, everyone's space marines become primaris. Nothing changes any more than me pointing at my mordians and saying they're "Cadian" for the purposes of putting Pask in a tank or "Catachan" for the purposes of me taking Harker.
Melissia wrote: At least you're not having to put up with the ridiculous "OH EM GEE PARIMIS MARNIES AER GONAN REPALCE SPESH MRAINES!" fearmongering.
It's not fear-mongering if it's true.
Amen to that, brother. Artwork already focuses strongly on Uber-Marines in the new SM codex. When 9th hit the stores, none other than those 40K Stormcasts will be shown in the illustrations.
jasper76 wrote: FWIW, GWs business model seems to be power creep. That's how they get you to buy new box and new units.
I highly doubt 8th is going to break away from this model, because it's a model that works and keeps veteran players buying new stuff.
I got the impression that most people though the Primaris releases were a bit worse (Intercessors) or a bit sideways (Primaris Dread) from normal Marines. Seems odd that a company who relies on power creep to sell would make their big new fluff altering flagship models not that much better than the models that already existed.
Melissia wrote: At least you're not having to put up with the ridiculous "OH EM GEE PARIMIS MARNIES AER GONAN REPALCE SPESH MRAINES!" fearmongering.
It's not fear-mongering if it's true.
Amen to that, brother. Artwork already focuses strongly on Uber-Marines in the new SM codex. When 9th hit the stores, none other than those 40K Stormcasts will be shown in the illustrations.
Yeah, it's not like putting the new product you've just invested a bundle of cash in front and centre in the promotional material is about as elementary a marketing concept as its possible to fething get or anything.
8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.
Where is 8th beginning to slip with recent releases, the space marines seems quite balanced in my oppinion? Also They recently released FAQ outright balanceing some of the bullcrap the tournament players are fielding.
Melissia wrote: At least you're not having to put up with the ridiculous "OH EM GEE PARIMIS MARNIES AER GONAN REPALCE SPESH MRAINES!" fearmongering.
It's not fear-mongering if it's true.
Amen to that, brother. Artwork already focuses strongly on Uber-Marines in the new SM codex. When 9th hit the stores, none other than those 40K Stormcasts will be shown in the illustrations.
Yeah, it's not like putting the new product you've just invested a bundle of cash in front and centre in the promotional material is about as elementary a marketing concept as its possible to fething get or anything.
It just reinforces the idea that hobbyists should recollect their entire SM range. Stupid move GW, stupid move.
While you're so convinced that you're correct you're coming across as a little smug and undermining any credibility your perspective may otherwise carry.
You may be right, in fact in the long term I'm sure you are, but to try and make it sound like some sort of imminent threat is almost certainly wrong and decidedly hyperbolic.
On the "no more marines" front what do people expect?
9th edition to see no regular marines in the rules?
GW to re-release all Marine models (tacticals, devs, assault etc) but at Primaris Scale and they won't match your old models?
Just sadness that tacticals might not get a new kit in two years because they are no longer the ultimate money spinner and, like the vast majority of the range, they might languish for a decade or two with the same sprues?
Azreal13 wrote: While you're so convinced that you're correct you're coming across as a little smug and undermining any credibility your perspective may otherwise carry.
You may be right, in fact in the long term I'm sure you are, but to try and make it sound like some sort of imminent threat is almost certainly wrong and decidedly hyperbolic.
If you want to know what is in store for us then you have to have empathy. Just imagine you are one of the top executives at GW. The goal is as always: Make money and get rid of the nasty, badmouthing veterans. These oldtimers have everything and therefore buy less. Sadly, they also know how the cooky crumbles and can foster dissent in the community.
Just take a look at AoS and how they dealt with the players. They ridiculed their factions with stupid rules (riding imaginary horses) and drove them away to 9th Age or other systems. Meanwhile they hyped the beejebus out of the Stormcasts like they do now with the Uber-Marines. Where are the new human models in AoS? They have been replaced by the Stormcasts. Sure there are some illustrations of them but that is irrelevant. What counts are new models for the TT. And I don´t see any.
How people can be so stubborn in their denial of this is just unbelievable. The true SM that we know are even today relegated to the sidelines. How? They are not even allowed to represent their faction of their very own codex which is simply astonishing. What a slap to the face to all those vets. I thought the Uber-Marines are just an addition to the force. But addition is simply marketing speech to fool the customer. You can´t say replace otherwise there will be a backlash from the community. For now true SM and the new guys are seen together on the tabletop. Wait a few years and only the big ones are left. This is called a smooth transition and will hopefully reduce any trouble from collectors.
You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?
I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.
MagicJuggler wrote: 8th switches out some problems with 7th for others, adds rules that don't make sense, and is fairly bland and lifeless as a whole. For me, the biggest issues with 8th are that cover is fairly pointless, and the Psychic Phase is worse than the 7e one in terms of scaling. Also, the emphasis on "buff stacking" is far more prevalent, point costs are whackadoo, and the whole thing deels like we're paying to beta test.
Since it is pretty much just a matter of opinion as to which edition is "better", I have played 8th and did not like it, at all. I much prefer sticking with 7th. I could go into all the reasons I dislike it, but one mans trash is anothers treasure so...anyhow. It is at least worth a try if you are not enjoying 7th. I am of the opinion of "why change if you enjoy what your doing" because newer does not automatically mean better. (also for the record I too love 2nd edition D&D)
It is a different game. You are using the same pieces...and sometimes the same table tactics.
But like 3rd was a big change off from 2nd. And players said the game got dumber....there were new and cool things that make the game good.
7th to 8th is a big change and players say the game is simpler.....but there are again new and cool things that make the game good.
Try it.....I don't think it will have the same staying power as 2nd or 3rd. but it is time the 3 thru 7 version of the game died and 40K became something else.
I started in 2nd Ed, kept up with the changes and then took a knee for 7th Ed. With 8th Ed I am back in with a vengeance. Now if we could just bring back Overwatch, the old 2nd Ed Psychic powers, reduce the model count and return to individual melee and I'm completely happy!
But seriously, 8th Ed is a good reboot. I'll stay on for the ride.
8th is the worst thing to happen to the table top gaming community ever, people are only enjoying it now because it's new and fresh, a few more months and a few more codex's and people will be wanting to go back to the better versions 3-7th.
7th was awesome, it was fun, balanced (I play orks so and I say it was balanced) everything made sense and it didn't have stupid tournament organisers forcing gw to brake their own lore to make as I've seen one person describe it "tournamenthammer 40iq"
8th is a better set of rules playwise than 7th. It is much easier to organize games and teach people. Gameflow is more fluid aswell. I have some problems with 8th, though:
1. They didn't re-write the game from the ground up using newer and better mechanics present in younger games. I can understand that the continuality needs to be there, but I still hoped for something more radical.
2. No free data cards. I've spent a lot of cash on AoS because of the free warscrolls. I guess that GW really want to keep their printing operations running and profitable as a semi-contained product or one intertwined with the main ones (minies) and not just as an optional book for the collector like the battletomes. Shutting down an operating business is stupid and getting it up working from the ground up again is hard should they let their sales die off.
3. The AoS fight phase is better IMO. In 40k if your unit isn't a complete wuss in CC you're trying to get the charge 90% of the time instead of charging when you should depending on your other combats.
4. Tanks interact a little... weirder with infantry than they should IMO. I've seen atleast 1 good example supporting the counter argument though so this isn't that big of a complain...
I guess my only real complain is the first one. The rest can be easily overlooked.
P.S. The new marines are an awesome example of good, clean and tasteful design. How could anyone be angry that they exist??? It is a rhetorical question, don't answer
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.
There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.
Bro you need to chill out.....
Que?? I'm a fairly chill person, i don't know why you got so triggered by a harmless comment such as this, you need to chill dude.
I work in the IT business , in every company there is always a subset of people that refuse to change because it's comfortable regardless if what replaces it is better. It sounded like the OP was not playing 8th out of his own choice but rather his conservative friends group, was trying to be sympathetic to the OP:s situation but i see now that maybe it's the OP himself who is reluctant to play it.
TeAXIIIT13 wrote: 8th is the worst thing to happen to the table top gaming community ever, people are only enjoying it now because it's new and fresh, a few more months and a few more codex's and people will be wanting to go back to the better versions 3-7th.
7th was awesome, it was fun, balanced (I play orks so and I say it was balanced) everything made sense and it didn't have stupid tournament organisers forcing gw to brake their own lore to make as I've seen one person describe it "tournamenthammer 40iq"
What?!? Balanced?!?
I played games of 5-7th where I didn't even get a turn. In fact, I had one game against Tau where I set up out of sight/in cover. He went first, and I had one model left before my first turn. How is that balanced.
I am not an amazing player, I lose 70% of the time, but 8th is massively more balanced. I can take what I like and lose because I made stupid mistakes.
Just the other day playing against a Nid army which has nearly tabled most other players of our club and I lost by one objective in Big Guns, and only because I made three decisions which were bad.
8th is nowhere near perfect, but by God it is a damn sight better than the fethstorm of 7th and 6th, the loss of customisability from 5th, and well I started in 4th so that will always have a sweet spot.
If you play with close friends using balanced and extremely tailored lists in order to enjoy a fair game (like me and my group do) 7th edition was better or at the same level of this one.
If you play competitive games or casual ones this edition is certainly more entertaining and balanced. You won't lose a single game in turn 1 at least.
Breng77 wrote: The Core rules in 7th included the psychic phase which did not function unless both players brought roughly the same number of psykers.
The real issues with 7e Psy were "all or nothing" success thresholds for casting and denial, the system favoring batteries funneling Warp Charge into a few supercasters due to slow WC returns combined with a "single pool", and emphasis on summoning and blessings over the others (since they were harder to deny). With 8th, Psychic Focus means if you want to do something besides spam Smite, you want the best caster possible to ensure you succeed in the first place. For Chaos, Magnus is even more of an autoinclude than in 7th.
SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.
Breng77 wrote: The core rules in 7th included the mechanics that allowed for tanking characters and battle brother ally synergy.
And 8th means said characters cannot even be targeted until you kill *every* model that is closer. We have Daemons and Magnus lists, and Conscriptspam Imperial Superfriends nowadays, the main difference being Space Wolves are playing second fiddle to Bobby G and Celestine.
Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.
However, without a huge rewrite they would have had issues with porting the 7th ed codices still functioning in the game.
The fixes could be more gradual. Make Grav Stun on 6s instead of Immobilize, replace Instant death/Eternal Warrior/vehicle explodes/etc with "do an extra d3 wounds/HP" and give vehicles +2 HP and you're clean there. Add a "rule of 3" that says an Invulnerable Save cannot be "improved" to better than 3++, and pare down charts.
Consolidate "special rules." Bombing runs, skyslash attacks, vector strikes, Swooping hawk Intercepts, etc, should have just been a generic "fly-by attack." Change rules so you know what they do just by looking at their name. Things like When(charging): +1 Strength, instead of Furious Charge, and clear out rules that sound similar but do different things. ("Aren't all Crusaders Zealots?" "Technically the Zealots were a *Jewish* uprising..."), and iteratively pare down, rather than creating a messy keyword system where 5 Deathwatch and 1 Terminator take up 12 transport slots!
Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.
They fixed your keyword error with deathwatch in the first FAQ....problem solved.
Breng77 wrote: SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.
How about creating a system where you don't make powers like "I can super-teleport my army into melee on turn 1?" Hmm? 8th would have the exact same problem 7th had if it kept Invisibility but changed everything else. Being able to only cast a power once means you will want it on your best caster for your most buffable unit. You still have an "all or nothing" system in place.
Way back, when writing on how to fix the 7e Psyker system, I wrote the two things you fix are: Eliminate pooling of powers, and make Manifesting/Denial a "degrees of success" rather than an "all or nothing" mechanic.
Breng77 wrote: Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.
Deathstarhammer was only notably egregious in 2 cases: Barkbarkstar and Screamers. The game was about MSU rocket-tag, or null betastrikes otherwise.
Breng77 wrote: Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.
I said gradual, meaning iterative. Refactoring rather than nuking the whole thing. Why try to reinvent the wheel without proper testing?
Ctrl-F/Ctrl-H are things. Just be careful not to screw up like GW interns, who were not appropriately Ta'ught how to use the "Case-sensitive" button.
Crusader could easily be R2D1[Run] or so. I agree that 40k needed a Move Stat, and am glad 8e did bring that back so there was no need for stuff like "Fast vehicle", "Heavy Vehicle", or different variants of "run and charge", or "+3 move/run/charge" and so on so forth.
Immobilization means killing a 3-HP vehicle on boxcars. Grav=stun, and +2 HP = you need five 6s. The Grav Amp on Power Armor Cannons can be removed based on further testing of course. It's just a process of iterative testing, rather than the 8e conundrum where Grav Cannons are now just a sawn-off Heavy Bolter with better AP, and their range is no longer a real issue since cover was gimped and Heavy is just a -1 penalty. Gravdevs around Bobby are functionally not that far removed from the worst 7e Grav could inflict.
Breng77 wrote: SO the system in 7th didn't function and that was part of the core rules. Got it. Magnus is no where near the auto include he was at the end of 7th, because he is much less durable, and powers are no where near as powerful. Psychic focus means you cannot just spam a power over and over. I suppose they could have made it limited to 1 successful cast, but that like 7th just encourages cheap psyker spam, and narrows the powers you want to use. If we were not limited you would see things like Orks turn 1 charging with 150 boyz.
How about creating a system where you don't make powers like "I can super-teleport my army into melee on turn 1?" Hmm? 8th would have the exact same problem 7th had if it kept Invisibility but changed everything else. Being able to only cast a power once means you will want it on your best caster for your most buffable unit. You still have an "all or nothing" system in place.
Way back, when writing on how to fix the 7e Psyker system, I wrote the two things you fix are: Eliminate pooling of powers, and make Manifesting/Denial a "degrees of success" rather than an "all or nothing" mechanic.
No 8th would not have the same problem as 7th with invis as a power because of the way the system works. Invis in 8th is balanced if you need a 9 or 10+ to manifest the power. It is super great but unrealiable. In 7th you could basically guarantee getting off your important powers. If you remove pooling of power dice in 7th then you re-write the whole system because there are a ton of powers that can never be manifested. Having all or nothing allows for risk reward to be a thing. When things are basically guaranteed (see 6th ed) you get psykers being way too good. Personally I would like powers fleshed out in 8th (as they seem to be with codex releases). Saying "don't make good powers" eliminates the psychic phase, unless everything is like smite. Any buff power has the ability to be broken dependent on what the target of said power is. To fix this in a 7th ed system is difficult.
Breng77 wrote: Magnus gets no protection based on this. All the imperial super friends lists are now killable because you can take apart the parts of the system. Does it need tweaks, sure, but it is infinitely superior to 7th deathstar hammer.
Deathstarhammer was only notably egregious in 2 cases: Barkbarkstar and Screamers. The game was about MSU rocket-tag, or null betastrikes otherwise.
There were others before those 2. Going all the way back to 6th with the same mechanics.
Breng77 wrote: Disagree on your change to grav unless it does no HP of damage it would still be too powerful, further it would still eliminate many classes of models just by existing. +2 HP is no where near enough for most vehicles to have been super usable, especially with things doing extra HP of damage, it is better but not good. Changing Special rules as you suggest would still require a re-write of basically every codex to align with the new rules. My unit had crusader what does it have now? Wow fly by attacks change made x unit way worse/better because I now get more attacks/AP whatever/Needs a re-write of all units explaining how their fly by attack works (fly by weapons per unit). At which point, you are doing a total rewrite not a slow change.
I said gradual, meaning iterative. Refactoring rather than nuking the whole thing. Why try to reinvent the wheel without proper testing?
Ctrl-F/Ctrl-H are things. Just be careful not to screw up like GW interns, who were not appropriately Ta'ught how to use the "Case-sensitive" button.
Crusader could easily be R2D1[Run] or so. I agree that 40k needed a Move Stat, and am glad 8e did bring that back so there was no need for stuff like "Fast vehicle", "Heavy Vehicle", or different variants of "run and charge", or "+3 move/run/charge" and so on so forth.
Immobilization means killing a 3-HP vehicle on boxcars. Grav=stun, and +2 HP = you need five 6s. The Grav Amp on Power Armor Cannons can be removed based on further testing of course. It's just a process of iterative testing, rather than the 8e conundrum where Grav Cannons are now just a sawn-off Heavy Bolter with better AP, and their range is no longer a real issue since cover was gimped and Heavy is just a -1 penalty. Gravdevs around Bobby are functionally not that far removed from the worst 7e Grav could inflict.
The problem with that idea is that it needs to be updated far too often to be effective with the GW model. You need a hard reset to have testing work well, otherwise all rules changes need to be tested on all units possessing that rule to see if it breaks.
Grav devs + Bobby are functionally pretty far from the worst 7e grav could inflict, because they still wound based on toughness, So your T6+ model gets wounded on a 5+ instead of a 2+ or 3+.
Making powers "only castable once" or "require a high threshold" is not a valid way to balance them, I find. That leads to the same "all or nothing" roulette scenarios that could plague 7e, the classic hypothetical being "Knight Stomping a unit with 2+ Rerollable Invulnerables" or so. ("It only deletes you on a 6...").
I'm loving it. Granted the two main factions I play are Nids and Dark Eldar so a bit o bias in that.
I find it a huge step forward from 7th edition but I did enjoy 7th even with factions that floated at the bottom.
I think the problem with 7th is halfway through it they lost control on how it was played and just started releasing a crap ton of supporting material across multiple books to add more.
8th seems to have this set in mind from the beginning so should be planned out better.
7th is no more tactical, intelligent or complex than 8th. It is needlessly bloated but that doesn't make it more complex.
My advice to you TC is since your group enjoys 7th enough. Just wait on 8th until all the faction books in your group gets released. By then quite a few FAQS should be released and you could see if GW actually follows through with FAQ adjustments and keeping the power creep from going too far (ala 7th).
My group plays plenty of legacy versions of games alongside the newest edition (D&D, Fantasy, 40K, Warmahordes, etc...).
So far, I and my son are enjoying 8th more than 6th/7th, but we've only gotten in two games so far. We are using the free rules and indexes only - and plan to remain this way; I've laready sunk more than enough money into previous rulebooks and codexes to keep up in 8th. However, at this point I have no desire to look back at 7th, though for now I will be keeping those old codexes around (primarily for the pre- 8th story and background they provide).
Azreal13 wrote: You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?
I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.
Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.
I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.
8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k40k.
I do like the return of damage stats, though. I just wish they could have found a way to combine damage (as in causing multiple wounds against monsters) with something like the old vehicle armor rules.
Melissia wrote: No, it just reinforces the idea that "You have all these great marines, why not have some Primaris reinforcements, too?"
The idea that they're replacing regular marines is not pushed by GW. It's pushed by fearmongering paranoiacs.
From a business viewpoint I could see them being a replacement.
GW's biggest competition is it's own product (resale of old miniatures).
A small case and point was the Grey Knight terminators being fairly large (metal then) and then making the bigger plastic terminators.
I could still field my old ones but they look pretty strange now (never mind the ORIGINAL obliterators that were the standard 28mm size).
So, getting a new line of bigger marines will "force" converting over to the new models and eventually it will reach a saturation point where the old models are obsolete and no rage quitting required.
I admit I do have some concern, most of my marines are still on the 1" bases not the newer and bigger ones.
As to making fun about the Y2K stuff going on, yes there was no big crash but myself along with many others had to get software updated and replace equipment that could not store records sequentially very well due to the change.
Most database and forecast software already had the fix in them since they had to calculate years in advance of 2000.
It is all a matter of preparation and not being surprised.
I will be buying Primarus marines not because I think they are so much more awesome than what I have now, but that I would like to have an army that is "valid" just in case GW pulls the plug.
I think I would die of shock if they make new models for AM/IG grunts or... sisters of battle (that is coming right??).
Azreal13 wrote: You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?
I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.
Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.
What makes you think a) you have any say in how I choose to express myself and b) I chose that exact terminology for any reason other than because it precisely encapsulates what I wished to say?
But then, if all you've got to come back at me with is to try and criticize my language choice, I'd say I'll happily take that as you've nothing of any substance to rebut my argument and move on.
Azreal13 wrote: You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?
I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.
Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.
What makes you think a) you have any say in how I choose to express myself and b) I chose that exact terminology for any reason other than because it precisely encapsulates what I wished to say?
But then, if all you've got to come back at me with is to try and criticize my language choice, I'd say I'll happily take that as you've nothing of any substance to rebut my argument and move on.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
This is all conjecture and opinion on a subject we do not have facts for.
Expression of emotion is about all we got left... less confrontational and attacking of ideas preferred.
Yep, immediate future, GW has dies for SM models that I am sure they do not plan on retiring just yet.
Plus if anyone is not a SM army type, then it is not a worry at this point.
I am doing the "just in case" thing and fielding Primaris marines as a different army... going to the dark side of smurfs I think, I got that huge Girlyman model sitting there waiting to be put together.
Plague marines is a nice bonus since my old army was CSM so they may get a reasonable dusting off.
Panzergraf wrote: I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.
8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k40k.
I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.
The keyword here is "Templates is a big part of why 40k is fun for me".
If more people realice that not everybody like the same things, then the idea of why other people likes editions of 40k that we dislike or like features that we dislike, will be probably more accepted.
I always found templates pretty annoying back to warhammer fantasy. I can understand why people liked them. But disliking them or not wanting them in our game is not about not being able to count numbers.
Galas wrote: The keyword here is "Templates is a big part of why 40k is fun for me".
If more people realice that not everybody like the same things, then the idea of why other people likes editions of 40k that we dislike or like features that we dislike, will be probably more accepted.
I always found templates pretty annoying back to warhammer fantasy. I can understand why people liked them. But disliking them or not wanting them in our game is not about not being able to count numbers.
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire. Ultimately removing them made the game better, the same way that removing guess ranges way back when made the game better and removing measuring restrictions made the game better.
I remember people "guessing" a range that anyone with Geometry 1 can work out via triangles and "oops my Basilisks just HAPPENED to land in that close combat of one of my models and 30 of yours, what a shame!" and I also remember "I want to move my land raider 12" that way, oops changed my mind, I want to move it 12" that way, oops, never mind" stupidness in order to pre-measure ranges.
BaconCatBug wrote: Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.
Well that's adding something.
They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.
Panzergraf wrote: I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.
8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k40k.
I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.
I guess counting was too hard???
There are lots of reasons. The removal of peripherals makes ease of access much better. If you are coming at 8th from the stand point that anyone can buy a box of minis off the shelf, put them on the table and start playing then 1) you need rules in the box (happening) and core rules available for free (done). Easily accessible materials (6 sided dice. The single most common game component in existence).
With templates you need a 15-30 dollar set of 3 templates. 1 scatter die. a 15 dollar super flamer if you have those weapons. a 15 dollar super blast if you have those weapons. a 15 dollar barrage if you have those weapons. And which super barrage? there are 2 different ones and both are apparently still valid to use in 7th.
Now with all vehicles and MC having some kind fo explodes/deaththroes you need these templates for even more models then ever!
Plus the scatter die was always a wonky mechanic prone to cause arguments. It didn't point that way it pointed THAT way. UGH my carnifex just vomited his bioplasma all over itself. Now it's dead. Here genestealer cultists. Throw these sticks of dynamite into your own engine block!
Getting rid of templates was a very smart move. The easier it is for players to start playing the more stuff they sell as the player base grows. Good riddance.
BaconCatBug wrote: Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.
Well that's adding something.
They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.
That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.
Just copy (or trace with a pencil) the templates printed in the rulebook. Paper or cardboard templates work just as well as plastic, they're just not as durable.
I agree that the apocalypse templates got kinda out of hand, though. Actually, the apocalypse rules were a mess as a whole. We did mega battles just fine (with standard 3" and 5" templates) before they got introduced.
That's one more thing I didn't like with 7th (and maybe 6th? I get them mixed up...) that I wish they hadn't kept in 8th: super heavies and knights and stuff even in smaller games.
BaconCatBug wrote: Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.
Well that's adding something.
They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.
That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.
Yeah because Azrael huddled around 40 Fenrisian wolves and 2 iron priest was SOOO much better. OOH or 3 Wolf Priests A ravenwing command squad a Greyknight libby, Draigo, and Celestine. Yeah, that's where the realism was.
BaconCatBug wrote: Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.
Well that's adding something.
They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.
That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.
Yeah because Azrael huddled around 40 Fenrisian wolves and 2 iron priest was SOOO much better. OOH or 3 Wolf Priests A ravenwing command squad a Greyknight libby, Draigo, and Celestine. Yeah, that's where the realism was.
Talking about templates. A real complaint would be "barrage is better at sniping than actual sniper weapons." But sure, keep that chip on your shoulder.
Again this is all subjective, The "features" that so many here are lauding about 8th are the "bugs" that make 8th such a miserable an experience for me and my group. I did enjoy my weird green and orange templates, they were part of the fun for me, (yeah i know, I am not everyone, but I am also not the only one, so that argument goes both ways) so losing them did take something away that I enjoyed.
Panzergraf wrote: I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.
8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k40k.
I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.
I guess counting was too hard???
And their removal shortened the Argument Phase down by an average of 10 minutes per game, at least.
Templates are great when you are playing against your high school buddy you've known for years.
They are considerably less great when you are playing a pick-up game including tournament competition where every placement will result in a game pause.
I count three guys covered.
That's funny, I count four including your special/heavy/sergeant.
Nuh-uh!
Yuh-huh!
Unh-unh!
Unh-huh!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brutallica wrote: As i personally whitnessed GW slaughter the living gak out of Fantasy, i was VERY skeptic about 8th because Sigmar just plain sucks. But i must admit 8th is very great, and their stance towards it (solid FAQ and clarifications) looks VERY promising.
Assault phase is still too weak for non horde armies :( But overall 8/10 from me, best edition since i started in 5th edition. A plesant surprise
8th edition is largely AoS with 40k bolted onto it. And I say that as a good thing.
I found it interesting that Bolt Action got rid of templates in Version 1 and when version 2 came out not long before 8th ed it brought them back.
I am happy with the - it hits x models myself but I cna see some people will miss them - I do have a bit of nostalga for the flamer template but nothing for the blast ones
You need to unclench, I hope a passing mod gives you a nice long break to chill out. But, as a point of order, you need to learn the difference between an argument being called dumb and a person being called dumb. Perhaps learn to take things a little less personally and then you'll realize I wasn't actually insulting you or anyone else.
Our gaming channel is going back to 7th edition, 8th is jervis "Cutting off the nose to spite the face".
So much context and detail dashed upon the rocks of "ma toys". The marketing department is flaying what's leff of the rules department as we speak. Which will be done in hyper tight high key lighting because we wouldn't want a grisly act like that to be too grim or dark. That might encourage the over 12 demographic to return with their non-sanction opinions.
Fixing 7th is much simpler than enduring 8th. That and we finally get to explore the chaos legions book as well as the deathwatch and genestealer cult books. 7th also has like rules for like this stuff called terrain. Fantastic stuff, really great.
Crablezworth wrote: Our gaming channel is going back to 7th edition, 8th is jervis "Cutting off the nose to spite the face".
So much context and detail dashed upon the rocks of "ma toys". The marketing department is flaying what's leff of the rules department as we speak. Which will be done in hyper tight high key lighting because we wouldn't want a grisly act like that to be too grim or dark. That might encourage the over 12 demographic to return with their non-sanction opinions.
Fixing 7th is much simpler than enduring 8th. That and we finally get to explore the chaos legions book as well as the deathwatch and genestealer cult books. 7th also has like rules for like this stuff called terrain. Fantastic stuff, really great.
8th has rules for terrain too. You're the one cutting your nose off to spite your face. Fixing 7th is literally impossible to do without totally overhauling it, at which point it's not "fixing" anymore.
Base rules it's mostly going to come down to who gets the alpha strike off and thus completely gamed. There are some lists that can survive an alpha strike and win, but it's a rare thing.
There doesn't seem to be much depth to it. It was very easy for people to figure out what the meta is compared to even a regular 7th ed release.
I think it's okay, but way less fun for me than I expected. Really bland and safe like 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Does nothing wrong, but really doesn't excel in any one area.
The stupidity of removing templates that I haven't seen mentioned yet is how they were supposed to compensate for poor BS on certain units. Yeah, that LRBT is only BS 3, but with explosive shells it's going to be difficult to miss a target completely and the template represents that. It may not always land exactly where you want it, but you're probably going to get at least a decent number of hits. Contrast this with 8th, where you have to roll a D6 to see how many shots you get, and then roll again (often at BS 5+ or worse) to see if any of them hit. The result is that the most likely outcome of a LRBT shot is zero wounds, and you're lucky if you get 1-2. That's a massive nerf in firepower and it makes LRBTs borderline useless.
(And yes, you could compensate better by adding more shots to the random roll, but then you end up with ridiculous situations like a LRBT rolling 3D6 and dropping 15 hits on a single-model unit.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: Fixing 7th is literally impossible to do without totally overhauling it, at which point it's not "fixing" anymore.
Strongly disagree. 30k has already demonstrated that turning 7th into a viable game is not that hard. If you remove formations, remove the ability to share buffs between allied units, and nerf (or agree not to use) a handful of the most obvious overpowered things like invisibility and scatter laser jetbikes you have a functioning game. It's still a bloated mess rules-wise, but it's better than the stripped-down and over-homogenized mess of 8th.
Strongly disagree. 30k has already demonstrated that turning 7th into a viable game is not that hard. If you remove formations, remove the ability to share buffs between allied units, and nerf (or agree not to use) a handful of the most obvious overpowered things like invisibility and scatter laser jetbikes you have a functioning game. It's still a bloated mess rules-wise, but it's better than the stripped-down and over-homogenized mess of 8th.
Spoiler:
Exalted
Just having to interact with an actual foc can do wonders. 8th ed army construction pretty much controls nothing.
I love the new edition. It is a lot of the things I liked from 2nd edition without a lot of the complicated rules involved. For the most part, everything works pretty well. We have decided to always use the terrain rules from City Fight though to help make cover and such more meaningful.
The new rules are open enough to field the type of army you want to field, while at the same time balancing those armies fairly well. There are a few outliers, as there always are, but even those aren't too horrible.
BaconCatBug wrote: Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.
Well that's adding something.
They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.
There seems a pretty deep split between those that value immersion and realism and those that want a fast game with a phat list dawg!
Please tell what edition it was that had the armies play the same way as reflected in the background? How can you have immersion when the game and background is so disjointed?
Realism died with the induction of Elves wielding chainsaw swords.
In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.
Hilarious.
Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.
Hilarious.
Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
What I find doubly hilarious is that since the new rules often contradict common sense or even game sense in favor of simplicity, former proponents of RAW are beginning to backpedal into valuing a more RAI interpretation of the rules to allow them to continue to cheese the game in their favor.
In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.
Hilarious.
Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
So what's the arbitrary line you're going to draw when it comes to what is "realistic" or not. Either everything is accounted for, or it's not realistic. There is no in-between.
BaconCatBug wrote: So what's the arbitrary line you're going to draw when it comes to what is "realistic" or not. Either everything is accounted for, or it's not realistic. There is no in-between.
Somewhere before giant space soldiers, bug monsters, and frisky elves but after giant mecha, lasers, and armored divisions.
But if everything needs to be accounted for then even realistic movies aren't realistic. Heck, real life is sometimes not realistic. Your hopes and dreams for a realistic definition of realistic are the least realistic thing in this topic. I think it's realistic to say it's subjective.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.
There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.
It is not polite to mock someone for continuing to play a game that they enjoy. No hurt, no foul.
I agree that resisting change at all costs is not a good strategy for life, especially if change is for the better. But, if you really think about it, you cannot blame someone for being cautious about changing just for the sake of change. I think being skeptical of any changes GW makes should be considered a virtue because, as anyone who has lived through even one GW rule change knows, every change comes with a very big price tag. It just does not make sense to blindly accept change just because GW has decided (again) that we haven't tithed them enough money lately.
For the record, I quit playing 40K after 5th edition because I was tired of stockpiling expensively obsolete rulebooks year after year. However, I am guardedly optimistic about the new 8th edition rules, so I am starting out slowly with the Imperium 1 and Xenos 2 indices, and a full rulebook that I found on Ebay for $30. I like what I've seen so far, but I'm reserving final judgement until I've played a few more games. Hopefully I won't be disappointed again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (thrice or more times), shame on me.
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For reals?
Unless you want a computer to make all the necessary calculations - i.e.: videogames - there is no way to handle a tabletop game in a nonhistorical context "realistic". There is a level of abstraction you have to live with. Where the "right" level of abstraction is... that is a matter of taste, not of fact.
As for myself? I like the way 8th edition plays. I have to ignore some serious "realism issues" - I could live without vehivles shooting all their weapons once a bit of their hull can "see" the enemy, or the still rampant "morale? we have a way around that..." - but the game is so much more fluid now. I have fun throwing dice to do stuffs with my models, and in the end that is all that matters to me.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
To paraphrase Ben 'Yahtzee' Crowshaw "I'd have thought [Games Workshop] would want us to forget about [7th Edition]. Nobody likes [7th Edition]. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong."
The amount of work needed to make 7th actually half decent would border on a total rewrite from the ground up to begin with.
Then take the quote from Brian Cox in my sig as a supporting point.
You're entitled to like something, but one has to acknowledge that liking a thing is no guarantee of the thing having any quality, and you liking it doesn't imbue it with such.
Did read how the first time 40k dropped out of 1st place in the minatures game during its tenur.
This could be:
7th suxxors hard
GW has been going downhill for a while
Some better product was introduced
Other weird phenomena
I kinda bet 3 or 4 of those options are true.
Will 8th be worse? Who knows....We do know that many players have voiced a return to the game since so and so edition because of 8th. More online accounts of such than ever.
So does that make 8th better? Maybe.
It could be any alternative to 7th is bringing players back or it could be a super duper marketing scheme that is working and will be realized by the consumer as a scam
Or maybe it is better for most people
who thunk dat? (wistful thinking maybe has the most to do with it)
1-8th is incomplete. the indcies are stopgag, and not codcies. many factions don't actually function properly right now due to the lack of the extensive rules they need the index does not provide, this will be fixed in time.
2-formations. I LOVED them. a few were too good (but same applies to units) and a few were rather poorly thought out (practically any formation that spams one unit type is silly), but in the general sense of how armies are built, I much prefer formations and "decurions" over slot-based detachments.
3-streamlining killed a lot of design space. many things are just rather bland right now, and units feel less unique. the loss of vehicle facing and shooting arcs is just sad. codcies might chance that too though by adding more uniqueness.
8th has its advantages though, stratagems is a great addition to the game (resource management and decision making-good at shooting down netlisting a bit.), the movement attribute is great and the removal of generic "unit types" that created some odd anomalies (like ghostkeel being good at CC because MC so AP2)
Clearly GW is doing something right after all these decades. Their stocks have never been higher and they're still climbing. The company's worth four times what it used to be at some points and easily double what it most often was.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For reals?
Unless you want a computer to make all the necessary calculations - i.e.: videogames - there is no way to handle a tabletop game in a nonhistorical context "realistic". There is a level of abstraction you have to live with. Where the "right" level of abstraction is... that is a matter of taste, not of fact.
As for myself? I like the way 8th edition plays. I have to ignore some serious "realism issues" - I could live without vehivles shooting all their weapons once a bit of their hull can "see" the enemy, or the still rampant "morale? we have a way around that..." - but the game is so much more fluid now. I have fun throwing dice to do stuffs with my models, and in the end that is all that matters to me.
Why do you default to all or nothing?
And why isn't it obvious that the game is based in everyday physics, i.e. reality.
And that door, well boy, I came in twenty five years ago thereabouts.
Not gonna be run out by the like of you.
1-8th is incomplete. the indcies are stopgag, and not codcies. many factions don't actually function properly right now due to the lack of the extensive rules they need the index does not provide, this will be fixed in time.
2-formations. I LOVED them. a few were too good (but same applies to units) and a few were rather poorly thought out (practically any formation that spams one unit type is silly), but in the general sense of how armies are built, I much prefer formations and "decurions" over slot-based detachments.
3-streamlining killed a lot of design space. many things are just rather bland right now, and units feel less unique. the loss of vehicle facing and shooting arcs is just sad. codcies might chance that too though by adding more uniqueness.
8th has its advantages though, stratagems is a great addition to the game (resource management and decision making-good at shooting down netlisting a bit.), the movement attribute is great and the removal of generic "unit types" that created some odd anomalies (like ghostkeel being good at CC because MC so AP2)
Loss of realism in some ways makes for a less immersive experience.
Additional meta level game !mechanics makes for a command level feel.
I can go with this analysis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arkaine wrote: Clearly GW is doing something right after all these decades. Their stocks have never been higher and they're still climbing. The company's worth four times what it used to be at some points and easily double what it most often was.
Monsanto grew profitable mutating Vietnamese babies and banks these days have never bee richer by hoarding cash and putting people out of their houses at a record pace.
Exactly what does money have to do with anything?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Then take the quote from Brian Cox in my sig as a supporting point.
You're entitled to like something, but one has to acknowledge that liking a thing is no guarantee of the thing having any quality, and you liking it doesn't imbue it with such.
Good one.
But then again my liking it doesn't mean that it is any good.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
As if the little voice in my head sprouted wings and wrote that from the other side of the world while I was sleeping.
Thank you for this.
CovenantGuardian wrote: 8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.
We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.
Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...
I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.
There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.
There are other reasons to stick with an older system. I actively went back to 3rd, including rebuying all the books, because I preferred the game system. As I kept current with the rules, I had no issue learning them. I simply didn't like them.
BaconCatBug wrote:Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.
Petulant? So you start by being a complete heel for no good reason, and chase it by not really using the word right? I don't have the words...
Not more can be added that hasn't been brought up by others. If a system suits you better, play it. If keeping current means you don't get a game in, then stay retro.
Not because I find things "unrealistic" but because it's a game of toy soldiers and you NEED to have some abstraction otherwise the game becomes a mess.
Let's take a look at statlines. Are you trying to tel me that 40 Guardsmen all have EXACTLY the same ability. What if Guardman A has better aim than Guardsman B? But Guardsman C excels in close combat while Guardsman D is a natural born leader. Statlines do not reflect this. Therefore I think statistics should be individually generated at the start of the battle for each model.
Also, sometimes mechanical faults happen. I think that every turn players should roll for every piece of war gear to see if something goes wrong like dud frag grenades.
Also, every time an infantry model moves we should roll to see if they trip over their own foot.
Every time a model shoots, we should roll to see if someone bumps into him in the heat of battle and throws off his aim.
Every time a hover tank moves we should rolls to see if debris or a small animal got sucked into the engine and stops it from moving.
Every time someone tries to use an aura benefit we should roll to see if he actually heard the other yelling at him to shoot better.
When unit in cover are being shot at I feel like the cover should degrade over several turns as masonry etc gets chipped away. There should be rules for that.
I could go on but you get my point. You can't apply true realism to the game. You can't account for every scenario that could ever happen on a battlefield (especially a sci-fi one) which is what asking for realism demands. Why is tank facings more realistic than individual model stats? I don't think it is, we should have a lengthy argument about it with lots of quotation boxes. You think I'm happy my hormogaunts and genestealers can't physically stand on tanks and open hatches and slaughter the crew? Of course I'm not. But I don't expect them to be able to and when I move a unit into combat with them that's what I'm IMAGINING is happening. When tanks fire from behind cover I don't see them gaining secondary sight and firing through walls, I see them shooting as they move into cover or moving out to get line of sight and moving in again.
Demanding full on Warhammer 40,000: Grimdark Simulator would be a horrible, boring game.
In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.
Hilarious.
Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.
I don't agree at all, it makes positioning of both the target and firing unit far more important in game terms and as far as realism goes it is a huge factor in effectiveness.
This is one of many abstractions. I find it amusing that people are complaining about others, many of which are far more minor.
But if everything needs to be accounted for then even realistic movies aren't realistic.
Most aren't realistic at all. I'm still waiting for a movie where grenades go bang (not explode) when the spoon is released (this release a hammer which strikes a primer to ignite the chemical fuse).
I feel like people complaining about the vehicle facing rules have no room to complain as long as infantry don't have facing either. After all, flanking and sneaking up on enemies is a tactic as old as dirt.
The whole facing is abstracted into the battle is in constant motion. Things turn towards threats, shoot around corners and return to cover and keep their heads on a swivel.
Hell, I think the supersonic rule is the worst offender of immersion in the entire game. Those things would never stay on any table. They would just make bombing or strafing runs and be gone faster than anyone could really react.
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
Exactly and exalted
There's nothing intuitive about showing a new player a bastion model followed by explaining how each bolter in 8th edition can now shoot from anywhere because well if they don't like it it's a moral failure on their part.
Players can say abstraction until they're blue in the face, people can pull out the "realism in ma sci fi laser game" trope all they want, it doesn't change the fact that simulation in and of itself is more often nothing more than effective abstraction.
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.
So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?
7th ed: "let's have detail and context enhance gameplay, immersion and tactical depth"
8th ed: "I swear it will be like a bit faster and like you don't have to read or remember as much. You still have to move most flyers though, oh and look bigger space marines"
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.
So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?
Tanks acting like anime is less immersive than tanks not acting like anime. But tanks not acting like anime while monsters acted like anime was full on immersion-breaking. At least now there is consistency; I can accept tanks acting like anime just as readily as I can accept space-fighters firing lasers having dogfights (Star Wars). But having both in the same setting was as immersion breaking as having Fairey Swordfish outmaneuver Tie Fighters.
As for other things: Actually being able to field in-universe armies without resorting to weird and sometimes nonsensical formations: e.g. an IG superheavy tank regiment can finally actually bring only superheavy tanks, like it would in the fluff, rather than being forced to bring other stuff for bizarre, unfluffy, and therefore immersion-breaking reasons.
Tanks acting like anime is less immersive than tanks not acting like anime. But tanks not acting like anime while monsters acted like anime was full on immersion-breaking. At least now there is consistency; I can accept tanks acting like anime just as readily as I can accept space-fighters firing lasers having dogfights (Star Wars). But having both in the same setting was as immersion breaking as having Fairey Swordfish outmaneuver Tie Fighters.
So immersion breaking being made more consistent by the release of 8th has increased immersion? What?
You could technically run 3 Baneblades as its own detachment in 7th, though in practice such an army was very much "win big or lose big." You did at least have to worry about fire arcs with such a thing (though thankfully you could select multiple targets), but vehicles still have had Tokyo Drift ever since 6th, though Facings at least masked this oddness in the system.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.
So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?
No. Tanks having to drive up the field, stop, then aim their weapons and shoot, while still suffering the penalties for having moved even though they could not have fired a single weapon while on the go. Even the set of machine guns mounted on the roof maned by a person. Even the flying vehicles that should have been doing strafing runs but for some reason can only fire forward from their ending position.
We have been abstracting every other kind of model not needing to trace los from their weapon/facing for years because it's reasonable to assume that a infantry is able to twist and aim. But a tank driver positioning itself to maximize it's weapon use while on the go.... no.... thats unrealistic or something. THAT breaks immersion.
As for other things:
Actually being able to field in-universe armies without resorting to weird and sometimes nonsensical formations: e.g. an IG superheavy tank regiment can finally actually bring only superheavy tanks, like it would in the fluff, rather than being forced to bring other stuff for bizarre, unfluffy, and therefore immersion-breaking reasons.
Enjoyment in being able to field whatever you want certainly could be considered immersion breaking I guess. One could also argue losing a game breaks immersion too...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: You could technically run 3 Baneblades as its own detachment in 7th, though in practice such an army was very much "win big or lose big." You did at least have to worry about fire arcs with such a thing (though thankfully you could select multiple targets), but vehicles still have had Tokyo Drift ever since 6th, though Facings at least masked this oddness in the system.
No. Tanks having to drive up the field, stop, then aim their weapons and shoot, while still suffering the penalties for having moved even though they could not have fired a single weapon while on the go. Even the set of machine guns mounted on the roof maned by a person. Even the flying vehicles that should have been doing strafing runs but for some reason can only fire forward from their ending position.
We have been abstracting every other kind of model not needing to trace los from their weapon/facing for years because it's reasonable to assume that a infantry is able to twist and aim. But a tank driver positioning itself to maximize it's weapon use while on the go.... no.... thats unrealistic or something. THAT breaks immersion.
By your argument then, even vehicles with power of the machine spirit and thus split fire while still having to only aim at what it could actually aim at was less immersive than a vindicator shell teleporting out of a tank track. Go on. I guess one could be immersed in an acid frenzy, fair point.
Darnok wrote: Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.
You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?
I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.
Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.
Exactly and exalted
There's nothing intuitive about showing a new player a bastion model followed by explaining how each bolter in 8th edition can now shoot from anywhere because well if you don't like it it's a moral failure on their part if they don't like that absurdity.
Players can say abstraction until they're blue in the face, people can pull out the "realism in ma sci fi laser game" trope all they want, it doesn't change the fact that simulation in and of itself is more often nothing more than effective abstraction.
I find that a lot of people complaining about "realism" are those without the imagination to provide their own immersion. For the bastion there was nothing immersive/intuitive about saying well 4 guys can shoot out these 2 windows, or this 1 window. Or that 20 orks can fit in a battlewagon that is not at all to scale by your argument. Nothing immersive about units scattering off the table and dying in deepstrike (every battle is fought on a plateau above a fiery pit. There was never anything intuitive about a S10 Ap 4 weapon destroying a landraider but not penetrating the armor of a space marine. It is all a matter of perspective....
Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.
So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.
Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?
Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.
So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?
Consistency is more immersive, than having some things work one way and others a completely different way, when those things are supposed to be similar.
Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th, the challenge mechanic, invisible units being immune to templates and blasts, invulnerable units, Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example), the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective, the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.
I'm not saying 8th is a ton more immersive, but those complaining about the changes don't have much of an argument that 7th was any more immersive, they just don't like the changes.
The Baneblade company in 7th required a single techpriest tag-along, which makes 0 sense:
1) In terms of stratiegic mobility, a single techpriest could never keep up with a company of superheavies on his own on foot.
2) In terms of tactical mobility, a single techpriest absolutely does not keep up with a company of superheavies on his own on foot.
3) It is unlikely a single techpriest by his lonesome would just wander about trying to repair a trio of the mightiest of the Imperium's war machines all alone without help. If you are going to force players to include the maintenance assets for their army on the battlefield (as stupid as that is in the first place) at least make it so that it is possible to bring more than a single mechanic with no help to minister to 3 battleship-tanks.
Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.
Wouldn't want to slow down a game that now regularly sees hundred of conscript models fielded with something as awful as context or detail...
Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.
Wouldn't want to slow down a game that now regularly sees hundred of conscript models fielded with something as awful as context or detail...
I think he is saying that each of those conscript models should have a facing. And I agree.
After all, if there is a space too small for a Baneblade to 180-in using neutral steering, then there is conceivably a place too small for a normal human (or god forbid a Terminator) to 180 in with his legs. Sometimes the line at the grocery store is like that for me.
Of course, you can abstract the reasons for some units getting 360 LOS being their doctrine/being able to coordinate and mutually watch each other's backs.
Folks might not remember this, but in WHFB, 360* LOS was the exception rather than the norm. Every unit did have a front/flank/rear, which did mostly matter for Combat Resolution (at least before 8th added Steadfast), and generally could only shoot or charge at their front, and had to spend movement on turning or Reforming. Fast Cavalry had free Reforms and 360 LOS, and Skirmishers had dispersed formations and 360 LOS. However, both were "specialists" that were more expensive and comparably fragile due to their lack of armor, their main purposes being diversion and harassment, or the odd ability to hunt down War Machines.
You could easily just state that Infantry get 360 LOS and 360 maneuver, as you want infantry to cover armor, especially in urban environments where they're more prone to ambush, have restricted turret elevations/depressions, etc. Of course, this would have to be a conscious design decision and not a "streamline everything for Timmy" decision.
Of course, it would also be neat if certain AA units (Hydras) could ignore their AA penalty for targeting really tall units, or models that are "hi up." I remember reading a blurb about the Syrians in Lebanon using the ZSU not only for AA duty but to clear snipers and other resistance from rooftops, due to its sheer ROF and penetrative abilities.
Breng77 wrote: Consistency is more immersive, than having some things work one way and others a completely different way, when those things are supposed to be similar.
The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.
Breng77 wrote: Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th
You're right, much better to be a primarch and apparently invisible unless you're sniper. I'll call that a wash, no love for tanking but the alternative is randomizing (puke) or one or the other player's choice.
Yeah, no, can't argue there, challenges were always kinda garbage and should have stayed in warhammer, may it rest in piece.
Breng77 wrote: invisible units being immune to templates and blasts
Well, weren't they just not target-table by those? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe arent blasts can still scatter and hit invisible units no?
Breng77 wrote: Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example)
Was never a fan but can you honestly tell me 3 detachments controls anything and isn't every bit as apoc-ish? Only difference from what I can see is no formations and as such people at least have to pay points for the collection of stuff they want to field. Not really seeing any improvement from 7-8th in terms of army construction other than having to pay points for unbound-lite. Also, I kinda liked the idea of cp's when it was a simple system, first codex drops and its already a bloated mess of abilities. Sigh.
Breng77 wrote: the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective
At least it was fairly straightforward for most vehicles in the game because they were roughly quadrilateral. Not hard to find the center and draw an x. Losing that was a massive loss for immersion, rewarding flanking was a strong part of the game and still is alive and well in 30k. I find it immersive and challenging that I have to out maneuver an enemies spartan because its front is shielded. I also like that 30k has terrain rules and said tank isn't able to fire all of its many lascannons from its antenna.
Breng77 wrote: the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.
Between mc's and pretty much most things. GW's way of fixing mc's was to make everything an mc. Can you see where they went wrong there? "Hey boss, this windows broken, should we fix it?" "Nah. but break every other window, we don't wanna look like amateurs here"
I won't defend mc's in 7th, but I think fixing them maybe would have been a better route than a whole new edition.
Breng77 wrote: I'm not saying 8th is a ton more immersive, but those complaining about the changes don't have much of an argument that 7th was any more immersive, they just don't like the changes.
I don't think anyone could say 8th is a tonne more immersive, and I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they really are genuinely enjoying their games. From my perspective, just trying to do a turn summary style battle report, 8th is a lot more difficult to try and turn into a breakdown or narrative without objectively sounding more absurd. Allow me to give some examples. For one, unlimited split fire has made it really difficult to remember and recite the 2-5 things each unit engaged with. Sometimes the challenged is simply remembering more context, which is annoying but certainly more immersive if we're able to do so well and it's a unit comprised of a lot of models. When it's a single model however, you really start having to fill in the gaps, when it came to explaining the wizardry my flyers were achieving, not only did the camera have to fly in a bunch of directions even though all the weapons are plain to see on the front of it. The hardest part is trying to contextualize for people watching what is actually happening when my storm raven is fighting fire warriors in close combat. It goes downhill really quickly from there.
Look, one could find a playgroup more immersive because you don't have to have painted or even fully built models and project that on to the latest edition. Every game is a struggle to stay immersed and I would argue that could come down to many factors outside of the edition being played. The matchup, opponent, terrain, presence of absence of a roof and or inclement weather, lack of sleep, access to seating, All of those factors could affect one's immersion in any given game. For me it's painted models/terrain. That's a starting point. I probably set the bar too high. 7th isn't perfect but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water to satiate gw's new target market of 12 year olds. 8th is less immersive than 7th and 7th isn't perfect, but it's better than 8th.
I'm wondering why so many of your guys need validation in your hatred of 8th. Like it or don't, it doesn't matter. Enjoy your games in 7th. I couldn't and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore. It's your hobby, do it how you want to.
MagicJuggler wrote: Of course, you can abstract the reasons for some units getting 360 LOS being their doctrine/being able to coordinate and mutually watch each other's backs.
Folks might not remember this, but in WHFB, 360* LOS was the exception rather than the norm. Every unit did have a front/flank/rear, which did mostly matter for Combat Resolution (at least before 8th added Steadfast), and generally could only shoot or charge at their front, and had to spend movement on turning or Reforming. Fast Cavalry had free Reforms and 360 LOS, and Skirmishers had dispersed formations and 360 LOS. However, both were "specialists" that were more expensive and comparably fragile due to their lack of armor, their main purposes being diversion and harassment, or the odd ability to hunt down War Machines.
I never myself played warhammer but it's sad to see all that tossed out for the mosh pit that is aos. I still remember tournaments in 5th where players who didn't really grasp (or think) about fire arcs would get rather upset to no be allow a free pivot in the shooting phase if they found out a hull mounted weapon wasn't in arc of something they wanted to (now) target. And the design team decided to side with them with 8th. Not even just give them unlimited split fire, no, that could still end up with having to have some kind of causal forethought as to where to maneuver or point one's vehicles. Sigh.
MagicJuggler wrote: You could easily just state that Infantry get 360 LOS and 360 maneuver, as you want infantry to cover armor, especially in urban environments where they're more prone to ambush, have restricted turret elevations/depressions, etc. Of course, this would have to be a conscious design decision and not a "streamline everything for Timmy" decision.
We've always played you draw los from their head and its basically 360/spherical vision. Generally worked pretty well. 8th is certainly the "steamline everything for timmy" ethos at work
MagicJuggler wrote: Of course, it would also be neat if certain AA units (Hydras) could ignore their AA penalty for targeting really tall units, or models that are "hi up." I remember reading a blurb about the Syrians in Lebanon using the ZSU not only for AA duty but to clear snipers and other resistance from rooftops, due to its sheer ROF and penetrative abilities.
I think for units like hydras, maybe just burn a turn to like switch from aa to ground. Los wise the model has a really big arc so that takes care of itself, game wise you don't want too much of an incentive to take it for ground fire.
If I was a sniper I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one of these things. Scary
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: I'm wondering why so many of your guys need validation in your hatred of 8th. Like it or don't, it doesn't matter. Enjoy your games in 7th. I couldn't and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore. It's your hobby, do it how you want to.
Breng77 wrote: Consistency is more immersive, than having some things work one way and others a completely different way, when those things are supposed to be similar.
The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.
I was enjoying the discussion until this showed you're a WAAC debater. You keep bouncing around from one subject to the next, turning an argument on immersion and consistency up on its head because diversity isn't equal or balanced.
We're well aware that apples aren't oranges so please resume your discussion with that in mind and stick to the subjects being quoted. Like your argument, it's not hard to argue a point as seemingly correct when you're always off on a tangent referring to unrelated matters that deviate from the point you're attempting to disprove.
Well for "realistic" vehicle rules, go to 2nd edition where vehicles had speed settings, turn radius, crewmen could be injured and every weapon rolled like a dozen dice for damage.
Immersion to me is consistency, the ability to build a fun and fluffy army that can compete, and the ability to enjoy a game without getting bogged down in rules disputes. No version of 40k has ever really been immersive, even with Overwatch of the past and LoS for infantry.
What 8th brought for me is what I said above, I have fun again. If I could change anything about 8th it would be making the terrain rules from Cities of Death bog standard, return to the old Psyker cards from 2nd edition and removing superheavies from normal games. That's really it right now. I don't love the flying rules, but I can live with that. I'm yet to have an issue with this all prevalent conscript spam and I doubt many complaining about it have either.
It's pretty easy to enjoy the game now. If you liked 7th, then play 7th rather than telling people they shouldn't enjoy 8th. I dropped out of 7th and all things 40k because I hated it so much, but I didn't sit on forums and berate those that did like it.
Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.
Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.
Because IGOUGO is inherently flawed. Alpha strike has always been a problem in 40k. 8th edition just made everything a lot more killy while not compensating enough with the wounds.
Our games started that way, now its pretty rare any of us are tabled. We adjusted our playstyle to prevent that from happening to us. Just like first turn assaults were all the rage at first, now we tend to hold the assaults for the right moment.
You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.
I really hate this line of reasoning. The existence of unrealistic elements in a setting doesn't allow it to ignore it's own internal consistency. If the fluff had some AdMech guy strap a jet engine to a Baneblade to make it fly we would call that stupid and unrealistic. You can't argue that it's fine because magic exists in the setting. If Gandalf ended the battle of Minas Tirath but conjuring an AR-15 and start mowing down orcs you'd think that was stupid as well. But actually it's fine because magic exists.
There's a difference between realism and abstraction. Realism has rules the writers of a setting establish and stick to and it mostly exists in the fluff. Abstraction is a game mechanic required to make the game work and requires us to fill in the blanks with our imagination. It applies to all games. If anyone can show me a tabletop game with rules that allow for complete realism within the setting I will do...something. I dunno what. I suppose go "Huh." and carry on with my life.
Breng77 wrote: Consistency is more immersive, than having some things work one way and others a completely different way, when those things are supposed to be similar.
The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.
Not really as I was only referring to the change between vehicles and everything else in the game, which was rendered more consistent than they were in 7th. Beyond that lots of unit types that don't really add all that much beyond built in special rules (that could be given to individual units) and movement changes (included in profile in 8th) don't add anything for immersion. IN fact at least for new players they can break immersion when you need to look up what special rules your unit gets just because it is a beast.
Breng77 wrote: Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th
You're right, much better to be a primarch and apparently invisible unless you're sniper. I'll call that a wash, no love for tanking but the alternative is randomizing (puke) or one or the other player's choice.
Player's choice is better, as for the non-targeting thing, there are instances when I think it is immersion breaking, but more often than not it is less so than a bullet catching IC in 7th. Having a more immediate threat is a valid reason to not shoot something further away. Now I think it should have been implemented differently, but I get why it works that way. In 7th that character in a unit was equally as invisible if they desired to be.
Breng77 wrote: invisible units being immune to templates and blasts
Well, weren't they just not target-table by those? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe arent blasts can still scatter and hit invisible units no?
yes you could "try" to scatter on to invisible units, but being untargetable broke immersion for me. If I have a bunch of flamers and I know their is an invisible enemy shooting at me from a specific direction, I'm filling that area with fire. Same with blasts. They are the natural answer to things you cannot see. In fact barrages can shoot with no LOS, but not at invisible units, because they cannot see them? what?
Breng77 wrote: Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example)
Was never a fan but can you honestly tell me 3 detachments controls anything and isn't every bit as apoc-ish? Only difference from what I can see is no formations and as such people at least have to pay points for the collection of stuff they want to field. Not really seeing any improvement from 7-8th in terms of army construction other than having to pay points for unbound-lite. Also, I kinda liked the idea of cp's when it was a simple system, first codex drops and its already a bloated mess of abilities. Sigh.
I think it could be better than 8th, but 8th is way better than 7th given that as I said no Nid-Tau, or Eldar-Daemon etc pairings. It controls those types of fluff breaking pairings.
Breng77 wrote: the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective
At least it was fairly straightforward for most vehicles in the game because they were roughly quadrilateral. Not hard to find the center and draw an x. Losing that was a massive loss for immersion, rewarding flanking was a strong part of the game and still is alive and well in 30k. I find it immersive and challenging that I have to out maneuver an enemies spartan because its front is shielded. I also like that 30k has terrain rules and said tank isn't able to fire all of its many lascannons from its antenna.
The issue is though that I could be standing 1" to the left and be in the side arc, and 1" to the right and be in the rear, from 48" away, why can't I target the less durable area which I can still see? It's arbitrary and not all vehicles are close to quadrilaterals (eldar, Tau, Necrons, most walkers) . As for shooting from the antenna, yeah that is dumb, but no moreso than a spacemarine doing it from his toe. Either everything should have facings, and arcs or nothing should, otherwise it becomes a point of balance. See MCs vs vehicles that last 2 editions.
Breng77 wrote: the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.
Between mc's and pretty much most things. GW's way of fixing mc's was to make everything an mc. Can you see where they went wrong there? "Hey boss, this windows broken, should we fix it?" "Nah. but break every other window, we don't wanna look like amateurs here"
I won't defend mc's in 7th, but I think fixing them maybe would have been a better route than a whole new edition.
It wasn't just MCs that needed fixing in 7th. Flyers were poorly handled, psychic powers, codex balance, allies rules, formations etc. At some point a whole new edition seems like a better fix.
Breng77 wrote: I'm not saying 8th is a ton more immersive, but those complaining about the changes don't have much of an argument that 7th was any more immersive, they just don't like the changes.
I don't think anyone could say 8th is a tonne more immersive, and I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they really are genuinely enjoying their games. From my perspective, just trying to do a turn summary style battle report, 8th is a lot more difficult to try and turn into a breakdown or narrative without objectively sounding more absurd. Allow me to give some examples. For one, unlimited split fire has made it really difficult to remember and recite the 2-5 things each unit engaged with. Sometimes the challenged is simply remembering more context, which is annoying but certainly more immersive if we're able to do so well and it's a unit comprised of a lot of models. When it's a single model however, you really start having to fill in the gaps, when it came to explaining the wizardry my flyers were achieving, not only did the camera have to fly in a bunch of directions even though all the weapons are plain to see on the front of it. The hardest part is trying to contextualize for people watching what is actually happening when my storm raven is fighting fire warriors in close combat. It goes downhill really quickly from there.
Look, one could find a playgroup more immersive because you don't have to have painted or even fully built models and project that on to the latest edition. Every game is a struggle to stay immersed and I would argue that could come down to many factors outside of the edition being played. The matchup, opponent, terrain, presence of absence of a roof and or inclement weather, lack of sleep, access to seating, All of those factors could affect one's immersion in any given game. For me it's painted models/terrain. That's a starting point. I probably set the bar too high. 7th isn't perfect but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water to satiate gw's new target market of 12 year olds. 8th is less immersive than 7th and 7th isn't perfect, but it's better than 8th.
I disagree with your final assessment, I find 8th more immersive because I don't need to keep an encyclopedia of rules in my head to play, so I can become immersed. But in the end that is a point of opinion and not an objective fact.
Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.
Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.
Well for me it's the opposite. With orks and dark eldar I could be tabled by turn 3 if I started second even with the most competitive lists that my armies could bring. Now it's way more difficult to suffer a tabled result and my armies don't have the strenght to table anyone by turn 5. Many games in 7th edtion were screwed turn 1, now it's hard to lose 400 points of stuff in the first turn of shooting. Maybe with the broken stormravens spam but it was clearly a mistake and it was fixed in a few weeks. I don't play with time limits and usually arrive at turn 5, certainly more often than in the previous edition.
Ultracompetitive tournaments list may be a differente story, but the tournament environment has always been extremely unbalanced.
Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.
Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.
Reece has stated that this style of play will gradually evolve as players learn not to put all their eggs in one basket in terms of alpha/beta strike.
Paraphrasing, but: To start with, his playtest group was finding the game very swingy, with games ending very quickly one way or the other. So the playstyles evolved to be more cautious in approach which then leads to more interesting games.
What? You mean players evolve rather slowly as a collective community and we should perhaps give it a bit of time before reflexively declaring 8th to be the best/worst/whatever edition ever?
HOGWASH! I liked [insert edition here]. 8th is clearly a travesty and should never have happened. After all, conscripts/scions/guilliman/baneblades/IG/tau/eldar/models with fly/fall back rules/fighty tanks/stormravens ARE THE WORST THING EVER.
I never really get the rage about the vehicle rules. Perhaps it's because our gaming group is rather small and only has Tau, Necrons, DE, Space Wolves and Death Guard in it, but in our 6th/7th edition games vehicle rules (facing, armour values) hardly played a role. Vehicles were made of paper and after every game we were like: Hmm, vehicles are bad. They could be better if they had twice the hull points. But then they still suck due to their movement restrictions and explode.
I guess armour values mattered in 5th edition were vehicles didn't have hull ponts. In 6th/7th they brought nothing to the game. Yes, they made me attack Necron vehicles in CC (actually the quantum shielding did that). But that's all. In 8th vehicles finally have a place again and feel like actual vehicles, you know, tanks. My rhino now lasts longer than a plague marine. It can also move quite fast and give supporting fire, as if it was an assault transport.
What do I miss from 7th? Probably the amount of fluffy rules. Yes, formations were badly implemented and should not have been for free, but I actually liked what they brought. Not the bland ones with free Razorbacks, but the cool ones. Tau had a lot of cool formations that gave a different way to run things. The mayhem pack for Helbrutes was awesome. The Cult of Destruction, too.
But guess what? We now get stratagems in the codex, which bring some formation rules back, however with a cost. Problem solved.
I have played the game since Rogue Trader. I'm 43 this year. I own IG, chaos, blood angels and tau.
7th edition was the first edition to make me set things down and take a break. I bought 1 model all of 7th edition at the beginning, finished it and then decided that I just couldn't stomach the rules. It was the worst system in the 30 or so years I played the game. It was the 'anything goes and we need to sell models and books edition.'
Players have asked for years to 'have it all' and 7th gave it to you. It wrecked the game. It was a cluttered confusing mess of a system that was so overloaded with a glut of rules that it bogged games down. It was so rules heavy that it was more convenient to play very small 1K point games vs. trying to play 2K+
Our group still tried to play some arranged games where one person built both armies, so we could avoid the cluster of imbalance and really poor matchups or gross abuse of the system. The games just weren't as fun.
Where I landed was, the rules were just too cumbersome, there were far too many codices with too many special rules, and the games were just bogging way down... the fun was draining fast from the game. For me, 7th was a disaster that 6th started.
+ + +
8th brought in a much needed simplification for speed of play. It hearkens back to 2nd edition in many ways. It works to reduce rule lookup, without losing the action or tactics. It also works to remove just a tremendous amount of rules bickering, discussions and rules look-ups or the alike. Weapons facing and model facing to determine LOS is gone, and good riddens... models can now just shoot - measure from the base. There's no more fidgeting with difficult and dangerous terrain rolls, you just move. There's no more arguing over who is and is not in terrain, you are either all in or within it, or you are not all in or within it... and if your not, take some damage until you are... now, start taking damage with the same. Done. It works.
There were clearly some rule changes for simplicity sake. You cannot shoot at characters without being closest to it and characters don't join the units. It works. It's easy. Some special units like the necrons have exceptions with a unit here or there, but overall, characters can be used more tactically vs. sticking with a unit.
Transports can have any number of units in them, but you still have model limits the transport can hold - it works.
The psychic phase got rid of all the dice management... you now just cast spells based on pass / fail system. Every enemy psyker gets one shot to deny, it works. It's quick.
Pistols are back - they actually have a purpose and can make a big difference with a unit that's stuck in the thick of it and flamers once again are a real threat as they auto hit.
The recurring rerolling from twin-linked has been changed to just double the amount of shots... much of the game has been modified simply to eliminate time wasting, and moving forward.
Even morale works cleaner. There's no more breaking checks constantly across phases and models then moving to shift backwards or forwards. Now, it happens once at the end of the turn, and however much you fail by - that quantity of models just leaves the field - done, simple, faster.
Much of the game has been changed not to be different, but just to go faster. This allows you to play even more units, and the game simply keeps moving vs. getting bogged down into measurement debates, or template debates... etc.
Oh, the templates being removed was so long over due... you can now just move your units and clump them up as much as you like together in base to base... folks are no longer anally moving to keep this artificial spacing to minimize template damage or tactically positioning models to avoid the blast or template... man I'm so happy those things are gone... its also less cr@p you have to carry around should you travel to game. You need your models, your iPad if you go electronic books, and your models.
8th has brought me back to the game.
I think GW has directly encouraged horde armies in 8th at this time. Many armies now have some kind of cheap unit you can blanket the field with to absorb wounds and put out a rediculous amount of shots or hth... necrons have swarms, chaos cultists, tau drones, orks gretchin, ig conscripts... etc. There are also a number of rules which keep the units around longer, like commissar within 6" so morale doesn't cause more than a single wound when failed... and the list goes on.
I was initially concerned about the horde mentality, but I think its actually quite a good impact. The toys before boyz mentality will take a hit. The elite only armies simply cannot dish out enough damage to impact them, and ultimately it encourages a more balanced approach to dealing with threats.
8th does use detachments as opposed to a force org chart... it's like having a variety of force org charts. So far, this has worked well but its early. You will see games with no troop choices... you will see games with heavy amounts of heavy choices... or heavy amounts of elite or fast attack choices. However with reserves and deep striking all streamlined, it hasn't been a problem yet. Less troops required is a bit different, but armies seem more enjoyable to play and construct as a result.
8th has been out for a couple months, and I've picked up 4 models, some paints and I'm genuinely excited to play and optimistic about where the game is going again. The community focus GW has shown thus far, is encouraging.
- Move fast, yet are so easy to hit any dumb idiot with I2 can still stick a stickybomb up their tailpipe.
- Have no problem shooting whatsoever, except when it's overwatch time, because bs reasons.
- Have strong front armor and literally no rear armor. Like they can take an arrow-type round to the front but they can't take .50 caliber in the rear.
Vehicles in 8th edition:
- Behave like every other unit.
- In 5,6% of cases, when one could actually take advantage of facing, you're not spending half an hour determining whether that's really the rear of the Eldar tank anymore.
- Suck at Close Combat for some obscure reason
As a Mech player, 8th is miles better than 7th and even more realistic, although still somewhat quite unrealistic.
Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.
Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.
Reece has stated that this style of play will gradually evolve as players learn not to put all their eggs in one basket in terms of alpha/beta strike.
Paraphrasing, but: To start with, his playtest group was finding the game very swingy, with games ending very quickly one way or the other. So the playstyles evolved to be more cautious in approach which then leads to more interesting games.
I've said this several times about this edition, especially about tanks and close combat. People are still playing a point and click game where you set up your models and shoot each other and whoever rolls best wins. They see a big scary coming toward their Leman Russ or whatever and they play like in the old edition where they could just sit still and not worry. Tanks have like a 12" move now, which is faster than A LOT of close combat units, you have no excuse for leaving your tanks stationary if you know something is coming at it. Sure you're at -1 to hit, but it's still better than nothing and at least your tank isn't dead.
Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.
Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.
Well for me it's the opposite. With orks and dark eldar I could be tabled by turn 3 if I started second even with the most competitive lists that my armies could bring. Now it's way more difficult to suffer a tabled result and my armies don't have the strenght to table anyone by turn 5. Many games in 7th edtion were screwed turn 1, now it's hard to lose 400 points of stuff in the first turn of shooting. Maybe with the broken stormravens spam but it was clearly a mistake and it was fixed in a few weeks. I don't play with time limits and usually arrive at turn 5, certainly more often than in the previous edition.
Ultracompetitive tournaments list may be a differente story, but the tournament environment has always been extremely unbalanced.
I can't disagree, but competitive meta ultimately finds its way to even casual gaming circles.
Sim-Life wrote: There's a difference between realism and abstraction.
Abstraction is necessary for the game to function.
For EVERY game to function. Even games devoted blindingly, boringly, and obsessively to realism have massive amounts of abstraction. They're just in denial of it, and their games suffer for it.
Melissia wrote: I find the realism "debate" amusing.
You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.
I really hate this line of reasoning. The existence of unrealistic elements in a setting doesn't allow it to ignore it's own internal consistency. If the fluff had some AdMech guy strap a jet engine to a Baneblade to make it fly we would call that stupid and unrealistic. You can't argue that it's fine because magic exists in the setting. If Gandalf ended the battle of Minas Tirath but conjuring an AR-15 and start mowing down orcs you'd think that was stupid as well. But actually it's fine because magic exists.
There's a difference between realism and abstraction. Realism has rules the writers of a setting establish and stick to and it mostly exists in the fluff. Abstraction is a game mechanic required to make the game work and requires us to fill in the blanks with our imagination. It applies to all games. If anyone can show me a tabletop game with rules that allow for complete realism within the setting I will do...something. I dunno what. I suppose go "Huh." and carry on with my life.
@Melissia: Unfortunately every time someone finds something "amusing" it tends to be interpreted to condescension, the main thrust of your argument is that since there is magic: "realism" has no basis with the game.
<edit> If it is more around the "get a life" variant, many people have a grip on what is important in life like work and home-life but our hobbies are important too so it is justifiable to "argue" nuances of what we like to do.
I can tune into a multitude of stations on radio and TV digging into stats of players and teams to last me beyond a lifetime.
@Sim-Life: I must agree with your reasoning here (well written I might add).
It is a matter of context and typically we look to the "fluff" of what a unit can and cannot do so if the rules are contrary to the stories, the game has less "realism".
Some could argue that dog-fighting becomes an issue since we have full 360 firing arc: X-wing this is not.
Or my friend's "realism" breaker is how flame throwers make the best anti-aircraft weapon (he would like to have all hard to hit flying units to add 8" to their distance for being shot at).
Yes, realism comes up many times, this is categorized as a "war-game" so we do not want to be pulling out the "Deus Ex Machina" (See "plot device" Wiki) just because "gee wiz it is magic", it makes for poor writing and a poor game.
As I think I stated already, I wouldn't say 8th is a brilliant game design by any stretch. I'm not shocked that some people don't like it. I am shocked, however, that anyone can honestly try to defend 7th as an example of anything good about wargaming.
When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.
Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.
There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.
When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.
auticus wrote: When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.
Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.
There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.
When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.
I agree... but also disagree. Things which are intuitive are not always realistic, e.g.:
It is intuitive that shooting a tank in the side is more likely to penetrate than shooting at the front.
HOWEVER
The tank could have spaced armour on the side. If you're using HEAT shells, the side is actually usually a very poor target, as it is the easiest surface to cover with ERA and spaced armour. Tanks can also be angled, such that 'if you can see the side, you can shoot it' will actually make your shell bounce off more than if you just derped it in the face.
Another tank example (one that GW is bad with):
Most people accept it as truth that infantry in close quarters are bad for tanks.
However, that ignores the equipment of the infantry. Conventional, well-equipped infantry with antitank weapons are a threat to tanks at close quarters. The ill-equipped Chinese army at Chosin Reservoir, however, was utterly incapable of stopping or even majorly inconveniencing the tanks involved, despite literally crawling atop them.
Tanks acting like anime is less immersive than tanks not acting like anime. But tanks not acting like anime while monsters acted like anime was full on immersion-breaking. At least now there is consistency; I can accept tanks acting like anime just as readily as I can accept space-fighters firing lasers having dogfights (Star Wars). But having both in the same setting was as immersion breaking as having Fairey Swordfish outmaneuver Tie Fighters.
So immersion breaking being made more consistent by the release of 8th has increased immersion? What?
You really want the gakky tanks back with firearcs and paper hulls? BECAUSE THATS SO IMMERSIVE!
Talizvar wrote: the main thrust of your argument is that since there is magic: "realism" has no basis with the game.
Realism in games is nothing more than a bunch of vague nonsense that can't ever even be agreed upon. A game being "realistic" or not has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game. The quality of the game's abstractions and how they interact are what's actually important. You can't even get everyone to agree upon realism in 40k being good, never mind what realism actually is in relation to 40k.
What IS realism in 40k? Is it a single Space Marine killing 2000 points of guardsmen without taking a scratch? Is it a squad of five heroic conscripts standing their ground against a legion of orks, taking down a hundred times their number before they die? Is it Space Marines actually being vulnerable to other factions' firepower, or is that unrealistic like so many people claim? Is realism letting Orks and Tyranids get double the game's points values for free, because they always outnumber their opponent? Is it Dark Eldar sweeping in and taking the objectives and then leaving, winning the game without a shot being fired? Is it Necrons always coming back, not just sometimes, when damaged?
auticus wrote: When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.
Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.
There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.
When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.
I agree... but also disagree. Things which are intuitive are not always realistic, e.g.:
It is intuitive that shooting a tank in the side is more likely to penetrate than shooting at the front.
HOWEVER
The tank could have spaced armour on the side. If you're using HEAT shells, the side is actually usually a very poor target, as it is the easiest surface to cover with ERA and spaced armour. Tanks can also be angled, such that 'if you can see the side, you can shoot it' will actually make your shell bounce off more than if you just derped it in the face.
Another tank example (one that GW is bad with):
Most people accept it as truth that infantry in close quarters are bad for tanks.
However, that ignores the equipment of the infantry. Conventional, well-equipped infantry with antitank weapons are a threat to tanks at close quarters. The ill-equipped Chinese army at Chosin Reservoir, however, was utterly incapable of stopping or even majorly inconveniencing the tanks involved, despite literally crawling atop them.
Just some examples.
Not to seem overly pedantic but, it's intuitive if you have basic knowledge of tanks.
If you're using HEAT shells you shouldn't be shooting at another tank in the first place (I was a 19k in the army)
If we had different ammo types that'd be on point.
Well-equipped infantry can stop tanks yes. But a lot of infantry simply cannot without throwing wave after wave at you (what we are taught while stationed at the DMZ in Korea, you'll run out of ammo and then they'll eventually pry your hatches open and kill you but they'll take huge losses)
When I say intuitive I mean that it should work as I'd expect it in the real world. For example: gravity.
Another example: if there is a swirling melee going on and I lob a mortar shell into that melee, intuitively I'd expect to hurt my own dudes. in Age of Sigmar, only the other side gets hurt.
auticus wrote: When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.
Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.
There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.
When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.
I agree to an extent, but disagree that some of the things that people are arguing are intuitive are any more intuitive than the changes they complain about. I already pointed out the fire arc issue with tanks (being 1" in either direction making a difference in your effectiveness.), it would also matter for some models where the cockpit is more durable than the rear armor for some reason, because the "glass" is more durable than the armor. Or that the rear is more fragile in general (shooting a rhino in it's rear hatch does damage more easily than shooting it where more meaningful systems would be)
Or the argument that it is intuitive that infantry can draw LOS from their toes, but tanks need to do so from their weapon. I like "use the hull" because it is consistent with other units, and thus intuitive. It would be equally intuitive if all units drew LOS from their weapons, but it would put another level of positioning into the game that would slow down game play as players position their models to fire in the exact direction desired.
auticus wrote: If you're using HEAT shells you shouldn't be shooting at another tank in the first place (I was a 19k in the army)
If we had different ammo types that'd be on point.
Well-equipped infantry can stop tanks yes. But a lot of infantry simply cannot without throwing wave after wave at you (what we are taught while stationed at the DMZ in Korea, you'll run out of ammo and then they'll eventually pry your hatches open and kill you but they'll take huge losses)
When I say intuitive I mean that it should work as I'd expect it in the real world. For example: gravity.
Another example: if there is a swirling melee going on and I lob a mortar shell into that melee, intuitively I'd expect to hurt my own dudes. in Age of Sigmar, only the other side gets hurt.
So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?
What is intuitive on a non-earth planet in 38,000 years anyways? Even the gravity which you mentioned might be different!
At that point if we're going to say that 38,000 years in the future nothing can be intuitive in a game set there due to our experiences today, so therefore its ok for the game to totally not be intuitive, we can agree that what we want out of a game is probably not in tune with each other and just call it at that.
I just think it's funny to play a game set on different planets written by creative writers (not military personnel) in 38,000 years time in which Hell actually exists and strong beliefs can warp and change reality and then expect it to be intuitive at all. It's literally a different universe, with exactly zero continuity between now and then except 'there are men'.
And even that is arguable, because the humans of the future may have changed so radically in so many ways (psychologically, socially, cognitively, biologically) that they may not even be called 'men' anymore.
Expecting things to be 'intuitive' I think is ... silly.
Talizvar wrote: the main thrust of your argument is that since there is magic: "realism" has no basis with the game.
Realism in games is nothing more than a bunch of vague nonsense that can't ever even be agreed upon. A game being "realistic" or not has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game. The quality of the game's abstractions and how they interact are what's actually important. You can't even get everyone to agree upon realism in 40k being good, never mind what realism actually is in relation to 40k.
Good points in the examples you give after that.
BUT "realism" I would define like the wiki link I made with Deus Ex Machina:
"Aristotle was the first to use a Greek term equivalent to the Latin phrase deus ex machina as a term to describe the technique as a device to resolve the plot of tragedies.[3] It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.
It is this "challenging suspension of disbelief" that is the complaint.
Like how we all have our own opinion, we each have our own breaking point where the game is judged as "nonsense" and dismissed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?
Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...
Unit1126PLL wrote: So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?
Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...
No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?
Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...
No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.
Eh, that's flaky... it's like saying because we have lasers there's no reason we shouldn't assume infantry have laser rifles and armies have laser tanks.
Permissive ruleset, it has to say it exists before it possibly exists.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?
Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...
No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.
Eh, that's flaky... it's like saying because we have lasers there's no reason we shouldn't assume infantry have laser rifles and armies have laser tanks.
Permissive ruleset, it has to say it exists before it possibly exists.
The fluff and its interpretations are not permissive rulesets (they're not rulesets at all, actually); in fact, they're quite the opposite, designed to let people expand upon their army's background and fluff within the setting.
And I'm just giving an example of plausible (in my opinion) fluff that seems to excuse the existing game mechanics, and is intuitive to me, as a mechanism to illustrate why 'realism' and 'what is intuitive' are not metrics you can judge 40k by, as it is deliberately designed to have a very open attitude towards the fluff and its interpretation. There is no hard canon in 40k.
Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.
Voss wrote: Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.
So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.
Voss wrote: Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.
So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.
Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer: the rules are the rules and not a bit more.
If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.
Others may have more delicate sensibilities...
Voss wrote: Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.
So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.
Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer: the rules are the rules and not a bit more.
If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.
Others may have more delicate sensibilities...
Oh I see. Yes from this viewpoint it's silly to demand realism; the most competitive games in my experience are often the least realistic.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Oh I see. Yes from this viewpoint it's silly to demand realism; the most competitive games in my experience are often the least realistic.
I am not saying that for many some "realism" is not preferred.
I would state that it is not a requirement to be in a game.
Magic the gathering is an awesome game with tons of lore but it's mechanics make little attempt to simulate two spell-casters battling it out in any "realistic" way (I assume you were being sarcastic earlier?).
Unitsomething wrote:So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic?
I haven't the faintest idea. This is game where some units can outrun gunfire, but at the same time actual demigods can't roflstomp barely trained, malnourished and uneducated mortals.
There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
Actually, there is a lot that can be related and compared. The game is all math, which functions quite well for relations and comparisons.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.
Correct. The 'lore' has been retconned repeatedly in a number of areas, and if it followed the lore, each space marine could take on dozens of guardsmen and win. 'Lore correct' versions of most models are completely untenable for a game that doesn't involve a single player indulging in power fantasy masturbation all alone.
Voss wrote: Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.
So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.
Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer:
Am I? I haven't played in a tournament in...hmm. This century, at least.
the rules are the rules and not a bit more.
Correct.
If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.
Well, no, from a game perspective, that would be stupid.
Others may have more delicate sensibilities...
Uh... sure?
The game needs to function as a game. It can't function the way the background does, as that doesn't make for a fun (or even vaguely entertaining) two person game.
People can feel free to be inspired by the war-porn background, but that reading isn't going to translate to the tabletop, and the game would be terrible if it did.
As someone who started playing in the very end of second, played a lot of 3rd, and played a literal ton of 4th and a bit of 5th (like used to play a game a day at 2000 pts) then did nothing from 6th or 7th I can say relearning now with 8th coming out was a great time to jump back in. I started looking near the end of 7th and it seemed, not complicated, but also a bit denser (wrong word I am sure) than I rememberd.
8th on the other hand reminded me of 3rd, where all the armies were in the rule book as a starting point until codexes could get released. The rules are easy to understand with 8th, and I have had no trouble getting my head wrapped around them. The rest of my group is just getting into 40k for the first time and they also seem to be getting it pretty simply.
I don't understand the "there is no terrain" issue others have mentioned. I remember before that if you were in area terrain you had to be within 6" of the edge of said terrain to see out and shoot. Now if all models are in said area then they are in cover. It's a simpler way to deal with the rule and it doesn't seem to cause an issue. If one model is not in the area all are out is a bit silly but not really. Get shot at, kill the units outside the area. Leave the ones inside there. After said enemy shooting the squad kills the guys outside then during the rest of that shooting phase the unit is now in cover. Makes target priority an issue. And you can always house rule the terrain to have different effects if you want. Forests give +1 to your armor save rolls. Ruins give -1 to hit rolls. By making it area terrain based you simply remove the argument that "I thought that should give me an improved save because you cant see my knees" type of arguments happening.
It's a different game for sure but it's still the same game I feel. A lot of changes from my pov are argument removal ones. I do miss armor facings on tank's. They could have kept the same rules as they are using now but did F8, S8, R7 to give the different sides a value. However again I think the rules were done to remove arguments. I'm hitting your side, no your hitting my front kind of things. The idea of "my nose can see you so all my guns can hit" however I am not cool with. We again used a house rule, your gun points have to be able to see the target as if they were individual models to be able to shoot at a target. Is it RAW? No, but as others have said it makes a he'll of a lot of sense and we haven't had any arguments while playing the dozen or so games we have all played.
So 8th is good. Indexes are cheap if you want to try it out, but if you like 7th then there is no reason to update if you don't want to. But the lack of arguments has been great so far lol.
Azuza001 wrote: The idea of "my nose can see you so all my guns can hit" however I am not cool with.
Why? They removed it for Infantry in 3rd. The battlefield isn't a static model, it's a moving maelstrom and the abstraction is just fine. Your Land Raider jinked and fired while on the move, it didn't move and then come to a full stop, then fire.
The Good: Despite the clunky 2nd edition style rules, the gameplay feels much more fluid and intuitive.
Brings back some decent, common-sense rules from 4th edition such as area terrain and wound allocation.
No hull points! The vehicle wounds feel arcadey but they're still better than hull points.
The addition of the 'damage' characteristic makes pure anti-tank weapons more viable.
You can choose psyker powers again!
The Meh: Units can fire at multiple targets in a single turn. It's not a bad thing, and sometimes it makes the game feel more intuitive, but it's been a staple of 40K rules for a long time; making you choose your targets carefully.
There's no bonus attack when assaulting.. or anything else unless the model's weapons specifically says that it gives more than one attack.
Vehicles are basically monstrous creatures as they have no armour facings or weapon angles. On the plus side it does speed up the game, but I like the drama of having to flank around to hid the tank's weak spot, or making a self-propelled-gun useless by immobilising it while its gun is pointing away from my troops.
The Bad: Everyone has Gauss weapons now, IIRC being able to kill Land Raiders with lasguns.
Units lose models rather than falling back when failing a leadership test. Part of the point of terrorising the enemy is that you can make the entire unit turn tail and run, rather than just a few of their mates leaving.
The wounds system is rather simplistic, as bolters and pulse rifles both wound Toughness 3 models on 3+
Overall I'd say that 8th edition is a faster, sometimes more arcadey game which brings back some retro style while removing a lot of the nonsense brought in by 6th & 7th edition. I'm especially glad to see that the combat mechanics are going back to a more abstract system.
Was my state the only place in the world where people figured out if you sit back far enough you couldn't get transport charged 1st turn? OR that if you shoot the transports first turn, you eliminate the problem? Hell, Wave Serpents were an even bigger threat as they had more vicious things in them. In fact, the only Rhino rush worth writing home about was Blood Angels. Shoot the transports: problem solved.
Was my state the only place in the world where people figured out if you sit back far enough you couldn't get transport charged 1st turn? OR that if you shoot the transports first turn, you eliminate the problem? Hell, Wave Serpents were an even bigger threat as they had more vicious things in them. In fact, the only Rhino rush worth writing home about was Blood Angels. Shoot the transports: problem solved.
.
Lol nope, I always smiled when my opponent setup in rhinos across the field from me and I was already prepared for it. memories. Lol
BaconCatBug, the reason we changed the rule for that slight change was it felt right. 8th does a lot of things that feel right when playing and it gets some wrong. This just feels better when playing the game as showing a bit more as to the difference between mc's and vehicles. It feels better in game. I am not saying that everyone should start using this house rule or that GW should make it a real rule any more than "hand of fate" house rule from years ago (at any one time during the game you can either reroll a single dice or have your opponent reroll a single dice. You can not reroll a reroll). It really added a bit of strategy to the game that 8th actually took care of with straigims. So that's a rule we don't play with or need anymore.
We have legit reasons for not upgrading, and it's not like we are bothered that other people decided to move on to 8th. In fact I hope everyone who upgraded to 8h is having a blast with it! 
You're... joking, right? 
(haven't kept up with the fluff though)
