Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game

 Mezmorki wrote:
FWIW in ProHammer we have it that units attack in initiative order. And charging units that have to cross through cover strike at initiative 1, unless they (or another charging unit) have assault Grenades, in which everyone strikes in initiative order again.

It makes cover matter and is logical IMHO. Sure, some units don't have assault grenades or the equivalent, but most units that need them have them, or have enough mobility to move around cover.

I'm wondering if there should be a purpose to Frag Grenades even if the defenders are not in cover?

Also, having Frag only bring things back to Initiative feels counter to the idea of using grenades to storm a room/building. I'm wondering if a +1 to I would be better?

vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?

Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.

vipoid wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again - charging into cover should have cancelled out the extra attack you'd normally get from charging. Boom. Now cover matters with any combination of attacker and defender.

That could have been a reasonable option as well.

aphyon wrote:Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.

So having them would allow them to be Charged as if they were in Cover, even if in the open.

Sumilidon wrote:They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game

Main rulebook, Codex, Supplement, Psychic Awakening, and that's not getting in to Campaign or more Narrative options that have been introduced over the years. So, I don't think that was a concern.

Insectum7 wrote:I'm wondering if there should be a purpose to Frag Grenades even if the defenders are not in cover?

Also, having Frag only bring things back to Initiative feels counter to the idea of using grenades to storm a room/building. I'm wondering if a +1 to I would be better?

One of the advantages of having them be throwable.

Still having them throwable should have required them to be "shot" in order to gain the benefit. This would apply to Defensive Grenades like the Tau's Photons, though obviously that would be an Overwatch concept. It would also make Grenade Launchers more useful as their "throwing" range is so much greater, and it could be used to prep a unit for another to Assault. But that's just my quick thoughts on it.

 Charistoph wrote:

vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?

Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.

But surely it works both ways? The vast majority of the time, "cover" was not a specially-built fortification. it just represented a unit being in a forest or some ruins. It's possible that a unit would struggle to get to them (allowing them time to strike), but it's equally possible that being surrounded by ruins or forest would allow an enemy to get the jump on them - which would surely cancel the defender's initiative?

That said, I was arguing from a gameplay perspective more than anything. If, for example, Dark Eldar charge Necrons in cover, the Dark Eldar lose one of their central advantages (speed). However, if the situation is reversed and it's Necrons charging Dark Eldar, the Dark Eldar now get...nothing from being in cover. That just seems like poor design to me.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

vipoid wrote:But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?

Because you're scrambling over/through the same stuff which made shooting them a challenge. I think this was how it was explained in the 3 BRBs that I had.

But surely it works both ways? The vast majority of the time, "cover" was not a specially-built fortification. it just represented a unit being in a forest or some ruins. It's possible that a unit would struggle to get to them (allowing them time to strike), but it's equally possible that being surrounded by ruins or forest would allow an enemy to get the jump on them - which would surely cancel the defender's initiative?

That said, I was arguing from a gameplay perspective more than anything. If, for example, Dark Eldar charge Necrons in cover, the Dark Eldar lose one of their central advantages (speed). However, if the situation is reversed and it's Necrons charging Dark Eldar, the Dark Eldar now get...nothing from being in cover. That just seems like poor design to me.

If one could shoot the unit, then they wouldn't be so surprised by it, now would they? And if the Charging unit could not be seen, they could not Charge.

That's been the case in every Edition I've used, though that has apparently changed since then (I haven't kept up as much since 8th Ed started). In this particular case where a unit cannot Overwatch due to LoS, it would be a dead match, but on the other hand, the Charging unit could just be noisy enough to provide warning as they rounded the bend.

The point is that as a defender, if you are in cover, you can better position yourself to take advantage of cover as a defense - eg forcing an attacker ton scramble through difficult terrain or through a pinch point or clamber over an obstacle. If you, as the enemy, know the enemy is coming at you from X direction, there is no "getting the drop" on you.

Regarding dark eldar vs necron: factions have never been monolithic. There were dark eldar models/units with relatively lower initiative just as some necrons had higher iniative. There is more nuance in play than considering a rule at a purely conceptually level would imply.

In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.

Ielthan wrote:
In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.

I think that's the point those of us who still play the older editions are making. it is not an immersive war game anymore, it is a board/resource management game.

People who are accustomed to or prefer the latter praise 9th as the greatest version of the game GW has ever made, the rest of us think it is a horrid abomination that destroyed the game- no matter how pretty minis look, GW makes money either way so they don't care.

The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.

The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.

 aphyon wrote:

Ielthan wrote:
In the same position as OP. A lot of stuff now doesn't really make logical sense to me and I find it very immersion breaking. e.g. So those Orks get to hit the Dark Eldar first now because....reasons, oh that guy can't cast that psychic power because his mate already used it, oh you should move a unit to that place on the map because you drew that card... It doesn't feel like a wargame to me anymore, feels like they've tried to make a tabletop version of a video game.

People who are accustomed to or prefer the latter praise 9th as the greatest version of the game GW has ever made, the rest of us think it is a horrid abomination that destroyed the game- no matter how pretty minis look, GW makes money either way so they don't care.

People said/say that about every edition....

 Jidmah wrote:
The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.

The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.

You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.

The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.

You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...

I was exclusively attacking your argument and lost interest in it after you kept going in circles about how using WS as a means of defense was "interesting" and never responded to any counter-arguments or questions. I'm sorry if that offended you, but that's the very opposite of ad hominem.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The point people actually playing the game are making the point that immersion hasn't gone anywhere, things are just represented differently than they used to be, and that there have been many good arguments for why the old solution was horrible.

The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.

You complaining about ad hominem attacks is really rich...

I was exclusively attacking your argument and lost interest in it after you kept going in circles about how using WS as a means of defense was "interesting" and never responded to any counter-arguments or questions. I'm sorry if that offended you, but that's the very opposite of ad hominem.

No I didn't mean you used ad hominem, what really irks me is that you yourself said you don't even bother to comprehensively read my posts, while silmultaniously accusing me multiple times of things I never said or even implyed, simply because you condescendingly don't even bother to comprehensively read others posts. While before I honestly tried to engage you in conversation and discourse. So imo you are in no position to lecture anyone about fallacies in a discussion.

Edit: Also you saying you exclusively attacked my arguments is absolutely hilarious. It would be totally cool if you did, but you yourself said you don't even bother to properly read my arguments.

The other side mostly has ad hominem attacks to justify their rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, sprinkled in with some eldar missing the days of when they were superior at everything. It's in human nature to reject any and all change, and most of this thread is an echo chamber of people who have never really given the new system a chance and are shouting down anyone who dares embrace change for the better.

Fathom for half a second that some of us may actually have far MORE experience playing, testing and/or observing the various editions with real world experiences than you. I have spent on average 12-14 hours every weekend at the FLGS without fail for the last 13 years since i took over late night gaming duties(and playing there prior to that another 8 or so), have you?

9th edition was released in the middle of this lockdown and many people here openly admit they have gotten very few if any games at all in 9th to experience how the game plays compared to those of us who have not been so negatively affected. i still managed a solid 7 months worth of gaming in the middle of it at the FLGS.

My FLGS player group is sizable and diverse as far as game systems played and attitudes towards liking/disliking various editions of 40K. nobody said the previous editions did not have flaws. that is why Mezmorki wrote the "fixed" rules he did that his group found to work better. our group does the same, while we didn't think there needed to be as many fixes as his group oddly enough the 15 changes we did make mirror ones they made as well. that should tell you something right there about the level of understanding that veteran gamers have about mechanics.

Those in our group who like 9th like it for what it is (even with it's own flaws), but at least they recognize it is a completely different game than the 5 editions that proceeded it that were generally compatible.

Because they are so different i really do not think direct comparisons really work anymore. if you want a tactical wargame you play the old sytem where you work on defeating your opponents army (where points and objectives are essentially tie breaking mechanics to allow a secondary win condition VS outright victory). if you want a resource management game that is more focused on the "list" and cumulative points generators that happen to use toy soldiers instead of just cards you play the latter.


For those of use who are NOT comp/meta players who love the lore of 40K in a way it truly effects how armies are built (and we want to just play with models we think look cool) and operate that have lived through all the old editions. it is the reason we keep gravitating back to 2nd, or 3rd-5th even with the known flaws. The WS/init/cover mechanics that work together to represent an in universe experience is just a part of that overall discussion.

 aphyon wrote:
<snip>

Let's just end this zero-sum game here and maybe adhere to rule #1. Just for reference, an ad hominem attack is everything that is about me, jidmah, instead of about the topic, the game systems.
Using ad hominem attacks is not only impolite, but also diminishes the value of your opinion.
On to your actual arguments.

My FLGS player group is sizable and diverse as far as game systems played and attitudes towards liking/disliking various editions of 40K. nobody said the previous editions did not have flaws. that is why Mezmorki wrote the "fixed" rules he did that his group found to worked better. our group does the same, while we didn't think there needed to be as many fixes as his group oddly enough the 15 changes we did make mirror ones they made as well. that should tell you something right there about the level of understanding that veteran gamers have about mechanics.

Since I don't want to feed you off with yet another arrogant response about how all that is anecdotal, let me add my own anecdote:
The great editions of the past were the reason 40k died in this area, and not because I live in a remote location - within 30 minutes of driving there were four GW stores and three FLGS with gaming tables. Two FLGS completely dropped 40k, both game space and product, one GW store closed down, one was downsized to a fourth of it size, one cut in half and moved to a back ally, two gaming groups with 10+ players were disbanded. Campaigns organized by the GW store in the state capitol were lucky to have 4 people show up, veteran's night was canceled more often than not because the store manager didn't want to stay for the same two people duking it out. I actually dropped the game as well, because how little point there was in playing it.
8th was like rain in the desert, you can actually walk into GW stores and see people play 40k again instead of just LotR and AoS, one of the groups has reformed and has grown larger than ever, the FLGS have started bringing 40k game nights back. People pay money and go through the actual trouble to tame a software as unwieldy as TTS to continue playing 40k, instead of just playing free MtG or RPG/RTS games instead.
The games is legitimately fun to play for many people, precisely because of what has changed. From highly competitive to casual narrative players, everyone agrees that this is the best edition yet. And the two pure fluff bunnies in our group couldn't care less what roll an ork needs to hit a dark eldar or who gets to fight first.

Those in our group who like 9th like it for what it is (even with it's own flaws), but at least they recognize it is a completely different game than the 5 editions that proceeded it that were generally compatible.

Being different is not inherently bad. 9th isn't flawless, especially not in its current state, but one cannot argue that old editions didn't have massive flaws as well which dwarfed the problems 9th has today. Yes, you can house-rule those away, but are you really playing that old edition if you do?

if you want a tactical wargame you play the old sytem where you work on defeating your opponents army (where points and objectives are essentially tie breaking mechanics to allow a secondary win condition VS outright victory).

You are saying you can't compare them and yet you are
However, this does not make sense to me. Capturing objectives was the primary way to win since 4th and only shifted to simply deleting your opponent completely because the power of units was cranked to eleven. I had to go all the way back to 3rd (and yes, I actually dug up the rulebooks to check) to find missions which required you to do nothing but shoot your opponent.
Is that really what tactical wargaming was about? Mindlessly killing the opponent with no regard for anything else? Sure, there are many bad things to say about the ITC-style 9th edition missions, but from your posts I gather that you seem to reject anything that doesn't allow you to win by simply annihilating your opponent?

if you want a resource management game that is more focused on the "list" and cumulative points generators that happen to use toy soldiers instead of just cards you play the latter.

These kind of statements are one of the reasons which led me to question if people are actually playing the game, as it feels completely disconnected from my gaming reality.
When I play, CP are not a central part of my game at all. Most stratagems are very situational or paid for before the game. Yes, you need to manage those resources, but that's really only marginally different from managing orders in an imperial guard army, psy dice or similar mechanics of past and present. In 8th the game really felt like everything revolved around maximizing CP and turning them into as much damage as possible, but 9th as a whole as pushed the whole stratagem system into the background - with fixed CP amounts, putting a damper on cherry picking factions and by actively removing combos from the stratagem section of new codices.
The list is just to make sure that I have all the tools to win - a list cannot make you win, but it can make you lose. If that were not the case, what's the point of list building to begin with?

For those of use who are NOT comp/meta players who love the lore of 40K in a way it truly effects how armies are built (and we want to just play with models we think look cool) and operate that have lived through all the old editions. it is the reason we keep gravitating back to 2nd, or 3rd-5th even with the known flaws.

What exactly is preventing you from doing that in 9th? While some models have been hit by the absolutely idiotic "no model, no rule" hammer, I don't think there ever was as a time where as many models were doing well in casual competitive environments.

The WS/init/cover mechanics that work together to represent an in universe experience is just a part of that overall discussion.

As you said 9th is a different game. The universe is still there, except it's WS/movement speed/terrain keywords/bespoke rules now.
For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better. For every example of immersion-breaking logic in the new system, there is one in the old system.

If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was. I gave plenty of examples where a warrior using his WS to defend was immersion breaking, and there is an argument to be made that hitting two out of three strikes against gretchin isn't actually a good representation of a legendary fighter.
Initiative came with its own slew of immersion breaking problems - assuming you found the idea of a carnifex patiently waiting for 10 guardmen to hit it before rampaging through them immersive to begin with.
9th also has enabled a unit actually being able to catch another off guard, previously even a unit of storm boyz dropping out of a plane and smashing right into enemy defenders had to wait patiently until the eldar craftsman in armor picked up his rifle and hit him with the bud.

Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.

Maybe that's why I don't want to play 40k anymore, because what's on the tabletops of 9th doesn't resemble the games of 4th and 5th that brought me back in after a hiatus. Primaris Marines are fantastic models, but I wish they were fantastic models in a different game, you know?

Nurglitch wrote:
Maybe that's why I don't want to play 40k anymore, because what's on the tabletops of 9th doesn't resemble the games of 4th and 5th that brought me back in after a hiatus. Primaris Marines are fantastic models, but I wish they were fantastic models in a different game, you know?

I definitely understand what you mean.
I think a lot of people feel the same.
8th obviously left a lot of people unhappy with the game as the rug was pulled out from under them. But unfortunately it's not as easy as simply moving on. I may no longer like the rules much, I still love the lore, the community, and have a large collection of models.

 Jidmah wrote:
If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was. I gave plenty of examples where a warrior using his WS to defend was immersion breaking, and there is an argument to be made that hitting two out of three strikes against gretchin isn't actually a good representation of a legendary fighter.
Initiative came with its own slew of immersion breaking problems - assuming you found the idea of a carnifex patiently waiting for 10 guardmen to hit it before rampaging through them immersive to begin with.
9th also has enabled a unit actually being able to catch another off guard, previously even a unit of storm boyz dropping out of a plane and smashing right into enemy defenders had to wait patiently until the eldar craftsman in armor picked up his rifle and hit him with the bud.

No one has complained about Orks being able to move like Eldar in this thread, but back in the days of 6th and 7th, the topic of returning the M stat would come up about once a quarter or so. The only problem I ever had with the idea was that some units would see a severe nerf from this addition, as demonstrated that Guardsmen were always listed as having a M of 4 (which was then denied as being a nerf ). The problem wasn't in the concept, but all the whining that would come about as people would find their precious units not being able to catch the Eldar any more. You don't here about it anymore because it has been brought back in to play.

With a unit like the Carnifex, I always thought about it as a case of momentum. Sometimes big things just move slower because of the energy it takes to move. It would make sense from a perspective of seeing them as a siege beast or anti-vehicle (when vehicles didn't fight back), the hive could afford them to be slow (Walkers threw that idea off, though). Thunder Hammers and Power Fists were definitely a balancing trick, though, not for any in-universe reason I could think of.

The great editions of the past were the reason 40k died in this area,

That sounds like 6th edition. in fact it was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. prior to that 3rd-5th the gaming community was super active but 6th completely killed the game in our area. it recovered a bit with 7th but the formation spam at the end killed it again.

not because I live in a remote location - within 30 minutes of driving there were four GW stores and three FLGS with gaming tables.

Not a surprise we similarly have 2 other FLGS and a GW in the same radius.

Yes, you can house-rule those away, but are you really playing that old edition if you do?

Yes actually you are. unlike some other projects like Mezmorkis we made NO new rules, we just used the better versions of existing GW rules or additional rules that didn't exist in the 5th edition core mechanics. like grenade throwing, overwatch and snap fire because they made 5th even better. the fact that those editions were cross compatible made it possible.

Capturing objectives was the primary way to win since 4th and only shifted to simply deleting your opponent completely because the power of units was cranked to eleven. I had to go all the way back to 3rd (and yes, I actually dug up the rulebooks to check) to find missions which required you to do nothing but shoot your opponent.
Is that really what tactical wargaming was about? Mindlessly killing the opponent with no regard for anything else? Sure, there are many bad things to say about the ITC-style 9th edition missions, but from your posts I gather that you seem to reject anything that doesn't allow you to win by simply annihilating your opponent?

Perhaps you need to read your books a bit more. victory through destroying your enemy was not just a mission type it was the default win condition from 3rd-7th . much like killing the caster in warmachine, tabling your opponent was automatic victory. victory was decided at the end of the game, if you had nothing left on the table you could not contest or hold objectives to begin with and if you were using victory points(4th) or kill points (5th) the fact that you had nothing left made those a mute point.

Secondly yes the very nature of a tactical wargame is killing your opponent. it is not mindless, it is an objective that requires a good general to pull off. in fact the specific game type was actually named in the main rulebook seek and destroy (4th) and annihilation(5th)

but 9th as a whole as pushed the whole stratagem system into the background

That is the most disconnected thing i have ever heard. it moved CP spamming into the background however the strat system IS the game in 9th. if anything they made it even more important and expanded it in volume in 9th.

a list cannot make you win, but it can make you lose. If that were not the case, what's the point of list building to begin with?

Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-

What exactly is preventing you from doing that in 9th? While some models have been hit by the absolutely idiotic "no model, no rule" hammer, I don't think there ever was as a time where as many models were doing well in casual competitive environments.

The lore based rules do not exist in 9th and what they replaced them with is mediocre at best. the point of the old lore based rules is that not only was it how the army would behave in the universe but it was also viable as an army.

For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.

I have yet to see one.

For every example of immersion-breaking logic in the new system, there is one in the old system.

You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?

Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.

If I had a dollar for every time someone used "slow and lumbering orks" as an example in this thread, I'd have a full unit of mek guns by now. Yet, not a single person complained how immersion breaking orks running exactly as fast as eldar was.

I never saw anybody claim that nor did GW ever claim that was the intended effect.

I quote

INITIATIVE (i)
How alert a creature is and how quickly it reacts is shown by it's initiative. in close combat faster creatures gain a massive advantage over slower ones because they get to strike first

Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.

It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.

Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.

Could not disagree more. tell that to a chaos player who played his 3.5 codex, compared to what they did to them in 9th.

Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-

A lot of armies can't build those general good armies though. Some can tailor lists to beat a specific opponent or specific build, but that often requires a much larger collection then 2000pts. And the worse situation is for those armies that can't even tailor or require a separate list for every opponent.

It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.

But what about armies that had a higher I, but did not get a bonus movment comparing to other similar factions? I saw an old GK codex and in that GK had +2I weapons, right now they neither have better melee weapons then other marines nor do they have extra movment, they also had a rule that made it harder to target at range, and they do not have that even as a stratagem. I am sure other armies have the same problems.

I don't think the FOC was materially better at preventing skew than what we currently have.
The Battalion as it stands basically is the old FOC, albeit with 1 more troop requirement. But a lot of armies ran double FOC anyway back in the day.

As with a lot of mechanics in 40k, the FOC (or indeed current detachments) have the potential to limit skew. But they're poorly executed.
What makes something "elite", "troopers" or anything else is almost entirely arbitrary. Particularly "elites".

 aphyon wrote:
That sounds like 6th edition. in fact it was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. prior to that 3rd-5th the gaming community was super active but 6th completely killed the game in our area. it recovered a bit with 7th but the formation spam at the end killed it again.

If I had to pick an exact point in time, I'd say the 5th edition GK codex started the decline and it went rapidly downhill from there. By the time 7th was released most of the people were already gone, and the few people who shortly returned for 7th were driven off soon after. When eldar codex hit you had some remaining eldar players literally go to MtG and WM/H events begging former 40k players for games to try it at least once.

Perhaps you need to read your books a bit more. victory through destroying your enemy was not just a mission type it was the default win condition from 3rd-7th . much like killing the caster in warmachine, tabling your opponent was automatic victory. victory was decided at the end of the game, if you had nothing left on the table you could not contest or hold objectives to begin with and if you were using victory points(4th) or kill points (5th) the fact that you had nothing left made those a mute point.

You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you?
Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right?
In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.

Secondly yes the very nature of a tactical wargame is killing your opponent. it is not mindless, it is an objective that requires a good general to pull off. in fact the specific game type was actually named in the main rulebook seek and destroy (4th) and annihilation(5th)

Open hostility mission pack in 9th, BRB pg. 272

That is the most disconnected thing i have ever heard. it moved CP spamming into the background however the strat system IS the game in 9th. if anything they made it even more important and expanded it in volume in 9th.

Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?

Building a general take all comers list to deal with a bit of everything within the FOC made for good game play and avoided list tailoring. with the expansion of the various FOC formations 9th is nothing but list tailoring-

The vast majority of armies use a single battalion or combat patrol, both of which are more restrictive than the FOC. Outrider and vanguards are rarely used, and essentially just mirror 5th's characters shifting certain units to different slots.
I'm also not sure how either system is related to list tailoring. Did you mean skew lists?

The lore based rules do not exist in 9th and what they replaced them with is mediocre at best. the point of the old lore based rules is that not only was it how the army would behave in the universe but it was also viable as an army.

Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.

For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.

I have yet to see one.

Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.
If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun.

And those are just the ones of the top of my head.

You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?

Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th. If you were shooting templates, you were even forced to do that because the template was not allowed to cover friendly models.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.

I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.

Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.

Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.

It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.

Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of?
5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them.

Neither system is inherently more immersive than the other. The only thing that matters is whether you want to immerse yourself in the system.

Could not disagree more. tell that to a chaos player who played his 3.5 codex, compared to what they did to them in 9th.

Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share!
But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the FOC was materially better at preventing skew than what we currently have.
The Battalion as it stands basically is the old FOC, albeit with 1 more troop requirement. But a lot of armies ran double FOC anyway back in the day.

As with a lot of mechanics in 40k, the FOC (or indeed current detachments) have the potential to limit skew. But they're poorly executed.
What makes something "elite", "troopers" or anything else is almost entirely arbitrary. Particularly "elites".

I really never had a single game with double FOC, at that scale we usually went full apoc.

But I agree - especially for infantry elite, fast attack and heavy seems to be handed out almost randomly. Might as well divide them by how commonly they are available instead of shoe-horning them into a semi-lore-based battle role.

 Jidmah wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

For every example that paints the old system as more immersive, there is an example where 9th does it better.

I have yet to see one.

Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.
Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.
A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.
Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.
If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.
A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun.

And those are just the ones of the top of my head.

You mean like the right front tread on my land raider can "see" an enemy so it can shoot all it's guns at it as if it were some kind of spinning top? VS having to face it in a way that LOS can be drawn from the actual weapon to see the target?

Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th. If you were shooting templates, you were even forced to do that because the template was not allowed to cover friendly models.
There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

Or the very fact that infantry small arms can hurt a main battletank in any way from any direction in 9th?.

I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.

Also eldar have fleet of foot meaning that they are running faster than orks in that they can assault after running where as orks cannot.

Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.

It was a good implementation in a game system that required standardized movement stats for balance and also far easier to keep track of than the myriad of different move stats in 9th.

Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of?
5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them.

Got to agree with this
Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.

Also, adding onto the "un-immersive" features - the relationship between Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles. A laspistol can kill a Riptide, but no chance against a Scout Sentinel? You can knock out a Dreadnought's leg, but not a Dreadknight's? Or, how about a squad support weapon incapable of firing at a much more suitable target, or just firing bolters at a Dread because the missile wanted a crack at it?

Neither system was free from mechanical awkwardness, and I'm personally much happier with the abstraction of "yeah, the vehicle has weak points all around, but can manoeuvre to bring all it's weapons to bear".

Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.

I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.

You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Where?

Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?

No it was not, it was a normal thing that happened. "lets just kill each other" was the standard quick game when we didn't feel like using objectives. you either got tabled or you lost so much that by turn 4 or 5 you conceded becuase you had almost nothing left, or nothing that you needed to kill a certain unit.

40k was a narrative game it wasn't designed to be balanced in the way people want it to be now. it was a game to hang out with your friends talk gak and toss some dice around.
all armies had flaws and strengths and it was your job as the general to exploit those on the table. most people played marines because aside from being the flagship brand they were also generalists that were good at everything but not great at it. other armies had a more focused dare i say harder learning curve.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right?
In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.

1. there is no vitriol in my posts
2. No i want the tactics to be how i play my army on the table-maneuvering to use terrain to my advantage/strategic movement of units, target priority, countering my opponents tactics etc.. not which super gotcha combo of strats i can drop on my opponent, or games that are effectively over on turn 3 because my opponent ran over and stood on a spot first and there is no way i can bring it back later in the game once i am down the points curve.

Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?

When 8th dropped there were a grand total of THREE strats for the entire game, then release after release through 8th and continued into 9th. there are so many strats now people cannot keep track of them all. general space marines alone have what 34? including things that should be wargear. now spread that across all factions-that's hundreds of stratagems,

Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.

easy example-
white scars-lore based rules
.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.hit and run
.power lances
.counter attack
.all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops)
.heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.

.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars-
.devestator squads/centurions etc...
.land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators)
.dreadnoughts

9th ed rules.....

.master of snares to keep enemies from running away
.strategic reserves
.the abiltiy to advance and then charge.


Or just about anything in the 3.5 chaos codex compared to anything they have now.

I play against a khorne berserker player who plays both 9th and 5th using the old codex and he loves the old lore based rules-8 man squads for the mark of khorne, blood frenzy, destroyer upgrades for vehicles, khornate chain axes that reduce armor saves to a 4+ etc...

Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.

flesh hooks=frag grenades

Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.

forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles

A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.

Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.

Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.

Pivoting in place for any vehicle was never counted as movement, and monsters could move and still fire 2 guns.

If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.

Area terrain rule-is an abstract to represent a tangle of ruins or a forest etc.. represented by a difficult terrain test that slows infantry as it picks it's way through or a dangerous terrain test for vehicles trying to brute force it's way through. seriously i have enough trees at the shop to fill all the tree templates but that would make playing on the surface impossible that is why it is an abstract.

A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun

It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.

Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th.

And you completely missed the point-land raiders or repulsors for that matter are not open topped nor do they have fire points what they do have is fixed mountings on different sides of the vehicle that can ALL shoot at a target that can only bee seen by a front road wheel or grav plate-makes no sense unless the tank twirls like a whirling dervish while firing all it's guns.

There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed

I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.

ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.

Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.

Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.

Orks had furious charge they only get fleet if they declare a waagh.

Some eldar units always fight first because of wargear like banshee masks, but they do not all have that. other units do have something like hit&run like swooping hawks with sky leap,

Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of?
5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them

Hardly

All infantry move 6", all jump bike & fast move 12. vehicles move in the same 6" increments.
All units assault 6" except cav, beasts and leapers that assault 12.":
You hit in CC on a 3+ 4+ or a 5+ (unless your kharn) a chart that you have memorized after 2 games.
Initiative is on the unit data sheet which you have memorized after a couple games with your army. but it is also on the data sheet,

No need to keep track of variant move speeds or 30+ strats per factions or secondary objectives.

Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share!
But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.

Don't be an ass you know they are using the last 8th ed codex in 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.

I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.

That was the attempt to make the GKs a stand alone full army in 5th and many players felt it went overboard. while it did flesh out he inquisition quite a bit the 3rd ed codex was even more in line for what they were meant to be lore wise. but it restricted them to just being really good at fighting chaos and demons. where they worked better as an allied detachment (they had special rules for it) that was there to help the main imperial faction as they are often represented in the lore.

When i run my GKs in support i usually just run a terminator grand master with a terminator command squad and an assassin.

Sumilidon wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

They didn't want to confuse you whilst you read through 3 or 4 rulebooks to play the game

If GW thinks players get confused by the WS system then the developers themselves must have intelligence level of a toddler...

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler:

You really love your ad hominem attacks, don't you?

Where?

Wiping out enemies was quite rare in earlier editions, and you still are extremely unlikely to win the game if you get tabled. Kill points also has been proven over and over again to be a horribly imbalanced mechanic, but I guess balanced games aren't what you are looking for to begin with?

No it was not, it was a normal thing that happened. "lets just kill each other" was the standard quick game when we didn't feel like using objectives. you either got tabled or you lost so much that by turn 4 or 5 you conceded becuase you had almost nothing left, or nothing that you needed to kill a certain unit.

40k was a narrative game it wasn't designed to be balanced in the way people want it to be now. it was a game to hang out with your friends talk gak and toss some dice around.
all armies had flaws and strengths and it was your job as the general to exploit those on the table. most people played marines because aside from being the flagship brand they were also generalists that were good at everything but not great at it. other armies had a more focused dare i say harder learning curve.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I take out all the vitriol from your posts, the core seems to be that you primarily want from the game is rolling dice and blowing gak up while only dedicating a bare minimum of your game time to tactics, right?
In that case I can see why you feel like 9th is not for you, the new missions indeed feel completely overblown for just playing a quick game, and stratagems only get in the way of tossing dice.

1. there is no vitriol in my posts
2. No i want the tactics to be how i play my army on the table-maneuvering to use terrain to my advantage/strategic movement of units, target priority, countering my opponents tactics etc.. not which super gotcha combo of strats i can drop on my opponent, or games that are effectively over on turn 3 because my opponent ran over and stood on a spot first and there is no way i can bring it back later in the game once i am down the points curve.

Care to elaborate? Just saying that I'm wrong is not an argument by itself. What armies are relying more on stratagems than before? Which 9th edition codices have more stratagems than their 8th edition incarnations?

When 8th dropped there were a grand total of THREE strats for the entire game, then release after release through 8th and continued into 9th. there are so many strats now people cannot keep track of them all. general space marines alone have what 34? including things that should be wargear. now spread that across all factions-that's hundreds of stratagems,

Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.

easy example-
white scars-lore based rules
.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.hit and run
.power lances
.counter attack
.all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops)
.heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.

.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars-
.devestator squads/centurions etc...
.land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators)
.dreadnoughts

9th ed rules.....

.master of snares to keep enemies from running away
.strategic reserves
.the abiltiy to advance and then charge.


Or just about anything in the 3.5 chaos codex compared to anything they have now.

I play against a khorne berserker player who plays both 9th and 5th using the old codex and he loves the old lore based rules-8 man squads for the mark of khorne, blood frenzy, destroyer upgrades for vehicles, khornate chain axes that reduce armor saves to a 4+ etc...

Tyrand Hive Tyrant charges a grot in a shrubbery as high as his toe causes him to lose all his initiative.

flesh hooks=frag grenades

Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.

forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles

A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.

Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.

Oval or rectangular models can pivot to get closer to the enemy and still fire guns as if stationary.

Pivoting in place for any vehicle was never counted as movement, and monsters could move and still fire 2 guns.

If infantry can move through a wall, so can a battlewagon. If the battlewagon can't move through a ruin, then infantry is not allowed to use the door.

Area terrain rule-is an abstract to represent a tangle of ruins or a forest etc.. represented by a difficult terrain test that slows infantry as it picks it's way through or a dangerous terrain test for vehicles trying to brute force it's way through. seriously i have enough trees at the shop to fill all the tree templates but that would make playing on the surface impossible that is why it is an abstract.

A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun

It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.

Open topped vehicles already allowed passengers to shoot out of tires or tracks in 5th.

And you completely missed the point-land raiders or repulsors for that matter are not open topped nor do they have fire points what they do have is fixed mountings on different sides of the vehicle that can ALL shoot at a target that can only bee seen by a front road wheel or grav plate-makes no sense unless the tank twirls like a whirling dervish while firing all it's guns.

There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed

I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.

ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.

Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.

Orks usually had fleet of foot during the turn they charged.
In 9th eldar are more likely to fight first because they move faster, and can actually outrun slower combatants if they do not wish to fight them. Actual hit&run on the table feels much more in touch with eldar fluff than agility just being implied by two numbers that reduce damage taken in combat and allow them to fight first no matter what.

Orks had furious charge they only get fleet if they declare a waagh.

Some eldar units always fight first because of wargear like banshee masks, but they do not all have that. other units do have something like hit&run like swooping hawks with sky leap,

Uhm... you are literally arguing in favor of a system which is a least exactly as hard to keep track of?
5th: Movement speed by unit type, fighting order decided by comparing values on two or more datasheets, hit roll decided by comparing two values on datasheets.
9th: Movement speed on datasheet, fighting order decided by fight first/last and players, hit roll on datasheet.
You have brought up many good arguments for the old editions, but neither balance nor complexity are in favor of them

Hardly

All infantry move 6", all jump bike & fast move 12. vehicles move in the same 6" increments.
All units assault 6" except cav, beasts and leapers that assault 12.":
You hit in CC on a 3+ 4+ or a 5+ (unless your kharn) a chart that you have memorized after 2 games.
Initiative is on the unit data sheet which you have memorized after a couple games with your army. but it is also on the data sheet,

No need to keep track of variant move speeds or 30+ strats per factions or secondary objectives.

Oh, you already have the 9th edition CSM codex? Please do share!
But yeah, let's not move goalposts even further.

Don't be an ass you know they are using the last 8th ed codex in 9th.

Why is it ok for 5th to break immersion for gaming reasons but not for 9th?
Why do you use "balance" as a justification when you lead with "40k is not meant to be balanced"?
Why is realism important when shooting a piece of glass on a tank with self-propelled explosive shells, but not when shooting an ork in the face with bullets or lasers?
Why is it possible to memorize two numbers on every datasheet after two games, but memorizing one is too complex?

You are literally applying double standards to everything. I get it. You really want to hate 9th with every fiber of your being. And you are absolutely free to do that, and to like whatever you want. Just don't try to rationalize it.

I think classic and modern edition editions of 40K both strive to reflect the context and lore, but do so in very different ways. Regardless of edition, we all have to take a leap of faith to rationalize the inherent abstractions in the rules, and some of us are going to have different preferences and interpret things differently.

Personally, I find the rationalizations of classic 40K rules to be more logical and more intuitive as a model/simulation of what I'm physically seeing. 8th/9th feels more abstracted to me overall. We can find counter-cases within each edition, but for me it's an overall feeling thing.

I also prefer, as a general matter of course, for there to be more nuance and depth baked into the core rules of the game, which gives more hook-points for different units to build on, rather than having more streamlined core rules with more special rules added to individual units to provide differentiation. WS & I stats were a good example of core rule implementations that created a good diversity in potential CC matchups and situations with very little added overhead.

Regarding editions overall....

It's hard to talk to players that started the game recently (8th or 9th) or even semi-recently (6th or 7th). I was explaining my ProHammer project to the person working at my local GW store. They just started playing 40K in 8th edition and immediately said "I always heard 6th edition was garbage!" Without experiencing earlier editions (namely 3rd - 5th) it's hard to convey the difference in experience to people.

And then try explaining the irony of critiques that get repeated about 2nd edition and "hero hammer" and all the dice and the complexity, and special cards, and die role modifiers .... which is basically what 9th has become.

One simple change to 9th that I think would be a big improvement would be to bring back front/side/rear for vehicles, just have 3 different Toughness values in the profile. They already have degrading statlines (I still prefer the old charts, more nuanced and immersive), it wouldn't be massively more complicated. Kind of annoys me that they removed this reward for out manouvering your enemy.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I think classic and modern edition editions of 40K both strive to reflect the context and lore, but do so in very different ways. Regardless of edition, we all have to take a leap of faith to rationalize the inherent abstractions in the rules, and some of us are going to have different preferences and interpret things differently.

Personally, I find the rationalizations of classic 40K rules to be more logical and more intuitive as a model/simulation of what I'm physically seeing. 8th/9th feels more abstracted to me overall. We can find counter-cases within each edition, but for me it's an overall feeling thing.

I also prefer, as a general matter of course, for there to be more nuance and depth baked into the core rules of the game, which gives more hook-points for different units to build on, rather than having more streamlined core rules with more special rules added to individual units to provide differentiation. WS & I stats were a good example of core rule implementations that created a good diversity in potential CC matchups and situations with very little added overhead.

I agree. I observed and played a few games of 4th, but I really started with AOBR which was 5th edition's starter set. 5th was a great edition which was really fun to play, and I can see how applying modern game development techniques to polish it could turn it into an absolutely great game.

The actual game that was though, isn't anywhere near the idolized prefect game many make it out to be.
I loved many things about 5th, but every game also had quite a few things I hated. The best part of the game for me has always been the run for objectives in the last two turns, 9th really feels like having those fun two last turns stretched out to all five turns.

I really couldn't care less for 40k having stratagems or not, so one of the major differences between 5th and 9th doesn't phase me. With 9th throwing a massive spanner into CP combos available to orks and the DG codex outright removing them, they really don't feel much different than imperial orders or psychic powers.

Regarding editions overall....

It's hard to talk to players that started the game recently (8th or 9th) or even semi-recently (6th or 7th). I was explaining my ProHammer project to the person working at my local GW store. They just started playing 40K in 8th edition and immediately said "I always heard 6th edition was garbage!" Without experiencing earlier editions (namely 3rd - 5th) it's hard to convey the difference in experience to people.

And then try explaining the irony of critiques that get repeated about 2nd edition and "hero hammer" and all the dice and the complexity, and special cards, and die role modifiers .... which is basically what 9th has become.

Sadly, the same thing also works in reverse. Many critics complain about things that definitely were a problem in 8th, or even for only a short period of 8th, but have been toned down, removed or drifted into meaninglessness in 9th. There also is a huge deal of untruths that keep getting recycled and blown out of proportions, like flamers being the best anti-air or gretchin killing landraiders which doesn't really ever happen during real games.
Some folks also seem to be forgetting that 5th wasn't in the 90s, the internet and dakkadakka were already a thing. It's always hilarious when someone tries to tell me how rules were and weren't read, when I made a few thousand of my posts in YMDC during 5th, about half as many in the tactics section. You can probably still find the battle reports I did at that time in dakka's databases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ielthan wrote:
One simple change to 9th that I think would be a big improvement would be to bring back front/side/rear for vehicles, just have 3 different Toughness values in the profile. They already have degrading statlines (I still prefer the old charts, more nuanced and immersive), it wouldn't be massively more complicated. Kind of annoys me that they removed this reward for out manouvering your enemy.

If it came with a chart defining angles for every vehicles and water-tight rules for when you are shooting what angle, I'd be game. The main reason I was glad to see it go were the arguments.