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.

vaurapung wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
..Different rules? What.. Power Levels vs Narrative vs Matched Play?

Narrative's always existed, Power Levels is for quick play, matched play has stronger rules.

And your thoughts are "We aren't playing the same rules" as a result?

Yes that whole extra section after the core rules that says pick and choose which of these you want to use. Thats my issue. I want all that in a proper standerdized formatted book.

You have to be making this up. This can't be a real complaint. Have an army ready for either Power Level or points. Really easy.

Finnaly remebered what there called. Expansions, those thing like cities of death and dogfight that contains advanced rules. Also terrain is still buggy to me because we have 2 different pages of rules for terrain. A side bar on one page and a whole different section for each type of terrain that also says, make up your own rules.

The constant make up your own rules in the 8th edition book make it feel like a lazy cop out for gw.

 Lance845 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On another note, I find it weird people will defend oddball game mechanics in the name of "abstraction" but they're fine with having Boltguns, Storm Bolters, Special Issue Bolters, Bolt Carbines, Bolt Rifles, Boltstorm Gauntlets, Angelos-Pattern Bolters and Maxim Bolters and all other sorts of minute "it's a Bolter".

You know what was an abstract game? Epic. And yet it was able to model flanking and cover as relevant to a proper battleplan. Hmmmmmmm...

As another poster pointed out, it's doesn't actually matter what gets abstracted and what doesn't so long as the mechanics add something to the game that keeps it fun.

Having vehicles have to pay for all their guns and then not shoot them was crap. Having vehicles care about facing while nothing else in the game did was crap.

I feel like paying attention to every models facing and firing arc in a game where a single unit can be made up of 30 individual models would REALLY drag the game down into nonsense crappy game land. And if everything isn't doing it then nothing should be doing it. It IS easy to understand that a vehicle can be shooting while on the move so the weapons don't have to be facing the target when it stops to shoot.

Could actual fliers have some "airborne" keyword that adds extra inches to their position when targeted in shooting effectively making them immune to most flamers? Sure. And then units with "fly" could ignore that so something like a helldrake can still bare down on a dakkajet and cover it in eldritch flame.

It's not about abstraction vs meticulous comprehensiveness. It's about what makes a better game. Firing arcs don't make a better game at this scale with this number of models. 8ths got problems. But that isn't one of them.

Shooting from antennae is though. That is dumb as gak. They should have kept the rule about wings and flags and doo dads all not counting as part of the model.

I don't believe it should be *every* model, and I don't know if anyone actually thinks that or is constructing a strawman to justify a Stormraven being able to "creep" forward by a single wingtip and shoot all of its weapons from there. ("It's abstraction! I can clip a single model in your squad and fast-batch roll you dead." "Can I only get one model of my squad in range, for everything to shoot you?" "No, eww, what sort of WAAC gaming of the system are you trying to do?"). Rather, "Fire Arcs" should probably be limited to only a few "big" models (YMMV as to what is "big" or not; while it would be fluffy and thematic for Terminators to have limited arcs ala Space Hulk, that would probably be a bit much), and it would only truly matter for purposes like Overwatch or so.

I'm in the "pro-USR" rule camp, but against them being used "lazily." As mentioned, the whole "Bulky, Very Bulky, Extremely Bulky" could have been Bulky (X). Or units have a "size" classification or so, so not only does it determine unit size, but it also determines things like model displacement, impact hits on a charge, etc. Only, GW doesn't seem to particularly care about what bases you use, and leaves that to the TOs. Come to think of it, the only notable "example" I could think of GW ever really caring about base size was the 5th edition Space Wolf codex, where Canis could make a single attack against each model in B2B with him. "In case you're thinking of modeling Canis on a really large base to take advantage of this rule, then don't." Only thing being, a "really large base" was a very subjective term, especially since Canis didn't have a model at the time of the CSM release!

Anyway, I'm rambling. There are so many tiny items like that which could have been plugged or fixed, that weren't while the system got "hard-rebooted" without a proper beta. That being said, if 8th is going to keep using Keywords, my view is that they should be used in a more future-proof manner. More specifically, rather than just "Keyword" vs "Faction Keyword", allow Keywords to scope on a "Per-model" basis, or a "wargear" basis.
-"Passive Items" (Armor, etc) implicitly grant a Keyword to the model with one, so you don't need a separate FAQ to clarify that "A Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor counts as having the Terminator Keyword" (because previously, a Wolf Guard in a Grey Hunter unit didn't, and thus could ride in a Rhino), or to clarify that *only* the Terminator in a Deathwatch Kill-Team counts as having the Terminator Keyword, so that 5 Deathwatch + 1 Deathwatch Terminator = 7 slots in a Land Raider, rather than 12!
-"Active Items" (Weapons/Grenades) only check their Keyword at time of use. So rather than "Flamecraft" granting a +1 to wound with "Flamers, Heavy Flamers, Flamestorm Cannons, or any other weapon with 'flame' in its name" (you can have fun asking if Bray'arth Ashmantle can use this with "Burning Wrath", which is clearly a flamer, but doesn't have 'flame' in its name), Flamecraft would grant a +1 to wound for any weapon with the Flamer keyword.

You could arguably even extend keywords to certain model in that regard, in case you want an ability that somehow ignores "Disgustingly Resilient" and other related ones, but doesn't ignore Ghosthelms. As written, a non-universal ruleset only introduces the potential for FAQ repetition: If abilities A, B, C, D, and E are all identical but with different names, and F is supposed to interact with them, you would need to print a separate entry for A, B, C, D, and E.

He is talking about the modular nature of the advanced rules.

He wants one, official, advanced rule set instead of a bunch of modular advanced options.

I disagree. The modular nature of the advanced rules are great. I love that the game supports a quick and simple version to learn with and then the ability for me and my group to play the way we enjoy without having to houserule ignoring or changing stupid crap. The modular set up of 8th is one of the best things about it.

ERJAK wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.

Oh yeah, because knowing how long your hand is thumb to forefinger is sooooooo tactical. Without premeasuring you're basically playing ringtoss, except no one's around to stop people from leaning further and further over the counter.

 daedalus wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.

Oh yeah, because knowing how long your hand is thumb to forefinger is sooooooo tactical. Without premeasuring you're basically playing ringtoss, except no one's around to stop people from leaning further and further over the counter.

I said "skill", not tactics. Where is the skill otherwise? For that matter, where's is the "tactics"? If it's not ringtoss, then it's candyland (game mechanics) where you choose at the start how much of a head start you want (army composition).

To put it in other words, consider the likelihood of turning the game after round 1-2. I've seen games flip because of a bad shooting range estimate. I don't think I've seen a game flip since premeasuring happened.

Mr Morden wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm pretty sure 40k has been lacking "skill" since premeasuring became the new normal.

Premeasuring helps games in so many ways - it speeds it up immensely, reduces arguments and promotes actual game play rather than gamesmanship. Of course some peoples self -proclaimed "skill" was how to cheat and get away with it - "Skill"

There's some validity to that. I've had those arguments before. I've also watched people try to rubber tape measure their units 25-30% further than they should be.
At the same time, have you never played against the guy who meticulously measure out every one of his models to be <0.001 inch inside or outside of a given range to everything on the board? I can't say it has happened often, but it's one of the most obnoxious and time-consuming things I've seen in a game.

That is a "skill" that I don't believe needs to have emphasis placed on it, and not a reason I'd like to see a game flip.


I've seen games flip because of strategic or tactical reasons, but not correctly judging range is one of two things I think should definitely not have the ability to flip the game [random objective cards/victory point awards are the other.]

I still feel everything should ignore facing, or everything should have to obey it. There was a time when individual model facing mattered and flank actions where a thing. I enjoyed that, but at the same time I feel it slows the game down a whole lot.
Too many people want to turn this game into something it isn't. Quite simply, if you don't like the game, find one you do.
I have a ton of money invested in this game and many others, and there are plenty of times I have sat an edition out because I hated it. Hell, right now I'm sitting this edition of Warmachine out because I don't like it. I sat out 6th and 7th edition 40k out after a few months for the same reason.
I love this edition so far. It has some problems, like any game, but the fundamental rules of this edition are what drew me back.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

That is a "skill" that I don't believe needs to have emphasis placed on it, and not a reason I'd like to see a game flip.


I've seen games flip because of strategic or tactical reasons, but not correctly judging range is one of two things I think should definitely not have the ability to flip the game [random objective cards/victory point awards are the other.]

Well, that's an different but entirely reasonable argument to make. I feel like, in pretty much almost all the games I've had post-5th ed, the game immediately swings hard one way or the other, and it never swings back. 8th has actually gotten better about that, but I still haven't seen any real upsets.

You'd think that'd be indicative of uneven player skill, but of the close group of people I've seen play since I stopped going to the game stores, myself included, we're all pretty evenly matched. Maybe it's just the chaos of the dice? I stopped trying to estimate how average my dice rolls were to try to more objectively measure how well I was doing some years ago, because it was beginning to make people not like me because I got a little fixated.

vaurapung wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
..Different rules? What.. Power Levels vs Narrative vs Matched Play?

Narrative's always existed, Power Levels is for quick play, matched play has stronger rules.

And your thoughts are "We aren't playing the same rules" as a result?

Yes that whole extra section after the core rules that says pick and choose which of these you want to use. Thats my issue. I want all that in a proper standerdized formatted book.

It already is in a proper standardised formatted book, it's called the 40k rulebook (8th edition).

There's some validity to that. I've had those arguments before. I've also watched people try to rubber tape measure their units 25-30% further than they should be.
At the same time, have you never played against the guy who meticulously measure out every one of his models to be <0.001 inch inside or outside of a given range to everything on the board? I can't say it has happened often, but it's one of the most obnoxious and time-consuming things I've seen in a game.

The people who cheat by false measuring will do it in the actual movement if they don't do it whilst they premeasure - they are TFG unfortunately.

At our club we do play quite a lot of different games and almost all are now premeasure (thank god) - perhaps the most finicky can be Malifaux but even then its fine as you can state that a model is at a given distance and that's the distance it is, even if the table gets knocked etc later. Both sides can check it if they want to and then the distance is fixed.

Its a bit like the "deploy outside 9" rule ". Doesn't matter if they deploy wrong - they still can't be inside that distance when they measure a charge or weapons fire. You can just get them to move them back to the right distance - we had a bit of that on Saturday at a game - all fine because when you are working out your moves you often measure here and there and find out mistakes - which is what they normally are and correct them.

Premeasuring also allows you to check the distance if you think someone is dodgy without it being quite as obvious?

vaurapung wrote:
Finnaly remebered what there called. Expansions, those thing like cities of death and dogfight that contains advanced rules. Also terrain is still buggy to me because we have 2 different pages of rules for terrain. A side bar on one page and a whole different section for each type of terrain that also says, make up your own rules.

The constant make up your own rules in the 8th edition book make it feel like a lazy cop out for gw.

Those expansions were in 7th and 6th edition as well, just they were available only as 20ish dollar rulebooks. I honestly do not understand your argument with the expansions. For solution, see the following example conversation
Player 1- "So, PL or points?"
Player 2- "Points is good"
Player 1- "Want to use expansions?"
Player 2- "Nah, not feeling like it."
Player 1- "Cool"

 Mr Morden wrote:

There's some validity to that. I've had those arguments before. I've also watched people try to rubber tape measure their units 25-30% further than they should be.
At the same time, have you never played against the guy who meticulously measure out every one of his models to be <0.001 inch inside or outside of a given range to everything on the board? I can't say it has happened often, but it's one of the most obnoxious and time-consuming things I've seen in a game.

The people who cheat by false measuring will do it in the actual movement if they don't do it whilst they premeasure - they are TFG unfortunately.

At our club we do play quite a lot of different games and almost all are now premeasure (thank god) - perhaps the most finicky can be Malifaux but even then its fine as you can state that a model is at a given distance and that's the distance it is, even if the table gets knocked etc later. Both sides can check it if they want to and then the distance is fixed.

Its a bit like the "deploy outside 9" rule ". Doesn't matter if they deploy wrong - they still can't be inside that distance when they measure a charge or weapons fire. You can just get them to move them back to the right distance - we had a bit of that on Saturday at a game - all fine because when you are working out your moves you often measure here and there and find out mistakes - which is what they normally are and correct them.

Premeasuring also allows you to check the distance if you think someone is dodgy without it being quite as obvious?

Whilst on this topic, premeasuring is the best thing to happen to 40k. This way, both players know the distance and agree upon it before any dice are rolled. I remember back in the 3rd/4th when you couldn't premeasure, some players in my club would always rest their hand on the table at weird times and angles - essentially using the known distance of their hand as a gauge for distance - and yes, they were TFG.

During no pre-measure days of whfb, I and most evwryone I played against were kids of 14 or less. Kids are almost always TFG, it's just how it is, and basically all of us knew how long our forearms were in inches, with hand and without, even though I live in a country that uses nothing but metric.

Everyone agreed it was better when they changed to open premeasure.

Great idea, we could call it 7th edition...

 Purifier wrote:
During no pre-measure days of whfb, I and most evwryone I played against were kids of 14 or less. Kids are almost always TFG, it's just how it is, and basically all of us knew how long our forearms were in inches, with hand and without, even though I live in a country that uses nothing but metric.

Everyone agreed it was better when they changed to open premeasure.

It was always fun finding out who was willing to create gaming tables specifically so that they could have every inch marked down secretly.