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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slave wrote:
Unless you , ya know, aim it at your self by accident and shoot yourself......I dunno, while running, in the dark, carrying a blinding bright weapon that emits the same stuff the sun does..... What could go wrong with running, in the dark, with a weapon that fires barley contained sun jets?

Pretty sure a geneforged supersoldier in half a ton of self stabilising and strength enhancing armour could handle that.

And They Shall Know No Fear, But They Shall Accidentally Press The "Don't Press Dat" Button!

Yeah, for everyone complaining about the overheat modifiers - you know that you don't HAVE to overcharge it, right? You can completely avoid the overheat, and against many targets, you don't need it overcharge it.

Learn to balance your risks against the rewards and accept the tactical situation before calling GW stupid. As many have said above, it makes perfect sense that in bad conditions, there may be more chance of something mishapping.

Moving with a heavy weapon would cause a lack of focus, or might fumble.
Night fighting would cause the soldier to be focusing on finding their target, and may be unable to see the warning signs on their weapon.
Stealth tech would make the soldier focus on seeing the target rather than their weapon.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Flamethrowers don't work in overwatch if the assaulting unit assaults from 8.0000000001" away but do from 7.9999999999" away. Obviously the extra time it takes for the enemy to reach you gives them performance anxiety.

Or perhaps surprise that the enemy could get you from that far away. Considering the Average charge is going to be 7 sans modifiers (2D6 nets an average result of 7) I think Flamers are just fine.

Ever been in a defensive position? There is no way that excuse works when you know the enemy is there, and if you didn't then you wouldn't get overwatch anyway. I get they did it simply for rules clarity, but it is patently stupid from any other standpoint. It would not have been hard to add a line for flame weapons to say they may always fire overwatch regardless the distance from the charging unit.

A Land Raider that is 50% obscured and inside terrain gets +1 to it's save, but if it's 99% obscured and even a single ℓP outside of the area terrain, no save bonus.

So drive that extra half an inch. It won't kill you.

Meh, I don't buy that argument. How hard would it be to simply say 50% obscured grants cover?

Cataphractii Terminators, lumbering literal behemoths unable to move faster than a brisk stroll suddenly TRIPLE in speed when there is something to punch way over there!

Amazing what momentum does.

Seems a bit of a stretch there, but whatever.

The usual complaint that there are so many re-roll miss auras but you can't take into account modifiers BEFORE re-rolling.

Suddenly you have to think about firing modes, positioning, what powers to try and deny - I know the influx of actual decisions to be made from 6th and 7th's potato modes must be a bit much for you.

Well, if you can't tell how stupid it is to have one value for the first iteration and another for the final result then it's you who's the potato. It really is amazing the excuses people come up with to justify silly rules, but oh well.

A couple other bits of idiocy in 8th:

- vehicles being locked in combat period. I have friends who are tankers. There's no way they wouldn't just drive over infantry in front of them if need be, firing all the way. I seem to recall several wars were fought where we did just that.

- vehicles not being able to shoot at units they are engaged with. Again, that's why anti-infantry weapons exist in the first place.

- Maelstrom objectives are still nothing but "chase the shiny". Won't be using them much without a few house rules.

Most of the other stuff I've noticed in 8th so far seems okay, barring a few recent FAQ answers like Skarbrand affecting Airborne units and Necrons vs Poxwalkers potentially generating two models. Why they couldn't simply have them make sense instead of opting for the ridiculous I have no idea.

Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat. Your vehicle can just drive away on the next turn. If it does so, it forfeits shooting and assault the next turn (tradeoff for balance sake). They also can attack in close combat. This reflects the anti infantry weapons you spoke of.

Not shooting at an engaged infantry unit? Let's see an abrams level it's large cannon at something within two feet of it... can't do it. Again it ads realism and balance. Many tanks have serious firepower in this edition.

Everything seems very balanced in this edition so far and more realistic (shoot at what you want, assault what you want, walk away from assaults, etc).

 455_PWR wrote:
Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat.

Might want to check the attitude. Infantry stops tanks from shooting for a turn. Seems pretty silly, especially if you did read the rules. And I'm pretty sure Gary read them, since he references that.

I played against a tank and got into combat with it. It overwatched. It retreated. Other units shot my guys up a bit but I had a few left, so they charged the tank again. It overwatched.

This is exactly how it should be. When you're a tank driver and infantry get that close to the tank, you have no way to know what kind of anti-tank weapons they have or what they might do. The guy controlling the anti personel weapons will do what he can, but you're not acting like business as usual. Get out of there, let your supporting units take out the threat.

This is not a "makes no sense" issue at all.

Also, for the shooting characters when there's a unit in the opposite direction, doesn't the movement phase come before the shooting phase? And can't you measure anything you want? So can't you measure a couple of points and make sure the closest model in the unit to the character is the one that is a fraction of an inch closer? Even if you're in a defensive position I bet you can still jigger things around to get the shot.

The plasma overheating with penalties also seems like a player choice issue as well. It represents shutting off all the safety features of the weapon, so naturally anything that causes difficulty in hitting a target you want dead desperately enough to risk your own life is going to increase the chance of a mishap.

Reserves counting as destroyed in matched play and then complaining about it in narrative terms is just hilarious. If narrative concerns are your priority, there's a way to play just for that which doesn't have the counts as destroyed rule (and will give better game play, anyone who has just done the matched play scenarios should really try the narrative ones, they're better).

Every wargame is an abstraction and will have "that doesn't make sense" moments. The question for each individual is what breaks it for them.

xmbk wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat.

Might want to check the attitude. Infantry stops tanks from shooting for a turn. Seems pretty silly, especially if you did read the rules. And I'm pretty sure Gary read them, since he references that.

Why is it silly when you have infantry crawling over a tank shooting guns into ports/optics?

Daedalus81 wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat.

Might want to check the attitude. Infantry stops tanks from shooting for a turn. Seems pretty silly, especially if you did read the rules. And I'm pretty sure Gary read them, since he references that.

Why is it silly when you have infantry crawling over a tank shooting guns into ports/optics?

I'm with this guy, it's remarkably hard to aim a tank's weapons at somebody when they're literally sitting on them or swinging from them - it's also very difficult to back away and disengage from an enemy who are literally crawling all over your tank because you know, when the tank rolls, they ride.
I think being stuck when you're surrounded is just the simple simulation that just saved GW having to make a list of possibilities dependent on numbers and size of the engaged models.

Play Tester one "Two spores just stopped my Land Raider!"
Designer "Well yeah, that's pretty stupid but a Daemon Prince on either end could probably do it."
Play Tester one "Yeah, but that's two units of monsters."
Designer "Good Point."
Play Tester two "A unit of Terminators might stop it as well."
Designer "Too hard bin. Just imagine the Spores covered the front and back viewports and it's too dangerous to drive the Land Raider."

I would like to see a tank's main weapon like the Razorback's twin Heavy Bolter still able to fire out of melee but not into it but that would bring its own pile of troubles.

Hey look a thread criticizing 8th, I wonder if it'll have good arguments!

Realism vs. Game Balance

Oh, it's just this thread again. That's what I get for thinking there was a good thread in General Discussion.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat.

Might want to check the attitude. Infantry stops tanks from shooting for a turn. Seems pretty silly, especially if you did read the rules. And I'm pretty sure Gary read them, since he references that.

Why is it silly when you have infantry crawling over a tank shooting guns into ports/optics?

I'm with this guy, it's remarkably hard to aim a tank's weapons at somebody when they're literally sitting on them or swinging from them - it's also very difficult to back away and disengage from an enemy who are literally crawling all over your tank because you know, when the tank rolls, they ride.
I think being stuck when you're surrounded is just the simple simulation that just saved GW having to make a list of possibilities dependent on numbers and size of the engaged models.

Play Tester one "Two spores just stopped my Land Raider!"
Designer "Well yeah, that's pretty stupid but a Daemon Prince on either end could probably do it."
Play Tester one "Yeah, but that's two units of monsters."
Designer "Good Point."
Play Tester two "A unit of Terminators might stop it as well."
Designer "Too hard bin. Just imagine the Spores covered the front and back viewports and it's too dangerous to drive the Land Raider."

I would like to see a tank's main weapon like the Razorback's twin Heavy Bolter still able to fire out of melee but not into it but that would bring its own pile of troubles.

Would of been a nice option like the titanic stuff but at a modifier.

like they are still shaking crap off. modifiers would allow a lot more situations to happen. i think its ok for now and a bit over blown at times (ok a LOT)

i think the only real thing i have a problem with is terrain being so meh.

a forest shouldn't give you as much protection as a 20 foot thick reinforced concrete wall.

Lol, ok? There was no attitude, just facts. If you get offended that easy then online forums are not for you. I just told him to read the rules as what he posted was not in the rules (and if you read my post, stated the same about losing shooting/assault in the next turn).

If you reread his post, he said it's ridiculous vehicles get locked in combat... the rules don't state that thus my comment about reading the rules. Nothing sarcastic or attacking there... just the facts Bot everything has attitude in it, but inaccurate statements will be corrected online as the world is watching.

If making real world arguments, tanks are far from invulnerable. Infantry next to you is bad (grenades, explosives, hatches). Most tank drivers would drive away, which takes away from shooting or attacking back.

Nah, you read sloppy and got smart, now you're doubling down. Whatever. If moving really stopped a tank from shooting it would be in big trouble. If 2 DP are dp-ing a tank, it's probably not getting a chance to drive away. If 2 grots are doing the same, it's silly.

I like 8th a lot. But that doesn't mean it's perfect.

Maybe the overcharging Plasma at night Fries the wielder's eyes? or blows the sensors?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Any more gems from 8th?

Forge World invalidating their new Voss Pattern Lightning model because it has no autocannon is golden

I, as an owner of the old OOP lightning with the autocannon chuckle in glee about this.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The fact that you can have vehicles simultaneously hit and miss each other. Or the fact that you cannot assault flyers because they're out of reach, but you cannot move past them because it violates the 1" rule, turning them into a You Shall Not Pass wall versus models that cannot fly. Oh, and then there's this anecdote (and remember, Valkyries have Hover Jet).

I don't get it. "Couldn't fall back because it was already at the edge of the board"? Falling back in this edition doesn't mean moving toward the nearest board edge. It just means you make a move and you have to end up more than 1" away from any enemy models.

Real News wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The fact that you can have vehicles simultaneously hit and miss each other. Or the fact that you cannot assault flyers because they're out of reach, but you cannot move past them because it violates the 1" rule, turning them into a You Shall Not Pass wall versus models that cannot fly. Oh, and then there's this anecdote (and remember, Valkyries have Hover Jet).

I don't get it. "Couldn't fall back because it was already at the edge of the board"? Falling back in this edition doesn't mean moving toward the nearest board edge. It just means you make a move and you have to end up more than 1" away from any enemy models.

He must of gotten cornered REALLY bad

like he had a unit of tanks sitting literally on the corner and then had a flyer zoom over there and assault it with its fairly fast hover mode + charge. and there must of been like a building next to it boxing it in

 Desubot wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Might want to read the rules... nothing is really locked in combat.

Might want to check the attitude. Infantry stops tanks from shooting for a turn. Seems pretty silly, especially if you did read the rules. And I'm pretty sure Gary read them, since he references that.

Why is it silly when you have infantry crawling over a tank shooting guns into ports/optics?

I'm with this guy, it's remarkably hard to aim a tank's weapons at somebody when they're literally sitting on them or swinging from them - it's also very difficult to back away and disengage from an enemy who are literally crawling all over your tank because you know, when the tank rolls, they ride.
I think being stuck when you're surrounded is just the simple simulation that just saved GW having to make a list of possibilities dependent on numbers and size of the engaged models.

Play Tester one "Two spores just stopped my Land Raider!"
Designer "Well yeah, that's pretty stupid but a Daemon Prince on either end could probably do it."
Play Tester one "Yeah, but that's two units of monsters."
Designer "Good Point."
Play Tester two "A unit of Terminators might stop it as well."
Designer "Too hard bin. Just imagine the Spores covered the front and back viewports and it's too dangerous to drive the Land Raider."

I would like to see a tank's main weapon like the Razorback's twin Heavy Bolter still able to fire out of melee but not into it but that would bring its own pile of troubles.

Would of been a nice option like the titanic stuff but at a modifier.

like they are still shaking crap off. modifiers would allow a lot more situations to happen. i think its ok for now and a bit over blown at times (ok a LOT)

i think the only real thing i have a problem with is terrain being so meh.

a forest shouldn't give you as much protection as a 20 foot thick reinforced concrete wall.

Totally agree.
It's like those comics where the commander is praising a bush as the camuflage unit then sees the real camuflage unit and they're just a bunch of scrubs with sticks attached to their helmets.
"That stick is honesly good protection Commander!"

 Sledgehammer wrote:
So you're ok with a system that penalizes flyers for...... flying? A vendetta is now best used as a stationary gun platform. For all intents and purposes it is a tank. That is neither engaging, nor fun.

I play as a way to forge my own narratives, stories, and mental pictures. When flyers are better off staying still, or getting shot down by people with flame throwers, that aspect of the game becomes compromised.

If your flyers are getting shot down by flamers, maybe you should be moving them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, for everyone complaining about the overheat modifiers - you know that you don't HAVE to overcharge it, right? You can completely avoid the overheat, and against many targets, you don't need it overcharge it./quote]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Malifice wrote:

If your flyers are getting shot down by flamers, maybe you should be moving them.

Bloat drones. Yeah.

Wrong thread sorry.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Malifice wrote:

If your flyers are getting shot down by flamers, maybe you should be moving them.

Bloat drones. Yeah.

They have fly for the same reason jump pack marines do. The flamer is somewhat justified working well on them. They're just sort of hovering around poorly. It's on things like a stormhawk that it's silly that the strongest weapon against it is a flamer. Note I'm not saying best, because an 8" range is never gonna be the best weapon against something with that kind of movement.

Again though, it does depend on the flamer and models using it.

A Heldrake with Baleflamer lighting up said Stormhawk makes sense - Billy Bob the Cultist doing the same does not, though.

"A couple other bits of idiocy in 8th: 

- vehicles being locked in combat period. I have friends who are tankers. There's no way they wouldn't just drive over infantry in front of them if need be, firing all the way. I seem to recall several wars were fought where we did just that. "

That's a quote of the post. I replied with the rules from the core book, just the facts (vehicles can leave combat in 8th edition if they want, they are not locked in combat). Not sloppy reading, you can expect educated members to fact check online posts. Others were able to read the posts and decipher them correctly, its not that hard.

Xmbk, I see you only recently joined and your posts seem only provacative towards veteran members... time to get back on subject perhaps before a mod gets involved here (unless you are just a troll, but the community doesn't need that crap).

Back on subject, I do see the argument about flamers and fliers. Fliers aren't skimmers, hard to see a flamer hit a fast moving jet. Yet another thing brought in only for balance, but definitely defies realism.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Again though, it does depend on the flamer and models using it.

A Heldrake with Baleflamer lighting up said Stormhawk makes sense - Billy Bob the Cultist doing the same does not, though.

But you forget he's a cultist of CHAOS. He clearly has daemonic help there.

And Wraithguard with D-Scythes? Blame the Farseer.

Imperial Guardsman? The Emprar protected him.

Yeah flamers being great at anti-air is the one real head scratcher in the rules. I would have suggested that you roll to hit with flamers vs. models with the Fly keyword, but then that would also include jump infantry. I think the reason it is in there is because they couldn't think of a decent compromise without writing an overcomplicated rule.

The other one - which is a far less important issue - is that you can't fire overwatch if out of range. This seems odd to me - I understand if the chargers are out of sight (surprise attack) but when running straight at you, it just doesn't make sense. At the very least, pistols should always be able to overwatch.

Umbros wrote:

Yeah flamers being great at anti-air is the one real head scratcher in the rules. I would have suggested that you roll to hit with flamers vs. models with the Fly keyword, but then that would also include jump infantry.

The games weaponry is already all kinda way too flexible but just the idea of a flamethrower being more effective than a lascannon or meltagun is just stupid. Equally as silly as artillery being the go to AA.

Umbros wrote:

I think the reason it is in there is because they couldn't think of a decent compromise without writing an overcomplicated rule.

I somehow picture robin cruddace at the bottom of a well with jervis yelling "it gives the marketing team what it wants or it gets the hose again".

Umbros wrote:
The other one - which is a far less important issue - is that you can't fire overwatch if out of range. This seems odd to me - I understand if the chargers are out of sight (surprise attack) but when running straight at you, it just doesn't make sense.

The surprise attack angle can be just as silly. Landraider rolls up, dudes disembark out of los. Not exactly inconspicuous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


A flamer is better at killing a plane flying a mile up and moving at mach 7 than it is killing unarmoured bugs in a ditch.

Do you have math to back that up? Because a flyer has on average 12 wounds, T6 and a 3+ save. Unarmored bugs have a 5+ save in cover, 1 wound and T3.
If you are losing flyers to flamers regularly, you are doing something wrong.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


A flamer is better at killing a plane flying a mile up and moving at mach 7 than it is killing unarmoured bugs in a ditch.

Do you have math to back that up? Because a flyer has on average 12 wounds, T6 and a 3+ save. Unarmored bugs have a 5+ save in cover, 1 wound and T3.
If you are losing flyers to flamers regularly, you are doing something wrong.

It isn't. He has misunderstood the actual problem. The problem is that a flamer, disregarding the fact that it should basically never be able to reach if you play that mach 7 flier right, can put more wounds on the flier per points cost of the flamer as compared to a more traditional anti-air weapon.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


A flamer is better at killing a plane flying a mile up and moving at mach 7 than it is killing unarmoured bugs in a ditch.

Do you have math to back that up? Because a flyer has on average 12 wounds, T6 and a 3+ save. Unarmored bugs have a 5+ save in cover, 1 wound and T3.
If you are losing flyers to flamers regularly, you are doing something wrong.

Regular flamers are less efficient than Lascannons for HP removal. It's still silly that it's possible. That said, the Inferno Cannon averages more wounds than a Lascannon versus such vehicles, simply because it has D2.

The sad thing is this is still probably a better job for either flamer instead of cover-flushing or horde control, since flamers no longer ignore cover (so one Flamer vs Marines in a Forest = Nothing), and you can avoid Overwatch vs Flamers by charging from farther away.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:


Vehicles have always suffered Gets Hot.

Ummm, no, they haven't...