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.

Hi all, I've been playing 40K on-and-off since 2001 and I've recently been trying to get back into the game after a long stint of just reading Black Library and generally talking about the fluff with friends. This has enevitbly meant that I've had to get familier with the 7th edition rulebook and yet I find that I keep putting it off due to a sheer nostalgic contempt at the level of change. And I think I've narrowed it down why that is; it's too literal.

It has became less about units and figurative warfare and more about individual models; as ever since 5th edition changes such as True LOS have made the game increasingly literal about where models are and what they're doing. Do you know why it's the models at the back of the unit who died first? It's because the models at the front of the unit actually did die but their comrades ran forward to take their place. Do you know why that standard combat knife adds an extra attack to the Space Marine's Power Fist? It's because the combat knife is used as a parrying weapon which frees up space for the Fist to get some extra attacks in. Granted, some of these changes were put in for good reason; such as the wound allocation going from cherry-picking in 4th ed to the magic disappearing wounds of 5th ed. However it still demonstrates a loss of imagination to the game.

Other things which I've found hard to get used to are things like putting down flame templates on open-top vehicles. Yes it's more realistic, but it's also breaking two core pillars of 40K at the same time: targeting multiple units and targeting passengers. I could make a whole separate thread about hull points, but lets just say that even when I'm benefiting from them I still don't feel right about the result- it makes armour spongey. Rapid fire weapons- you used to have to think about whether you move or shoot, but now you can do both as we apparently can't handle with such a decision.

No this is not just a whiney ranting rage-quit thread, as I do still love 40K and I intend to continue playing it but I'm becoming tired of saying "well it wasn't like that in 4th edition..." and I don't want to risk sounding like a stuck record at my local club so I want to know; how do you enjoy 7th edition? What makes you put 7th in your army case and think "the ruleset of this game is perfectly reasonable, and I'm sure tonight's game is better for it."

And getting back to the original subject of this thread, do you think that 8th and 9th edition are going to be even less figurative and more literal about the models than the current game is?

Hi!

Been playing WH40k since 2001.

Generally I deal with the reality of 7e by playing video games instead of WH40k tabletop and shelving my armies semi-permanently.

I also lost faith in GW's ability to recover the situation a long time ago.

God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

 Pouncey wrote:
Hi!

Been playing WH40k since 2001.

Generally I deal with the reality of 7e by playing video games instead of WH40k tabletop and shelving my armies semi-permanently.

I also lost faith in GW's ability to recover the situation a long time ago.

I feel the same, but with 3 tabletop clubs in easy traveling distance and generally wanting to increase my collection, the temptation to get back into tabletop wargaming is too much to pass up.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Hi!

Been playing WH40k since 2001.

Generally I deal with the reality of 7e by playing video games instead of WH40k tabletop and shelving my armies semi-permanently.

I also lost faith in GW's ability to recover the situation a long time ago.

I feel the same, but with 3 tabletop clubs in easy traveling distance and generally wanting to increase my collection, the temptation to get back into tabletop wargaming is too much to pass up.

Generally people come to the Internet when they have questions they can't answer themselves.

Your question is "How can I have fun in an edition which is absurd to me?"

The logical answer is, "If you don't know, we sure as heck can't figure it out for ya."

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

The Exorcist actually did have the gun elevation to fire at flyers.

And absolutely nothing else. : D

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Hi!

Been playing WH40k since 2001.

Generally I deal with the reality of 7e by playing video games instead of WH40k tabletop and shelving my armies semi-permanently.

I also lost faith in GW's ability to recover the situation a long time ago.

I feel the same, but with 3 tabletop clubs in easy traveling distance and generally wanting to increase my collection, the temptation to get back into tabletop wargaming is too much to pass up.

Generally people come to the Internet when they have questions they can't answer themselves.

Your question is "How can I have fun in an edition which is absurd to me?"

The logical answer is, "If you don't know, we sure as heck can't figure it out for ya."

Yup, I suppose I'll just have to silence that rules-writer inside me whenever those sort of things come up.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

I'm going to have to start finding proxy models whose guns don't have 'barrels' as such. This is an omnidirectional sonic thing. I point it and things go boom. What, you ask how I can tell which way it's pointing? ...Magic. ...Psykers. ...Something.

 SDFarsight wrote:
Yup, I suppose I'll just have to silence that rules-writer inside me whenever those sort of things come up.

S'okay. With WoW I had to silence my inner lore nerd when watching the Warcraft movie, so I wouldn't scream, "What the feth, that's not how it happened!" or "What the feth, that never happened!" and on one occasion, "You got the species wrong? How... but... GAH!!!!!!!" every 30 seconds.

A short explanation of what they got wrong is... everything.

They got like 7 major details wrong in the first five minutes of the movie.

Basically it was as relevant to the official lore as fanfiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

I'm going to have to start finding proxy models whose guns don't have 'barrels' as such. This is an omnidirectional sonic thing. I point it and things go boom. What, you ask how I can tell which way it's pointing? ...Magic. ...Psykers. ...Something.

Personally, I crammed a Whirlwind turret on an Immolator chassis.

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
Yup, I suppose I'll just have to silence that rules-writer inside me whenever those sort of things come up.

S'okay. With WoW I had to silence my inner lore nerd when watching the Warcraft movie, so I wouldn't scream, "What the feth, that's not how it happened!" or "What the feth, that never happened!" and on one occasion, "You got the species wrong? How... but... GAH!!!!!!!" every 30 seconds.

A short explanation of what they got wrong is... everything.

They got like 7 major details wrong in the first five minutes of the movie.

Basically it was as relevant to the official lore as fanfiction.

It makes you wonder how people have the courage to write adaptions of anything, when they know they're going to be on the s**t list of everyone who liked the source material.

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

The Exorcist actually did have the gun elevation to fire at flyers.

And absolutely nothing else. : D

Well that's fine as the game needs more anti-air, it's just that most of the things in the air are 4-wound MCs

And speaking of Guard vehicles, I used to dislike how Tau, Ork etc weapons had to choose between high-explosive or anti-tank while the IG battle cannon had both in the same shot. But since then I have gained some sympathy for Guard players now that their boom cannon can no longer get one-shot-kills.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
Yup, I suppose I'll just have to silence that rules-writer inside me whenever those sort of things come up.

S'okay. With WoW I had to silence my inner lore nerd when watching the Warcraft movie, so I wouldn't scream, "What the feth, that's not how it happened!" or "What the feth, that never happened!" and on one occasion, "You got the species wrong? How... but... GAH!!!!!!!" every 30 seconds.

A short explanation of what they got wrong is... everything.

They got like 7 major details wrong in the first five minutes of the movie.

Basically it was as relevant to the official lore as fanfiction.

It makes you wonder how people have the courage to write adaptions of anything, when they know they're going to be on the s**t list of everyone who liked the source material.

Generally by writing an original story instead of butchering the already-existing one and then getting Blizzard's permission to call the movie "100% canon, but in an alternate timeline."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

The Exorcist actually did have the gun elevation to fire at flyers.

And absolutely nothing else. : D

Well that's fine as the game needs more anti-air, it's just that most of the things in the air are 4-wound MCs

And speaking of Guard vehicles, I used to dislike how Tau, Ork etc weapons had to choose between high-explosive or anti-tank while the IG battle cannon had both in the same shot. But since then I have gained some sympathy for Guard players now that their boom cannon can no longer get one-shot-kills.

Two problems.

1. It didn't have Skyfire or Interceptor.
2. It had to be near base contact with the flyer to shoot it.

 Pouncey wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:
Yup, I suppose I'll just have to silence that rules-writer inside me whenever those sort of things come up.

S'okay. With WoW I had to silence my inner lore nerd when watching the Warcraft movie, so I wouldn't scream, "What the feth, that's not how it happened!" or "What the feth, that never happened!" and on one occasion, "You got the species wrong? How... but... GAH!!!!!!!" every 30 seconds.

A short explanation of what they got wrong is... everything.

They got like 7 major details wrong in the first five minutes of the movie.

Basically it was as relevant to the official lore as fanfiction.

You're talking about a Blizzard product in a Grimdark forum. I am now oblidged to tell you that anything WoW is mere fanfiction compared to 40K

Personally, I crammed a Whirlwind turret on an Immolator chassis.

That reminds me of how the old Looted Tank rules were vague about exactly where the weapons were mounted, so someone just put them on Doc Oc tentacles. Rules As Written guys!

 SDFarsight wrote:
You're talking about a Blizzard product in a Grimdark forum. I am now oblidged to tell you that anything WoW is mere fanfiction compared to 40K

S'fine, both 40k and WoW have terrible lore.

Personally, I crammed a Whirlwind turret on an Immolator chassis.

That reminds me of how the old Looted Tank rues were vague about exactly where the weapons were mounted, so someone just put them on Doc Oc tentacles. Rules As Written guys!

Generally I concluded my Sisters of Battle would be sensible enough to not launch missiles out of a pipe organ and instead use a more standard missile launcher and simply play the rockin' tunes over a loudspeaker.

 Pouncey wrote:
Two problems.

1. It didn't have Skyfire or Interceptor.
2. It had to be near base contact with the flyer to shoot it.

Shame! I think the Tau's version of that was still ok as it hits flyers on 2+.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Two problems.

1. It didn't have Skyfire or Interceptor.
2. It had to be near base contact with the flyer to shoot it.

Shame! I think the Tau's version of that was still ok as it hits flyers on 2+.

Its gun elevation was literally perpendicular to the ground.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

I'm going to have to start finding proxy models whose guns don't have 'barrels' as such. This is an omnidirectional sonic thing. I point it and things go boom. What, you ask how I can tell which way it's pointing? ...Magic. ...Psykers. ...Something.

The best way to go.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

9th edition WYSIWYG: Your tank doesn't have the gun elevation to fire at that unit on a hill or at any flyer? Too bad!

I'm going to have to start finding proxy models whose guns don't have 'barrels' as such. This is an omnidirectional sonic thing. I point it and things go boom. What, you ask how I can tell which way it's pointing? ...Magic. ...Psykers. ...Something.

The best way to go.

Also you should replace all infantry models with invulnerable saves with ping pong balls painted up to look like force fields being shot and flashing/flickering bright colors.

Just for giggles really.

As for LOS, I'm very glad that not only are my retro Ork Trukks very fluffy and nostalgic, they're also so low that it's quite easy to call something out as BLOS or at least getting some cover. *que low rider song*

 SDFarsight wrote:
As for LOS, I'm very glad that not only are my retro Ork Trukks very fluffy and nostalgic, they're also so low that it's quite easy to call something out as BLOS or at least getting some cover. *que low rider song*

Really I think 40k could use a total tear-down and redesign of its rules into something moderately functional.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

There was no 'switch to true line of sight'... 40K has used true LOS as the core of its shooting system since Rogue Trader.

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

There was no 'switch to true line of sight'... 40K has used true LOS as the core of its shooting system since Rogue Trader.

I mean the main change in 5th ed where Area Terrain pretty much stopped being a thing and you had to be alot more attentive about how many windows are in that urban terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

There was no 'switch to true line of sight'... 40K has used true LOS as the core of its shooting system since Rogue Trader.

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

I think WH40k would actually be more fun if you just LARPed the battle with your opponent instead of doing any dice rolling, like you're a child playing with cheap toy Army Men again.

I... may have put that theory to the test one day and found it truthful.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
God, I hope not. The switch to true line of sight brought with it a system so poorly-worded you basically have to throw out GW's LOS definitions and use your own if you don't want to live in a stupid world where Exorcists can't shoot and Vindicators ignore cover when shooting things behind them.

There was no 'switch to true line of sight'... 40K has used true LOS as the core of its shooting system since Rogue Trader.

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Exactly!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

I debated for a while getting back into 40K. I left in very early 4th, bought a rulebook for 5th in case I ever started up...and then built an Eldar army this year - not for 7th. If 7th is anything to go by, I'm quite sure there's about 4% chance of GW creating a game which will appeal to me when they release 8th edition.

I don't feel the need to complain as I don't make the product and GW "owes" me nothing. I think the current game looks like complete crap...so big deal. They lose me as a customer for current release/books, etc. No worries, I play plenty of other games.

I've assembled a suitably large 2nd edition Eldar army and will either play 2nd edition, or modify 2nd edition (it has some definite room for improvement) --- or --- I'll play other rule sets using the models. The one thing you miss out on, and one of Warhammer 40K's largest appeals is the huge crowd of people who play it.

The game has changed immensely from:

2nd Ed.
-30 to 40 models per side.
-Expect to spend an evening (2-4 hours) playing it out.
-Far less power across the board
-Encouraged by GW to create scenarios, fluff lists, etc.
-Not tournament based/aimed.

7th
-60 to 120 models per side
-Try to table opponent within 1.5 hours or less
-Scoop models up by the bucket load, everything is going to die.
-Huge stompy things and fliers constantly
-Heavily tournament/competitive centered (more a result of the community than GW).
-SImple rules stretched to bursting point by special rules.

There's simply nothing that appeals to me about 7th. I've watched a handful of games in person, listened to numerous podcasts (hundreds of them) and I enjoy "trying" to watch battle reports online frequently. I may still enjoy the lore/fluff and the universe but GW no longer makes a product that interests me - end result? I don't play it. Not a huge loss.

 insaniak wrote:

There was no 'switch to true line of sight'... 40K has used true LOS as the core of its shooting system since Rogue Trader.

In 4th Ed forests completely blocked line of sight to the other side, now they don't. Some of the rules around area terrain worked the same way. These former abstractions were changed to TLOS, and made LOS blocking terrain far more rare on most tables. These changes made hiding units more difficult, ranged combat more powerful, and maneuvering a little less important.

I never played anything pre 5th edition in 40k, but I've been playing with my 40k minis using the bolt action second edition rule set and it's been really cool. It's shockingly familiar to 40k but I particularly love the activation system and the way terrain works.

In my last game I was able to use a captain to activate a flanking force that moved behind an area of ruins that was dense terrain (blocks line of sight through it), and then on the next turn advanced through the ruins before finally assaulting on the third turn. My poor tactical squads had a rough time holding the line in the meanwhile but it was worth it when my assault squads pounced out of the ruins, forcing enemy units off of both objectives and giving the tac squads a breather and a chance to advance themselves to hold said objectives.

Was fun, and it feels more realistic. A solid, playable rule set with my cool GW minis? I'm all in.