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.
2017/06/01 02:47:16
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
A Hive Tyrant can fire it's Devourer out of its butt.
Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
But unit facing is the single most important part of the game... for only some units... apparently.
You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc. Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.
40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it. Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense. Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well? If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it. In general, it is a non-issue for most of play. It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles. We already assuming infantry moving up aren't just jogging at a leisurely pace toward their end point while the enemy waits for their turn to fire on them. The IGOUGO system is already and intensely gamist and abstract concept meant to organize play more than it is some measure of objective timescale. So if infantry movement represents the gamut of battlefield traversal, then why do we assume a tank's path and end position is any less of an abstraction?
When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter", so who cares if tanks, the last holdout of vestigial facing rules in 40k, finally get the same treatment as a variety of monstrous creatures who have been ignoring it since 3rd edition made their facing stop mattering?
2017/06/01 02:50:40
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
I interpret it as an Abstraction of events in the Turn. including the vehicle pivoting, turning to face the enemy etc., in order to clear up clunky mechanics which simply slow the game down.
It's always been stated that a shooting phase is an abstraction of a period of time. Don't see the big deal and stinkfuss
2017/06/01 02:59:41
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now?
Look, I know those are gamey and very very abstract rules, but if you want 40k to work with Flyers, Dragons, Monsters, 80 infantry models and 8 tanks in the table, you NEED those rules.
This isn't flames of War where you have 4 tanks between the two armys in the whole game. You can't have so specific vehicle rules when you have so many vehicles in the table fighting so many crazy things that just ignore all the restrictions vehicles have for being vehicles. Infantry had facings in Warhammer Fantasy. You could charge a dragon from his back and everyone saw that as pretty realistic. But it has never apply for 40k, and no one has blink a eye for that inconsistence. This is the double standard of people that has lost grap of what 40k is now.
40k of now is not 40k of 20 years ago. To be honest, I prefer the 40k of 20 years ago. Without Gargants, without Flyers, without so many units in the table. But we have to live with what we have, and make it FUN and FUNCTIONAL.
But you'll just ignore my points to keep bashing the same death horse. I know you. I have read you, study you, c'mon. Bring it on H.B.M.C! Bring me you sarcasm! I'm ready for it.
Spoiler:
Bespoken'd, bespoken'd, bespoken'd!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:06:47
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 02:59:43
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
You aparently never saw people driving tanks sideways in the past to act as cover then.
And tanks can spin around in place just.as easy as a two story space locust.
Frankly facings only really work if everyone has them, otherwise only somemmodels get punished for positiong and facing while others don,t.
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
A Hive Tyrant can fire it's Devourer out of its butt.
Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
But unit facing is the single most important part of the game... for only some units... apparently.
You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc. Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.
40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it. Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense. Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well? If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it. In general, it is a non-issue for most of play. It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles. We already assuming infantry moving up aren't just jogging at a leisurely pace toward their end point while the enemy waits for their turn to fire on them. The IGOUGO system is already and intensely gamist and abstract concept meant to organize play more than it is some measure of objective timescale. So if infantry movement represents the gamut of battlefield traversal, then why do we assume a tank's path and end position is any less of an abstraction?
When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter", so who cares if tanks, the last holdout of vestigial facing rules in 40k, finally get the same treatment as a variety of monstrous creatures who have been ignoring it since 3rd edition made their facing stop mattering?
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: I'm so disappointed in how the HQ's work out, especially the Eldar ones. Everyone hit's on a 2+. Everyone. How is it possible to represent skill when a Haemonculi hit's on 2's as equally as Lileth?
In fact a Haemonculi is actually better than a Succubus in combat. More attacks, a better weapon (Can take electrocorrosive whip) 5+ invul at all times, mortal wound psyker bomb. That just isn't right.
Welcome to the Dark Imperium!
Seriously though, the skill of the fighter makes it easier to hit their opponent, rather than harder for their opponent to hit them. Rules such as the Wyches' Invul Save in melee represent skill preventing damage.
This new system works fine while it also streamlines the game appropriately. I fully expect that once GW gets more feedback things will change. Maybe in the yearly update, or in the appropriate codex. Which ever drops first.
Remember, this is only the foundation of the game going forward. We still have to build the walls with codexes for the game to truly start taking shape as CT and LT start to come into play and other subfaction rules start to change the shape of army lists.
But before skill of hitting opponent was also more varied...
And not much chance for change here. They drew themselves into corner with this system. D6 has narrow range so when tacticals hit on 3+ it leaves only 1 value for elites. Unless they want to start having rerolls like candies so slightly more skilled would have 3+, reroll 1's, even more skilled 2+, yet more skilly 3+ reroll misses and then best 2+ reroll misses.
But that would basically mean redoing everything. Marine commanders would probably be 3+ reroll 1's etc kind of thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:10:59
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/01 03:12:11
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Hard part was teaching him to talk instead of hiss mind breaking sounds.
The Water Caste is very diplomatic. Sure it might have taken a few dozen teachers before he started learning, but I think that's a small price to pay for bringing a new race into the glory of the Greater Good. Besides, it would give Tau a viable CC unit. More than worth the trade-off, IMO.
Mobile Assault Cadre: 9,500 points (3,200 points fully painted)
Genestealer Cult 1228 points
849 points/ 15 SWC
2017/06/01 03:13:05
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
kestral wrote: Looking at the "87 points + 11 for a gun" type stuff - do you think they used a mathematical formula to come up with the point values? That would be interesting, though I prefer easier to add up values.
Sure hope not or they are 100% quaranteed to be busted already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:16:52
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/01 03:22:00
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:23:31
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 03:22:53
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
The idea of Chaos Tau isn't even good or achievable. The 4th Sphere Expanse was dragged by the Great Rift so Tau has a justification to fight Space Wolves or other stuff normally too far from their homeland.
It's the same thing of the Protectorate of Menoth taking a bit of land from Llael, in Warmahordes: so it makes sense narrative Menoth x Khador, Menoth x Ios, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:23:17
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:46:42
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/01 03:47:20
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have. Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
If you think that points are the end of all balance measures and that in many cases no matter how you change the points, is the unit or core rules where lies the problem, I can't say any more to you.
You can't have a game so masive and with so much variety without streamlining it. And the people that could do that are working for the NASA or the Army, not making rulesets for wargames.
Just agree to disagree.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 03:49:50
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 03:49:26
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
Points don't cover everything when you can drive a Baneblade sideways but technically can't rotate it in place 180 degrees because of the cam movement.
2017/06/01 03:50:04
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have. Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
If you think that points are the end of all balance measures and that in many cases no matter how you change the points, is the unit or core rules where lies the problem, I can't say any more to you.
Just agree to disagree.
Tanks having firing arcs is not game breaking prmblem. Every good game designer has shown that to be not so. 40k tank problem is gw has no competent game designer in it's payroll so they went for easy solution to give illusion of balance.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/06/01 04:09:08
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
Points don't cover everything when you can drive a Baneblade sideways but technically can't rotate it in place 180 degrees because of the cam movement.
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 04:11:36
2017/06/01 04:14:36
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.
Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 04:14:42
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 04:29:27
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Is it at all odd that on the one hand there is positively reverence (for some reason) in losing a massive incentive in vehicle maneuvering (to gain los on target) but somehow also reverence for every model being able to split fire.
"the game needs abstraction, those old rules were too clunky"
"wow, ever model can target independently, that in no way has the potential to be clunky or abusive to slow play at all, I love that kinda detail"
There's positivity and there is naked cognitive dissonance. We've lost massive amounts of detail in many areas of the ruleset with the release of 8th and any issue raised have been waved off with essentially "it will speed things up, abstraction in all things is only ever a positive development except at a later date where I'll selectively like additional details" .
The really hard to argue part for me is flyers essentially being able to target just about wherever they can draw los to their hull. Abstractons are always better clearly, so why did they keep the 90 degree turning aspect if it rarely matters short of actual weapon range?
Short of havihg a lot of very large and tall los blockers... good luck. Now if you'll excuse me it's time to buy stock in heldrakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.
Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...
Why even endeavor to play with models or in 3 dimension when the game is basically reduced bumper cars meets chinese dodgeball? The game getting closer to being vassal doesn't seem like a positive development.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 06:49:15
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2017/06/01 04:33:21
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Well, I developed my list for my Crimson Fists. Man are they much more sparse than in 7th. But I can do all sorts of stuff that I couldn't do before, so that is cool. I custom built an Honour Guard squad, which is something new.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
The silliest part is basically every vehicle is like shooting out of an open topped vehicle in 7th. Pop out 3 mm of tank, fire literally 5 weapons at different targets. I never liked it in 7th but it was at least fairly rare, now with 8th... there's gotta be an faq or something, it such a deal breaker. Just think of the modelling for advantage in terms of height and dimension now, madness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 04:37:17
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.
2017/06/01 04:38:34
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
EDIT: sideways ninja'd by Crablezworth by greater eloquence!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 04:40:28
2017/06/01 04:39:32
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Split Fire is good because it allow mixed squads to be relevant and make the lowly grunts something more that just ablative wounds for the Heavy Weapon guy.
It has nothing to do with abstraction or speeding up the game. You can speed and simplify some rules and add more deep to others. If the net result is a faster gameplay, I don't see problems with that.
amanita wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
Because vehicles rules maked vehicles useless compared with all other options? I find unnecesary the variety in power weapons, thats right, but I don't find either exactly whats the bad thing of them existing. In the other hand, I can see many counter arguments for Vehicles Firing Arcs and Vehicles facing in the actual 40k of today.
Is just like, I don't know. People has complex reasons to like some rules and equally complex reasons to dislike others. Is not like they just point at random rules and say "THIS I LIKE, THIS I DON'T!"
I can totally see why you guys prefer vehicle facings, more complex rules for Flyers, etc... they have their reasons to exist. Personally I don't think they are appropiate system for the 40k of today, but I can see the appeal.
The problem is how categorically you (General you) come to this thread and repeat the old mantra of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE IS BECAUSE YOU LOVE DUMPTED DOWN RULES AND GAMES FOR TODDLERS, ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH AND THIS GAME CAN ONLY FUCTION IN ONE WAY, THE WAY I LIKE!"
"Why don't we play with paper tokens then?" "Vehicles are just bags of meat" are categorically and subjetive assertions that you use as some kind of universal truth.
Is tiresome and inmature.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 04:46:26
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 04:46:45
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/01 04:51:35
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
In fairness though, epic died not long after it was streamlined into epic 40k.
2017/06/01 04:54:05
Subject: 40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
Have I considered these things? Yes. Does 40k do a good job of modelling them in a realistic way? No. Would it be fun to break out a protractor and count every degree of rotation as you plan a realistic path for it to take in order for it to end up 6" directly to its right and facing the same direction? No. Is that even possible without exceeding its movement limit? No.
Yet you're willing to explain that with abstraction, while suddenly turning into an expert on tank turning vectors when it comes to pivoting in place.
This is why vehicle facings in 40k are dumb.
2017/06/01 05:16:22
Subject: Re:40k 8th Edition Summary - 31 May 2017: Full Index Leaks in OP - Also On-Topic Warning in OP
Mobile Assault Cadre: 9,500 points (3,200 points fully painted)
Genestealer Cult 1228 points
849 points/ 15 SWC 
/ BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
