So...does anyone here plan to stick with 7th?

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.

**insaniak**

Luciferian wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

He wasn't asked for a compelling argument. He was asked what he doesn't like about it.

If what he doesn't like about 8th edition is that it looks like Age of Sigmar, his response was more than sufficient.

**thekingofkings**

Cannuck wrote:
thekingofkings wrote:
Not sticking with 7th, saw more than enough teasers to know I will hate 8th, but LOVING SW:A so keeping with that.

I'm genuinely curious, what is 8th doing that you aren't a fan of?

Fair enough, so far I have not liked anything I have seen or heard about it, it is changing into a game I do not want to play mechanically and I don't see any of the changes as actual improvements (the fluff could have been left alone or change, but thats all easy to ignore anyhow) some highlights that I found particularly off putting are:

The damage chart is probably the #1 thing I really dislike, I am not a fan of the possibility regardless of how slight, that small arms can take out vehicles. I am no fan of losing armor values on vehicles. I dont think toughness and wounds are the right way to go. I dont like the lack of initiative in melee or the new way of armor saves. Command points in principle I do not like. I like having the templates, I will miss those, alot. The new way of morale I do not like.

Essentially I found nothing wrong with the core rules between 3-7 that fixing codex's and not adding a bunch of new stuff wouldn't have taken care of.

**Slayer-Fan123**

I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

**thekingofkings**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

**Martel732**

AV is too easily abused with the hull point system.

**Freman Bloodglaive**

Why? 7th is broken.

GW, after many attempts, seem to finally be doing something right, and we should encourage that.

**Slayer-Fan123**

thekingofkings wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

Except we aren't dealing with the Abrams or modern day weapons so that logic doesn't apply.

**ERJAK**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
thekingofkings wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

Except we aren't dealing with the Abrams or modern day weapons so that logic doesn't apply.

Honestly at this point I'm convinced they threw in the lasgun/landraiders things as a funny noob trap.

**Lance845**

He doesn't like it. Don't tell him he has to like what you like. If he prefers 7th then like what you like. I don't UNDERSTAND it. I think 7th is a gak show. But then I don't have to play the game I don't like and neither does he.

**Breng77**

MagicJuggler wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
A single psyker that was universally acknowledged to be broken does not a strong argument make against the general statement 'psykers were fine in 5th'.

The other issue to 7th ed psykers is how ridiculous the mechanics are. Fifth was simple; roll a Ld check, and on a 2 or 12 you lose a wound to perils. That's it. Out of the gate, 7th was broken, complicated, and had way too much dice rolling. The powers were random and horribly balanced, and the perils chart was an unnecessary addition to the game.

If the worst part of 5th psykers was Njal, I think its pretty safe to say that Psykers were fine in 5th.

Sure it does. How many other Psykers have the raw potential to destroy half a 2000-point army in one turn?

Plus for every good Psyker, there were the Psyker-dependent armies that only worked if the opponent didn't have any psychic defense or rolled poorly. Tyranids and Eldar were both overcosted based on the "but they have synergy with their Psykers (read: are dependent on their Psykers)." While I'm for Power selection over random powers, the discrepancy in powers was still the same there (I never saw anyone take Smite versus Null Zone for example), and individual powers had individual "when to cast" qualifiers, with Grey Knights having the most "out of sequence" powers ("Champion: Cast when you die").

Having a single phase cleaned it up. Making it "roll a dice pool" let you do resource allocation and added some risk/reward (more dice=better success rate but higher Perils rate). Could it be fixed? Of course. Pyromancy is obviously inferior to Telepathy and Telekinesis is questionable but most every other discipline has practical use, and compared to a game where the "aura" powers and Jaws were the most pronounced, I personally consider that a net improvement.

Njals storm power wasn't a psychic power, as such is irrelevant to any discussion of psykers being more or equal bad in 5th. That is like saying Immoteks lightning destroyed half my army so psykers are broken. Or the Warp Storm Table killing half an army and using it as rationale for OP psychic powers. Jaws was an issue, but so was Lash in 4e. I would say the latter portion of 5e started the escalation of powers that we saw go to 11 in 6th and then over the top in 7e. The change to the warp dice model was poorly done as it made psykers an all or nothing proposition in many games, bringing just one was fairly pointless. I would also argue the discrepancy in powers in 5e was much narrower than it is now. The difference between Smite and Null Zone, is magnitudes smaller than Invisibility and just about anything else. Invisibility is far more powerful than anything in 5e. So by and large is summoning Jaws was good, but matchup dependent on how good. I agree with the single phase being a good idea, but it was handled so poorly and powers were so unbalanced 7e Trumps 5e by quite a large margin.

**kronk**

Shadow Walker wrote:
No. 7th is a mess. Cannot wait for 8th to arrive.

Yeah. Bring on the new hotness.

**Talizvar**

Leaving 7th like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

**Marmatag**

insaniak wrote:
Luciferian wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

He wasn't asked for a compelling argument. He was asked what he doesn't like about it.

If what he doesn't like about 8th edition is that it looks like Age of Sigmar, his response was more than sufficient.

Without an explanation of how it looks like Age of Sigmar, there's no meat to this statement though. It's not a statement about rules, tactics, or anything like that, just a vague statement.

I could say i'm not playing 8th because it looks like Mega Ultra Bunny Fruit Loops. Is that more than sufficient, too?

**More Dakka**

Nope, I basically stopped playing at tournaments because it was just getting ridiculous. I'm so happy to be done with the threshold armor saves too.

**D6Damager**

Talizvar wrote:
Leaving 7th like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

This. Been playing since 3rd. Good riddance to 7th

. Bring on 8th.

**melbards**

So...does anyone here plan to stick with 7th?

HELL NO!

Bring on the balance and streamlining!

**Lobokai**

Elbows wrote:
I feel if you're going to stick with an older edition...use a good one? 5th or 2nd or something. 7th is by far the "worst" I've ever seen 40K.

This. 7th was a steaming pile

**insaniak**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

**Tamereth**

People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon. The core rules of the game were fine for the most part, the issues we're with all the special snowflake rules for units in the codex's and formations.
Don't for a minute think this is going away with age of darkness (the new game using 40k models, stop calling it 8th. This is first edition age of darkness).
Every single unit in this new game will have it's own special rules, everyone refers to AoS as having 4 pages of rules, it doesn't it has thousands, you have to count all the warscrolls. Age of darkness will be no different.

**Luciferian**

I disagree. The core rules for 3-7th, with the AP system in place of 2nd's modifiers, were the reason they had to introduce so many special rules and exceptions in the first place. It was an inflexible system that was difficult to scale and while it may work OK when the game has fewer unit types to govern, it doesn't handle diversity or complexity well at all.

Whether or not they continue special rules bloat with 8th is yet to be seen, but from the start it will be a more efficient and scalable system mechanically.

**hobojebus**

I quit for three years because of 7th its a terrible mess I can't understand anyone liking it in all honesty.

**andysonic1**

7th stopped being fun for me a long time ago. Traitor Legions helped a little, made World Eaters pretty fun but not really "good". It was still always an uphill battle regardless of who I was facing. 8th is looking like everyone will be able to have their cake and eat it too as long as they are willing to give it a shot.

**Bobthehero**

Lots of things I'll miss from 7th ed, don't 8th will be as fun to play as 7th.

**Galas**

Tamereth wrote:
People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon. The core rules of the game were fine for the most part, the issues we're with all the special snowflake rules for units in the codex's and formations.
Don't for a minute think this is going away with age of darkness (the new game using 40k models, stop calling it 8th. This is first edition age of darkness).
Every single unit in this new game will have it's own special rules, everyone refers to AoS as having 4 pages of rules, it doesn't it has thousands, you have to count all the warscrolls. Age of darkness will be no different.

So Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was a different game than Warhammer 40k 3rd edition? Is totally reasonable to you to not like 8th edition. But this isn't in no way the scale of change that WHFB receive becoming AOS or Rogue Trader to Warhammer 40k 3rd edition.
The "IS NOT THE SAME GAME BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!" is a silly argument to made here, I think. It was a correct thing to say with the change from WHFB to AoS, but not here.

And people have already been in the band wagon of hating 7th for the past two years

**Slayer-Fan123**

insaniak wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

**Vaktathi**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.

That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

**Luciferian**

It doesn't take much imagination for me to get past the lasgun vs. Land Raider scenario as a game abstraction. As mentioned, there are plenty of things one can damage on the exterior of an armored vehicle even if the armor isn't penetrated - sensor packages, treads or other means of conveyance, weak viewports etc.

I think the rules properly express the degradation of capabilities a vehicle might experience under that kind of damage.

It's also incredibly unlikely that you'll ever completely destroy a tank solely with lasguns or bolters in the course of a game. You may get a lucky hit to strip that last wound - but in that case the tank is already weakened so it isn't a huge stretch of the imagination to assume you got the last crew member through a weak point in the armor or something like that.

**GodDamUser**

I find the tank comparison funny.. because there have been many modern instances of relatively unarmed civilians taking out tanks.. especially in what would be considered Melee in game terms

**insaniak**

Tamereth wrote:
People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon.

That's not a new thing. People have been roundly criticising 7th pretty much from the time it was released. Much moreso than most previous editions.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Vaktathi wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.
Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.

That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

How can you even say in reality? Have you ever shot 20+ Bolters at the same time at a modern day Abrams?

The only gun I won't buy it for is the Autogun, and even then if you've got like 30 of them in Rapid Fire range you can consider that a wound done for sure.