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.
SuspiciousSucculent wrote: To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind losing true line-of-sight, as it would help with the consistency of abstraction and allow for cooler modelling options without incurring an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
Yeah, I much prefer a system where models have a "size" and take up a given volume myself. That's something I could get behind. Though with the sheer variety of models in 40k these days, it is hard to do with anything except infantry models. Probably comes down to most vehicles being base-free for aesthetic reasons.
One of those hard things to reconcile. Using the model itself is a hell of a lot faster but can lead to a lot of weird edge cases due to how a thing is modeled. Using a volumetric system helps to make the various abstractions needed for minis games work, but they can be cumbersome to bring in to a game after the fact when there was little to no oversight in designing new minis to fit within such a system.
It's like in Infinity, where the Maghariba Guard mini is basically the only mini to use its specific silhouette profile. 40k is like that, but almost every vehicle would have its own unique profile because nothing was designed with a standardized system in mind.
I'd love a volumetric system, but at the end of the day, it isn't one of my dealbreakers either, just a piece of design I tend to prefer over using minis as objective position and pose representation pieces.
What hyperbole is there? I'm talking about examples from real games I've been involved in, where crouching/prone models couldn't see (or be seen) over low walls or LOS was drawn to some ridiculously tiny piece of a model that was just barely visible.
Is it reaaally "a mess?" Do you really think "nobody at GW [has] any kind of concept for how it should work"?
That's exactly what I think. I think GW's rule authors are incompetent, and have no overall plan for 40k. They just write rules impulsively based on what seems good, and the result is a lack of consistency in how things work across various parts of the game. Some pieces are heavily abstracted, some are completely literal, and there doesn't seem to be any pattern in the choices.
Can you really not assume you don't draw line of sight from an antennae? Or give some "gentlemans leeway" for a crouched model? Just use some common sense.
IOW, "the rules are fine, just ignore the rules and replace them with better rules". If you have to give "gentleman's leeway" to get a reasonable outcome then it's a concession that the rules as GW wrote them are not good.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
I can agree in the part about seeing the obvious holes and reporting them to GW. But abusing them?
When you encounter a bug in a system or a videogame you should report it to the manufacturer to be repared. But if you abuse it, you are gonna ve banned or receive other type of repercusion.
You don't play with GW when you play Warhammer, you play with random people or your friends. If you abuse those holes you aren't punishing 40k, you are making a bad experience for the people in the other side of the table.
If you play in a big competitive tournament with GW presence, then I can agree here to make a statement.
Key word was visibly. Given GWs general history of lagging behind on fixing big issues, sometimes you have to start a fire to make them take notice.
So complaining about bad fire Arcs is one thing, but pointing out the flaw at a GT or a GW store, etc would be more prudent.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
Honest question, how many people willingly, like out side of a tournment, sit down for a second game of 40k with you?
I mentioned both of those examples because they were both examples of things that GW reacted to and fixed due to abuse (Wolf Guard Cyclonespam, or Purple Sun Scroll nuking).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 02:00:34
If there's a single crouching/prone guy in a squad than drawing line of sight to and from the squad is the same as its always been. If its a full squad of guys crouching/prone then just call them out beforehand on modeling for advantage. Its really not that hard. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with vehicle firing arcs. If the vehicle is behind a wall that he 100% cannot see other models from then it cannot fire at other models. If you let people get away with shooting when they're 100% behind walls then idk what to tell ya.
Sounds like a non-issue if you ask me.
edit: if someone actually measured from their antennae I'm positive anyone you asked in the store would call them an idiot for trying to do that. Its not going to be the new meta to maximize distance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 02:25:22
"People say on their first meeting a Man and an Ork exchanged a long, hard look, didn't care much for what they saw, and shot each other dead."
I think GW's rule authors are incompetent, and have no overall plan for 40k. They just write rules impulsively based on what seems good, and the result is a lack of consistency in how things work across various parts of the game. Some pieces are heavily abstracted, some are completely literal, and there doesn't seem to be any pattern in the choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 02:45:19
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
While I can see the problem, I can't lie that I prefer this system because it eliminates some obnoxious edge cases that a number of people argued in order to deny an advantage to an opponent. For instance, the Obelisk and Tesseract Vault Tesla Sphere firing arc issue. Going off the idea of them being fixed hull weapons, it's entirely possible that the model could not actually hit any ground models at all outside of the very extreme of the weapon's range.
It also helps balance weapon costs as you know how many weapons on the model will be effective - all of them - and it also helps to even out some weird designs where guns were set very low on the vehicle and would not be able to fire over even small obstructions or friendly models. While it's not as useful in terms of simulation, it helps with modeling and also allows GW to design crazier looking units without worrying about if the firing arcs are actually realistic.
I expect the final ruling when FAQs are released will be 'From the Hull' as many of the rules referencing skimmers and fliers state that LOS must be drawn from the hull.of the model despite it having a base.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
So basically what you are saying is that everybody has been brainwashed by decades of GW's bad rulewritting to believe that theres only one way to fix a rule... to defend that the only way to do this rule-system is the one you find appropiate?
Hmmm...
We can try to paint our vision in this form of rule-writting as the only logical and possible one. And that every other are wrong, lazy, overcomplicated or over shallow...
Or we can agree that different folks have different expectations of the game they play, and that every solution has his upsides and is downsides.
But what can I know. Afterall, I feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/02 03:34:20
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.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
So basically what you are saying is that everybody has been brainwashed by decades of GW's bad rulewritting to believe that theres only one way to fix a rule... to defend that the only way to do this rule is the one you find appropiate?
Hmmm...
Nice strawman.
Did I say everybody is brainwashed? You might want to read that again.
Did I say my way is the only way? Read my response again and find where I said that.
No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This are your words, not mine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 03:41:15
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.
If you want TLOS and weapons - just say to your opponent;
"hey, you mind if we use tlos from the weapons, and you have to see the body of the target?"
If they say sure, you know what you are playing.
if they say no, you know what you are playing.
/thread
DavePak
"Remember, in life, the only thing you absolutely control is your own attitude - do not squander that power."
Fully Painted armies:
TAU: 10k Nids: 9600 Marines: 4000 Crons: 7600
Actor, Gamer, Comic, Corporate Nerd
Galas wrote: No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This are your words, not mine.
Show me where I said everybody thinks this way.
I said people do this, but I didn't mean everyone. This thread alone should give reason enough for that. Sorry for the confusion.
If you want TLOS and weapons - just say to your opponent;
"hey, you mind if we use tlos from the weapons, and you have to see the body of the target?"
I shouldn't have to ask my opponent to accept a house rule to have functioning rules. The rules we're paying GW to write should function right out of the box, and the fact that you can fix GW's mistakes with house rules doesn't negate the fact that they are bad rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 03:52:54
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Galas wrote: No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This are your words, not mine.
Show me where I said everybody thinks this way.
I said people do this, but I didn't mean everyone. This thread alone should give reason enough for that. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. Sorry if I have come as more hostile than intended. But is easy to be heated in a internet debate about plastic toys that cost hundreds of dollars
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.
No doubt, Galas! My apologies as well. I have lots of soldiers of my own and I want what's best for them! And I do want GW to right the ship so we have many more goodies for years to come.
No more firing points on so many vehicles is a pretty huge change too. Now, I'm a big fan of hiding in my metal boxes, drive by shooting till my ride is over too, but forcing units to come out once in a while is gonna be real fun in the future.
This also finally gives open topped vehicles the boon they needed now that everything can be an assault vehicle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 04:19:09
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.
Are facings so bad that they were the worst thing ever? Of course not, but they were something GW never got really right in any edition and always had problems with.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep.
Hrm, transports that effectively ignored 5 of 6 glancing result hits and 50% of penetrating hits (with ubiquitous EA upgrade), 4+ cover on *everything*, gun tanks which ended up being stationary pillboxes as a result of the secondary weapons rules, weird special cover rules for when units are physically in one armor facing but can only see a different armor facing (e.g. they can see the rear hatch but are in the side arc), some rather poor wording with smoke launchers and Scout, squadron rules that autokilled immobilized vehicles and allowed a melee unit to make base contact with one tank in a squadron and inflict hits on an another vehicle on an armor facing that they may be 23" away from (it's possible), dead tank hulls being driven on by other tanks and getting tank stacks 3-4 high as they become immobilized or destroyed on top of each other, etc. and that's not even getting into things like the change to Kill Points from the older Victory Points, wound allocation, etc.
Also, my IG army in 5E ran 17 independent vehicles with 85 infantry, that's a lot of stuff to keep track of, manage facings on, keep track of damage status, who's facing what from which angles? Etc.
5E was dramatically better than 7E, but 5E had its own glut of special issues, every edition has.
All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
It would require less work to fix than 7E, but there were some major rules issues that needed to be addressed and a major rehaul of the entire codex line, not a simple task.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly.
It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
You're not actually engaging in attacking any of the arguments made in favor of removing facings or against keeping them, you're just naming those arguments and then calling people who disagree with you names at this point...
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the concept of folding vehicles into the standard unit paradigm of T/W/Sv. That's fine with the game 40k is. I have some issues with specifics of the execution, but the fundamental concept is probably better for what 40k actually tries to be. Besides, people really into tabletop miniatures game for deep tactical play aren't looking to 40k for that, and GW will be the first ones to tell you that that isn't what they sell, much as many of us might wish otherwise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 04:32:40
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.
And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".
It's still an abstraction.
If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.
Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.
It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.
@ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it. Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me. You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what? Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion. The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away? That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that? I'm pretty sure many of the better writers in the past tried very hard to make a tactical game before moving on or getting expelled by the sales department. Just because GW has made the game less tactical doesn't mean that was the best decision, unless the game turns out to be a financial success of course. Time will tell.
If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.
Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.
It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.
By that definition anything would be an abstraction, because no matter how detailed and simulationist you make the rules you aren't having actual tanks and infantry fighting battles with real weapons. You need a definition that draws a meaningful difference between abstraction and literalism, and looking at the actual model vs. an arbitrary volume of space is a pretty good place to draw that line. In determining which weapons can fire you treat the vehicle as an abstract volume of space, assuming that regardless of its actual position on the table it maneuvered to get a clear shot at some point during its turn. But if you're trying to shoot at the same vehicle you suddenly take its exact size and position on the table 100% literally. Even if its movement path the previous turn took it across clear ground where your anti-tank units have LOS if it ends its move out of LOS behind terrain you can't shoot at the tank at all. You no longer assume that it moved across the table and things happened along that path, you only consider the final position. There's no consistency at all between how the two situations are handled.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
amanita wrote: @ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it.
I believe I explained my arguments and reasoning quite clearly...
Vaktathi wrote:Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc
Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me.
But yet this doesn't bother you with a Squiggoth or an Exocrine does it? For that matter, when a basic Space Marine or Guardsmen or an Obliterator does it?
You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what?
Ok, if you can accept other units doing the exact same thing, why is it so hard with vehicles? We do this with literally every other unit type in the game.
Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion.
Again, I'll note almost every RTS at the scale 40k is played at pays 0 attention to vehicle facing, and facing mechanics in most other tabletop games that have it have far simpler and less detailed facing rules than 40k ever has had and/or have fewer models and much smaller scales (e.g. Flames of War, Heavy Gear, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, etc).
The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away?
There's all sorts of other things I'd do away with or change in 40k, stuff like differentiated power weapons (e.g. power axe vs power mace) and the like for a start, the way it was pre-6E.
That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
See above...
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game
Well, you asked if it was over-complicated and unbalanced, which in many ways it was. But yes it was simpler than 7E, we don't know yet for sure if it will be simpler than 8E.
, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
I didn't just say "well at least it's better than that", I said that the fundamental concept of moving away from facings and folding everything into the T/W/Sv paradigm has inherent advantages in regards to complexity and balance, which it does. If we want great tactical detail, it's not better, but doing that just for vehicles has shown to be a consistent problem with the game and especially as the number of hulls on the field has gone from 3-4 to routinely in the double digits and the line between MC's and tanks and Superheavies and whatnot becomes increasingly blurred as bigger and bigger robots and monsters are introduced, with massive advantages to the MC's for no real good reason.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Right, but as part of a major total core rules reboot which allows them to tackle other issues in that process as well, such as addressing some of those scale issues by rebalancing vehicles around those core rules changes such that they take a greater proportion of one's force but offer greater value as shown by things like Rhino's being 70pts now instead of 35 (we'll see if that turns out to be the case or not for vehicles as a whole, my feelings on GW's execution are thoroughly mixed).
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that?
GW's design notes over multiple editions and public notices to shareholders about what they see the nature of their product as (they're a model company, not a game design studio, that's just their sales mechanic for models). 40k has always been (especially the last couple editions) more of a framework that gives people a way to play with their plastic space-armyman toys as opposed to a sharp tactical battle simulator. GW's made no secret of that.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
It is complexity which exists for a reason. Simplicity is not a virtue by itself. Tic-tac-toe is elegant and simple. You can finish hundred of games in same time you finish one 40k match. I still rather play 40k.
The cold hard fact is that if you need to SIMULATE things which are dramatically different in real life (a living body vs hard mechanical shell), you need some complexity in your game. It is a necessary evil.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.
...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?
Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.
MC issue was not a problem as long as designers stuck to the basic principles of unit design and simply did not design MC's (or Infantry) which would compete with tanks. Of course there was going to be problems when clueless people got around designing Codices. It will be just as much a problem in 8th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 08:24:11
amanita wrote: @ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it.
I believe I explained my arguments and reasoning quite clearly...
Vaktathi wrote:Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc
Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me.
But yet this doesn't bother you with a Squiggoth or an Exocrine does it? For that matter, when a basic Space Marine or Guardsmen or an Obliterator does it?
You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what?
Ok, if you can accept other units doing the exact same thing, why is it so hard with vehicles? We do this with literally every other unit type in the game.
Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion.
Again, I'll note almost every RTS at the scale 40k is played at pays 0 attention to vehicle facing, and facing mechanics in most other tabletop games that have it have far simpler and less detailed facing rules than 40k ever has had and/or have fewer models and much smaller scales (e.g. Flames of War, Heavy Gear, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, etc).
The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away?
There's all sorts of other things I'd do away with or change in 40k, stuff like differentiated power weapons (e.g. power axe vs power mace) and the like for a start, the way it was pre-6E.
That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
See above...
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game
Well, you asked if it was over-complicated and unbalanced, which in many ways it was. But yes it was simpler than 7E, we don't know yet for sure if it will be simpler than 8E.
, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
I didn't just say "well at least it's better than that", I said that the fundamental concept of moving away from facings and folding everything into the T/W/Sv paradigm has inherent advantages in regards to complexity and balance, which it does. If we want great tactical detail, it's not better, but doing that just for vehicles has shown to be a consistent problem with the game and especially as the number of hulls on the field has gone from 3-4 to routinely in the double digits and the line between MC's and tanks and Superheavies and whatnot becomes increasingly blurred as bigger and bigger robots and monsters are introduced, with massive advantages to the MC's for no real good reason.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Right, but as part of a major total core rules reboot which allows them to tackle other issues in that process as well, such as addressing some of those scale issues by rebalancing vehicles around those core rules changes such that they take a greater proportion of one's force but offer greater value as shown by things like Rhino's being 70pts now instead of 35 (we'll see if that turns out to be the case or not for vehicles as a whole, my feelings on GW's execution are thoroughly mixed).
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that?
GW's design notes over multiple editions and public notices to shareholders about what they see the nature of their product as (they're a model company, not a game design studio, that's just their sales mechanic for models). 40k has always been (especially the last couple editions) more of a framework that gives people a way to play with their plastic space-armyman toys as opposed to a sharp tactical battle simulator. GW's made no secret of that.
Actually, their latest statment from the investors page is that they are a "hobby" company and that the game is a very important part of the hobby.
Well, on the one hand it's a shame to lose the strategic elements of trying to hit rear armour, and the realistic quality that armour is usually stronger in the front. And it's kind of cheap to say every weapon can fire despite which way the thing is facing and TLOS.
But then, you could also say during a turn models would be firing while moving, that some slight pivots can be made if the vehicle remained stationary. In the end, it takes away from the aesthetics of the game a bit, but may speed up games and make the game more palatable for newcomers.
Overall, I hope they bring weapon arcs back, but keep the ability of vehicles to fire all their weapons if they have LOS on a target. After all, it's a very aesthetically pleasing game and anything that takes away from that or suspends the realism too much is a detriment. Though, it seems to me like there's been a lot of positive changes in 8th as well.
Yeah, I like this change. Speeding up the game is good, even if it's only little.
In fact, 40k would be better if we placed all of our models on the table, then just rolled 1d6 and whoever gets the higher result wins the game. Done.
Completely split 50-50 on this one.
Whilst I fully agree there is a tactical gameplay loss with vehicle facings being removed and "any part of the vehicle now shooting anywhere" (hmmm), the old facings were clunky and pernickity at times.
I feel some sort of compromise might have been better.
Having said that its basically the old simulation VS realism VS gameplay VS abstraction equation which GW has NEVER been good at.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
MagicJuggler wrote: Can a vehicle or MC draw a line from a weapon being fired? I really don't see why it's so difficult, unless modeling for advantage was going on.
That's hard stuff to write.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/02 10:54:26
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less? You're certainly not going to be running around commanding over a dozen tanks and a dozen infantry units to boot. It doesn't deal with as many vehicles and units in general as 40k does. There's a reason once games start involving larger numbers of tanks and vehicles, that detail falls by the wayside.
It is complexity which exists for a reason.
Yes, just not a good one for the scale the game is played at, particularly when it only applies to a single unit type, but not other highly comparable ones.
Simplicity is not a virtue by itself. Tic-tac-toe is elegant and simple. You can finish hundred of games in same time you finish one 40k match. I still rather play 40k.
These are so vastly different as to be incomparable. Dropping facings isn't losing *that* much depth and, again, 40k just is not meant to be a deeply tactical game in the first place to boot. I'll note again nobody seems to care that facing isn't an issue for an Exocrine or IG heavy weapons team or many other units where facing could make sense.
The cold hard fact is that if you need to SIMULATE things which are dramatically different in real life (a living body vs hard mechanical shell), you need some complexity in your game. It is a necessary evil.
Except, again, nobody cares that facings don't exist or matter for anything else, why are vehicles the only units this matters for, why are great gobs of tactical depth lost when we drop facing for vehicles, but not for anything else, especially when many other units easily fit into the same mold. Why does facing matter on a Dread but not on a Wraithlord? Why does facing matter on a Russ but not on an Exocrine? These units are not *that* different in role and scale that such differentiation is necessary, and as such, having that extra complexity creates unnecessary balance issues, as we've seen in literally every edition of 40k.
I'll note that every other game I can think of either doesn't have facings, has dramatically less complex facing rules, has dramatically fewer models, or a combination of these things.
...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?
Yes it's weird, but that's a visualization issue, and, more importantly, an issue of execution, not a problem with the fundamental concept or the balance functionality of the mechanic in game. There's lots of weirdness with that, same way it's weird that An'Ggrath would care about a Lasgun shot, but nobody is terribly up in arms about that.
Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.
And yet there they are, hamfisted into the game as the scale has been pushed ever upwards.
MC issue was not a problem as long as designers stuck to the basic principles of unit design and simply did not design MC's (or Infantry) which would compete with tanks.
Except that MC's have always competed with tanks. They fill many of the same roles in different armies and bring similar weaponry to bear. We can look at stuff like Dreads vs Wraithlords for example. There have always been issues and problems with this differentiation and there has never really been a good balance, you can go back to 5E or 3E and see people complaining about tank vs MC balance with regularity.
Of course there was going to be problems when clueless people got around designing Codices. It will be just as much a problem in 8th.
Always will be, but there will be fewer issues with no radically different fundamental unit type now.
Actually, their latest statment from the investors page is that they are a "hobby" company and that the game is a very important part of the hobby.
It is, but not as a deep tactical battle simulator, rather as a vehicle for people to use their mini's and have fun with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 14:14:41
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
5000p 
4000p 
4000p 
2500p 
4000p 
750p GSC 1500p
