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.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You mean they made mistakes under an old regime, not only Kirby but Merritt, who by all accounts was a tumour sat smack bang in the middle of the whole affair and the source of much of the friction between GW and the fanbase, then, in the absence of those people, conducted the largest change in 40K since 3rd and haven't really repeated any of those mistakes?
I'm not prepared to "wait a few years" because all sorts of things in life could be true if you place them in a long enough context, and "Primaris Marines will replace normal Marines, just give it 3 years" is a fething dumb argument to be having. I mean, I'm dying, just wait X years, you'll see, I'll be dead! The fact that the likely timescale is so long it makes it a pointless thing to be concerned in the immediate future is broadly the same thing.

Fething dumb? Put more thought in your choice of words. You are not in your local pub.

What makes you think a) you have any say in how I choose to express myself and b) I chose that exact terminology for any reason other than because it precisely encapsulates what I wished to say?
But then, if all you've got to come back at me with is to try and criticize my language choice, I'd say I'll happily take that as you've nothing of any substance to rebut my argument and move on.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

This is all conjecture and opinion on a subject we do not have facts for.
Expression of emotion is about all we got left... less confrontational and attacking of ideas preferred.

Yep, immediate future, GW has dies for SM models that I am sure they do not plan on retiring just yet.
Plus if anyone is not a SM army type, then it is not a worry at this point.
I am doing the "just in case" thing and fielding Primaris marines as a different army... going to the dark side of smurfs I think, I got that huge Girlyman model sitting there waiting to be put together.
Plague marines is a nice bonus since my old army was CSM so they may get a reasonable dusting off.

Panzergraf wrote:
I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.

8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k 40k.

I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.

I guess counting was too hard???

The keyword here is "Templates is a big part of why 40k is fun for me".
If more people realice that not everybody like the same things, then the idea of why other people likes editions of 40k that we dislike or like features that we dislike, will be probably more accepted.

I always found templates pretty annoying back to warhammer fantasy. I can understand why people liked them. But disliking them or not wanting them in our game is not about not being able to count numbers.

 Galas wrote:
The keyword here is "Templates is a big part of why 40k is fun for me".
If more people realice that not everybody like the same things, then the idea of why other people likes editions of 40k that we dislike or like features that we dislike, will be probably more accepted.

I always found templates pretty annoying back to warhammer fantasy. I can understand why people liked them. But disliking them or not wanting them in our game is not about not being able to count numbers.

Fair enough.

Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire. Ultimately removing them made the game better, the same way that removing guess ranges way back when made the game better and removing measuring restrictions made the game better.

I remember people "guessing" a range that anyone with Geometry 1 can work out via triangles and "oops my Basilisks just HAPPENED to land in that close combat of one of my models and 30 of yours, what a shame!" and I also remember "I want to move my land raider 12" that way, oops changed my mind, I want to move it 12" that way, oops, never mind" stupidness in order to pre-measure ranges.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.

Well that's adding something.

They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.

 jasper76 wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:
I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.

8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k 40k.

I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.

I guess counting was too hard???

There are lots of reasons. The removal of peripherals makes ease of access much better. If you are coming at 8th from the stand point that anyone can buy a box of minis off the shelf, put them on the table and start playing then 1) you need rules in the box (happening) and core rules available for free (done). Easily accessible materials (6 sided dice. The single most common game component in existence).

With templates you need a 15-30 dollar set of 3 templates. 1 scatter die. a 15 dollar super flamer if you have those weapons. a 15 dollar super blast if you have those weapons. a 15 dollar barrage if you have those weapons. And which super barrage? there are 2 different ones and both are apparently still valid to use in 7th.

Now with all vehicles and MC having some kind fo explodes/deaththroes you need these templates for even more models then ever!

Plus the scatter die was always a wonky mechanic prone to cause arguments. It didn't point that way it pointed THAT way. UGH my carnifex just vomited his bioplasma all over itself. Now it's dead. Here genestealer cultists. Throw these sticks of dynamite into your own engine block!

Getting rid of templates was a very smart move. The easier it is for players to start playing the more stuff they sell as the player base grows. Good riddance.

Panzergraf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.

Well that's adding something.

They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.

That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.

Just copy (or trace with a pencil) the templates printed in the rulebook. Paper or cardboard templates work just as well as plastic, they're just not as durable.
I agree that the apocalypse templates got kinda out of hand, though. Actually, the apocalypse rules were a mess as a whole. We did mega battles just fine (with standard 3" and 5" templates) before they got introduced.

That's one more thing I didn't like with 7th (and maybe 6th? I get them mixed up...) that I wish they hadn't kept in 8th: super heavies and knights and stuff even in smaller games.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.

Well that's adding something.

They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.

That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.

Yeah because Azrael huddled around 40 Fenrisian wolves and 2 iron priest was SOOO much better. OOH or 3 Wolf Priests A ravenwing command squad a Greyknight libby, Draigo, and Celestine. Yeah, that's where the realism was.

ERJAK wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.

Well that's adding something.

They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.

That, and the system didn't lead to weirdness like Basilisks huddled around Harker acting as better anti-aircraft than Hydras, etc.

Yeah because Azrael huddled around 40 Fenrisian wolves and 2 iron priest was SOOO much better. OOH or 3 Wolf Priests A ravenwing command squad a Greyknight libby, Draigo, and Celestine. Yeah, that's where the realism was.

Talking about templates. A real complaint would be "barrage is better at sniping than actual sniper weapons." But sure, keep that chip on your shoulder.

Again this is all subjective, The "features" that so many here are lauding about 8th are the "bugs" that make 8th such a miserable an experience for me and my group. I did enjoy my weird green and orange templates, they were part of the fun for me, (yeah i know, I am not everyone, but I am also not the only one, so that argument goes both ways) so losing them did take something away that I enjoyed.

 jasper76 wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:
I didn't play a lot of 6th or 7th, but so far I prefer 8th to 7th.

8th is far simpler, but IMHO it might be a bit too simple. I'm not sold on vehicles having thoughness rather than armor facings, and I miss templates. They were some of the things that made 40k 40k.

I remember when 8th was still in rumor mode that the removal of templates was the most questionable decision IMO they were planning. Templates is a big part of why I feel 40K is fun. I get to rudely smack a teardrop, or pie plate on my opponents carefully painted miniatures and watch them get torched to a crisp or blown to smithereens! And from most accounts it seems like there was no reason to remove templates at all....they would have been compatible with 8th in as much as I'm able to tell.

I guess counting was too hard???

And their removal shortened the Argument Phase down by an average of 10 minutes per game, at least.
Templates are great when you are playing against your high school buddy you've known for years.
They are considerably less great when you are playing a pick-up game including tournament competition where every placement will result in a game pause.

I count three guys covered.
That's funny, I count four including your special/heavy/sergeant.
Nuh-uh!
Yuh-huh!
Unh-unh!
Unh-huh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:
As i personally whitnessed GW slaughter the living gak out of Fantasy, i was VERY skeptic about 8th because Sigmar just plain sucks. But i must admit 8th is very great, and their stance towards it (solid FAQ and clarifications) looks VERY promising.

Assault phase is still too weak for non horde armies :( But overall 8/10 from me, best edition since i started in 5th edition. A plesant surprise

8th edition is largely AoS with 40k bolted onto it. And I say that as a good thing.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

hmm can;t see that post lasting long.

I found it interesting that Bolt Action got rid of templates in Version 1 and when version 2 came out not long before 8th ed it brought them back.

I am happy with the - it hits x models myself but I cna see some people will miss them - I do have a bit of nostalga for the flamer template but nothing for the blast ones

 Strg Alt wrote:

Spoiler:

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Our gaming channel is going back to 7th edition, 8th is jervis "Cutting off the nose to spite the face".

So much context and detail dashed upon the rocks of "ma toys". The marketing department is flaying what's leff of the rules department as we speak. Which will be done in hyper tight high key lighting because we wouldn't want a grisly act like that to be too grim or dark. That might encourage the over 12 demographic to return with their non-sanction opinions.

Fixing 7th is much simpler than enduring 8th. That and we finally get to explore the chaos legions book as well as the deathwatch and genestealer cult books. 7th also has like rules for like this stuff called terrain. Fantastic stuff, really great.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Our gaming channel is going back to 7th edition, 8th is jervis "Cutting off the nose to spite the face".

So much context and detail dashed upon the rocks of "ma toys". The marketing department is flaying what's leff of the rules department as we speak. Which will be done in hyper tight high key lighting because we wouldn't want a grisly act like that to be too grim or dark. That might encourage the over 12 demographic to return with their non-sanction opinions.

Fixing 7th is much simpler than enduring 8th. That and we finally get to explore the chaos legions book as well as the deathwatch and genestealer cult books. 7th also has like rules for like this stuff called terrain. Fantastic stuff, really great.

8th has rules for terrain too. You're the one cutting your nose off to spite your face. Fixing 7th is literally impossible to do without totally overhauling it, at which point it's not "fixing" anymore.

Base rules it's mostly going to come down to who gets the alpha strike off and thus completely gamed. There are some lists that can survive an alpha strike and win, but it's a rare thing.

There doesn't seem to be much depth to it. It was very easy for people to figure out what the meta is compared to even a regular 7th ed release.

I think it's okay, but way less fun for me than I expected. Really bland and safe like 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Does nothing wrong, but really doesn't excel in any one area.

The stupidity of removing templates that I haven't seen mentioned yet is how they were supposed to compensate for poor BS on certain units. Yeah, that LRBT is only BS 3, but with explosive shells it's going to be difficult to miss a target completely and the template represents that. It may not always land exactly where you want it, but you're probably going to get at least a decent number of hits. Contrast this with 8th, where you have to roll a D6 to see how many shots you get, and then roll again (often at BS 5+ or worse) to see if any of them hit. The result is that the most likely outcome of a LRBT shot is zero wounds, and you're lucky if you get 1-2. That's a massive nerf in firepower and it makes LRBTs borderline useless.

(And yes, you could compensate better by adding more shots to the random roll, but then you end up with ridiculous situations like a LRBT rolling 3D6 and dropping 15 hits on a single-model unit.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fixing 7th is literally impossible to do without totally overhauling it, at which point it's not "fixing" anymore.

Strongly disagree. 30k has already demonstrated that turning 7th into a viable game is not that hard. If you remove formations, remove the ability to share buffs between allied units, and nerf (or agree not to use) a handful of the most obvious overpowered things like invisibility and scatter laser jetbikes you have a functioning game. It's still a bloated mess rules-wise, but it's better than the stripped-down and over-homogenized mess of 8th.

 Peregrine wrote:

Strongly disagree. 30k has already demonstrated that turning 7th into a viable game is not that hard. If you remove formations, remove the ability to share buffs between allied units, and nerf (or agree not to use) a handful of the most obvious overpowered things like invisibility and scatter laser jetbikes you have a functioning game. It's still a bloated mess rules-wise, but it's better than the stripped-down and over-homogenized mess of 8th.

Exalted

Just having to interact with an actual foc can do wonders. 8th ed army construction pretty much controls nothing.

I love the new edition. It is a lot of the things I liked from 2nd edition without a lot of the complicated rules involved. For the most part, everything works pretty well. We have decided to always use the terrain rules from City Fight though to help make cover and such more meaningful.
The new rules are open enough to field the type of army you want to field, while at the same time balancing those armies fairly well. There are a few outliers, as there always are, but even those aren't too horrible.

Panzergraf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Templates didn't add anything to the game. They forced you to spread your models out and occasionally caused a lolsorandum friendly fire.

Well that's adding something.

They also added immersion. They made it feel like an explosive shell was actually an explosive shell, and not a burst of machinegun fire.

There seems a pretty deep split between those that value immersion and realism and those that want a fast game with a phat list dawg!

No version of 40k has ever had immersion and realism.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
No version of 40k has ever had immersion and realism.

No every edition except 8th had realism and immersion

Please tell what edition it was that had the armies play the same way as reflected in the background? How can you have immersion when the game and background is so disjointed?

Realism died with the induction of Elves wielding chainsaw swords.

"realism"

In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.

Hilarious.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"realism"

In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.

Hilarious.

Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"realism"

In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.

Hilarious.

Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.

What I find doubly hilarious is that since the new rules often contradict common sense or even game sense in favor of simplicity, former proponents of RAW are beginning to backpedal into valuing a more RAI interpretation of the rules to allow them to continue to cheese the game in their favor.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"realism"

In a system where shooting at armour doesn't consider the angle between the shot and the armour face.

Hilarious.

Obviously some concessions have to be made to make a table top game playable. Taking armor angles into account when rolling for penetration would not add much other than complexity to the game, whereas different armor facings was easy enough and worked just fine for decades.
Don't pretend you don't understand this.

So what's the arbitrary line you're going to draw when it comes to what is "realistic" or not. Either everything is accounted for, or it's not realistic. There is no in-between.