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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

Somewhere before giant space soldiers, bug monsters, and frisky elves but after giant mecha, lasers, and armored divisions.

But if everything needs to be accounted for then even realistic movies aren't realistic. Heck, real life is sometimes not realistic. Your hopes and dreams for a realistic definition of realistic are the least realistic thing in this topic. I think it's realistic to say it's subjective.

CovenantGuardian wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.

There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.

It is not polite to mock someone for continuing to play a game that they enjoy. No hurt, no foul.

I agree that resisting change at all costs is not a good strategy for life, especially if change is for the better. But, if you really think about it, you cannot blame someone for being cautious about changing just for the sake of change. I think being skeptical of any changes GW makes should be considered a virtue because, as anyone who has lived through even one GW rule change knows, every change comes with a very big price tag. It just does not make sense to blindly accept change just because GW has decided (again) that we haven't tithed them enough money lately.

For the record, I quit playing 40K after 5th edition because I was tired of stockpiling expensively obsolete rulebooks year after year. However, I am guardedly optimistic about the new 8th edition rules, so I am starting out slowly with the Imperium 1 and Xenos 2 indices, and a full rulebook that I found on Ebay for $30. I like what I've seen so far, but I'm reserving final judgement until I've played a few more games. Hopefully I won't be disappointed again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (thrice or more times), shame on me.

Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For reals?

Unless you want a computer to make all the necessary calculations - i.e.: videogames - there is no way to handle a tabletop game in a nonhistorical context "realistic". There is a level of abstraction you have to live with. Where the "right" level of abstraction is... that is a matter of taste, not of fact.

As for myself? I like the way 8th edition plays. I have to ignore some serious "realism issues" - I could live without vehivles shooting all their weapons once a bit of their hull can "see" the enemy, or the still rampant "morale? we have a way around that..." - but the game is so much more fluid now. I have fun throwing dice to do stuffs with my models, and in the end that is all that matters to me.

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

 amanita wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

You mean like the entirety of 7th?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 amanita wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

You mean like the entirety of 7th?

Some people find 7th better than 8th.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Some people find 7th better than 8th.

To paraphrase Ben 'Yahtzee' Crowshaw "I'd have thought [Games Workshop] would want us to forget about [7th Edition]. Nobody likes [7th Edition]. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong."

The amount of work needed to make 7th actually half decent would border on a total rewrite from the ground up to begin with.

Boy, what a well-reasoned argument. I am entirely convinced now by your deluge of facts and sound statements. /sarcasm

Then take the quote from Brian Cox in my sig as a supporting point.

You're entitled to like something, but one has to acknowledge that liking a thing is no guarantee of the thing having any quality, and you liking it doesn't imbue it with such.

Never played 7th. Never seen a game of it.

Did read how the first time 40k dropped out of 1st place in the minatures game during its tenur.

This could be:

7th suxxors hard
GW has been going downhill for a while
Some better product was introduced
Other weird phenomena

I kinda bet 3 or 4 of those options are true.

Will 8th be worse? Who knows....We do know that many players have voiced a return to the game since so and so edition because of 8th. More online accounts of such than ever.

So does that make 8th better? Maybe.

It could be any alternative to 7th is bringing players back or it could be a super duper marketing scheme that is working and will be realized by the consumer as a scam

Or maybe it is better for most people

who thunk dat? (wistful thinking maybe has the most to do with it)

I prefer 7th over 8th, for a few reasons:

1-8th is incomplete. the indcies are stopgag, and not codcies. many factions don't actually function properly right now due to the lack of the extensive rules they need the index does not provide, this will be fixed in time.

2-formations. I LOVED them. a few were too good (but same applies to units) and a few were rather poorly thought out (practically any formation that spams one unit type is silly), but in the general sense of how armies are built, I much prefer formations and "decurions" over slot-based detachments.

3-streamlining killed a lot of design space. many things are just rather bland right now, and units feel less unique. the loss of vehicle facing and shooting arcs is just sad. codcies might chance that too though by adding more uniqueness.



8th has its advantages though, stratagems is a great addition to the game (resource management and decision making-good at shooting down netlisting a bit.), the movement attribute is great and the removal of generic "unit types" that created some odd anomalies (like ghostkeel being good at CC because MC so AP2)

Clearly GW is doing something right after all these decades. Their stocks have never been higher and they're still climbing. The company's worth four times what it used to be at some points and easily double what it most often was.

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For reals?

Unless you want a computer to make all the necessary calculations - i.e.: videogames - there is no way to handle a tabletop game in a nonhistorical context "realistic". There is a level of abstraction you have to live with. Where the "right" level of abstraction is... that is a matter of taste, not of fact.

As for myself? I like the way 8th edition plays. I have to ignore some serious "realism issues" - I could live without vehivles shooting all their weapons once a bit of their hull can "see" the enemy, or the still rampant "morale? we have a way around that..." - but the game is so much more fluid now. I have fun throwing dice to do stuffs with my models, and in the end that is all that matters to me.

Why do you default to all or nothing?
And why isn't it obvious that the game is based in everyday physics, i.e. reality.
And that door, well boy, I came in twenty five years ago thereabouts.
Not gonna be run out by the like of you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I prefer 7th over 8th, for a few reasons:

1-8th is incomplete. the indcies are stopgag, and not codcies. many factions don't actually function properly right now due to the lack of the extensive rules they need the index does not provide, this will be fixed in time.

2-formations. I LOVED them. a few were too good (but same applies to units) and a few were rather poorly thought out (practically any formation that spams one unit type is silly), but in the general sense of how armies are built, I much prefer formations and "decurions" over slot-based detachments.

3-streamlining killed a lot of design space. many things are just rather bland right now, and units feel less unique. the loss of vehicle facing and shooting arcs is just sad. codcies might chance that too though by adding more uniqueness.



8th has its advantages though, stratagems is a great addition to the game (resource management and decision making-good at shooting down netlisting a bit.), the movement attribute is great and the removal of generic "unit types" that created some odd anomalies (like ghostkeel being good at CC because MC so AP2)

Loss of realism in some ways makes for a less immersive experience.
Additional meta level game !mechanics makes for a command level feel.
I can go with this analysis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
Clearly GW is doing something right after all these decades. Their stocks have never been higher and they're still climbing. The company's worth four times what it used to be at some points and easily double what it most often was.

Monsanto grew profitable mutating Vietnamese babies and banks these days have never bee richer by hoarding cash and putting people out of their houses at a record pace.
Exactly what does money have to do with anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Then take the quote from Brian Cox in my sig as a supporting point.

You're entitled to like something, but one has to acknowledge that liking a thing is no guarantee of the thing having any quality, and you liking it doesn't imbue it with such.

Good one.
But then again my liking it doesn't mean that it is any good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

As if the little voice in my head sprouted wings and wrote that from the other side of the world while I was sleeping.
Thank you for this.

CovenantGuardian wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.

There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.

There are other reasons to stick with an older system. I actively went back to 3rd, including rebuying all the books, because I preferred the game system. As I kept current with the rules, I had no issue learning them. I simply didn't like them.

BaconCatBug wrote:Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.

Petulant? So you start by being a complete heel for no good reason, and chase it by not really using the word right? I don't have the words...




Not more can be added that hasn't been brought up by others. If a system suits you better, play it. If keeping current means you don't get a game in, then stay retro.

I find the realism argument an odd one.

Not because I find things "unrealistic" but because it's a game of toy soldiers and you NEED to have some abstraction otherwise the game becomes a mess.

Let's take a look at statlines. Are you trying to tel me that 40 Guardsmen all have EXACTLY the same ability. What if Guardman A has better aim than Guardsman B? But Guardsman C excels in close combat while Guardsman D is a natural born leader. Statlines do not reflect this. Therefore I think statistics should be individually generated at the start of the battle for each model.

Also, sometimes mechanical faults happen. I think that every turn players should roll for every piece of war gear to see if something goes wrong like dud frag grenades.

Also, every time an infantry model moves we should roll to see if they trip over their own foot.

Every time a model shoots, we should roll to see if someone bumps into him in the heat of battle and throws off his aim.

Every time a hover tank moves we should rolls to see if debris or a small animal got sucked into the engine and stops it from moving.

Every time someone tries to use an aura benefit we should roll to see if he actually heard the other yelling at him to shoot better.

When unit in cover are being shot at I feel like the cover should degrade over several turns as masonry etc gets chipped away. There should be rules for that.

I could go on but you get my point. You can't apply true realism to the game. You can't account for every scenario that could ever happen on a battlefield (especially a sci-fi one) which is what asking for realism demands. Why is tank facings more realistic than individual model stats? I don't think it is, we should have a lengthy argument about it with lots of quotation boxes. You think I'm happy my hormogaunts and genestealers can't physically stand on tanks and open hatches and slaughter the crew? Of course I'm not. But I don't expect them to be able to and when I move a unit into combat with them that's what I'm IMAGINING is happening. When tanks fire from behind cover I don't see them gaining secondary sight and firing through walls, I see them shooting as they move into cover or moving out to get line of sight and moving in again.

Demanding full on Warhammer 40,000: Grimdark Simulator would be a horrible, boring game.

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.

I don't agree at all, it makes positioning of both the target and firing unit far more important in game terms and as far as realism goes it is a huge factor in effectiveness.

This is one of many abstractions. I find it amusing that people are complaining about others, many of which are far more minor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

But if everything needs to be accounted for then even realistic movies aren't realistic.

Most aren't realistic at all. I'm still waiting for a movie where grenades go bang (not explode) when the spoon is released (this release a hammer which strikes a primer to ignite the chemical fuse).

I feel like people complaining about the vehicle facing rules have no room to complain as long as infantry don't have facing either. After all, flanking and sneaking up on enemies is a tactic as old as dirt.

The whole facing is abstracted into the battle is in constant motion. Things turn towards threats, shoot around corners and return to cover and keep their heads on a swivel.

Hell, I think the supersonic rule is the worst offender of immersion in the entire game. Those things would never stay on any table. They would just make bombing or strafing runs and be gone faster than anyone could really react.

So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:


So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:


So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.

 amanita wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

Exactly and exalted

There's nothing intuitive about showing a new player a bastion model followed by explaining how each bolter in 8th edition can now shoot from anywhere because well if they don't like it it's a moral failure on their part.

Players can say abstraction until they're blue in the face, people can pull out the "realism in ma sci fi laser game" trope all they want, it doesn't change the fact that simulation in and of itself is more often nothing more than effective abstraction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:


So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.

So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?




7th ed: "let's have detail and context enhance gameplay, immersion and tactical depth"

8th ed: "I swear it will be like a bit faster and like you don't have to read or remember as much. You still have to move most flyers though, oh and look bigger space marines"

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:


So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.

So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?

Tanks acting like anime is less immersive than tanks not acting like anime. But tanks not acting like anime while monsters acted like anime was full on immersion-breaking. At least now there is consistency; I can accept tanks acting like anime just as readily as I can accept space-fighters firing lasers having dogfights (Star Wars). But having both in the same setting was as immersion breaking as having Fairey Swordfish outmaneuver Tie Fighters.

As for other things:
Actually being able to field in-universe armies without resorting to weird and sometimes nonsensical formations: e.g. an IG superheavy tank regiment can finally actually bring only superheavy tanks, like it would in the fluff, rather than being forced to bring other stuff for bizarre, unfluffy, and therefore immersion-breaking reasons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Tanks acting like anime is less immersive than tanks not acting like anime. But tanks not acting like anime while monsters acted like anime was full on immersion-breaking. At least now there is consistency; I can accept tanks acting like anime just as readily as I can accept space-fighters firing lasers having dogfights (Star Wars). But having both in the same setting was as immersion breaking as having Fairey Swordfish outmaneuver Tie Fighters.

So immersion breaking being made more consistent by the release of 8th has increased immersion? What?

You could technically run 3 Baneblades as its own detachment in 7th, though in practice such an army was very much "win big or lose big." You did at least have to worry about fire arcs with such a thing (though thankfully you could select multiple targets), but vehicles still have had Tokyo Drift ever since 6th, though Facings at least masked this oddness in the system.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.

So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?

No. Tanks having to drive up the field, stop, then aim their weapons and shoot, while still suffering the penalties for having moved even though they could not have fired a single weapon while on the go. Even the set of machine guns mounted on the roof maned by a person. Even the flying vehicles that should have been doing strafing runs but for some reason can only fire forward from their ending position.

We have been abstracting every other kind of model not needing to trace los from their weapon/facing for years because it's reasonable to assume that a infantry is able to twist and aim. But a tank driver positioning itself to maximize it's weapon use while on the go.... no.... thats unrealistic or something. THAT breaks immersion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

As for other things:
Actually being able to field in-universe armies without resorting to weird and sometimes nonsensical formations: e.g. an IG superheavy tank regiment can finally actually bring only superheavy tanks, like it would in the fluff, rather than being forced to bring other stuff for bizarre, unfluffy, and therefore immersion-breaking reasons.

Enjoyment in being able to field whatever you want certainly could be considered immersion breaking I guess. One could also argue losing a game breaks immersion too...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
You could technically run 3 Baneblades as its own detachment in 7th, though in practice such an army was very much "win big or lose big." You did at least have to worry about fire arcs with such a thing (though thankfully you could select multiple targets), but vehicles still have had Tokyo Drift ever since 6th, though Facings at least masked this oddness in the system.

Quoted for truth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


No. Tanks having to drive up the field, stop, then aim their weapons and shoot, while still suffering the penalties for having moved even though they could not have fired a single weapon while on the go. Even the set of machine guns mounted on the roof maned by a person. Even the flying vehicles that should have been doing strafing runs but for some reason can only fire forward from their ending position.

We have been abstracting every other kind of model not needing to trace los from their weapon/facing for years because it's reasonable to assume that a infantry is able to twist and aim. But a tank driver positioning itself to maximize it's weapon use while on the go.... no.... thats unrealistic or something. THAT breaks immersion.

By your argument then, even vehicles with power of the machine spirit and thus split fire while still having to only aim at what it could actually aim at was less immersive than a vindicator shell teleporting out of a tank track. Go on. I guess one could be immersed in an acid frenzy, fair point.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 amanita wrote:

 Darnok wrote:
Anybody bringing "realism" into a 40K rules debate: the door is over there, please just get out.

You are asking for realism in a game set around green-skinned hooligans fighting servo-armoured superhumans fighting Cirque De Soleil on steroids fighting Starship Troopers Bugs fighting "Mummy meets Terminator"? For real?

I've always hated this lazy line of reasoning. It isn't at all about the setting - it's about what is intuitive. If it's not realistic in your view regardless then you shouldn't have any issue with a child model destroying an alien grav tank tank in close combat or man with rubber bands shooting over a stadium and killing an elephant.

Quit justifying bad rules because it's a science fiction/fantasy game.

Exactly and exalted

There's nothing intuitive about showing a new player a bastion model followed by explaining how each bolter in 8th edition can now shoot from anywhere because well if you don't like it it's a moral failure on their part if they don't like that absurdity.


Players can say abstraction until they're blue in the face, people can pull out the "realism in ma sci fi laser game" trope all they want, it doesn't change the fact that simulation in and of itself is more often nothing more than effective abstraction.

I find that a lot of people complaining about "realism" are those without the imagination to provide their own immersion. For the bastion there was nothing immersive/intuitive about saying well 4 guys can shoot out these 2 windows, or this 1 window. Or that 20 orks can fit in a battlewagon that is not at all to scale by your argument. Nothing immersive about units scattering off the table and dying in deepstrike (every battle is fought on a plateau above a fiery pit. There was never anything intuitive about a S10 Ap 4 weapon destroying a landraider but not penetrating the armor of a space marine. It is all a matter of perspective....

Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:


So far, I feel this edition has made the best concessions to both game balance and immersion that any editions has yet. It's never going to be perfect unless you completely focus on one over the other, but the current edition has done a great job with making them both important enough.

Perhaps you could share some examples of 8th ed making immersion important and indeed the aspect of 8th edition you find immersive or more immersive than prior editions?

Tanks and giant monsters both having comparable maneuverability, while in prior editions tanks operated like it was World War 1 and monsters operated like they were in an anime.

So tanks acting like anime is more immersive? Is that the only improvement on immersion from 7th to 8th in your eyes? Any others perhaps?

Consistency is more immersive, than having some things work one way and others a completely different way, when those things are supposed to be similar.

Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th, the challenge mechanic, invisible units being immune to templates and blasts, invulnerable units, Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example), the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective, the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.

I'm not saying 8th is a ton more immersive, but those complaining about the changes don't have much of an argument that 7th was any more immersive, they just don't like the changes.

For what it's worth:

The Baneblade company in 7th required a single techpriest tag-along, which makes 0 sense:

1) In terms of stratiegic mobility, a single techpriest could never keep up with a company of superheavies on his own on foot.

2) In terms of tactical mobility, a single techpriest absolutely does not keep up with a company of superheavies on his own on foot.

3) It is unlikely a single techpriest by his lonesome would just wander about trying to repair a trio of the mightiest of the Imperium's war machines all alone without help. If you are going to force players to include the maintenance assets for their army on the battlefield (as stupid as that is in the first place) at least make it so that it is possible to bring more than a single mechanic with no help to minister to 3 battleship-tanks.

Talk about immersion breaking...

Breng77 wrote:


Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.

Wouldn't want to slow down a game that now regularly sees hundred of conscript models fielded with something as awful as context or detail...

 Crablezworth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


Beyond that for new players it is much easier for there to be consistent rules, so if tanks require LOS from weapon mounts and facings so should all models, and those facings should be defined in the rules, this would slow the game down a ton.

Wouldn't want to slow down a game that now regularly sees hundred of conscript models fielded with something as awful as context or detail...

I think he is saying that each of those conscript models should have a facing. And I agree.

After all, if there is a space too small for a Baneblade to 180-in using neutral steering, then there is conceivably a place too small for a normal human (or god forbid a Terminator) to 180 in with his legs. Sometimes the line at the grocery store is like that for me.

Of course, you can abstract the reasons for some units getting 360 LOS being their doctrine/being able to coordinate and mutually watch each other's backs.

Folks might not remember this, but in WHFB, 360* LOS was the exception rather than the norm. Every unit did have a front/flank/rear, which did mostly matter for Combat Resolution (at least before 8th added Steadfast), and generally could only shoot or charge at their front, and had to spend movement on turning or Reforming. Fast Cavalry had free Reforms and 360 LOS, and Skirmishers had dispersed formations and 360 LOS. However, both were "specialists" that were more expensive and comparably fragile due to their lack of armor, their main purposes being diversion and harassment, or the odd ability to hunt down War Machines.

You could easily just state that Infantry get 360 LOS and 360 maneuver, as you want infantry to cover armor, especially in urban environments where they're more prone to ambush, have restricted turret elevations/depressions, etc. Of course, this would have to be a conscious design decision and not a "streamline everything for Timmy" decision.

Of course, it would also be neat if certain AA units (Hydras) could ignore their AA penalty for targeting really tall units, or models that are "hi up." I remember reading a blurb about the Syrians in Lebanon using the ZSU not only for AA duty but to clear snipers and other resistance from rooftops, due to its sheer ROF and penetrative abilities.