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.

Breng77 wrote:
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.

The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.

Breng77 wrote:
Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th

You're right, much better to be a primarch and apparently invisible unless you're sniper. I'll call that a wash, no love for tanking but the alternative is randomizing (puke) or one or the other player's choice.

Breng77 wrote:
the challenge mechanic

Yeah, no, can't argue there, challenges were always kinda garbage and should have stayed in warhammer, may it rest in piece.

Breng77 wrote:
invisible units being immune to templates and blasts

Well, weren't they just not target-table by those? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe arent blasts can still scatter and hit invisible units no?

Breng77 wrote:
Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example)

Was never a fan but can you honestly tell me 3 detachments controls anything and isn't every bit as apoc-ish? Only difference from what I can see is no formations and as such people at least have to pay points for the collection of stuff they want to field. Not really seeing any improvement from 7-8th in terms of army construction other than having to pay points for unbound-lite. Also, I kinda liked the idea of cp's when it was a simple system, first codex drops and its already a bloated mess of abilities. Sigh.

Breng77 wrote:
the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective

At least it was fairly straightforward for most vehicles in the game because they were roughly quadrilateral. Not hard to find the center and draw an x. Losing that was a massive loss for immersion, rewarding flanking was a strong part of the game and still is alive and well in 30k. I find it immersive and challenging that I have to out maneuver an enemies spartan because its front is shielded. I also like that 30k has terrain rules and said tank isn't able to fire all of its many lascannons from its antenna.

Breng77 wrote:
the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.

Between mc's and pretty much most things. GW's way of fixing mc's was to make everything an mc. Can you see where they went wrong there? "Hey boss, this windows broken, should we fix it?" "Nah. but break every other window, we don't wanna look like amateurs here"

I won't defend mc's in 7th, but I think fixing them maybe would have been a better route than a whole new edition.

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I don't think anyone could say 8th is a tonne more immersive, and I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they really are genuinely enjoying their games. From my perspective, just trying to do a turn summary style battle report, 8th is a lot more difficult to try and turn into a breakdown or narrative without objectively sounding more absurd. Allow me to give some examples. For one, unlimited split fire has made it really difficult to remember and recite the 2-5 things each unit engaged with. Sometimes the challenged is simply remembering more context, which is annoying but certainly more immersive if we're able to do so well and it's a unit comprised of a lot of models. When it's a single model however, you really start having to fill in the gaps, when it came to explaining the wizardry my flyers were achieving, not only did the camera have to fly in a bunch of directions even though all the weapons are plain to see on the front of it. The hardest part is trying to contextualize for people watching what is actually happening when my storm raven is fighting fire warriors in close combat. It goes downhill really quickly from there.

Look, one could find a playgroup more immersive because you don't have to have painted or even fully built models and project that on to the latest edition. Every game is a struggle to stay immersed and I would argue that could come down to many factors outside of the edition being played. The matchup, opponent, terrain, presence of absence of a roof and or inclement weather, lack of sleep, access to seating, All of those factors could affect one's immersion in any given game. For me it's painted models/terrain. That's a starting point. I probably set the bar too high. 7th isn't perfect but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water to satiate gw's new target market of 12 year olds. 8th is less immersive than 7th and 7th isn't perfect, but it's better than 8th.

I'm wondering why so many of your guys need validation in your hatred of 8th. Like it or don't, it doesn't matter. Enjoy your games in 7th. I couldn't and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore. It's your hobby, do it how you want to.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

I never myself played warhammer but it's sad to see all that tossed out for the mosh pit that is aos. I still remember tournaments in 5th where players who didn't really grasp (or think) about fire arcs would get rather upset to no be allow a free pivot in the shooting phase if they found out a hull mounted weapon wasn't in arc of something they wanted to (now) target. And the design team decided to side with them with 8th. Not even just give them unlimited split fire, no, that could still end up with having to have some kind of causal forethought as to where to maneuver or point one's vehicles. Sigh.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

We've always played you draw los from their head and its basically 360/spherical vision. Generally worked pretty well. 8th is certainly the "steamline everything for timmy" ethos at work

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

I think for units like hydras, maybe just burn a turn to like switch from aa to ground. Los wise the model has a really big arc so that takes care of itself, game wise you don't want too much of an incentive to take it for ground fire.

If I was a sniper I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one of these things. Scary




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I'm wondering why so many of your guys need validation in your hatred of 8th. Like it or don't, it doesn't matter. Enjoy your games in 7th. I couldn't and I'm glad I don't have to deal with it anymore. It's your hobby, do it how you want to.

I shall, enjoy your games of 8th good sir.

I find the realism "debate" amusing.

You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.

I was enjoying the discussion until this showed you're a WAAC debater. You keep bouncing around from one subject to the next, turning an argument on immersion and consistency up on its head because diversity isn't equal or balanced.

We're well aware that apples aren't oranges so please resume your discussion with that in mind and stick to the subjects being quoted. Like your argument, it's not hard to argue a point as seemingly correct when you're always off on a tangent referring to unrelated matters that deviate from the point you're attempting to disprove.

 Arkaine wrote:
you're a WAAC debate

I'm not the topic, sport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I find the realism "debate" amusing.

You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.

You forgot dragons and lasers

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
you're a WAAC debate

I'm not the topic, sport.

Neither is anything you said that I quoted.

Well for "realistic" vehicle rules, go to 2nd edition where vehicles had speed settings, turn radius, crewmen could be injured and every weapon rolled like a dozen dice for damage.

Immersion to me is consistency, the ability to build a fun and fluffy army that can compete, and the ability to enjoy a game without getting bogged down in rules disputes. No version of 40k has ever really been immersive, even with Overwatch of the past and LoS for infantry.

What 8th brought for me is what I said above, I have fun again. If I could change anything about 8th it would be making the terrain rules from Cities of Death bog standard, return to the old Psyker cards from 2nd edition and removing superheavies from normal games. That's really it right now. I don't love the flying rules, but I can live with that. I'm yet to have an issue with this all prevalent conscript spam and I doubt many complaining about it have either.

It's pretty easy to enjoy the game now. If you liked 7th, then play 7th rather than telling people they shouldn't enjoy 8th. I dropped out of 7th and all things 40k because I hated it so much, but I didn't sit on forums and berate those that did like it.

8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

 Marmatag wrote:
8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

Because IGOUGO is inherently flawed. Alpha strike has always been a problem in 40k. 8th edition just made everything a lot more killy while not compensating enough with the wounds.

Our games started that way, now its pretty rare any of us are tabled. We adjusted our playstyle to prevent that from happening to us. Just like first turn assaults were all the rage at first, now we tend to hold the assaults for the right moment.

The argument between old and busted (7th) and the new hotness (8th) is misplaced as everyone knows 2nd Edition is the one to play.

 Melissia wrote:
I find the realism "debate" amusing.

You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.

I really hate this line of reasoning. The existence of unrealistic elements in a setting doesn't allow it to ignore it's own internal consistency. If the fluff had some AdMech guy strap a jet engine to a Baneblade to make it fly we would call that stupid and unrealistic. You can't argue that it's fine because magic exists in the setting. If Gandalf ended the battle of Minas Tirath but conjuring an AR-15 and start mowing down orcs you'd think that was stupid as well. But actually it's fine because magic exists.

There's a difference between realism and abstraction. Realism has rules the writers of a setting establish and stick to and it mostly exists in the fluff. Abstraction is a game mechanic required to make the game work and requires us to fill in the blanks with our imagination. It applies to all games. If anyone can show me a tabletop game with rules that allow for complete realism within the setting I will do...something. I dunno what. I suppose go "Huh." and carry on with my life.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

The thing is, to argue consistency, you're going to have to argue how every one of your complaints about 7th is improved or rendered more consistent by 8th, you won't be able to do that. At least, not without pointing out the fatal flaw that it's hard not to be consistent when your new edition has 2 units types, fly and not fly. Tap water is consistent, water quality in north america is pretty consistent, so much so we choose to immerse ourselves in it. I still prefer beer, chocolate milk, doctor pepper, arizona green tea. If all of those were unit types, they wouldn't be equal, balanced or consistent as tap water. Wouldn't be as bland either.

Not really as I was only referring to the change between vehicles and everything else in the game, which was rendered more consistent than they were in 7th. Beyond that lots of unit types that don't really add all that much beyond built in special rules (that could be given to individual units) and movement changes (included in profile in 8th) don't add anything for immersion. IN fact at least for new players they can break immersion when you need to look up what special rules your unit gets just because it is a beast.

Breng77 wrote:
Characters Bullet catching for squads in 7th

You're right, much better to be a primarch and apparently invisible unless you're sniper. I'll call that a wash, no love for tanking but the alternative is randomizing (puke) or one or the other player's choice.

Player's choice is better, as for the non-targeting thing, there are instances when I think it is immersion breaking, but more often than not it is less so than a bullet catching IC in 7th. Having a more immediate threat is a valid reason to not shoot something further away. Now I think it should have been implemented differently, but I get why it works that way. In 7th that character in a unit was equally as invisible if they desired to be.

Breng77 wrote:
invisible units being immune to templates and blasts

Well, weren't they just not target-table by those? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe arent blasts can still scatter and hit invisible units no?

yes you could "try" to scatter on to invisible units, but being untargetable broke immersion for me. If I have a bunch of flamers and I know their is an invisible enemy shooting at me from a specific direction, I'm filling that area with fire. Same with blasts. They are the natural answer to things you cannot see. In fact barrages can shoot with no LOS, but not at invisible units, because they cannot see them? what?

Breng77 wrote:
Come the apoc allies (Flyrants + Riptide wing for example)

Was never a fan but can you honestly tell me 3 detachments controls anything and isn't every bit as apoc-ish? Only difference from what I can see is no formations and as such people at least have to pay points for the collection of stuff they want to field. Not really seeing any improvement from 7-8th in terms of army construction other than having to pay points for unbound-lite. Also, I kinda liked the idea of cp's when it was a simple system, first codex drops and its already a bloated mess of abilities. Sigh.

I think it could be better than 8th, but 8th is way better than 7th given that as I said no Nid-Tau, or Eldar-Daemon etc pairings. It controls those types of fluff breaking pairings.

Breng77 wrote:
the armor facing mechanic where being 1" to the left suddenly makes my shots more effective

At least it was fairly straightforward for most vehicles in the game because they were roughly quadrilateral. Not hard to find the center and draw an x. Losing that was a massive loss for immersion, rewarding flanking was a strong part of the game and still is alive and well in 30k. I find it immersive and challenging that I have to out maneuver an enemies spartan because its front is shielded. I also like that 30k has terrain rules and said tank isn't able to fire all of its many lascannons from its antenna.

The issue is though that I could be standing 1" to the left and be in the side arc, and 1" to the right and be in the rear, from 48" away, why can't I target the less durable area which I can still see? It's arbitrary and not all vehicles are close to quadrilaterals (eldar, Tau, Necrons, most walkers) . As for shooting from the antenna, yeah that is dumb, but no moreso than a spacemarine doing it from his toe. Either everything should have facings, and arcs or nothing should, otherwise it becomes a point of balance. See MCs vs vehicles that last 2 editions.

Breng77 wrote:
the effectiveness gap between walkers and MCs.

Between mc's and pretty much most things. GW's way of fixing mc's was to make everything an mc. Can you see where they went wrong there? "Hey boss, this windows broken, should we fix it?" "Nah. but break every other window, we don't wanna look like amateurs here"

I won't defend mc's in 7th, but I think fixing them maybe would have been a better route than a whole new edition.

It wasn't just MCs that needed fixing in 7th. Flyers were poorly handled, psychic powers, codex balance, allies rules, formations etc. At some point a whole new edition seems like a better fix.

Breng77 wrote:
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.

I don't think anyone could say 8th is a tonne more immersive, and I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they really are genuinely enjoying their games. From my perspective, just trying to do a turn summary style battle report, 8th is a lot more difficult to try and turn into a breakdown or narrative without objectively sounding more absurd. Allow me to give some examples. For one, unlimited split fire has made it really difficult to remember and recite the 2-5 things each unit engaged with. Sometimes the challenged is simply remembering more context, which is annoying but certainly more immersive if we're able to do so well and it's a unit comprised of a lot of models. When it's a single model however, you really start having to fill in the gaps, when it came to explaining the wizardry my flyers were achieving, not only did the camera have to fly in a bunch of directions even though all the weapons are plain to see on the front of it. The hardest part is trying to contextualize for people watching what is actually happening when my storm raven is fighting fire warriors in close combat. It goes downhill really quickly from there.

Look, one could find a playgroup more immersive because you don't have to have painted or even fully built models and project that on to the latest edition. Every game is a struggle to stay immersed and I would argue that could come down to many factors outside of the edition being played. The matchup, opponent, terrain, presence of absence of a roof and or inclement weather, lack of sleep, access to seating, All of those factors could affect one's immersion in any given game. For me it's painted models/terrain. That's a starting point. I probably set the bar too high. 7th isn't perfect but 8th threw the baby out with the bath water to satiate gw's new target market of 12 year olds. 8th is less immersive than 7th and 7th isn't perfect, but it's better than 8th.

I disagree with your final assessment, I find 8th more immersive because I don't need to keep an encyclopedia of rules in my head to play, so I can become immersed. But in the end that is a point of opinion and not an objective fact.

 Marmatag wrote:
8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

Well for me it's the opposite. With orks and dark eldar I could be tabled by turn 3 if I started second even with the most competitive lists that my armies could bring. Now it's way more difficult to suffer a tabled result and my armies don't have the strenght to table anyone by turn 5. Many games in 7th edtion were screwed turn 1, now it's hard to lose 400 points of stuff in the first turn of shooting. Maybe with the broken stormravens spam but it was clearly a mistake and it was fixed in a few weeks. I don't play with time limits and usually arrive at turn 5, certainly more often than in the previous edition.

Ultracompetitive tournaments list may be a differente story, but the tournament environment has always been extremely unbalanced.

 Marmatag wrote:
8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

Reece has stated that this style of play will gradually evolve as players learn not to put all their eggs in one basket in terms of alpha/beta strike.

Paraphrasing, but: To start with, his playtest group was finding the game very swingy, with games ending very quickly one way or the other. So the playstyles evolved to be more cautious in approach which then leads to more interesting games.

What? You mean players evolve rather slowly as a collective community and we should perhaps give it a bit of time before reflexively declaring 8th to be the best/worst/whatever edition ever?

HOGWASH! I liked [insert edition here]. 8th is clearly a travesty and should never have happened. After all, conscripts/scions/guilliman/baneblades/IG/tau/eldar/models with fly/fall back rules/fighty tanks/stormravens ARE THE WORST THING EVER.

I never really get the rage about the vehicle rules. Perhaps it's because our gaming group is rather small and only has Tau, Necrons, DE, Space Wolves and Death Guard in it, but in our 6th/7th edition games vehicle rules (facing, armour values) hardly played a role. Vehicles were made of paper and after every game we were like: Hmm, vehicles are bad. They could be better if they had twice the hull points. But then they still suck due to their movement restrictions and explode.
I guess armour values mattered in 5th edition were vehicles didn't have hull ponts. In 6th/7th they brought nothing to the game. Yes, they made me attack Necron vehicles in CC (actually the quantum shielding did that). But that's all. In 8th vehicles finally have a place again and feel like actual vehicles, you know, tanks. My rhino now lasts longer than a plague marine. It can also move quite fast and give supporting fire, as if it was an assault transport.

What do I miss from 7th? Probably the amount of fluffy rules. Yes, formations were badly implemented and should not have been for free, but I actually liked what they brought. Not the bland ones with free Razorbacks, but the cool ones. Tau had a lot of cool formations that gave a different way to run things. The mayhem pack for Helbrutes was awesome. The Cult of Destruction, too.
But guess what? We now get stratagems in the codex, which bring some formation rules back, however with a cost. Problem solved.

I have played the game since Rogue Trader. I'm 43 this year. I own IG, chaos, blood angels and tau.

7th edition was the first edition to make me set things down and take a break. I bought 1 model all of 7th edition at the beginning, finished it and then decided that I just couldn't stomach the rules. It was the worst system in the 30 or so years I played the game. It was the 'anything goes and we need to sell models and books edition.'

Players have asked for years to 'have it all' and 7th gave it to you. It wrecked the game. It was a cluttered confusing mess of a system that was so overloaded with a glut of rules that it bogged games down. It was so rules heavy that it was more convenient to play very small 1K point games vs. trying to play 2K+

Our group still tried to play some arranged games where one person built both armies, so we could avoid the cluster of imbalance and really poor matchups or gross abuse of the system. The games just weren't as fun.

Where I landed was, the rules were just too cumbersome, there were far too many codices with too many special rules, and the games were just bogging way down... the fun was draining fast from the game. For me, 7th was a disaster that 6th started.

+ + +

8th brought in a much needed simplification for speed of play. It hearkens back to 2nd edition in many ways. It works to reduce rule lookup, without losing the action or tactics. It also works to remove just a tremendous amount of rules bickering, discussions and rules look-ups or the alike. Weapons facing and model facing to determine LOS is gone, and good riddens... models can now just shoot - measure from the base. There's no more fidgeting with difficult and dangerous terrain rolls, you just move. There's no more arguing over who is and is not in terrain, you are either all in or within it, or you are not all in or within it... and if your not, take some damage until you are... now, start taking damage with the same. Done. It works.

There were clearly some rule changes for simplicity sake. You cannot shoot at characters without being closest to it and characters don't join the units. It works. It's easy. Some special units like the necrons have exceptions with a unit here or there, but overall, characters can be used more tactically vs. sticking with a unit.

Transports can have any number of units in them, but you still have model limits the transport can hold - it works.

The psychic phase got rid of all the dice management... you now just cast spells based on pass / fail system. Every enemy psyker gets one shot to deny, it works. It's quick.

Pistols are back - they actually have a purpose and can make a big difference with a unit that's stuck in the thick of it and flamers once again are a real threat as they auto hit.

The recurring rerolling from twin-linked has been changed to just double the amount of shots... much of the game has been modified simply to eliminate time wasting, and moving forward.

Even morale works cleaner. There's no more breaking checks constantly across phases and models then moving to shift backwards or forwards. Now, it happens once at the end of the turn, and however much you fail by - that quantity of models just leaves the field - done, simple, faster.

Much of the game has been changed not to be different, but just to go faster. This allows you to play even more units, and the game simply keeps moving vs. getting bogged down into measurement debates, or template debates... etc.

Oh, the templates being removed was so long over due... you can now just move your units and clump them up as much as you like together in base to base... folks are no longer anally moving to keep this artificial spacing to minimize template damage or tactically positioning models to avoid the blast or template... man I'm so happy those things are gone... its also less cr@p you have to carry around should you travel to game. You need your models, your iPad if you go electronic books, and your models.

8th has brought me back to the game.

I think GW has directly encouraged horde armies in 8th at this time. Many armies now have some kind of cheap unit you can blanket the field with to absorb wounds and put out a rediculous amount of shots or hth... necrons have swarms, chaos cultists, tau drones, orks gretchin, ig conscripts... etc. There are also a number of rules which keep the units around longer, like commissar within 6" so morale doesn't cause more than a single wound when failed... and the list goes on.

I was initially concerned about the horde mentality, but I think its actually quite a good impact. The toys before boyz mentality will take a hit. The elite only armies simply cannot dish out enough damage to impact them, and ultimately it encourages a more balanced approach to dealing with threats.

8th does use detachments as opposed to a force org chart... it's like having a variety of force org charts. So far, this has worked well but its early. You will see games with no troop choices... you will see games with heavy amounts of heavy choices... or heavy amounts of elite or fast attack choices. However with reserves and deep striking all streamlined, it hasn't been a problem yet. Less troops required is a bit different, but armies seem more enjoyable to play and construct as a result.

8th has been out for a couple months, and I've picked up 4 models, some paints and I'm genuinely excited to play and optimistic about where the game is going again. The community focus GW has shown thus far, is encouraging.

Tanks in 7th Edition:

- Move fast, yet are so easy to hit any dumb idiot with I2 can still stick a stickybomb up their tailpipe.

- Have no problem shooting whatsoever, except when it's overwatch time, because bs reasons.

- Have strong front armor and literally no rear armor. Like they can take an arrow-type round to the front but they can't take .50 caliber in the rear.

Vehicles in 8th edition:

- Behave like every other unit.

- In 5,6% of cases, when one could actually take advantage of facing, you're not spending half an hour determining whether that's really the rear of the Eldar tank anymore.

- Suck at Close Combat for some obscure reason



As a Mech player, 8th is miles better than 7th and even more realistic, although still somewhat quite unrealistic.

zerosignal wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

Reece has stated that this style of play will gradually evolve as players learn not to put all their eggs in one basket in terms of alpha/beta strike.

Paraphrasing, but: To start with, his playtest group was finding the game very swingy, with games ending very quickly one way or the other. So the playstyles evolved to be more cautious in approach which then leads to more interesting games.

I've said this several times about this edition, especially about tanks and close combat. People are still playing a point and click game where you set up your models and shoot each other and whoever rolls best wins. They see a big scary coming toward their Leman Russ or whatever and they play like in the old edition where they could just sit still and not worry. Tanks have like a 12" move now, which is faster than A LOT of close combat units, you have no excuse for leaving your tanks stationary if you know something is coming at it. Sure you're at -1 to hit, but it's still better than nothing and at least your tank isn't dead.

 Blackie wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
8th edition is the get tabled edition.

Seems like most of the matches end in someone getting tabled.

Otherwise, it's rare to see games make it to time limit, that are even close to balanced.

Well for me it's the opposite. With orks and dark eldar I could be tabled by turn 3 if I started second even with the most competitive lists that my armies could bring. Now it's way more difficult to suffer a tabled result and my armies don't have the strenght to table anyone by turn 5. Many games in 7th edtion were screwed turn 1, now it's hard to lose 400 points of stuff in the first turn of shooting. Maybe with the broken stormravens spam but it was clearly a mistake and it was fixed in a few weeks. I don't play with time limits and usually arrive at turn 5, certainly more often than in the previous edition.

Ultracompetitive tournaments list may be a differente story, but the tournament environment has always been extremely unbalanced.

I can't disagree, but competitive meta ultimately finds its way to even casual gaming circles.

Sim-Life wrote:
There's a difference between realism and abstraction.

Abstraction is necessary for the game to function.

For EVERY game to function. Even games devoted blindingly, boringly, and obsessively to realism have massive amounts of abstraction. They're just in denial of it, and their games suffer for it.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I find the realism "debate" amusing.
You realize this game has magic, right? Like an entire section of it devoted to magic.

I really hate this line of reasoning. The existence of unrealistic elements in a setting doesn't allow it to ignore it's own internal consistency. If the fluff had some AdMech guy strap a jet engine to a Baneblade to make it fly we would call that stupid and unrealistic. You can't argue that it's fine because magic exists in the setting. If Gandalf ended the battle of Minas Tirath but conjuring an AR-15 and start mowing down orcs you'd think that was stupid as well. But actually it's fine because magic exists.
There's a difference between realism and abstraction. Realism has rules the writers of a setting establish and stick to and it mostly exists in the fluff. Abstraction is a game mechanic required to make the game work and requires us to fill in the blanks with our imagination. It applies to all games. If anyone can show me a tabletop game with rules that allow for complete realism within the setting I will do...something. I dunno what. I suppose go "Huh." and carry on with my life.

@Melissia: Unfortunately every time someone finds something "amusing" it tends to be interpreted to condescension, the main thrust of your argument is that since there is magic: "realism" has no basis with the game.
<edit> If it is more around the "get a life" variant, many people have a grip on what is important in life like work and home-life but our hobbies are important too so it is justifiable to "argue" nuances of what we like to do.
I can tune into a multitude of stations on radio and TV digging into stats of players and teams to last me beyond a lifetime.

@Sim-Life: I must agree with your reasoning here (well written I might add).
It is a matter of context and typically we look to the "fluff" of what a unit can and cannot do so if the rules are contrary to the stories, the game has less "realism".
Some could argue that dog-fighting becomes an issue since we have full 360 firing arc: X-wing this is not.
Or my friend's "realism" breaker is how flame throwers make the best anti-aircraft weapon (he would like to have all hard to hit flying units to add 8" to their distance for being shot at).

Yes, realism comes up many times, this is categorized as a "war-game" so we do not want to be pulling out the "Deus Ex Machina" (See "plot device" Wiki) just because "gee wiz it is magic", it makes for poor writing and a poor game.

 Ahtman wrote:
The argument between old and busted (7th) and the new hotness (8th) is misplaced as everyone knows 2nd Edition is the one to play.

House ruled second edition.
With the whiskey phase included.

I concur with 2nd, personally.

As I think I stated already, I wouldn't say 8th is a brilliant game design by any stretch. I'm not shocked that some people don't like it. I am shocked, however, that anyone can honestly try to defend 7th as an example of anything good about wargaming.

When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.

Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.

There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.

When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.

 auticus wrote:
When it comes to game-design, one of the things that should be looked at is intuitiveness. Thats what "realism" means to me.

Things should work intuitively. The more things are not intuitive, the less someone that desires such a thing will enjoy that game.

There are certainly legions of players that don't care about intuitiveness in a game. There are books written on the subject.

When it comes to Games Workshop, intuitive gameplay has never been one of their strengths, and I don't think they even really try or care about it based on the past 20 odd years of experience with them.

I agree... but also disagree. Things which are intuitive are not always realistic, e.g.:

It is intuitive that shooting a tank in the side is more likely to penetrate than shooting at the front.

HOWEVER

The tank could have spaced armour on the side. If you're using HEAT shells, the side is actually usually a very poor target, as it is the easiest surface to cover with ERA and spaced armour. Tanks can also be angled, such that 'if you can see the side, you can shoot it' will actually make your shell bounce off more than if you just derped it in the face.

Another tank example (one that GW is bad with):
Most people accept it as truth that infantry in close quarters are bad for tanks.

However, that ignores the equipment of the infantry. Conventional, well-equipped infantry with antitank weapons are a threat to tanks at close quarters. The ill-equipped Chinese army at Chosin Reservoir, however, was utterly incapable of stopping or even majorly inconveniencing the tanks involved, despite literally crawling atop them.

Just some examples.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 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 really want the gakky tanks back with firearcs and paper hulls? BECAUSE THATS SO IMMERSIVE!

 Talizvar wrote:
the main thrust of your argument is that since there is magic: "realism" has no basis with the game.

Realism in games is nothing more than a bunch of vague nonsense that can't ever even be agreed upon. A game being "realistic" or not has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game. The quality of the game's abstractions and how they interact are what's actually important. You can't even get everyone to agree upon realism in 40k being good, never mind what realism actually is in relation to 40k.

What IS realism in 40k? Is it a single Space Marine killing 2000 points of guardsmen without taking a scratch? Is it a squad of five heroic conscripts standing their ground against a legion of orks, taking down a hundred times their number before they die? Is it Space Marines actually being vulnerable to other factions' firepower, or is that unrealistic like so many people claim? Is realism letting Orks and Tyranids get double the game's points values for free, because they always outnumber their opponent? Is it Dark Eldar sweeping in and taking the objectives and then leaving, winning the game without a shot being fired? Is it Necrons always coming back, not just sometimes, when damaged?