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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Not to seem overly pedantic but, it's intuitive if you have basic knowledge of tanks.

Realism is the wrong word here.

What a universe needs is consistency within itself.

 Marmatag wrote:
What a universe needs is consistency within itself.

Given all the efforts of GW, FW, and BL, I'd say that 40k has about as much internal consistency as a nurgling's bowels.

If you're using HEAT shells you shouldn't be shooting at another tank in the first place (I was a 19k in the army)

If we had different ammo types that'd be on point.

Well-equipped infantry can stop tanks yes. But a lot of infantry simply cannot without throwing wave after wave at you (what we are taught while stationed at the DMZ in Korea, you'll run out of ammo and then they'll eventually pry your hatches open and kill you but they'll take huge losses)

When I say intuitive I mean that it should work as I'd expect it in the real world. For example: gravity.

Another example: if there is a swirling melee going on and I lob a mortar shell into that melee, intuitively I'd expect to hurt my own dudes. in Age of Sigmar, only the other side gets hurt.

 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 to an extent, but disagree that some of the things that people are arguing are intuitive are any more intuitive than the changes they complain about. I already pointed out the fire arc issue with tanks (being 1" in either direction making a difference in your effectiveness.), it would also matter for some models where the cockpit is more durable than the rear armor for some reason, because the "glass" is more durable than the armor. Or that the rear is more fragile in general (shooting a rhino in it's rear hatch does damage more easily than shooting it where more meaningful systems would be)

Or the argument that it is intuitive that infantry can draw LOS from their toes, but tanks need to do so from their weapon. I like "use the hull" because it is consistent with other units, and thus intuitive. It would be equally intuitive if all units drew LOS from their weapons, but it would put another level of positioning into the game that would slow down game play as players position their models to fire in the exact direction desired.

 auticus wrote:
If you're using HEAT shells you shouldn't be shooting at another tank in the first place (I was a 19k in the army)

If we had different ammo types that'd be on point.

Well-equipped infantry can stop tanks yes. But a lot of infantry simply cannot without throwing wave after wave at you (what we are taught while stationed at the DMZ in Korea, you'll run out of ammo and then they'll eventually pry your hatches open and kill you but they'll take huge losses)

When I say intuitive I mean that it should work as I'd expect it in the real world. For example: gravity.

Another example: if there is a swirling melee going on and I lob a mortar shell into that melee, intuitively I'd expect to hurt my own dudes. in Age of Sigmar, only the other side gets hurt.

So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?

What is intuitive on a non-earth planet in 38,000 years anyways? Even the gravity which you mentioned might be different!

At that point if we're going to say that 38,000 years in the future nothing can be intuitive in a game set there due to our experiences today, so therefore its ok for the game to totally not be intuitive, we can agree that what we want out of a game is probably not in tune with each other and just call it at that.

Which is ok.

I just think it's funny to play a game set on different planets written by creative writers (not military personnel) in 38,000 years time in which Hell actually exists and strong beliefs can warp and change reality and then expect it to be intuitive at all. It's literally a different universe, with exactly zero continuity between now and then except 'there are men'.

And even that is arguable, because the humans of the future may have changed so radically in so many ways (psychologically, socially, cognitively, biologically) that they may not even be called 'men' anymore.

Expecting things to be 'intuitive' I think is ... silly.

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

Good points in the examples you give after that.
BUT "realism" I would define like the wiki link I made with Deus Ex Machina:

"Aristotle was the first to use a Greek term equivalent to the Latin phrase deus ex machina as a term to describe the technique as a device to resolve the plot of tragedies.[3] It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic (although it is sometimes deliberately used to do this) and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though perhaps more palatable, ending.

It is this "challenging suspension of disbelief" that is the complaint.
Like how we all have our own opinion, we each have our own breaking point where the game is judged as "nonsense" and dismissed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?

Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...

 Arkaine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?

Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...

No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?

Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...

No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.

Eh, that's flaky... it's like saying because we have lasers there's no reason we shouldn't assume infantry have laser rifles and armies have laser tanks.

Permissive ruleset, it has to say it exists before it possibly exists.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how should tanks in 38,000 years operate intuitively? How do you know that a Baneblade isn't equipped with Longbow-style shells that, as long as their search antennae detect the enemy, teleport between intervening terrain pieces and detonate amongst them?

Does the lore say they have those? We do have a reference...

No, but it does say they have teleportation, and that Baneblades are issued with different types of ammunition, including soul-crystals that can cause Perils of the Warp and penetrate psychic barriers. So there's no reason to suspect they don't have other warp-active shells as well, including ones that travel in it.

Eh, that's flaky... it's like saying because we have lasers there's no reason we shouldn't assume infantry have laser rifles and armies have laser tanks.

Permissive ruleset, it has to say it exists before it possibly exists.

The fluff and its interpretations are not permissive rulesets (they're not rulesets at all, actually); in fact, they're quite the opposite, designed to let people expand upon their army's background and fluff within the setting.

And I'm just giving an example of plausible (in my opinion) fluff that seems to excuse the existing game mechanics, and is intuitive to me, as a mechanism to illustrate why 'realism' and 'what is intuitive' are not metrics you can judge 40k by, as it is deliberately designed to have a very open attitude towards the fluff and its interpretation. There is no hard canon in 40k.

Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.

Voss wrote:
Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.

So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.

In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Voss wrote:
Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.

So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.

Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer: the rules are the rules and not a bit more.
If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.
Others may have more delicate sensibilities...

 Talizvar wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Voss wrote:
Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.

So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.

Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer: the rules are the rules and not a bit more.
If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.
Others may have more delicate sensibilities...

Oh I see. Yes from this viewpoint it's silly to demand realism; the most competitive games in my experience are often the least realistic.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh I see. Yes from this viewpoint it's silly to demand realism; the most competitive games in my experience are often the least realistic.

I am not saying that for many some "realism" is not preferred.
I would state that it is not a requirement to be in a game.
Magic the gathering is an awesome game with tons of lore but it's mechanics make little attempt to simulate two spell-casters battling it out in any "realistic" way (I assume you were being sarcastic earlier?).

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.

I think there's something wrong with your keyboard or device, for some reason it put "2nd" when it's obvious you meant "3rd"

3rd wasn't the best. Too much rino rushing.

3rd was the best. Two wound Thousand Sons that fired grenade bullets.

Unitsomething wrote:So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic?

I haven't the faintest idea. This is game where some units can outrun gunfire, but at the same time actual demigods can't roflstomp barely trained, malnourished and uneducated mortals.

There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.

Actually, there is a lot that can be related and compared. The game is all math, which functions quite well for relations and comparisons.

In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.

Correct. The 'lore' has been retconned repeatedly in a number of areas, and if it followed the lore, each space marine could take on dozens of guardsmen and win. 'Lore correct' versions of most models are completely untenable for a game that doesn't involve a single player indulging in power fantasy masturbation all alone.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Voss wrote:
Have to disagree. Its deliberately design so the rules are completely disassociated with the fluff. No matter how many novels and background sections they write (and rewrite), when the dice hit the table, none of that matters a whit.

So then if the game is entirely fantastical, without even relation to its own lore, why does anyone care if it's realistic? There is nothing to which it can be related and compared; something being 'unrealistic' means that it its 'unlike reality'... but the game isn't tied to reality.
In your claim, it's not even tied to its own lore.

Ha! Voss is speaking from the viewpoint of a competitive gamer:

Am I? I haven't played in a tournament in...hmm. This century, at least.

the rules are the rules and not a bit more.

Correct.

If a unit of Grots is written to get a 3D6 mortal wounds on the charge: so be it.

Well, no, from a game perspective, that would be stupid.

Others may have more delicate sensibilities...

Uh... sure?
The game needs to function as a game. It can't function the way the background does, as that doesn't make for a fun (or even vaguely entertaining) two person game.
People can feel free to be inspired by the war-porn background, but that reading isn't going to translate to the tabletop, and the game would be terrible if it did.

Nah, best was fifth. 3rd was bland, 2nd was just as obnoxiously broke as 7th.

As someone who started playing in the very end of second, played a lot of 3rd, and played a literal ton of 4th and a bit of 5th (like used to play a game a day at 2000 pts) then did nothing from 6th or 7th I can say relearning now with 8th coming out was a great time to jump back in. I started looking near the end of 7th and it seemed, not complicated, but also a bit denser (wrong word I am sure) than I rememberd.

8th on the other hand reminded me of 3rd, where all the armies were in the rule book as a starting point until codexes could get released. The rules are easy to understand with 8th, and I have had no trouble getting my head wrapped around them. The rest of my group is just getting into 40k for the first time and they also seem to be getting it pretty simply.

I don't understand the "there is no terrain" issue others have mentioned. I remember before that if you were in area terrain you had to be within 6" of the edge of said terrain to see out and shoot. Now if all models are in said area then they are in cover. It's a simpler way to deal with the rule and it doesn't seem to cause an issue. If one model is not in the area all are out is a bit silly but not really. Get shot at, kill the units outside the area. Leave the ones inside there. After said enemy shooting the squad kills the guys outside then during the rest of that shooting phase the unit is now in cover. Makes target priority an issue. And you can always house rule the terrain to have different effects if you want. Forests give +1 to your armor save rolls. Ruins give -1 to hit rolls. By making it area terrain based you simply remove the argument that "I thought that should give me an improved save because you cant see my knees" type of arguments happening.

It's a different game for sure but it's still the same game I feel. A lot of changes from my pov are argument removal ones. I do miss armor facings on tank's. They could have kept the same rules as they are using now but did F8, S8, R7 to give the different sides a value. However again I think the rules were done to remove arguments. I'm hitting your side, no your hitting my front kind of things. The idea of "my nose can see you so all my guns can hit" however I am not cool with. We again used a house rule, your gun points have to be able to see the target as if they were individual models to be able to shoot at a target. Is it RAW? No, but as others have said it makes a he'll of a lot of sense and we haven't had any arguments while playing the dozen or so games we have all played.

So 8th is good. Indexes are cheap if you want to try it out, but if you like 7th then there is no reason to update if you don't want to. But the lack of arguments has been great so far lol.

Azuza001 wrote:
The idea of "my nose can see you so all my guns can hit" however I am not cool with.

Why? They removed it for Infantry in 3rd. The battlefield isn't a static model, it's a moving maelstrom and the abstraction is just fine. Your Land Raider jinked and fired while on the move, it didn't move and then come to a full stop, then fire.

The Good:
Despite the clunky 2nd edition style rules, the gameplay feels much more fluid and intuitive.
Brings back some decent, common-sense rules from 4th edition such as area terrain and wound allocation.
No hull points! The vehicle wounds feel arcadey but they're still better than hull points.
The addition of the 'damage' characteristic makes pure anti-tank weapons more viable.
You can choose psyker powers again!

The Meh:
Units can fire at multiple targets in a single turn. It's not a bad thing, and sometimes it makes the game feel more intuitive, but it's been a staple of 40K rules for a long time; making you choose your targets carefully.
There's no bonus attack when assaulting.. or anything else unless the model's weapons specifically says that it gives more than one attack.
Vehicles are basically monstrous creatures as they have no armour facings or weapon angles. On the plus side it does speed up the game, but I like the drama of having to flank around to hid the tank's weak spot, or making a self-propelled-gun useless by immobilising it while its gun is pointing away from my troops.

The Bad:
Everyone has Gauss weapons now, IIRC being able to kill Land Raiders with lasguns.
Units lose models rather than falling back when failing a leadership test. Part of the point of terrorising the enemy is that you can make the entire unit turn tail and run, rather than just a few of their mates leaving.
The wounds system is rather simplistic, as bolters and pulse rifles both wound Toughness 3 models on 3+

Overall I'd say that 8th edition is a faster, sometimes more arcadey game which brings back some retro style while removing a lot of the nonsense brought in by 6th & 7th edition. I'm especially glad to see that the combat mechanics are going back to a more abstract system.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
3rd wasn't the best. Too much rino rushing.

Was my state the only place in the world where people figured out if you sit back far enough you couldn't get transport charged 1st turn? OR that if you shoot the transports first turn, you eliminate the problem? Hell, Wave Serpents were an even bigger threat as they had more vicious things in them. In fact, the only Rhino rush worth writing home about was Blood Angels. Shoot the transports: problem solved.

 Just Tony wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
3rd wasn't the best. Too much rino rushing.

Was my state the only place in the world where people figured out if you sit back far enough you couldn't get transport charged 1st turn? OR that if you shoot the transports first turn, you eliminate the problem? Hell, Wave Serpents were an even bigger threat as they had more vicious things in them. In fact, the only Rhino rush worth writing home about was Blood Angels. Shoot the transports: problem solved.

.

Lol nope, I always smiled when my opponent setup in rhinos across the field from me and I was already prepared for it. memories. Lol

BaconCatBug, the reason we changed the rule for that slight change was it felt right. 8th does a lot of things that feel right when playing and it gets some wrong. This just feels better when playing the game as showing a bit more as to the difference between mc's and vehicles. It feels better in game. I am not saying that everyone should start using this house rule or that GW should make it a real rule any more than "hand of fate" house rule from years ago (at any one time during the game you can either reroll a single dice or have your opponent reroll a single dice. You can not reroll a reroll). It really added a bit of strategy to the game that 8th actually took care of with straigims. So that's a rule we don't play with or need anymore.

But it is what it is.