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.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

In our meta, we have the response to this sort of thing.

"Well, thank you for your time and good luck finding a game."

You'd be shocked at how often something as simple as "I'd rather not play with you" will get someone on board with rules. Or, of course, drive away WAAC players. This is a feature and not a bug.

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

In our meta, we have the response to this sort of thing.

"Well, thank you for your time and good luck finding a game."

You'd be shocked at how often something as simple as "I'd rather not play with you" will get someone on board with rules. Or, of course, drive away WAAC players. This is a feature and not a bug.

I was kind of onboard with you till you dismissed a perfectly fluffy explanation. You know riptides aren't static and don't walk about right? They use their jets to boost around the battlefield. Look at any Gundam battle online, they're zipping around all over the place and firing shots and constantly moving. You even acknowledged that abstraction exists in your original post but this one is too much for you? I'm not having a go so don't feel inclined to reply, the idea that the battlefield is static is a bugbear for me when people bring up this particular LoS issue. Like I can get tanks because they're lumbering, heavy and difficult to maneuver but T'au suits are made for GO FAST.

Actually, modern tanks move and fire just fine, too. I know these aren't modern tanks, though. Maybe they aren't modern battle suits. Maybe the Tau are using an abacus to aim their shots. It's GW, and it has to be grimdark.

Yeah, the idea of tanks being "lumbering, heavy, and difficult to maneuver" is... well, wrong.*

*caveat: if they're well built and designed with a trained crew. With 40k's fluff, Leman Russes are anything from steam powered clankers built on a feudal world and crewed by men in plate armour who barely fit in the damn thing to sci-fi monstrosities with adamantium-alloy composite armour, laser data transmission and shared targeting systems with automatic loaders capable of choosing shell types and tactical logic engines to aid the commander in battlefield decision making. So your guess is as good as mine.

Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

Martel732 wrote:
Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

I blame that on the crew, considering a good crew (Pask) can hit the target something like 97% of the time if the tank is stationary and 84% of the time if it is moving (because of his training, not because of the tank. Weird Cadian doctrine thing!).

Even the most modern tank with the best stabilizers and electronics will only hit 50% of its shots if crewed by my next door neighbor who is a hair stylist by profession.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
7th was really bad. 8th is also bad, but better.

I hate how overly simplified it is.

There are some things that it got right, but there are an equal amount of things that they got wrong, but 40K has always been a bad game so nothing new there.

I've pretty much stopped caring after the destroyed Fantasy and brought that abomination AoS to life. Now 40K is just AoS 2.0.

GW still can't figure out how to write rules properly.

If the basic mechanics of your game, movement, profiles, and attack/defense cannot be understood by someone with a basic reading knowledge (Think 10 year old); then you have a massive problem with your game.

Trying to explain 40k to anyone before 8th was always prefaced with, "Ok this is pretty hard but once you get it you'll have fun" ends so many potential customers chances of playing.

When I can teach the basics to my 6 year old son, and he can play space marines and all I have to do is add in stuff as he gets the game more and more, that's a really good game. (It keeps the attention of a 6 year old? Yes please.) This idea that 8th is simple is just a hangover from 20 years of core game complexity. The game is complex once you add in warlord traits, stratagems, relics, and unique missions. The core game is very fun and allows for many tactics and options before you make it complicated.

Look at other "good" games, at their core they usually have a solid but easy to understand mechanics of some kind.
Power Grid, Ticket to Ride, X-Wing, etc.

Just liking another edition more does not make it better imo. But you are of course welcome to your opinion as well.

Finally, I think some dislike 40k 8th because they may be playing really boring missions. The chapter approved stuff is really fun and more events, groups, tournies need to embrace mixing up different aspects of the missions. (Especially the static deployment nonsense that everyone seems to play.)

That doesn't explain marine tanks, though.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the bully and pout technique. Classic.

No one is entitled to a game with someone, if one person doesn't want to play. That's not 'bullying', it's a preference. There are dozens of other reasons I won't play with some persons or against some lists in a fun game. I'm there to have fun, too- not provide a service to the public.

They can go find a game with someone else quite easily, I would think.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

Because it's something that would be exploited. At what point does the model have the capability to 'pop over and shoot'? Does he have to be able to see the target? Then, I might consider it. If he's blocked by the wall entirely, or in such a way that it'd be unlikely for the pilot to get a fix on a target on the other side of the wall- then it's probably unreasonable.

Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the bully and pout technique. Classic.

No one is entitled to a game with someone, if one person doesn't want to play. That's not 'bullying', it's a preference. There are dozens of other reasons I won't play with some persons or against some lists in a fun game. I'm there to have fun, too- not provide a service to the public.

They can go find a game with someone else quite easily, I would think.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

Because it's something that would be exploited. At what point does the model have the capability to 'pop over and shoot'? Does he have to be able to see the target? Then, I might consider it. If he's blocked by the wall entirely, or in such a way that it'd be unlikely for the pilot to get a fix on a target on the other side of the wall- then it's probably unreasonable.

Right, we're assuming some part of the model can see it.

And this is what I mean by complexity and abstraction. We're playing a company scale game, where 10 Leman Russ tanks supported by 50-60 infantry fighting against 3 Riptides, a Stormsurge, a couple of Broadsides, a Crisis team, and 30-40 infantry isn't unheard of. Getting fiddly about whether a specific rifleman can see enough of a tank to meaningfully harm it and whether or not a riptide's 3rd lens but not it's second can see the target because of a "just high enough" wall is just exasperating and bogs the game down in needless minutiae.

In 15mm Flames of War, all you had to do with a tank was see the target with a part of it, and you could shoot. So you had IS-2s firing with their right front tread at the fenders of Tiger Tanks angled slightly from behind a wall, and no one had problems, because it is assumed the IS-2 was in an ambush position abstracted by the actual miniature's position, and the Tiger Tank at some point had to move to get where it was going, and either the driver made an error or the IS-2 picked an opportune moment to engage as it drove unavoidably through the open. These are abstractions. Suddenly it becomes a huge issue if you scale it up to 28mm though, even though both are the same "scale" (e.g. on the scale of squad -> platoon -> company -> etc.) level of game.

 Crimson wrote:
Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

Right. And a lot of it is "hey, would you think my X could see your Y enough to shoot?" before the guy makes his move. Most of the time, it's as simple as "Oh, I moved him to that spot because I thought I would be able to get a shot off. Do you mind if I re-position him?" I'm never against people having a do-over within reason.

Like, firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window wouldn't be reasonable, neither would a Riptide dumping every one of his weapons through the window. It's more a 'does this make sense?' rule.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

Right. And a lot of it is "hey, would you think my X could see your Y enough to shoot?" before the guy makes his move. Most of the time, it's as simple as "Oh, I moved him to that spot because I thought I would be able to get a shot off. Do you mind if I re-position him?" I'm never against people having a do-over within reason.

Like, firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window wouldn't be reasonable, neither would a Riptide dumping every one of his weapons through the window. It's more a 'does this make sense?' rule.

Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

I'll preface my answer with the following: What are you looking for in a tabletop wargame?

If you're looking for a tightly designed, balanced wargame which is suitable for tournaments and competitive random-play against strangers...Warhammer 40K is not a good game. It's never been suited to that. Ever.

Alternatively...

If you're looking for a good, fun ruleset to play with likeminded buddies to have a good time pushing some models around and enjoying making "pew pew" sounds and rolling some dice? Warhammer 40K, 8th edition is the best version in a long time.

The Good:
-Bringing all types of models into the same system, making rules cross-over very easy and efficient.
-Faster gameplay, generally
-Easy and more logical psyker phase
-No more anti-template movement nonsense.
-Currrently no "free stuff" in a points/power level system.
-Nice selection of scenarios for various types of play
-Save modifiers returning are excellent
-Stratagems, traits and army rules are just clever enough to provide a feel of unique-ness to most playable armies.
-New wound chart is easy and logical (should have been carried over to melee/close combat actually)
-I like that most characters cannot be targeted as it gives them survivability in an increasingly deadly game.

The Bad:
-A bit too deadly. I'd have preferred fewer models with longer lifespans (and hence I still prefer 2nd edition)
-Terrain itself has little impact on the game (cover does), but this is a 5-second "house rule" away from being useful, something we frequently do. Chapter Approved should have included a couple pages of optional terrain rules to appease the masses.
-Auras. These should have been used far more sparingly. While logical for a chapter master or the occasional morale-inducing character, aura combinations can unsettle the game too much.
-Shooting from any small fragment of a vehicle is silly, but my buddies and I simply don't do it...so it's actually not an issue when we play. I can see arguments at tournaments etc. stemming from this.
-The continuance of "buy more models = gain more bonuses" as seen in many vehicle squadron style things - nowhere near the travesty of formations from 7th, but still a bit silly and blatant.
-Power creep is showing up as expected in the occasional codex and various stratagems or abilities which are much more potent than the earliest books.
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.
-Rules brevity. GW shot themselves in the foot here. You can see the result in the "You Make Da Call" forum section here. The desire to "appear" to have very simple and easy rules in 8-10 pages, GW installed on themselves a kind of fake character-limit, where almost every single rule section needed about one or two more sentences the make very clear some of the rules. While the intent is obvious 95% of the time...this is the internet and we are children. I've never seen more pedantic arguments over rules.

The Ugly:
-Army construction. GW's "Sales before gameplay" mantra has made 8th incredibly open...as such the army possibilities are heinous (maybe not as heinous as 7th's "get free stuff" detachment nonsense though). While this doesn't impact me as a casual player, I couldn't fathom trying to get into the tournament setting in this edition. The benefit of building whatever kind of army you like has made the tournament scene appear absolutely hideous.
-GW needs a technical manual for rules writing. Just as editors and writers use "style books" to codify how they write; GW's head of game design needs to issue a proper style book to keep various rules writers making cohesive, cogent and concise rules which are less open to interpretation or poor wording.
-The players. I play a lot of games, and have for 20+ years. 40K is still home to the largest group of 14-24 year olds who are just miserable on the surface. This is more notable online of course, as the local players are generally fine. 40K-heavy forums like Dakka Dakka are still pretty cesspoolish compared to normal wargaming forums. The vitriol, hate, and arguments is still among the worst. If I just read Dakka Dakka, I'd never consider playing 40K. Luckily in reality there are plenty of decent people playing it, but sometimes you wouldn't know from reading the forums. I admit I actually come on Dakka Dakka expressly for this sometimes, because it does amuse me.

In a timeline progression, it looks like this. But in a word disappointed.

Awesome i am in
Cool balanced
Hmm, bland not quite as balanced as initially thought
Ugh, bloody f*"^en over simplified rules can someone explain how my vehicles rear arc gun fires forward? Ya because simplicity. I can use the excuse ninja space elves, but seriously wtf GW.
10 codices before the years end, damn that is a lot, should be interesting.
WTF i just got smite/mortal wound spammed off the table, again.
WTF is this abomination of steel and flesh F*$k AM/IG. I need a break
Well eldar are just as much BS as AM/IG. Guess i will wait for chapter approved, it is going to help fix the imbalances between the codex/index meta.
Well nids are a thing, a scary unfun thing, maybe i should dust mine off... well this is pointless i practically need to buy a new army.
Chapter approved? Well, i guess they fixed forgeworld, ha winning? What miss represented fix for the indexes. Great stratagems, we need at least two or three more here GW. What are we the gamer version of Oliver, one more stratagem sir, please i need one more.
BA/DA codex drops, damn dark angels got some depth in here, Blood angels, well there goes the only 2 aspects of the game i can count on winning, mobility and close combat. Wonderful we got 3 of these players locally how fun.
Well hopefully my codex fixes this crap, time to quit playing 40k and wait.

Then there are the rules issues... the so streamlined, you get to bring a half dozen books to play a game BS some people are already dealing with.

How i feel about 8th, disappointed.

clownshoes wrote:
Then there are the rules issues... the so streamlined, you get to bring a half dozen books to play a game BS some people are already dealing with.

This tends to be personal choice more often than not though.

For example, I could write the Chapter Approved points costs with pencil in my codex (as designed; that's why the points are no on the unit pages after all). Then, build an army from the codex using only the free rules, and go play a game using only the free rules and my codex.

So that's 1 pamphlet and 1 book. If "carrying lots of books" makes or breaks the game, then make the personal decision not to. If it doesn't worry you so much (like it doesn't worry me) then bring the books or whatever. It's no different from not wanting to buy / build / bring certain models because they're harder to transport than other models. I rarely use my Marauder Destroyer for games, not because it's bad or doesn't fit or whatever but because it's fething @$! to transport.

That issue is why I chose to create two laminated front/back sheets for my two armies. On those sheets I have the full stats/rules of every model I own, their updated points costs, all the weapons, stratagems, spells, army rules, etc. I just update them as FAQ's, errata etc. come out. I bring my codex along in case someone has a question or wants to read the printed rules, but I actually don't bring anything to game with besides a rules cheat sheet and my army cheat sheets (with codex on standby).

I will say that one additional "bad" feature is that after CA, and all the FAQ, errata etc...some Codices are woefully wrong across numerous pages --- and I wish codices had been cheaper and softbound so they could be more readily abused with pencils/pens/stickers/post-it notes.

I'm pretty sure that when they first announced 8th, they said that there would be an army builder app or a web tool eventually. I really hope they'd get it done soon; with all these scattered point costs list building is pretty damn tedious.

I generally like it, yet with every edition, there are rules decisions that don't make any sense.

But I still have fun building, painting, and playing.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that when they first announced 8th, they said that there would be an army builder app or a web tool eventually. I really hope they'd get it done soon; with all these scattered point costs list building is pretty damn tedious.

They did but considering it took them a year to get AoS' done and a FB comment stating they priotiritised the painting app that might still be a few months/year out.

Overall I prefer 8th easier to explain to newbies and more penetrable as a whole.

 Elbows wrote:
The Bad:
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.

An average army uses three books now: BRB, Chapter Approved and the Codex or Index. Have you taken a look at what the first two actually contain and how many expansion rule books are basically included in those? If you're still using an Index you have about 15-20 books combined in those three books.

*edit* Just ask any Necron player how they see the release speed. The local Necron players here are crying for faster releases all the time since they're still waiting for theirs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

Why wouldn't it?

Because the barrels are about 5 feet apart, and the window's about 3 feet wide. Railgun or not, even the wall could cause the ammo to veer off-course. A more fluffy answer would be 'it risks blowing out more of the wall and causing the building to collapse on other troops". We play more 'fluffy' than not.

It's just our playstyle, man. I'm not advocating for everyone to adopt it specifically. The only thing I wish was universal was LOS from a weapon.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

Why wouldn't it?

Because the barrels are about 5 feet apart, and the window's about 3 feet wide. Railgun or not, even the wall could cause the ammo to veer off-course. A more fluffy answer would be 'it risks blowing out more of the wall and causing the building to collapse on other troops". We play more 'fluffy' than not.

It's just our playstyle, man. I'm not advocating for everyone to adopt it specifically. The only thing I wish was universal was LOS from a weapon.

Why wouldn't it? Because even the explosive shells fired by the Accelerator Cannon have a good chance of penetrating a Land Raider's armour, and I doubt houses are built as durably. And yes, it could cause the ammo to veer off course - that's among the abstractions that the +1 armour value from cover is supposed to represent: intervening terrain interfering with a shot.

I play "fluffy" too and "fluffily" my superheavy company commanders would gladly fire through windows with their huge cannons, even if it risked bringing the building down, if they were truly firing at something that warranted such firepower.

That's the problem with playing "fluffy." I consider myself a fluffy player, and I'm absolutely fine with the way LOS works in 8th, because I understand that there's far, far more going on on the battlefield than the models represent.

nekooni wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The Bad:
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.

An average army uses three books now: BRB, Chapter Approved and the Codex or Index. Have you taken a look at what the first two actually contain and how many expansion rule books are basically included in those? If you're still using an Index you have about 15-20 books combined in those three books.

*edit* Just ask any Necron player how they see the release speed. The local Necron players here are crying for faster releases all the time since they're still waiting for theirs.

I'm a necron player. I'm just glad I won't be waiting more than a year. Next time they whine ask of they'd rather they'd been on of the first books that were basically just the Index with some half-assed stratagems and generic dynasty traits.

I love 8th edition, I was literally a week away from selling all my stuff when I found out about 8th dropping. It plays fast, easy to learn/teach, and I have not had an unfun game yet when 1. both players are on the same page about WAAC type stuff in their lists, and 2. there is actually enough terrain on the table. Right now I think we need to see what it is like with all codex's released (which should be by the middle/end of this year) and then a bit of time.

I know people complain about the "smite spam" etc type lists, but there have always been broken 40k lists/armies. Always. I feel that 8th, between the codex armies, is much more balanced than previous editions with friendly games, and there were times when some codexes were not good even if your opponent brought a friendly list. Is it perfect? No, but I am still playing and that has to do with 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

Speaking as a former 19k tank crewman, a lot of our tank crew hitting 50% would be a good day. We had gunneriies where we had scores in the 30s. Moving tanks coupled with moving targets coupled with being shot at coupled with chaotic battlefield equals challenging shots for tank gunners.

Speaking for 8th edition:

I like the more streamlined rules.
I hate the dry humping of alpha striking design philosophy.
I hate the direction of the rules by trying to end the game by turn 2 or 3.
I hate the smite spam garbage.
I dislike the removal of facings and things that made positioning matter.

I rate 8th higher than 7th only because 7th was age of formations and free crap. 8th is fun but only with people that aren't playing to bust the game. Otherwise, the game is abysmal and makes no sense.

 Crimson wrote:
I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

Pretty awesome fast land raiders to spin on a spot fast enough for that seeing one turn is very short time(like seconds). Oh and ability to flip 90 degree sideway so your gun is somehow where your TOP armour used to be is pretty neat trick!

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

Pretty awesome fast land raiders to spin on a spot fast enough for that seeing one turn is very short time(like seconds). Oh and ability to flip 90 degree sideway so your gun is somehow where your TOP armour used to be is pretty neat trick!

You should have seen a Tyranid Exocrine do it in 3rd-7th. They were damn near interpretive dancers!

8th is great and my gaming group loves it. We all didn't play as much around the holidays because we were all so busy but we are all back in the sing of things painting and playing. Several of our members just started second armies they are enjoying it so much and judging how the shelves at my local game store clear out every week the game is very popular in my area.

I prefer 7th, but am having fun with 8th. So... Call it a wash.