Switch Theme:

8th moaners too soon?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

Well because I'm not trying to tell him that 8th is or is not good but to make him think about why could someone complain. And here there are reasons that someone could logically invoke to defend the "it's no good" side. See?

The subject at the beginning let me remind you Sir is not to determine whether 8th is good, but why poeple should or should not whine about it. Which is whay I tackle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 07:29:04


40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut





I honestly think that putting in abstract terrain rules would solve a hell of a lot of issues. If they just ported over 4th Edition's terrain rules it'd be perfect.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Irbis wrote:
 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.



You don’t know what your talking about if you think 3rd wasn’t a better ruleset that 8th, it had the most innovation, regular rules updates, great white dwarf articles, rules and FAQs, some of which are STILL in the game, the biggest downside of the ED was the slow codex delivery.

4th was arguably better, disagree? Argue why.

5th, was a damn site better than 8th, near the end of its life it got a little silly due to flyers, and would allocation was clunky, fix these two issues and you end up with a much better game than we have now.

6th, was utter crap

7th was ruined by codexs as you go on to whine about, the main rules we’re fine, they needed some tweaks in some areas and a re write in others but on the whole it was a better system than the mess 8th has turned into, 8th started well, but has ended up a hot mess, it lacks ENTIRE areas of rules that make it workable, a lot of the rules make no logical sense, it’s become too “samey” amongst units and armies, psychic phase is still pointless and boring.
   
Made in au
Drone without a Controller





Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.


Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

At what point did he whine about someone whining? He literally just disagreed with points made and made no other input, while you had a bitch fit about it and contributed nothing of any higher substance yourself.
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

 Irbis wrote:


thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

.


Literally two in a row.

That being fixed, let's move back to the discussion.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion wrote:


May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.


I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

My meta is maybe, not assault heavy, but everyone has stuff to do assault with. Even shoty armies like eldar or Imerial guard have assault units. I just never seem to be able to get a charge off, and not because I am not in range or something like that. It is just that either my stuff dies before it sees melee or the melee stuff of the other army charges me from across the board. That is why I was interested in any tips how to do it.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

My local meta is not assault heavy.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in vn
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






I wish my local pub wasn't assault heavy.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




My observations of 8th edition boil down to this:

There seems to be less time in rule books and less time arguing over EVERYTHING (scatter dice, armor facings, signification portion of model sight, how two USRs interact with each other, etc. etc.).

For all of the failings of 8th edition... it has one shining point that people tend to ignore: players spend more time playing and less time referencing/arguing.

I don't think there will ever be a perfect system, one that is beyond criticism... thus this argument will always be populated by people who tend to favor nostalgia. But I think 8th is just fine for far more than it is an absolute "will not play". Sounds pretty successful to me.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?


For all of the failings of 8th edition... it has one shining point that people tend to ignore: players spend more time playing and less time referencing/arguing.

I am not sure if that is the true. My games do get on fast, mostly because I don't have many special rules for my army, but when other people play against each other they have a ton of arguments about rules interaction. For example today I saw two eldar player have a 20 min argument about how their stratagems works and when they trigger. Our shop owner had to tell them to speed up, because they were taking up table.

When I played against the local demon player, I got lost in his explanation which demon is from what codex about 5 min in to reading his list. If I wanted to understand it in full, I would probablly require a ton of time and reading of faq and 3 codexs he uses.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 15:33:46


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

Karol wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?


I also run a vanguard detachment of Custodes... Dawneagles and Deep Strike.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.
   
Made in us
Sister Oh-So Repentia



Illinois

 LunarSol wrote:
I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.
Well said.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cTw8V1RMKo3Bu/giphy.gif

2k poorly optimized Necrons.
1k poorly assembled Sisters.

DR:90S++G+MB--I+Pw40k16#+D++A+/aWD-R++T(T)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

Archebius wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.
Well said.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cTw8V1RMKo3Bu/giphy.gif


Well said yes, not dumb, +1

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






Karol wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?


My local meta means my non-demonic marine heavy Death Guard sloggers are bashing it out with a bunch of guardsmen. We always have assaults. Even if the table teems with armour, I'll make it there to rip and tear. If you want to get close, the best mind set is to know you're going to lose parts of your force to buy time for the rest. Transports help as do fairly durable distraction carnifexes: mine are deepstriking Blightlord Terminators dropped right in front of their lines and a Contemptor Dreadnought that must be (and gets) shot down before it reaches melee. Combine that with enough terrain to hide at least some parts of your advance and you should make it just fine even without access to Disgusting Resilience.

I mean, playing with a board that isn't chock full of terrain is basically a crime anyway, so cover saves ought to be plentiful and full blocks should cover whole swathes of the field. Planet Bowling Ball XIV is not a good place to duke it out on.

#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.


Ah, the bandwagon fallacy. Yes, if many people enjoy something, it is popular by definition. But enjoyment is subjective. Whether a thing is high or low quality is objective. People may like Bud Light, but by all measures it is a poor beer. Whether a person can enjoy a can or not is irrelevant.

Many people may enjoy playing 8th, but that does not mean that 8th is a well-crafted ruleset, or that it couldn't improve and be even more fun.

Not to mention different people find different things fun. Some are happy with the list-building dice-chucking simplicity of 8th. Others tend to enjoy more complex games with some depth, built around in-game decision making instead.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Blastaar wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.


Ah, the bandwagon fallacy. Yes, if many people enjoy something, it is popular by definition. But enjoyment is subjective. Whether a thing is high or low quality is objective. People may like Bud Light, but by all measures it is a poor beer. Whether a person can enjoy a can or not is irrelevant.

Many people may enjoy playing 8th, but that does not mean that 8th is a well-crafted ruleset, or that it couldn't improve and be even more fun.

Not to mention different people find different things fun. Some are happy with the list-building dice-chucking simplicity of 8th. Others tend to enjoy more complex games with some depth, built around in-game decision making instead.


Maybe but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




BrianDavion wrote:
but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one


In response to the bolded portion, no we don't. We don't have to accept anything. If certain features of 40k are truly objectionable, people could simply stop purchasing GW products until the issues are fixed. Clearly, enough people are happy enough with 8th to keep buying kits, paint, brushes and rulebooks, but the point stands. The idea that the customer base at large doesn't have a say just isn't true. Without us there is no Games Workshop.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/13 06:17:34


 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Blastaar wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one


In response to the bolded portion, no we don't. We don't have to accept anything. If certain features of 40k are truly objectionable, people could simply stop purchasing GW products until the issues are fixed. Clearly, enough people are happy enough with 8th to keep buying kits, paint, brushes and rulebooks, but the point stands. The idea that the customer base at large doesn't have a say just isn't true. Without us there is no Games Workshop.


sure we could stop buying everything but it's eaither that or accept things. Allies for example, it's too useful for GW from a sales POV to ever see them gone.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Yeah people remember editions differently. Such as TLOS being a thing since 3rd ed.

Yet no one believes that...


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in fr
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





France

Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).


How did LoS work in 4th and before?

What were the problems with vehicules/transports rules?

Just for personal knowledge.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






As I said just before, TLOS has always been a thing since 3rd ed. The only exceptions were area terrain, which had their own rules and the addition of size categories to terrain in 4th.

Everything else is the same.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).


How did LoS work in 4th and before?

What were the problems with vehicules/transports rules?

Just for personal knowledge.



area terrain blocked line of sight for all intents and purposes, so that tree line could be seen into but not through, believe it was 3” or 6” into and out of.

This basically means that TLOS was not a thing as the abstraction precluded that.
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






I have been pretty happy with this edition so far. Most rules are straight forward and easy to implement without constantly flipping through the reference section of a rulebook/codex. Instead of spreading out infantry to avoid templates, now you are spreading them out to deny deepstrikes which is much faster. Most complaints I have are codex balance issues, which would happen regardless of how well the 8th ruleset is done. The most important change is still GW going from spitting on its fans like it was Justin Bieber to responding on facebook/twitch to questions. If this trend continues, 8th Edition will keep getting better with each FAQ and Chapter Approved even if it has to make a few slips along the way.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Formosa wrote:
 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).


How did LoS work in 4th and before?

What were the problems with vehicules/transports rules?

Just for personal knowledge.



area terrain blocked line of sight for all intents and purposes, so that tree line could be seen into but not through, believe it was 3” or 6” into and out of.

This basically means that TLOS was not a thing as the abstraction precluded that.


Yes, though the way people complain bout 8th edition you'd hear the following:

"You can see 6" through a woods, and my woods are only 5" wide so how come they can see through them?? GW writes bad terrain rules."

"Get better terrain!"

"Nuh-uh! GW should write better rules!"
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.


Yes, nostalgia in 40k is a strange thing.

People tend to remember the units / rules that hurt them the most and forget the ones that lead to the best games. Conversation about previous editions focus on the problems moreso than what worked right.

It feels like players expect the game to be perfect. Flaws aren't just something to be recognized, they echo in people's brains until it hurts. At some point we will move on from 8th, I wonder how it will be remembered.

   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.


Yes, and this is my issue with 8th edition. It is no fun at all. 7th edition, despite all the crap it had loaded on top of it, was nevertheless fun...sometimes. 8th is never fun. It is boring and featureless and lacks all the visualness and cinematics of the earlier editions. Everything is boring and grey.
Yeah, it takes slightly less time to play but since all that time is mind-numbing boring-ness, net fun is actually much less. Which is why I haven't played a 40k game for 6 months.

Mr Vetock, give back my Multi-tracker! 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.


I think you hit the nail on the head. The only problem with this is that, fastfood is cheap, discount beer is ultra cheap specially if it is "tax" free. w40k is probablly many things, but cheap is not one of those things. I think that many people are unhappy about GW games, because once they spend 900-1000$ on an army, they expect to have fun with it when they play. And they do not always seem to get that. Armies that are always good seem to make people happy, have not seen many eldar player pissed at GW, angry BA or orc players are a lot more common.



Yes, and this is my issue with 8th edition. It is no fun at all

I think it is conditionally fun. For me for example it is not fun, but I hope that a new codex will come out soon for my faction. But for someone else it can be ok, specially if they have multiple armies already bought in the past. If someone hears that he now has to spend 200$+ on IG to get minimum fun out of his army, but if he already has those IG models and maybe even bought them in the past when they cost half of that, it is going to be easier for him to stomach.
Plus there is some odd stuff I don't get that GW is saying, they put model painting or assembly on the same level as gaming, as if their models were on the same level as some Märklin or Siku.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: