8th moaners too soon?

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.

**Slipspace**

the_scotsman wrote:
Do people still not know how to make a terrain setup that works for 8th?

Come on guys. Go down the list.

Is it a big building that has a base: Use Ruins. The new definition of "Wholly On Or Within" makes based ruins work fine for conveying cover saves, because you can actually hide behind things, unlike in the early edition when many people thought the WHOLE unit and EVERY PART OF EVERY MODEL had to be inside the structure of a ruin or on top of it.

Is it a large, flat terrain piece that blocks no LOS, like a rubble field or a pond: It's a Crater. Vehicles can never claim cover from it, but infantry automatically do if they get inside it.

Is it a smallish piece, awkward for declaring as a Ruin because a whole unit would have a problem getting inside it: It's a statue. Statue is your "permissive terrain" rule for 8th ed, and you'll notice it's familiar because it's almost exactly the same as terrain from earlier editions. If you're within 3" of it, and you're obscured 25%, you're in cover. Pro tip! If you have a "forge the narrative" board with tons of small terrain bits, almost any unit that's going to be obscured from the perspective of the firer will end up being in cover!

And if you want a game that goes a great deal towards making cover easy to get, throw it all out the window and make everything a statue. You'll end up with almost no situations where a unit gets cover in 7th rules and not in 8th rules.

Most of the time when I run across one of these "Terrain in 8th is the sux" folks they usually haven't examined the rules for it since that very first couple weeks of 8th when people were like "lolz cant get cover with anything cuz cant get whole base inside!"

Or, y'know, the core rules of the game could actually deal with this instead? Saying you can change or adapt the rules isn't that helpful when it requires acceptance from all sides and also runs into the problem that everyone then starts playing their own custom versions of 40k. Not a problem if you have a small group with no new people joining and nobody playing elsewhere but it is problematic if you play in multiple groups or want to attract new players.

**Banville**

Slipspace wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Do people still not know how to make a terrain setup that works for 8th?

Come on guys. Go down the list.

Is it a big building that has a base: Use Ruins. The new definition of "Wholly On Or Within" makes based ruins work fine for conveying cover saves, because you can actually hide behind things, unlike in the early edition when many people thought the WHOLE unit and EVERY PART OF EVERY MODEL had to be inside the structure of a ruin or on top of it.

Is it a large, flat terrain piece that blocks no LOS, like a rubble field or a pond: It's a Crater. Vehicles can never claim cover from it, but infantry automatically do if they get inside it.

Is it a smallish piece, awkward for declaring as a Ruin because a whole unit would have a problem getting inside it: It's a statue. Statue is your "permissive terrain" rule for 8th ed, and you'll notice it's familiar because it's almost exactly the same as terrain from earlier editions. If you're within 3" of it, and you're obscured 25%, you're in cover. Pro tip! If you have a "forge the narrative" board with tons of small terrain bits, almost any unit that's going to be obscured from the perspective of the firer will end up being in cover!

And if you want a game that goes a great deal towards making cover easy to get, throw it all out the window and make everything a statue. You'll end up with almost no situations where a unit gets cover in 7th rules and not in 8th rules.

Most of the time when I run across one of these "Terrain in 8th is the sux" folks they usually haven't examined the rules for it since that very first couple weeks of 8th when people were like "lolz cant get cover with anything cuz cant get whole base inside!"

Or, y'know, the core rules of the game could actually deal with this instead? Saying you can change or adapt the rules isn't that helpful when it requires acceptance from all sides and also runs into the problem that everyone then starts playing their own custom versions of 40k. Not a problem if you have a small group with no new people joining and nobody playing elsewhere but it is problematic if you play in multiple groups or want to attract new players.

Yep. It's frickin annoying. Also, people constantly fail to measure vertical distances when assaulting over terrain. Because it's fiddly and counter intuitive.

Terrain should be - 1 To Hit if in soft cover. - 2 To Hit if in hard cover. Majority of the unit determines if this applies. If something is behind but not within terrain you can only target them if the terrain is smaller than the target unit. Terrain ranges in height from Size 5 to Size 0. GEQ are size one so LoS is blocked to and from them by Size 1 terrain. Marines etc are size 2. Most vehicles are Size 3. Land Raiders etc are size 4. Knights etc are size 5.

This would involve a rethink of indirect fire, especially regarding Guard mortars.

It'd also require an FAQ with every unit listed or at least every pertinent keyword and their relevant Size.

Players decide the height of the all the terrain pieces before the battle.

Job done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, moving through terrain subtracts 2" from horizontal distance and 2" from charge rolls.

**Purifying Tempest**

You had me until you said -1 or -2 TO HIT.

I don't think this edition needs any more ways to sleaze penalties to hit.

You put an Alaitoc Ranger squad in scatter terrain and now they are automatically -3 to be hit. I can taste the salt from that proposition already. But at least most Ork players will just shrug and laugh it off... they already were at 7+ to hit them with the rules as written, what's 8+? IG will probably be the most disgruntled, though, as they are now Ork levels of bad against a very strong army.

**Primark G**

Formosa wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Formosa wrote:
I’ve played sparingly since chapter approved but that’s for several reasons.

Firstly: we are primarily a 30k group, it’s just the game we prefer using the rules we prefer.

Secondly: 8th to me is just too lacklustre, same as 7th 40k, as soon as the book dropped we all went over it and noticed a lack in key areas WE enjoyed, they still haven’t fixed the psy phase and have repeated the mistakes of editions passed with it, I remember leaving a long post about it to GW prior to 8th dropping, cover and movement took a big hit too, while they have recently tried to address this, it didn’t go far enough.

Lastly: I’m waiting, I don’t see 8th as a finished product but fully expect it to be relatively soon, I think it’s fair that I criticise Gw formissing some glaring issues but I don’t think it’s fair that I haven’t applauded them for Trying to resolve them.

I’ve never seen the appeal of 30k Space Marines vs Space Marines For days right? A lot of same builds too - Leviathan dreadnaught in a drop pod, Primarch of Praetor in Spartan with terminators or some elite melee unit, quad launchers with Phosphex shells, sergeants tanking Bolter Fire with artificer armor... just seems incredibly boring.

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

And lastly it’s not just marines, that’s a popular misconception.

18 legions
Custodes
Solar auxilia
Imperial militia
Renegades and heretics guard (same as above with tweaks)
Black shields
Deamons
Mechanicum (which is about 5 different armies)
Soon to be dark mechanicum

Optional:
Eldar
Orks
Dark eldar
Etc.

7th ed codexs still work, you just take away formations and give them the age of darkness FOC, a few tweaks are needed here and there though.

Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

I have never seen eldar playing 30k lol that was a good one. When I do see a 30k game there’s usually lots of arguments due to the many problems with 7th edition rules.

**Banville**

Purifying Tempest wrote:
You had me until you said -1 or -2 TO HIT.

I don't think this edition needs any more ways to sleaze penalties to hit.

You put an Alaitoc Ranger squad in scatter terrain and now they are automatically -3 to be hit. I can taste the salt from that proposition already. But at least most Ork players will just shrug and laugh it off... they already were at 7+ to hit them with the rules as written, what's 8+? IG will probably be the most disgruntled, though, as they are now Ork levels of bad against a very strong army.

I'd argue that's a codex rather that a core problem. If those terrain rules were in operation, then surely nobody would consider writing stackable, cheap minus modifiers into a codex. That'd be ridiculous.....

**Formosa**

Primark G wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Formosa wrote:
I’ve played sparingly since chapter approved but that’s for several reasons.

Firstly: we are primarily a 30k group, it’s just the game we prefer using the rules we prefer.

Secondly: 8th to me is just too lacklustre, same as 7th 40k, as soon as the book dropped we all went over it and noticed a lack in key areas WE enjoyed, they still haven’t fixed the psy phase and have repeated the mistakes of editions passed with it, I remember leaving a long post about it to GW prior to 8th dropping, cover and movement took a big hit too, while they have recently tried to address this, it didn’t go far enough.

Lastly: I’m waiting, I don’t see 8th as a finished product but fully expect it to be relatively soon, I think it’s fair that I criticise Gw formissing some glaring issues but I don’t think it’s fair that I haven’t applauded them for Trying to resolve them.

I’ve never seen the appeal of 30k Space Marines vs Space Marines For days right? A lot of same builds too - Leviathan dreadnaught in a drop pod, Primarch of Praetor in Spartan with terminators or some elite melee unit, quad launchers with Phosphex shells, sergeants tanking Bolter Fire with artificer armor... just seems incredibly boring.

Fair enough but please allow me to explain.

Take your 40k mindset, take a leak on it, douse it in petrol and then set it on fire.... 30k players almost universally have a different mind set to 40k players when playing the game, for us it usually goes like this.

It it cool?
Is it fluffy ?
-
-
Is it good?

We will happily take inefficient units if they fit the theme of our army, rampagers, primarchs etc. Are all incredibly inefficient.

Things like artificer armour on sarges... meh, not every takes it and it’s super easy to get around, lolviathan in a pod, rare as rocking horse gak, mostly you will see dakka ones if you see one at all, same with spartan full of legion elite unique unit, these are all assumptions of a 40k player using the 40k mindset to build lists, 30k is fluff first, theme second, power last.

And lastly it’s not just marines, that’s a popular misconception.

18 legions
Custodes
Solar auxilia
Imperial militia
Renegades and heretics guard (same as above with tweaks)
Black shields
Deamons
Mechanicum (which is about 5 different armies)
Soon to be dark mechanicum

Optional:
Eldar
Orks
Dark eldar
Etc.

7th ed codexs still work, you just take away formations and give them the age of darkness FOC, a few tweaks are needed here and there though.

Finally, Call us 30kers elitist snobs if you please, but a lot of us have seen the utter crap fest 40k is due to the WAAC attitude that has filtered down into casual play (for several editions), we don’t want that, it’s not welcome.

I have never seen eldar playing 30k lol that was a good one. When I do see a 30k game there’s usually lots of arguments due to the many problems with 7th edition rules.

Eldar are an odd one in 30k, they took part in the heresy but are not represented in the newer fluff other than eldrad and a short apearence in Fulgrim, however given the scale of the war it’s not a stretch to include them.

**Primark G**

Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

**Banville**

Primark G wrote:
Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

You are one hundred per cent wrong. For days.

**Jidmah**

Banville wrote:

Yep. It's frickin annoying. Also, people constantly fail to measure vertical distances when assaulting over terrain. Because it's fiddly and counter intuitive.

Terrain should be - 1 To Hit if in soft cover. - 2 To Hit if in hard cover. Majority of the unit determines if this applies. If something is behind but not within terrain you can only target them if the terrain is smaller than the target unit. Terrain ranges in height from Size 5 to Size 0. GEQ are size one so LoS is blocked to and from them by Size 1 terrain. Marines etc are size 2. Most vehicles are Size 3. Land Raiders etc are size 4. Knights etc are size 5.

This would involve a rethink of indirect fire, especially regarding Guard mortars.

It'd also require an FAQ with every unit listed or at least every pertinent keyword and their relevant Size.

Players decide the height of the all the terrain pieces before the battle.

Job done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, moving through terrain subtracts 2" from horizontal distance and 2" from charge rolls.

Way too complicated. I once played a game at a convention which had very simple terrain rules: If at least one model in a shooting unit could not draw a direct line to at least one model from the target rule without passing through a piece of terrain or another unit, the targeted unit would be in cover. If you had to draw that line through multiple obstacles, the bonus would add up, always using the model with the least obstructions to determine the cover bonus. The line would just be drawn on ground level, and a ruin or a forest would count as obstruction, even when you are shooting through windows or between trees.

It felt really intuitive, and you didn't have any of those "can I see this?" arguments.

**LunarSol**

Cover affects the Armor save instead of the To Hit roll because armor saves are done individually. Because armor saves are technically done one at a time, you can have a unit half in cover and when the half out of cover dies, the unit starts getting cover. It's actually a really neat, cinematic effect, where a guy in a squad that doesn't get to cover tends to die first.

**Asmodios**

Have to agree with everyone saying blast markers caused tons of fights. Even in the most casual games there was always a 10-minute discussion about a toe being covered or not and always resulted in a third party person having to judge. I don't know what was so hard about holding a ruler straight but 80% of people I watched play struggled with it. At first, i was totally against the removal of blast templates but after watching 1 game where i wasn't called over to measure for 2 of my friends i was sold. The amount of time not having blast templates saves in arguing and model spacing is well worth getting rid of them.

**amanita**

We still use blast templates in our rules and don't have any problems unless our own TFG is playing. We don't have any issues with scatter die either, even though we all want to win and are fairly competitive. Maybe because we are all playing with friends we don't have any real issues.

Come to think of it, the vehicle arcs are never a problem either unless the aforementioned TFG is playing. Then it IS a crisis, and almost every time.

**Formosa**

Primark G wrote:
Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

So I’m making up that forge world made mechanicum, solor auxilia renegades and heretics and imperial militia... damn I’m good I’ve managed to both write the rules, produce the books AND manufacture the models, not to mention selling them to all the players that have them... damn I’m good

There is no debate to be had here, your wrong.

**LunarSol**

I find blast markers less of an argument issue and more of a game speed one. They are silly slow to resolve and if an army uses a lot of them they pretty drastically drag the pace of the game down. I still like them better than whatever it is we have now, but I get the desire to replace them.

**nurgle5**

LunarSol wrote:
I find blast markers less of an argument issue and more of a game speed one. They are silly slow to resolve and if an army uses a lot of them they pretty drastically drag the pace of the game down. I still like them better than whatever it is we have now, but I get the desire to replace them.

Have to agree on the game speed point. Now I only really found all the nonsense with resolving blasts -- potential parallax issues during the scattering procedure and while determining hits, etc. -- only slowed things down noticeably in "competitive games", something that blighted most games (YMMV) was the finicky movement and spacing to mitigate template damage as much as possible. I do prefer the current system to the templates because I'd rather have the dissatisfaction of only hitting one enemy with flamer than suffering through overly long shuffling phases to avoid the templates in the first place!

**DominayTrix**

Formosa wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

So I’m making up that forge world made mechanicum, solor auxilia renegades and heretics and imperial militia... damn I’m good I’ve managed to both write the rules, produce the books AND manufacture the models, not to mention selling them to all the players that have them... damn I’m good

There is no debate to be had here, your wrong.

That isn't what he is saying at all. He is saying sure they may be in the setting, but nobody picks them. Although you are probably right that other armies get played since Custodes are supposed to be one of the highest tier armies right now and AdMech seems to have a cult following that doesn't care if its good in 30k or 40k. They just play them since they love them. Still, the narrative is pretty much all space marines all the time so I can understand why the vast majority of people would pick space marines.

**the_scotsman**

Slipspace wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Do people still not know how to make a terrain setup that works for 8th?

Come on guys. Go down the list.

Is it a big building that has a base: Use Ruins. The new definition of "Wholly On Or Within" makes based ruins work fine for conveying cover saves, because you can actually hide behind things, unlike in the early edition when many people thought the WHOLE unit and EVERY PART OF EVERY MODEL had to be inside the structure of a ruin or on top of it.

Is it a large, flat terrain piece that blocks no LOS, like a rubble field or a pond: It's a Crater. Vehicles can never claim cover from it, but infantry automatically do if they get inside it.

Is it a smallish piece, awkward for declaring as a Ruin because a whole unit would have a problem getting inside it: It's a statue. Statue is your "permissive terrain" rule for 8th ed, and you'll notice it's familiar because it's almost exactly the same as terrain from earlier editions. If you're within 3" of it, and you're obscured 25%, you're in cover. Pro tip! If you have a "forge the narrative" board with tons of small terrain bits, almost any unit that's going to be obscured from the perspective of the firer will end up being in cover!

And if you want a game that goes a great deal towards making cover easy to get, throw it all out the window and make everything a statue. You'll end up with almost no situations where a unit gets cover in 7th rules and not in 8th rules.

Most of the time when I run across one of these "Terrain in 8th is the sux" folks they usually haven't examined the rules for it since that very first couple weeks of 8th when people were like "lolz cant get cover with anything cuz cant get whole base inside!"

Or, y'know, the core rules of the game could actually deal with this instead? Saying you can change or adapt the rules isn't that helpful when it requires acceptance from all sides and also runs into the problem that everyone then starts playing their own custom versions of 40k. Not a problem if you have a small group with no new people joining and nobody playing elsewhere but it is problematic if you play in multiple groups or want to attract new players.

The core rules of 40k have always given players a variety of different rulesets for different terrain types and told players to agree upon which terrain piece is which before a battle. This has always been the case. If you read the 2nd ed rulebook, you learn the number of structure points in a Tent Or Inflatable Structure before you learn how to shoot a gun in the shooting phase.

it's stupid to argue "8th ed is ruining the way the game worked back in the Good Old Days" when you're complaining about things that have not changed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Banville wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Do people still not know how to make a terrain setup that works for 8th?

Come on guys. Go down the list.

Is it a big building that has a base: Use Ruins. The new definition of "Wholly On Or Within" makes based ruins work fine for conveying cover saves, because you can actually hide behind things, unlike in the early edition when many people thought the WHOLE unit and EVERY PART OF EVERY MODEL had to be inside the structure of a ruin or on top of it.

Is it a large, flat terrain piece that blocks no LOS, like a rubble field or a pond: It's a Crater. Vehicles can never claim cover from it, but infantry automatically do if they get inside it.

Is it a smallish piece, awkward for declaring as a Ruin because a whole unit would have a problem getting inside it: It's a statue. Statue is your "permissive terrain" rule for 8th ed, and you'll notice it's familiar because it's almost exactly the same as terrain from earlier editions. If you're within 3" of it, and you're obscured 25%, you're in cover. Pro tip! If you have a "forge the narrative" board with tons of small terrain bits, almost any unit that's going to be obscured from the perspective of the firer will end up being in cover!

And if you want a game that goes a great deal towards making cover easy to get, throw it all out the window and make everything a statue. You'll end up with almost no situations where a unit gets cover in 7th rules and not in 8th rules.

Most of the time when I run across one of these "Terrain in 8th is the sux" folks they usually haven't examined the rules for it since that very first couple weeks of 8th when people were like "lolz cant get cover with anything cuz cant get whole base inside!"

Or, y'know, the core rules of the game could actually deal with this instead? Saying you can change or adapt the rules isn't that helpful when it requires acceptance from all sides and also runs into the problem that everyone then starts playing their own custom versions of 40k. Not a problem if you have a small group with no new people joining and nobody playing elsewhere but it is problematic if you play in multiple groups or want to attract new players.

Yep. It's frickin annoying. Also, people constantly fail to measure vertical distances when assaulting over terrain. Because it's fiddly and counter intuitive.

Terrain should be - 1 To Hit if in soft cover. - 2 To Hit if in hard cover. Majority of the unit determines if this applies. If something is behind but not within terrain you can only target them if the terrain is smaller than the target unit. Terrain ranges in height from Size 5 to Size 0. GEQ are size one so LoS is blocked to and from them by Size 1 terrain. Marines etc are size 2. Most vehicles are Size 3. Land Raiders etc are size 4. Knights etc are size 5.

This would involve a rethink of indirect fire, especially regarding Guard mortars.

It'd also require an FAQ with every unit listed or at least every pertinent keyword and their relevant Size.

Players decide the height of the all the terrain pieces before the battle.

Job done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, moving through terrain subtracts 2" from horizontal distance and 2" from charge rolls.

Unless I'm TFG playing a shooting army and I refuse to agree that any terrain piece is over Height 1 no matter how tall it is.

Because that is exactly the objection that was brought up against the current terrain rules. "oh those TFG shooting army players will just refuse to allow you to rule the terrain in a way that it actually grants cover".

**Primark G**

Formosa wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

So I’m making up that forge world made mechanicum, solor auxilia renegades and heretics and imperial militia... damn I’m good I’ve managed to both write the rules, produce the books AND manufacture the models, not to mention selling them to all the players that have them... damn I’m good

There is no debate to be had here, your wrong.

Can’t argue with delusional.

**Tyel**

I guess its a sign of the times when you can look at Solar Auxilia and think "They are not that expensive."

Oh wait.. no. They are.

**Formosa**

Primark G wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Primark G wrote:
Nah no one plays them in 30k. Other than broke AF mechanicum it’s marine versus marine for days. If that’s your bag more power to you.

So I’m making up that forge world made mechanicum, solor auxilia renegades and heretics and imperial militia... damn I’m good I’ve managed to both write the rules, produce the books AND manufacture the models, not to mention selling them to all the players that have them... damn I’m good

There is no debate to be had here, your wrong.

Can’t argue with delusional.

Your absolutely correct, I could not agree more

**Skaorn**

Can we start a different thread about whether or not 30K is just about banging two SM armies together? I honestly wouldn't mind discussing it but it's off topic here.

As for as templates go, the most time consuming aspect I found was waiting for a player to find the best place to put their small blast template over a squad to get the most effect. Normally it was followed by:

"I see 1 and 3 partials" or "2 and 1 partial"
"Looks about right"
<Roll for partials>

That was my general experience with templates. There were exceptions but usually from players that no one really wanted to play anyways because of things like persistent rules lawyering. My most notable was playing a railhead vs IG. My opponent's army was beautifully painted and converted but he was not a good player. He was kind of known for his temper when loosing, not towards other players either, but many people commented that they thought he was going to start smashing his models into the wall when they failed him. I was just playing mop up at that point in the game so I fired a submunitions shot at his only remaining intact infantry squad. I said it got most of the squad, he claimed a lot of it was partial, we argued for a minute or two but ultimately I just relented becaused I didn't want him taking a hammer to his army. That's about the only argument I remember having with someone who wasn't a rules lawyer who would still find things to argue about in 8th.

**amanita**

Skaorn, since when have partial hits been a thing? Wasn't it 5th Ed where all partials counted as hits? That's how we play it.

I can understand the time used for templates being a factor, but it depends on what you want in a tabletop combat game. I think templates are totally worth it because they affect positioning, something 8th Ed apparently lacks. The lack of vehicle arcs just adds to that empty submersion. On this scale of game arcs should be a crucial part of maneuver, IMO. And before anyone says otherwise I just hope they don't try to justify the meaningless variety of close combat weapons and their ponderous implementation on this same game scale!

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

amanita wrote:
Skaorn, since when have partial hits been a thing? Wasn't it 5th Ed where all partials counted as hits? That's how we play it.

I can understand the time used for templates being a factor, but it depends on what you want in a tabletop combat game. I think templates are totally worth it because they affect positioning, something 8th Ed apparently lacks. The lack of vehicle arcs just adds to that empty submersion. On this scale of game arcs should be a crucial part of maneuver, IMO. And before anyone says otherwise I just hope they don't try to justify the meaningless variety of close combat weapons and their ponderous implementation on this same game scale!

Agreed for the fact that templates objectively requires more thinking from your part to avoid being killed off.

Agreed as well that the way 40k manages vehicules as of now is best suited for a larger scale, what you see is important when representing a skirmish with models supposedly letting you see the fight unfold.

**Backfire**

I loved templates. I agree that particularly small blast template was often hard to place and source of frequent arguments but in friendly games these were resolved without issue. In competive games it might have been different.

Templates added degree of realism and cinematics to the game as their unpredictability was fun, you might hit multiple units, or even friendly units (which frequently happens in real life). Nowadays if you have 1 guy between two huge infantry clumps, that character can be targeted by Baneblade blast without two other units taking a hit...real stupid.

**the_scotsman**

I'll definitely agree that 8th is somewhat streamlined when it comes to shooting compared to 7th.

The removal of Jink, the addition of universal Split Fire, the removal of Vehicle facings, and the removal of Templates made shooting a great deal more point-and-click.

on the other side, sometimes things being more reliable/simple makes for more tactical decision making as well. Postioning your army vs Deep Strike is now a concrete factor because you know how far away they must land, you can create screens and no-go zones. The addition of stratagems and how to allocate your command points is another tactical decision point that didn't exist in 7th, and I think the switch from formation benefits to that was a positive change in a big way.

melee, on the other hand, is night and day between the 5th ed paradigm to now. The number of decisions you have to make when charging something in 8th is vastly increased from 7th, and the difference between a poorly executed close combat round (wrong combatant order leaving you open to a Counter Attack, wrong closest model positioning screwing your Pile In, wrong Consolidate leaving you open to a Fall Back) and a well-executed close combat round is much, much wider than the difference between a poor or smart shooting phase.Often, depending on the army, getting shot is more tactical than shooting, because of Stratagems and choosing which models to remove.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

As far as close combat, I don't really know what it could have done at all with 8th's modifications. We house ruled it to make it way simpler because we found it overly and uselessly complicated, plus that lends the orks a hand: basically, if after the overwatch you can still reach the unit, the units is fully engaged and fight with all their models regardless of piles in, first opponents and so on.

**Backfire**

IMO, command points are an incredibly lame mechanic. Every game I have played which has featured 'command point' system, they have been added as an afterthought when the designer of the game realized that the game didn't have enough depth and some spurious mechanic was added on top of it.

I found command points simply an annoying thing to keep track of, not adding any kind of meaningful tactical aspect at all.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Backfire wrote:
IMO, command points are an incredibly lame mechanic. Every game I have played which has featured 'command point' system, they have been added as an afterthought when the designer of the game realized that the game didn't have enough depth and some spurious mechanic was added on top of it.

I found command points simply an annoying thing to keep track of, not adding any kind of meaningful tactical aspect at all.

I agree that I don't believe it is any tactical. It just helps you shred that one unit you point and click against.

Actually when I heard of it I thought they had brought back the old special abilities from v2. I obviously don't know if it was any good as I didn't pay the edition but it at least sound appealing as heck and that would be possibly a great way to enhance the game.

**Backfire**

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

Backfire wrote:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I believe you can try to create no go zones against deep strike for any edition, just deny the interesting positions.

Randomness in deep strikes was IMO good thing as defender could choose to have 100% coverage, or risk it and deploy army more efficiently but potentially leave room for dangerous (but risky) deep strike.
That said, I think deep strike was bit too random and dangerous in old editions which often made it tactically useless unless you had Drop pods or some no-scatter rule.

I wonder how it'd had been with a 1d6 scatter. Mybe to powerful this time, but also more reliable. We'll never know.