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.

Forced Challenges were pretty stupid.

Hull points. They weren't entirely a bad idea but when even a land raider only had 4 and you could get one with a glancing shot it made tanks laughably weak.

Special rules referring to universal special rules that just referred to other universal special rules.

Infantry, cavalry, beasts, jump infantry, jet pack infantry, bikes jetbikes, Eldar jetbikes, monstrous creatures, chariots, vehicles, flyers, flying monstrous creatures, super heavy vehicles, gargantuan creatures...

'Guess"-range weapons.

Stux wrote:
So you make a condescending statement with nothing to back it up, and then when challenged attempt to somehow take the high ground? Fantastic.

Don't feed the troll. Report, ignore, move on.

A lot of stuff!

- blasts
- scatter die
- challenges
- deathstars
- invisibility and that terrain-moving psy-power
- grav-guns
- re-rollable 2++
- free formations
- frag cannons
- serpent shield
- AV
- AP system
- jink after moving only 1"

Damn, I'm glad there is an 8th ed

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- Several people disliked some of the more nuanced tactical elements of 40k and were glad they were removed.

I agree.



When one facepalm is not sufficient...

Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

 Imateria wrote:
Agree with most of whats been said in here, I'll add the old Weapon Skill chart though. It doesn't matter if your the single best close combat fighter in the entire galaxy, you're still only hitting your opponent on 3's and they'll be hitting you back on 4's.

35 pages of Vehicle rules, all of which combined to make said vehicles utter trash unless they were a Fast Skimmer. Heck, the majority of unit type rules were terrible all told anyway.

WS:
To which edition of the rules does this apply? Models with poor WS (less than half of opponent) would hit the enemy only on 5+ (3rd to 5th).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orblivion wrote:
Charging and being forced to fight last because the model is equipped with an axe.

This also applied to power fists and thunder hammers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:
2nd edition where you could load up a character with a metric ton of gear that gave them multiple saves, and they were allowed to use every save every time. So if your character had two forcefields and a special set of armor, he had three saving throws available at all times, and could take all of them every time he was attacked. Occasionally, it made for some very cinematic moments. Most of the time, it simply became the reason my group didn't outlaw vortex grenades.

I also don't miss:

re-rollable 2++
7th ed psychic phase
using % of total points to determine how your army was made up (instead of a force-org chart)
excessive modifiers - "My gun has an ap mod of -2, but I'm at medium range so -1, but you have hard cover so +2, but I moved so ..."
While I still think "Foot of Mork" should be in the game as the old green foot-shaped template, I don't miss the other templates
Stun locked vehicles

2nd:
SM could take three wargear cards. That´s a metric ton of wargear for you? Models could also only have one source of an invulnerable save. So you could not equip a character with a refraction, conversion and displacer field all at once.
Vortex grenades were just fine to remove high value targets that couldn´t be touched by small arms fire. The model throwing the grenade though would instantly die next turn due to return fire because it left himself pretty exposed. Also bear in mind that you had to throw the grenade and were not able to fire it via a grenade launcher. This meant to get the guy in position was not very easy due to the Overwatch mechanic.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

Do you honestly miss measuring it out to ensure that every model is exactly 2" away from each other?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

Do you honestly miss measuring it out to ensure that every model is exactly 2" away from each other?

Let's be honest, how often in practice did that happen? Most people didn't give a gak.

Let me ask you a counter question- are you tired of seeing post after post saying Leman Russes, Vindicators etc are gak and the dafty "solutions" people come up with to fix them within the boundaries of 8th? Because I am. There's a simple fix to bring them back to how they were previously, a 5" circle of perspex.

Instant death
no ability to charge after arriving from reserves
grav guns
jink saves, especially rerollable ones.
invisibility
newer walkers being better MCs than the real MCs.
flamers, especially on teleporting/flying units.
that stupid SW spell removing Nid monsters in line with a single initiative check.

IME it happened quite often. People who were playing to win, whether in a casual or competitive environment, were spreading their models out to ensure minimum damage from blasts. I didn't like doing it but eventually had to start when I realized that a lot more of my models were dying to blasts than theirs.

As for your question, blasts vs. no blasts is pretty irrelevant in terms of certain units being good or bad. The Doomsday Ark was crap in 7th and is great now, the Plagueburst Crawler is another excellent tank in 8th.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

Do you honestly miss measuring it out to ensure that every model is exactly 2" away from each other?

Let's be honest, how often in practice did that happen? Most people didn't give a gak.

How often? Every single game when you moved, ran or consolidated with an ork infantry model, for four editions. So ten thousands of times per ork player.

You basically auto-lost with orks if you didn't do it.


You cannot hand-wave this massive disadvantage of blast and flamer templates, no matter how bad their current implementation is.

Blasts were annoying due to the gamey counter to them, which slowed the game down.

Plus the endless arguements created by the scattering.

Just bad all round.

The new mechanic isn't perfect, due in part to GW's obsession with randomness. If the weapons had a fixed number of shots it would really help them. As they are it is rolling dice to roll more dice.

GW have some good ideas, but execute them very poorly, it is something that isn't new, and I guess it isn't going to be fixed anytime soon. These faults allow them to produce a new edition every couple of years with the claim to be fixing the issues

 stonehorse wrote:
Blasts were annoying due to the gamey counter to them, which slowed the game down.

Plus the endless arguements created by the scattering.

Just bad all round.

The new mechanic isn't perfect, due in part to GW's obsession with randomness. If the weapons had a fixed number of shots it would really help them. As they are it is rolling dice to roll more dice.

GW have some good ideas, but execute them very poorly, it is something that isn't new, and I guess it isn't going to be fixed anytime soon. These faults allow them to produce a new edition every couple of years with the claim to be fixing the issues

the biggest problem with the current system is a battle cannon shot at a character not hits the character multiple times, that's easy eneugh to fix in a future edition though

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

Do you honestly miss measuring it out to ensure that every model is exactly 2" away from each other?

Let's be honest, how often in practice did that happen? Most people didn't give a gak.

How often? Every single game when you moved, ran or consolidated with an ork infantry model, for four editions. So ten thousands of times per ork player.

You basically auto-lost with orks if you didn't do it.


You cannot hand-wave this massive disadvantage of blast and flamer templates, no matter how bad their current implementation is.

Yes I can, as my anecdotal evidence contradicts yours.

Ugh, yeah forced challenges were pretty dumb.
A big bad demon prince or whatever gets completely held up by an infantry squad, because they were able to force it to miss a turn by ramming their sergeant down its throat. Oh wait, here comes another dirt cheap sergeant, open wide!

Making wounds inflicted in a challenge overflow into the squad was one of the things 7th actually got right. (or at least got better than 6th. Challenges still weren't a great mechanic)

Yeah, or you could just go to the battlereport forum on this board and find actual proof.

No, wait, you just want to be right, not to have an argument. Sorry.

 Overread wrote:
The old Tyranid "make what you want" section of the codex. One edition (I forget which, but the one that came with the launch of Old One Eye and Red Terror) allowed you to either use the standard codex rules or go to the back and totally customise the tyranids.

You could change stats, change weapon limits etc... If you wanted you could make an entire group of Venom Cannon holding warriors.

It was not only totally open to being broken, but I felt it added a layer of complexity way beyond what is healthy for a miniatures wargame of GW's general scale. If it were for 5 aside games fine, but for larger armies it was just way too much random stat changing and I'm glad it never became a standard thing within Tyranids nor within the game itself.



Otherwise a good few of the rules people dislike appear to not be " bad ideas" but bad rulings on good ideas. Having fire arcs on tanks isn't a bad idea, its a very neat idea; but it did need far better balancing so that tanks were viable and sensible.

The Tyranids codex was from 2001 and the possibility for customisation was not only restricted to bugs at that time. SM & IG could specialize too. There are people out there which like to have rules with detail and they had a blast with this book. Here is an example of a mutated Tyranid Warrior (TW) which has 3 biomorphs (max. six) and a big gun:

TW (14 pts.)
Unit size: 3 to 9
- Improved Senses (+ 1 BS, +2 pts.)
- Toxinkammer (+1 S, +3 pts.)
- Chitin plates (4+ save, +3 pts.)
- Biozidkanone (+10 pts.)
Total cost: 32 pts.

Profile: WS BS S T W I A Ld Save
TW 4 3 5 4 2 4 2 10 4+

Biozidkanone: Range STR AP SR
36´´ X+2 4 Assault X (in this case 2 because the model has two attacks), causes only glancing hits on vehicles.

I wouldn´t call this model op. It is more of a glass cannon. Okay, it is cheap for it´s offensive capabilities but the likes of krak missiles & whatnot will remove it instantly and anything with AP 4 is also really unhealthy for this bug.

Also remember that you were stuck with your mutated organisms and couldn´t change the biomorph loadout in later games for this unit.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:
Why are we doing happy clap songs about what we dont miss when this edition is a steaming pile of Tau?

Because people can then pretend that 8th is great.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Agree with most of whats been said in here, I'll add the old Weapon Skill chart though. It doesn't matter if your the single best close combat fighter in the entire galaxy, you're still only hitting your opponent on 3's and they'll be hitting you back on 4's.

35 pages of Vehicle rules, all of which combined to make said vehicles utter trash unless they were a Fast Skimmer. Heck, the majority of unit type rules were terrible all told anyway.

WS:
To which edition of the rules does this apply? Models with poor WS (less than half of opponent) would hit the enemy only on 5+ (3rd to 5th).

The chart stayed the same in 3rd through 7th, and was useless in all 5 editions. It was very rare for an opponent to be forced to hit on 5's, it proved to be a dreadful way to demonstrate the supposed skill of the units involved.

To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the fixed roll set up we now have, but it's considerably better than the screw up that was the old WS chart, and I'm not sure there is a perfect set up given the volume of dice that can be rolled.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, or you could just go to the battlereport forum on this board and find actual proof.

No, wait, you just want to be right, not to have an argument. Sorry.

So firsthand experience and hundreds of games played over 2 decades count for nothing? Usually the people that insist on doing it are a bunch of bellends and not worth my time playing anyway as there would be several other pernickety things that'll make the game a chore to play as well.

sweeping advance.
rhino rush spam.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

Templates were a fun idea for a skirmish game. For a game with triple digits worth of models on a board, units of 30 or even 50 models, and units shooting potentially a dozen or more templates, they got out of hand, *especially* in 7E. They're also an extra piece of losable stuff you have to buy and carry everywhere, and were a constant source of potential argument issues and rules weirdness. GW also never really was able to balance them well, particularly issues with things like earthshaker cannons where they were supposed to be multirole weapons that were *really* bad at actually hurting big things (e.g. they could only ever do 1 wound to an MC) or small blasts where something like a single grenade launcher in an infantry squad was more trouble to resolve than it was worth to shoot typically.

Where do we see blast templates remain in modern gaming? In relatively small scale skirmish games like Infinity and Warmahordes where they work far better.

 Brutallica wrote:
Why are we doing happy clap songs about what we dont miss when this edition is a steaming pile of Tau?

You didn't read the original post about trying to be more positive for a change did you? I mean, I know it's hard. This is the internet afterall and we're not allowed to like anything on the internet that isn't a kitten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Love how the GW kool aid has truly been drank with blasts. No, templates were good. The bass ackwards system we have right now is daft.

3 years ago it was points in AoS, now it's blasts. What is the next common gaming concept to become the equivelant of the devil?

I'm going to disagree, if only because they were a source of many arguements, lead to slower games due to model spacing and generally just made the game more complex than it needed to be.

Sure, they were fun at times, but they were a headache a lot more often. About the only change I'd make to the current system is making it a single shot that rolls a set number of d3 for the hit it makes (with any hits that exceed the number of the models in the unit being discarded). That would make it closer to how the blasts used to work but with less arguing that the blasts themselves caused.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, or you could just go to the battlereport forum on this board and find actual proof.

No, wait, you just want to be right, not to have an argument. Sorry.

So firsthand experience and hundreds of games played over 2 decades count for nothing? Usually the people that insist on doing it are a bunch of bellends and not worth my time playing anyway as there would be several other pernickety things that'll make the game a chore to play as well.

What army do you play with your first hand experience? Sorry im not going to play with 150+ models and bunch them up nice and tight for you to kill in 1 shot with a large blast. If you played orks or tyranids you spaced your stuff out if you went up against blasts/templates. Not doing so was just putting yourself at a huge disadvantage

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, or you could just go to the battlereport forum on this board and find actual proof.

No, wait, you just want to be right, not to have an argument. Sorry.

So firsthand experience and hundreds of games played over 2 decades count for nothing? Usually the people that insist on doing it are a bunch of bellends and not worth my time playing anyway as there would be several other pernickety things that'll make the game a chore to play as well.

Nope, doesn't count for anything. Source: you.

Pretty glad blast templates are gone. Nothing screws up the momentum of a game like hovering a plastic disk 2 inches above a model and debating wether it's shadow is falling inside or outside a model's base. Ten minutes later you were waving a laser pointer over the damn thing and somebody was going away clenched. You'd finally give up and use a ruler instead, only to have people debate you on those measurements as well.

Also, that stupid little scatter direction dice. Who the hell thought this was a good idea? Let me grab this dice, whose direction facing can't be moved without accusations of cheating, over to where the shot actually landed and debate the exact angle for the next half hour...

Really was a clever solution searching for a problem.

Arson Fire wrote:
Ugh, yeah forced challenges were pretty dumb.
A big bad demon prince or whatever gets completely held up by an infantry squad, because they were able to force it to miss a turn by ramming their sergeant down its throat. Oh wait, here comes another dirt cheap sergeant, open wide!

Making wounds inflicted in a challenge overflow into the squad was one of the things 7th actually got right. (or at least got better than 6th. Challenges still weren't a great mechanic)

also the flip side of this happened to orks. a boyz squad is a ton of los str attacks with a strong hidden powerclaw in 5th which became just the low str boyz attacks when marine sarg with power sword or maul attacked and killed us with out 6+ armor save and suddenly our only way to deal with armor or high toughness models was gone.

 Imateria wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Agree with most of whats been said in here, I'll add the old Weapon Skill chart though. It doesn't matter if your the single best close combat fighter in the entire galaxy, you're still only hitting your opponent on 3's and they'll be hitting you back on 4's.

35 pages of Vehicle rules, all of which combined to make said vehicles utter trash unless they were a Fast Skimmer. Heck, the majority of unit type rules were terrible all told anyway.

WS:
To which edition of the rules does this apply? Models with poor WS (less than half of opponent) would hit the enemy only on 5+ (3rd to 5th).

The chart stayed the same in 3rd through 7th, and was useless in all 5 editions. It was very rare for an opponent to be forced to hit on 5's, it proved to be a dreadful way to demonstrate the supposed skill of the units involved.

To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the fixed roll set up we now have, but it's considerably better than the screw up that was the old WS chart, and I'm not sure there is a perfect set up given the volume of dice that can be rolled.

The chart was never a problem but giving a SM Cpt. only WS5 was stupid. WS 7 would have ensured that goons (WS 2 & 3) would only hit him on 5+. The fixed chart is just there to speed up play and break immersion.