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.

 flandarz wrote:
This kinda thing always sounds like "hobby shaming" to me. "This isn't the way I think the game should be played, so let's all point and laugh." Do I think anyone here actually wants to shame people away from 40k? No. But it can happen, and that's always pretty depressing to me.

My suggestion is that if you see it, and it bothers you, just offer to teach them "the right way". If they're uninterested, you gotta learn to let it go.

A related anecdote: when me and my brother were kids, he always used to eat his hotdogs "the wrong way". Basically, he would eat the "skin" of the hotdogs first, then eat the insides. Did I think it was weird? Of course. But I let him do it because who am I to judge how someone else enjoys something?

Not everything is relative and subjective. Some things are objectively wrong. If I want to play a game of soccer against someone and they insist on picking the ball up because 'they enjoy it' that way doesn't mean it's the correct way to do it. Wargames, thank goodness, are still social in nature. The way one person plays will affect the other person's experience. And terrain genuinely matters. Lots of LoS blocking stuff does make the game more interesting.

The big issue here is GW's bizarre fetish for fudged rules. Because the sdvanved terrain rules aren't in the main part of the book, people assume they're optional. The fact GW produce terrain that they want to sell and so they try to bolt stupid special rules to, complicates this.

The thing is, if my twin 5 year olds play "soccer" with each other, and use their hands, I'm not gonna get upset with them because "they ain't playing it right". I'll explain the proper rules, but at the end of the day, as long as they're having a good time, then I can't complain. Of course, this is different if they play with others who DO play "by the rules". In that case, it would be understandable for the people playing with them to get upset.


And that's where it kinda breaks for me. If I'm playing with someone, and they don't want to use much terrain, then I can decide not to play against them, I can try to convince them to use more terrain, or I can decide it isn't a big deal and play anyway. But if two people are playing each other, having agreed on their preferred manner of play, and I'm not involved at all, then why should I judge them? It literally does not affect me in the slightest.

Lemondish wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
There isn't really much incentive to fire and manoeuvre in 40K.

False. Movement is the most important mechanic in the game.

Never seen players who hardly move units?
They have no idea about the game.

Table size in G.W. stores at 4’ x 4’ is relatively small. Game weapon ranges are relatively long. Armies of 2,000pts crowd the table.
All together, this does not make for a movement game. Objectives help, but only if players _ have _ to move to claim them.

For a more ‘mobile’ game I’d try fewer points.

Martel732 wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.

Maybe on the board, but in the fluff, I think that the possessed would be eating good that day.

warpedpig wrote:
Not all people have brains

No, but we were polite enough not to call you out on it.


Seriously though, have you considered that the people you've watched don't have access to a lot of terrain?

A big part of it is probably that people love buying, assembling and painting 'their dudes', but some inanimate terrain? Not so appealing, which is a shame

 Desubot wrote:
Its just how most of these games will always be.

there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)

FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)

old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.

40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams

In 40K flanking would be more like moving so a target doesn't get cover. Other than that it would be, on a larger sense, a mission. One where you're attacking, or defending the end of a larger force.

amanita wrote:When you turn vehicles into giant meat sacks without regard to facing, there is no longer any reason to fight with or against vehicles in a way that resembles real vehicle tactics.

Just the tip of the iceberg...

This is the 40k era of the aura.

Also as a lot of folks already said its terrain. I spent a lot of time and money building/buying terrain for awesome gametables pre 8th only to find it functionally useless with 8th terrain rules.

All GW terrain is the same. If you can't gain LoS blocking from the terrain available you may as well just play that way or make some house rules.

Having said that most of the batreps I watch online are NOT like this

This reminds me of when WHFB 8th came out and some decried how powerful hordes or "5 wide 10+ deep" units were.

And then I took a look at one particular individual who used to post a lot on Warseer (gak I forget his name sorry) and it turned out he (and lots of others) played on minimal-terrain boards.

I had to do a loud *whisper* pssst GUESS WHAT?! A unit with the majority of it's models in a forest loses it's rank bonus...and it's steadfast bonus with that. Making them work on modified LD...

I think terrain should always be part of the criteria and consideration in these types of wargame when it comes to your tactics. It adds another element to think about and work with. It's why LOS blocking terrain can be very important.

As well as discussion on any house rules regarding terrain.

But of course people are free to play how they desire. I just think ignoring an entire aspect of the game to focus precisely on abstraction in as sterile an environment as possible, is part of the problem with gauging balance and trying to mete out a fair battle (or as close to as is reasonable).

Of course a lot of these issues are to do with the simplification of the rules and their inadequacy at representing certain aspects of the game.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.

As a GSC player there is no understating the value of encircling your enemy in CC. They can't run away and dump their entire army into shooting your rocksaws then.

With enough terrain I was able to lead knights on merry chases across the board and desperately hang onto objectives long enough to have a prayer. There isn't a huge mechanical advantage to it, but with enough LOS blockers they have to actually make a choice what they shoot at. It's up to you to make sure they actually have to make a choice rather than giving them direct line on everything.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.

Maybe on the board, but in the fluff, I think that the possessed would be eating good that day.

Fluff doesn't matter. Quite literally, unfortunately. The fluff doesn't help me win on the board, and almost nothing in BA fluff is real on the board.

warpedpig wrote:
I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me

I think its a couple things.

1) People like to have big armies.
2) Tables are too small.


i see people playing 2k games where their deployment zones are just wall to wall models. I find that pretty crazy. And then you're playing on a 6x4 if you're lucky, or often even smaller.

In the ancient days 40k was a game of a couple squads and maybe a tank. Now some forces are bringing entire infantry companies with tank and aircraft support. The game has fundamentally increased in scope, but the tables haven't! And to top it off, the models have all gotten bigger!

I prefer to play 40k at 1k points. It means some units don't really work, but when I get a good game in there's often quite a bit of maneuvering around terrain to get to the objectives. But mostly I just play kill team lately.

I'm really curious to see what apocaylpse does, but I don't think it'll fix anything if we don't increase the table size too. Our toy soldiers are just too large and in too great of quantity.

Honestly, the biggest thing that I hated in this version was the need to create artificial screens. Throwing guys out in nets instead of hugging cover and protecting themselves just came over as dumb. It got a little better with the drop of Turn 1 deepstrikes but it still is the opposite of what I'd expect these miniatures to want to be doing. really just a minor gripe as i still think the game is fairly dynamic.

People always rally to the cry of "More LOS blocking terrain" but I think LoS blocking terrain is too all or nothing. There needs to be more variation to the mix of good terrain rules.

Pure LoS blocking terrain is a situation that makes unit unable to interact in any meaningful way. It doesn't make the game significantly better or more interesting. It's just a toggle switch between can shoot and can't shoot.

8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.

As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.

Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.

Breton wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.

4 parts per million sounds more like space marine lore.

Have an Exalt

@MArtel732 - The background (not fluff) for the game is important to a significant chunk of the playerbase. In quite a few cases, I imagine it is one of the reasons they started playing in the first place. Just because BA are in a bad way at present, there's no need to run down an important cog in the mechanism which is 40k.

It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.

As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.

Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.

None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.

The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.

The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.

ERJAK wrote:
It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.

As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.

Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.

None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.

The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.

The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.

I'm sorry but that's such an over generalization and completely devoid of reality. The point is that the game had mechanics in past editions that made positioning matter a lot more than we see know. Vehicle facings sure as hell mattered when it came to IKs, Baneblades, Stompas, etc if you want to look at only the most uber elite tourny lists while it also played an important role for things like transports. Outside of competitive lists, vehicle facings where an important factor and it again encouraged movement gameplay. Just because in the later half of 7th GW dumped the bed with their horrible game balance and power creep doesn't mean the mechanics in the core rules didn't matter at all.

Closest casualties mattered to everything ranging from a mob of Boyz with a PK nob and painboy down to that super invisible deathstar with that 2+ rerollable invuln save model tanking every shot. Blast weapons mattered a ton and greatly impacted how model spacing was done (tedious maybe but it's an important factor). Firing arcs where less of a factor but when it did come into play it could make for some interesting gameplay.

Past editions had it's flaws but I feel like your looking at the past with the opposite of rose tinted glasses. My view point is based on playing 7th after playing 8th a few times and being bored out of my mind with the bland gameplay of 8th. Jumping back to 7th was a huge jolt of excitement as all these factors came into play unlike 8th's bland gameplay loop.

The closest casualty thing was literally the worst rule they had ever put into 40k. Ever.

Yes, this rule works fine and dandy in a skirmish game or something like WMH with only 30-40 models on average per side. But 40k? Oh boy, no. How to slow the game down to a crawl 101 right there. There was a reason I sat out the dumbfethery of 6th and 7th.

Martel732 wrote:


Not all battlefields have a lot of terrain.

In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.

Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].

 Nithaniel wrote:
This is the 40k era of the aura.

Also as a lot of folks already said its terrain. I spent a lot of time and money building/buying terrain for awesome gametables pre 8th only to find it functionally useless with 8th terrain rules.

All GW terrain is the same. If you can't gain LoS blocking from the terrain available you may as well just play that way or make some house rules.

Having said that most of the batreps I watch online are NOT like this

<rant>
You don't need house rules - the rules to fix the terrain were in CA18 and they do a pretty fine job of it. Not GW's fault if everyone playing "competitive" 40K ignores those rules and then ignoring them trickles all the way down to regular store games because people watch youtube videos rather than reading and thinking for themselves.
</rant>

Sorry about that. Wanted to get it off my chest. The terrain rules in CA18 really do fix most of the problems people have with terrain not being important enough.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its just how most of these games will always be.

there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)

FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)

old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.

40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams

In 40K flanking would be more like moving so a target doesn't get cover. Other than that it would be, on a larger sense, a mission. One where you're attacking, or defending the end of a larger force.

While fair enough, cover in this game is mostly irrelevant due to ether people having very good BS or those with low BS having a lot of shots to mitigate it. or worse out right ignoring it (my yellow bois)

its not really that much of a detriment unless it is straight LOS blocking which may people dont have enough of, and most GW terrain is full on swiss cheese giving you the opportunity to just shoot through with no real issues.

the frame work is there but the terrain rules them selves are lacking.

Especially at hobby shops, you may be seeing the effects of a limited table size, limited time, and limited terrain selection on games.

Some hobby shops have few tables, so a quicker game may help more players get in a game that day. If X day is league day, there may be multiple players who all need to get in games from 'after work' until "store closes".

Some hobby shops have smaller tables, so the room for deployment is quite limited. Clever or interesting layouts can be hard with good sized armies on 4x4 or 3x5 tables, both of which I have seen at hobby shops.

A LOT of hobby shops either have limited terrain, or limited terrain in comparison to the tables available. Even a hobby shop with a good selection for 2-3 tables may have sparse looking tables when 3-6 tables are in use.

I do lament the loss of some positioning, maneuvering, and facing elements from 40K, but I've always liked skirmish and squad level combats more, so almost any detail elements that have dropped from the game rules are something I miss.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Not all battlefields have a lot of terrain.

In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.

Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].

depends on the era etc you're talking about, Napoleonic? sure, but then again combats of that era consisted of men lining up in neat lines and shooting each other. the terrain of note in those situations where hills etc, which could give some advantages. however elevation isn't something 40k is very good at representing.

however in a more modern battlefield you tend to see a lot of urban combat because that's where infantry can hole up in and avoid having to take direct fire from tanks.

I suppose at the end of the day you have to ask if 40K is more intreasting like this



or like


Now given the vast majorty of 40k terrain is ruined buildings, I think GW thinks the ideal 40k table should look more like the second image

To be fair, "urban combat" in modern military terms generally has less than 50 "infantry" on either side, with little to no mechanized assets (generally you'll have some light air support and that's it). So, 40k isn't going to give you that "modern warfare" appeal as much, because it's simply designed on a grander scale. Once two massive armies get into fighting distance, urban combat techniques simply become unviable. I mean, look at the picture you posted. There are literally like 5 people there. Large armies simply need lots of space to perform warfare. That sort of space isn't conducive to the small unit tactics of urban warfare. And the confines of a city isn't conducive to large armies either.

So, to me, 40k is meant for those Napoleonic style armies facing off across mostly empty areas. Kill Team, on the other hand, works better for the urban combat you desire.

 Vankraken wrote:
This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.

There also isn't much in the way of 'vulnerable angles', either. No armor facing for vehicles. No crossfire or flanking rules for infantry. Not even target priority tests or specific casualty removal order, like in earlier editions.

When there's no difference in effectiveness between engaging an enemy from the front at maximum range or ambushing them from the rear at point blank, go figure shooting armies aren't going to maneuver much.

I mean, even in Napoleonic wargames where two armies line up and shoot, you find that range, flanking, and proximity massively impact shooting. One of my biggest gripes with 8th Ed is how all the maneuver-emphasizing tactics have been stripped out of the mechanics of fire combat. Putting lots of terrain on the table is one way to try to re-add meaningful maneuver, but with cover mechanics being superficial too it's still underwhelming.

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Not all battlefields have a lot of terrain.

In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.

Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].

depends on the era etc you're talking about, Napoleonic? sure, but then again combats of that era consisted of men lining up in neat lines and shooting each other. the terrain of note in those situations where hills etc, which could give some advantages. however elevation isn't something 40k is very good at representing.

however in a more modern battlefield you tend to see a lot of urban combat because that's where infantry can hole up in and avoid having to take direct fire from tanks.

I suppose at the end of the day you have to ask if 40K is more intreasting like this



or like


Now given the vast majorty of 40k terrain is ruined buildings, I think GW thinks the ideal 40k table should look more like the second image

Well, from the same conflict, Operation Citadel and the Battle for Prokhorovka



Engagements in urban centers were outnumbered by battles that occurred in an effectively open area, with some marginal hills and a copse of trees. Of course, the Battle for Prohorovka would be well beyond the size of an Apocalypse battle.

Consider the approximate scale of a 6x4 board. Given that 28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56 in scale IIRC, that's about 1344 square feet of battlefield being fought over. How many major features of note do you think are in 1344 square feet of any given battlefield? Probably 1. Maybe a hedgerow as a major obstacle, or a farmhouse. A typical hedgerow-bounded field was 400 yards x 200 yards. At 1/56 scale, a typical table would be 112 yards by 74 yards wide.


Now, it's obvious more interesting as a game if there's something large to block line of effect. However, it's certainly not Napoleonic to fight on a field that's effectively barren.

ERJAK wrote:
It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vankraken wrote:
8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.

As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.

Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.

None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.

The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.

The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.

Completely disagree with this. Cover in 5th was a huge factor for both infantry (a 4+ by default over having a rock in front of half the unit and vehicles having arcs, along with a model having to have eyeball sight sight is a huge difference than what 8th is).

7th didn't have all that but in regards to LOS and terrain it was better than what we have today.