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.

Having played 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, I definitely find more to prefer about 8th and 9th than 5th-7th. 5th and 8th are my favorite editions, there are some things I really dislike about 9th and I wish I could just take what I like about 9th and add it to 8th.

5th:

Pros:

templates and vehicle damage tables are fun and immersive, IMO at least. I just like 'em.

in CONCEPT I like the morale system better. morale functions as it's supposed to in 5th: a way to affect enemy units combat abilities without detroying them. In practice, way way way way way WAY too much of the game ignored the morale system outright for it to ever come up.

Transports work as actual transports in 5th, for getting your models around faster.

Terrain actually works as a nice, abstracted thing and I like the way cover saves work much better in general. I like having a choice on defense to improve my cover save by givign up my offense.

Cons:

Melee units spend a lot of time in 5th feeling like absolute idiot dinguses. They sit around doing fething nothing if you deep strike them, get them out of transports, shoot basically any weapon, run slightly faster, etc. Melee is so unbelievably deadly and so unbelievably safe for melee units that it takes jumping through a flaming hoop of fire before GW will actually let you hit something with a pointed stick. One dude with a powerfist can basically insta-wreck a main battle tank as soon as he doinks into it.

vehicles are either indestructible unstoppable god-behemoths or they explode like firecrackers, there's zero middle ground.A system like this is more realistic, but in a game where you've got little weeny ork buggies and fething land raiders both falling under the same 'all or nothing' vehicle damage table is...a stretch.

Instant death sucks. I'm sorry. Double your toughness=your dead jim feels like trash. So does the all or nothing AP system, it should be OK, but man does anything that exits a transport in 5th feel like a wisp of plastic bag on the wind.

Generally, I love the concept of 5th, I have a ton of nostalgia for 5th, every time I go back and play fifth it's just so frustrating. I hate losing a whole unit to deep strike scatter. I hate tanks permanently immobilizing themselves on a 1 any time they tough terrain. I hate shooting a lascannon and exploding a huge tank instantly turn 1 before it gets to do anything.

I totally agree Scotsman.

I feel like 9th would be my favourite edition ever if you just ditched strategems and maybe fiddled around with balance a bit (or a lot).

GW only ever seems to take one step forwards, one step back in an endless juggling act.

Regarding vehicle facings....

In ProHammer I provide charts/tools for determining this, and really honed in making it as clear, quick, and simple as possible to determine. It works as follows:

(1) Define the "hull" for vehicles, which is the main body + wheels/tracks + full turrets + sponsons (antenna, pipes, etc. are not part of the hull).

(2) Identify the center point of the vehicle (midway along the length of its hull along the central axis).

(3) Place the facing arc template centered over the center point (which you can make from a transparent blast marker). Each arc is a clean 90-degrees.

(4) The arc in which an attacking model is positioned determines what facing is hit. If you're on the line, you hit whichever side has a higher AV between the two.

The above works really cleanly and simply for all manner of vehicles.

tneva82 wrote:
If GW thinks players get confused by the WS system then the developers themselves must have intelligence level of a toddler...

No need to get personal.

By the end of 8th, I was convinced simplifying the rules was a good thing. They are a little oversimplified in some areas, but it's better than being overcomplicated.

The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.

The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.

I'll gladly sacrifice a WS table for not having to argue about rules. It's been years since I had a proper argument.

 techsoldaten wrote:
[The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.

The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.

I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.

Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.

I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.

Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.

Ielthan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.

I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.

Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.

I started a ProHammer game last night - I'm playing a Feral Ork list from the 2004 Chapter Approved for 3rd edition versus a 6th edition Imperial Guard list. So many boarboyz!

What we love about ProHammer is that it lets you use literally any codex from 3rd - 7th edition and they are cross-compatible. We occasionally run into odd edge cases where we need to translate a rule into ProHammer standard, but it's usually pretty straight forward.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
[The problem with WS was not the WS table itself. If you feel it's important, I'm sure there's a way to houserule it back in for your games. Tell me if you find them more enjoyable, may wish to try that myself.

The problem was with the number of modifiers, special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc. that went along with the WS table. One dispute about rules could sidetrack a game for half an hour.

I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.

You may have missed the part after the word 'modifiers' where I pointed to special rules, tables, charts, random dice rolls for abilities, etc.

If you'd like to argue that 8th and 9th are more complex and slower than previous editions, by all means. That's a very interesting perspective.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Ielthan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, most of the prohammer stuff sounds really good. Too bad it's an exercise of futility to convince my group of switching to another ruleset, especially considering how no one really has a problem with 9th.

I had the same issue with 9th age and WFB. A lot of the guys would rather play 8th because its familiar, even though 9th age is basically a fixed version of 8th.

Prohammer does look interesting, I'll need to take a good look at it. Personally I was always pretty happy with 3rd edition (with all the chapter approved stuff), it was enough for me, and had so much juice in it via white dwarf and the supplements. 6th ed WFB & 3rd 40k are still my favourite wargames.

I started a ProHammer game last night - I'm playing a Feral Ork list from the 2004 Chapter Approved for 3rd edition versus a 6th edition Imperial Guard list. So many boarboyz!

What we love about ProHammer is that it lets you use literally any codex from 3rd - 7th edition and they are cross-compatible. We occasionally run into odd edge cases where we need to translate a rule into ProHammer standard, but it's usually pretty straight forward.

That does sound cool! Do you find playing one edition codex against another results in any balance issues?

9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.

This is a thread about how GW removed a random dice roll that affected every combat interaction in the game.

The issue isn't the number of rules that exist so much as the impact they have collectively on the game.

So could you be more specific about what you mean when you say there are more special rules and random dice rolls? I don't see that happening.

aphyon wrote:

A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun

It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions. being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.

Nevertheless, it was a stupid rule. It may have been for balancing purposes, but it felt punishing to bring a Heavy AT weapon in with the average squad of Infantry.

aphyon wrote:

There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Mezmorki wrote:I'm not following this at all. Earlier editions of the game, especially 3rd - 5th, had very few modifiers or re-rolls or other things that complicated die rolling and especially the WS chart. 8th and 9th has vastly more by way of modifiers, re-rolls, auras, multiple-saving throws, etc. that slow things down.

They existed, but were rather uncommon. The build up started in 6th and became really crazy in 7th with Formations and the Choice Detachments meaning that one model could have numerous layers of rules.

Then the loud outcry against USRs happened and:

kirotheavenger wrote:9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.

And GW seems to have a problem learning how to cut and paste between codices so they aren't worded consistently. I think the right amount of USRs is between 5th and 6th.

Karol wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I really liked 5th, but arguments that it was "more immersive" don't hold up under the same scrutiny we apply to 8th/9th.

I have seen the GK 5th ed codex, and it very much more impersive then the 8th ed one. A ton more options both as ranged and melee weapons go, grenades , cheap chaff units. Not sure how some of the psychic powers work, but at a glance they look much better then the GK codex ones, on top of that everey dreadnought, rhino and razorback is a psyker too. Even without full understanding of the 5th ed rules, I can say that the GK book was a lot more immersive then the book that exists right now. On top of that there seem to be options to play non GK armies with the book, so for inqusitorial players, if they happen to exist right now, the immersion is immeasurably bigger, because right now they can't immerse themself at all in to the game. Having no legal ways to play and all.

That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.

Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.

aphyon wrote:

Please give examples of "lore based rules". This is so vague it could pretty much refer to anything in either system.

easy example-
white scars-lore based rules
.born in the saddle
.mounted veterans
.hit and run
.power lances
.counter attack
.all units must be mechanized (rhinos razorbacks or drop pods for troops, oversized bike squads (10 instead of 6) as troops)
.heavy support limited to attack bike squads and variant predator hulls.

.units not allowed because they are to slow and/or do not fit the lore for the fighting style of the scars-
.devestator squads/centurions etc...
.land raiders (unless used as a dedicated transport for terminators)
.dreadnoughts

I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".

Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.

Planes like Valkyries can be charged and destroyed by a terminator hitting it with a hammer.

forge world rules only jump infantry can assault flying aircraft-if they go hover they become skimmer ground vehicles

Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.

A model will never, ever die from a tank running it over unless it decides to stand still and stop it.

Because troops are smart enough to get out of the way if they see an armored behemoth coming at them...unless they are suicidal or in the case of the deff rolla or the destroyer vehicle upgrade for khorne that causes wounds on the unit that does move out of the way.

Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.

A vehicle weapon cannot ever target anything other than what every other gun is targeting, even if it has a dedicated gunner and can't ever see the same target as another gun

It is a balancing mechanic that existed in all the old editions.

But it's not "immersive", is it? You've summed up exactly what the arguments in favour of 8th are - that liberties are taken with the game mechanics that might get in the way of "realism".

being able to split fire was a reward for a special units or a special bit of war gear that you paid extra for. rather it be power of the machine spirit or a superheavy that had enough crew to act independently in the moment.

Doesn't change that it made no sense for a hundred-year old veteran to not know where to fire their gun for maximum effectiveness.

There were even some guns which could never be shot for any reason because of how they were mounted. How is that immersive?

i know of no vehicle that has that problem in 40K. prior to 8th ed

Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.

I'd argue that 14 space marines shooting a LRBT with bolters doing a little damage instead of none is more realistic. I mean at least one of those perfect warriors is going to hit that vision slit or put a dent in a gun barrel, right?
It also never made sense how a terminator can be killed by a lasgun, but that same lasgun couldn't scratch a trukk or buggy who has an exposed ork driver wearing a leather vest for armor.

ever heard of armored glass or periscopes? we have been using them on armored vehicles to prevent that very thing since WWII.

I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.

But sure, those vehicles *somehow* get armoured glass. I think Terminator armour is stronger than armoured glass, yes? So how does a lasgun kill a Terminator again?

Also the crew of the ork trukk are technically not on the table, the trukk is. the crew is there for modeling purposes. they are considered to be part of the vehcile and are destroyed with it.

Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.

the_scotsman wrote:Having played 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, I definitely find more to prefer about 8th and 9th than 5th-7th. 5th and 8th are my favorite editions, there are some things I really dislike about 9th and I wish I could just take what I like about 9th and add it to 8th.

Yeah, pretty much the same here. 5th was nice, and so was 8th. I liked 8th best when it was Indexes.

Melee units spend a lot of time in 5th feeling like absolute idiot dinguses. They sit around doing fething nothing if you deep strike them, get them out of transports, shoot basically any weapon, run slightly faster, etc. Melee is so unbelievably deadly and so unbelievably safe for melee units that it takes jumping through a flaming hoop of fire before GW will actually let you hit something with a pointed stick. One dude with a powerfist can basically insta-wreck a main battle tank as soon as he doinks into it.

vehicles are either indestructible unstoppable god-behemoths or they explode like firecrackers, there's zero middle ground.A system like this is more realistic, but in a game where you've got little weeny ork buggies and fething land raiders both falling under the same 'all or nothing' vehicle damage table is...a stretch.

Instant death sucks. I'm sorry. Double your toughness=your dead jim feels like trash. So does the all or nothing AP system, it should be OK, but man does anything that exits a transport in 5th feel like a wisp of plastic bag on the wind.

Generally, I love the concept of 5th, I have a ton of nostalgia for 5th, every time I go back and play fifth it's just so frustrating. I hate losing a whole unit to deep strike scatter. I hate tanks permanently immobilizing themselves on a 1 any time they tough terrain. I hate shooting a lascannon and exploding a huge tank instantly turn 1 before it gets to do anything.

Yeah, also got to agree with these issues. 5th could be *incredibly* skewed at times, either with vehicles being way too randomly killable/durable, and especially Instant Death and the old AP system. There was no encouragement for moderate AP boosts if they didn't penetrate armour, and similarly not wanting to put your multiple-wound hero in combat because a squad sergeant could pop them instantly on a single failed save just did nothing for "immersion".

 techsoldaten wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
9th edition has significantly MORE special rules and random dice rolls than 5th ever did.
The difference is that in 5th most of those were universal rules, so everyone was singing from the same sheet. For 9th, they're bespoke unit rules. (Although a lot of them are universal to the point people still use the old universal rules, eg 'feel no pain' and 'deepstrike'.
Cutting out the universal aspect of the rules just means GW has to resort to really wooly language if they ever want to refer to their rules.

This is a thread about how GW removed a random dice roll that affected every combat interaction in the game.

The issue isn't the number of rules that exist so much as the impact they have collectively on the game.

So could you be more specific about what you mean when you say there are more special rules and random dice rolls? I don't see that happening.

Removed? No, you still roll to hit in combat.
Changed yes, but not removed.

That does sound cool! Do you find playing one edition codex against another results in any balance issues?

We do this all the time in the years we have been playing hybrid 5th.

I have ran codexes from 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th and 7th against each other under the core 5th rules set with those simple 15 rules crossovers without incident.

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".

Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.

No this is 3rd edition rules(and 4th) for white scars army list restrictions fist appearing in white dwarf and later codified in index astartes. there were no formations. there were restrictions for specific lore themed armies-IE deathwing pure armies could only run terminators(troops) land raiders (heavy support/dedicated transports), and dreads(elites)

Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...

Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.

That is when they were treated as skimmers which were ground vehicles. if you used the FW flyer rules that existed prior to the introduction of those units into the core game that did not have flyer rules only jump units could assault them.

Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.

Vehicles had no weapon skill or normal close combat ability to lock you in close combat, carnifexes were effectively giant infantry.

Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.

not true see above.

I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.

Vehicles and the crew count as a single unit that is why you didn't get to roll differently, when the vehicle was destroyed so was the entire crew.

Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.

Open topped vehicle rules-damage results are more severe to represent this.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I totally agree Scotsman.

I feel like 9th would be my favourite edition ever if you just ditched strategems and maybe fiddled around with balance a bit (or a lot).

GW only ever seems to take one step forwards, one step back in an endless juggling act.

Honestly, I love stratagems. i think it's something the game has been missing for a long time, and I think they got a little silly towards the end and beginning of 8th, but I have zero complaints with any stratagems in the 9th ed codexes so far.

Strats only became silly due to the insane amount of CP you could have in 8th and some of the more bonkers ones. The concept of a resource management mechanic that grants special abilities you get occasionally provides for some really cool moments.

In general my only complaint with strats is the imbalance between offensive and defensive stratagems. And offense and defense in general in 8th-9th. Give me free reign to rework the morale system, add in a few more standard player choices, and the main core framework of 9th and you've created my ideal version of 40k.

....OK, I do miss vehicle facing and template and blast weaponry. I'd add that back in. But good lord were the missions in fifth ever just an exercise in miserable pointlessness, how can anyone ever want to go back to the dreaded "Oops, rolled a 2, guess we're just not playing with a mission this time round and we're just killing each other" or the old classic "Emperor's Tie."

 aphyon wrote:

Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...

In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.

the_scotsman wrote:
good lord were the missions in fifth ever just an exercise in miserable pointlessness, how can anyone ever want to go back to the dreaded "Oops, rolled a 2, guess we're just not playing with a mission this time round and we're just killing each other" or the old classic "Emperor's Tie."

And the terrible Annihilation mission, where you just counted up units destroyed for VPs regardless of the units worth? Heaven forbid you use an army that relies lots of small units . . . so dumb.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.

Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.

Ones army having the rules to represent the stuff is has is not realism? Plus my army didn't get more options, it lost them. I didn't even know how many things it lost, because I managed to read the old codex last summer. And I am probably missing even more stuff, because I don't know how other armies played in 5th or what its core rules were.

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Insectum7 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...

In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.

White Scars were not the only ones to have exclusive access to Power Lances. In fact, most of the codices actually only listed Power Weapon as a purchasing option, even in 7th. So Power Lance was an option to whoever could purchase a Power Weapon. It was just very few people wanted Power Lances. They were rather anemic after the Charge, so most went for something more consistent.

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Still not true. Unless the target was very wide, or conga-lined in front, you wouldn't get both templates hitting it because they couldn't be placed over the tank itself.

I'm curious about that "units not allowed" and "all units must be mechanised" part - when was this? If you're talking about Formations, they were an optional method of constructing the army, so not exactly "lore based rules".

Also, power lances were open to everyone. Not a unique White Scars addition.

No this is 3rd edition rules(and 4th) for white scars army list restrictions fist appearing in white dwarf and later codified in index astartes. there were no formations. there were restrictions for specific lore themed armies-IE deathwing pure armies could only run terminators(troops) land raiders (heavy support/dedicated transports), and dreads(elites)

Then this has long been changed, from at least 5th onwards. And again, you had to choose to run Deathwing pure armies, but you could still take a squad of Deathwing normally, yes?

Again, my experience comes from 5th, so these rules have been gone for over a decade now.

Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...

In 5th, power weapons were all generic. Any weapon could be a lance. In 6th-7th, power weapons became malleable, so any power weapon could be a lance. Ultramarines with power lances has been feasible for years, it's only since 8th that they can't be taken, but then you can proxy them in anyways, like any other irregular power weapon.

Um, no, in 5th, Valkyries could be charged by anything, just like any other normal vehicle could be. The same was true for Stormtalons, Stormravens, and Dakkajets.

That is when they were treated as skimmers which were ground vehicles. if you used the FW flyer rules that existed prior to the introduction of those units into the core game that did not have flyer rules only jump units could assault them.

I'm not talking about the FW flyer rules. I'm talking about the rules for 5th, for Valkyries, in the core game.
Stop moving the goalposts.

Troops are also smart enough to get out of the way of a rampaging Carnifex.

Vehicles had no weapon skill or normal close combat ability to lock you in close combat, carnifexes were effectively giant infantry.

Yeah - why *didn't* vehicles have weapon skill or close combat ability is the point being made here, especially when they're just as cumbersome and lumbering as a carnifex.

Land Raider Redeemers couldn't bring both flamestorms to bear on a single target, unless it was exceptionally wide.

not true see above.

Very much true, see above.

I don't see any armoured glass or periscopes on that nice exposed Trukk driver, or on an open-roofed Scout Sentinel. Or, for that matter, on a Land Speeder.

Vehicles and the crew count as a single unit that is why you didn't get to roll differently, when the vehicle was destroyed so was the entire crew.

Sure, but muh immersion tells me that I should be able to shoot the easily exposed crew that are on the model.

You can't have your "muh immersion" cake and eat it too. You're using gameplay to excuse flaws in "muh immersion" - yet if I tried to do the same with things like 8th' lack of facings, you'd scream about it.
Stop dodging the point, and accept that other editions had stupid logic too.

Sure, for *game* purposes, they don't exist, but they *do* physically exist on the model - for immersion. Because that's what this is all about, right? "Immersion"? So, it would stand to reason that, as part of that "immersion", a guardsman could shoot the nice exposed driver of that trukk, because clearly, it *is* exposed.

Open topped vehicle rules-damage results are more severe to represent this.

Doesn't help lasguns though, does it? Yet again, another immersion failure.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's not what immersion means. You're talking about flavour.

Immersion is otherwise "realistic" - having more options doesn't necessarily equate to realism.

Ones army having the rules to represent the stuff is has is not realism?

No, it's not. That's not at all what "realism" means. We're talking about the concept of verisimilitude, you're talking about representation. Representation doesn't mean realism, in the same way that tanks being able to shoot all weapons from one facing is representative, but not realistic.*

*For what it's worth, I haven't got an issue that this isn't realistic.

Having the lasguns not being able to hurt the ork buggy is way less absurd than having them hurt titans, tanks, and knights... And then there was some other crazy stuff from 8th like tanks shooting from antennas...did they remove that in 9th?

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual gun. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.

terror51247 wrote:Having the lasguns not being able to hurt the ork buggy is way less absurd than having them hurt titans, tanks, and knights... And then there was some other crazy stuff from 8th like tanks shooting from antennas...did they remove that in 9th?

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

And hey, if a lasgun can hurt a Riptide or Stormsurge or other Gargantuan Creature, it should be able to hurt a Knight. This is what I mean by those flaws in the 5th-7th system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual barrel. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.

That's how I remember it - the template came from the gun, and in most cases for the Redeemer, that prevented both guns from hitting the same target.

Posters here be like "Lasguns shouldn't vehicle because my realism" and then defend a game system where one army does a bunch of stuff without any interference from the other army.

In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.

Sorry about that i should have been more clear. when the list was released for 3rd edition they were the only space marine chapter that used them. it worked because they had both hit and run as well as counter attack so the risk of loosing initiative be being forced to stay in CC with a lance was rare.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

I thought that might come up, a misunderstanding of the rules-

The rules state that you cannot place the template over friendly models, templates over the base of the firing model is allowed and as per the rules the base of the vehicle is it's hull. so long as the weapon mount has LOS to the target.

A fine example of why this was a thing-the SOB repressor (loved them had 2 in my old army). if you could not fire over the base/hull there would be no way to fire the repressors pintle mounted heavy flamer ever.

Then this has long been changed, from at least 5th onwards. And again, you had to choose to run Deathwing pure armies, but you could still take a squad of Deathwing normally, yes?

Again, my experience comes from 5th, so these rules have been gone for over a decade now.

Yes you could do a standard FOC army in that codex or you could run pure stand alone deathwing and ravenwing armies. i did note that our group allows players to run whichever codex they feel best fits the lore for the force they are playing. just as our khorne player runs the 3.5 codex and when i run tau or nids i run the 4th. i think it may have a bit to do with Andy still running the design department through 4th that he tried to stay true to the lore in the rules. although there were a few 5th ed codexes that actually represented some armies better, like necrons and blood angels (the latter having many themes revisited in the 30K rules)

This was the FOC for scars (special rules not pictured below that)

I'm not talking about the FW flyer rules. I'm talking about the rules for 5th, for Valkyries, in the core game.
Stop moving the goalposts.

I am not, i made it pretty clear our group uses the flyer rules in 5th problem solved

Yeah - why *didn't* vehicles have weapon skill or close combat ability is the point being made here, especially when they're just as cumbersome and lumbering as a carnifex.

They do, they are called walkers- a hybrid of vehicle and infantry- tracked or wheeled etc.. vehicles had their own version of close combat-running stuff over or ramming it. it is something we can identify with mentally because it is something that happens for real.

Sure, but muh immersion tells me that I should be able to shoot the easily exposed crew that are on the model.

You can't have your "muh immersion" cake and eat it too. You're using gameplay to excuse flaws in "muh immersion" - yet if I tried to do the same with things like 8th' lack of facings, you'd scream about it.
Stop dodging the point, and accept that other editions had stupid logic too.

No they didn't, if you want to be able to shoot the crew, those rules did exist in second edition. they were removed because they were to cumbersome unless you want 2 pages of rules for the damage flow chart against a leman russ ( i have the book, it doesn't really work when you move beyond a skirmish scale game)

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

The fact that it is even possible is the problem.

And hey, if a lasgun can hurt a Riptide or Stormsurge

Well honestly many of us feel those should have been vehicles with an AV like a dreadnought

No, it's not. That's not at all what "realism" means. We're talking about the concept of verisimilitude, you're talking about representation. Representation doesn't mean realism, in the same way that tanks being able to shoot all weapons from one facing is representative, but not realistic.*

I don't know, if someone told me their WWII soviet army from summer 1944 should not have any tanks in it or artilery support, then it would be rather unrealistic to me, same way if someone said that because of a luck factor there should be an option for infantry to hurt a tank from 30" away. I get point blank shoting through vision slits, but not regular grunts doing stuff like that.

 aphyon wrote:

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

The fact that it is even possible is the problem.

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period. To even line up the minimum 50 lasgun shots while the titan is moving and killing stuff is already a nigh impossible task, and even then the chance is so low it might as well be zero.
It's more likely for the princeps to randomly die of a stroke than for lasguns to kill the titan.

Insisting otherwise just proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual barrel. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.

That's how I remember it - the template came from the gun, and in most cases for the Redeemer, that prevented both guns from hitting the same target.

The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Also it's sorta moot because:


These are Redeemer sponsons double-hitting a model on a 25mm base, the smallest available, and still not passing over the tank.

 Jidmah wrote:

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period.

A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.