Immersion, or not, in 40K from 8th Edition

[MysticTemplar]

 

 

 

I don't follow your logic

 

 

 

Neither does GW, so does it really matter?

 

 

The question probably would have worked better if I hadn't accidentally exchanged the word 'weapon' for 'vehicle' in point A, anyways.

[Bryan Blaire]

Which is great, because it means that touching off the ammo doesn't actually destroy the tank, just the weapon.  Thank you for making my point for me.  It's almost as if we need a chart or something to show a weapon has been destroyed without damaging other parts of the vehicle.

:lol:

 

Hardly making your point.

 

You're right, cooking off several hundred rounds of high explosive ammo nuzzled directly up against the flat armor on the back of a turret or the thinner armor where the attachment of a sponson sits doesn't actually destroy the tank, it just cracks open the armor, providing fantastic weak points for continued arms fire to now penetrate further into the vehicle (in game terms, allowing more Wounds to be taken off).

 

Or for the purposes of the lascannon example, the electrical feedback up along the lines back into the Land Raider plays merry hell with the internal systems and the engine, causing catastrophic shut down and touching off secondary internal explosions that can cause further damage and inhibit proper feeding of electrical components in the rest of the vehicle, and possibly cracking armor that could allow weapons to hit weaker points (in game terms, allowing more Wounds to be taken off).

 

I'd love to see the new vehicle by vehicle damage tables have instances of removal of weapons (and some even might, since we've only seen, what, one item from the new edition), but not having weapon destroyed possibilities doesn't negate the concept that as a vehicle takes more damage, it can degrade until it is no longer effective, not just instantly explode. I'd be down for a chance to instantly explode, and would even like to develop a rule to allow it to happen if there isn't one in game, but I wouldn't apply it to weapons not intended for an anti-tank role.

[Damo1701]

The point being made is that while the models are vehicles, the rules treats them as creatures, which really breaks the immersion factor.

 

It could very well be something that is an issue when trying get get list in the game. Rather than seeing things behave as the models represent, we'll have to suspend that whenever dealing with vehicles. It's that, or prevent then from being used. Which is unfair to those who have invested in them.

 

It's unfortunate that GW went in this direction, as it removes part if the "40k you all know and love" that they were banging on about.

 

I don't know why they didn't keep a vehicular feel to vehicles, all they really needed was a tweak here and there, and they could have kept their invulnerability to small arms, still acted like glass cannons, and still had a measurement of invulnerability in general to them.

[Bryan Blaire]

I don't see where they are being treated as creatures anywhere. I see them being treated as vehicle models with rules that apply to high multi-wound of all types throughout the game for the purposes of damage. What I don't understand is why ALL multi-wound models don't use this degrading rule set. It would happen to anything that takes multiple weapon hits. Guilliman, for example, should have degraded capabilities as his armor is cracked, he takes blows to the head, etc.

 

The counter-point to your argument is that the rules are treating all multi-wound creatures in the game as vehicles. It's literally the exact same argument. I can come up with reasons why multi-wound creatures should use the 40K vehicle damage tables from 7th and into the past.

 

I don't know why they never applied the same rules to monstrous creatures previously when they should have, but I'm not going to go banging on everywhere about that argument.

[MysticTemplar]

The point being made is that while the models are vehicles, the rules treats them as creatures, which really breaks the immersion factor.

 

It could very well be something that is an issue when trying get get list in the game. Rather than seeing things behave as the models represent, we'll have to suspend that whenever dealing with vehicles. It's that, or prevent then from being used. Which is unfair to those who have invested in them.

 

It's unfortunate that GW went in this direction, as it removes part if the "40k you all know and love" that they were banging on about.

 

I don't know why they didn't keep a vehicular feel to vehicles, all they really needed was a tweak here and there, and they could have kept their invulnerability to small arms, still acted like glass cannons, and still had a measurement of invulnerability in general to them.

 

So the thing is...  is that the change to Toughness doesn't actually make vehicles any less immune to small arms - after all, T8 Wraith critters were just as hard to hurt as AV12 in 7th, and now they can be hurt by Lasguns, as well.  So it's really a wash, honestly.

 

AV was pretty much equivalent to a Toughness value four lower - AV 12 having a wound taken off of it on a 4+, for example.  And honestly, I don't really think that 7th vehicles feel like vehicles.  I tend to think they feel more like poorly built robots from Robot Wars, constantly getting stuck on shrubs and small hills.

 

Personally, I think the changes are likely to make tanks feel more tanky - because 'glass cannon' is a weird space for 'big armored tanks' to fulfill in a game - it just feels off.

[Claws and Effect]

Immersion isn't the driving force behind the vehicle changes.

 

Fun is.

 

It isn't fun to end up in a game that no amount of lucky rolls or brilliant strategy can win because your heavy weapons are dead and your opponent has tanks parked on 5 objectives by the end of turn 2.

 

You can't do anything, so picking up your models pr getting tabled are your only choices.

 

In 8th, if that happens, you can keep fighting. You'll still lose, but at least it won't feel completely futile to try.

 

If vehicles have to change in order to stop the above scenario from happening, so be it.

 

You still aren't going to be destroying tanks with nothing but lasguns, so it ultimately makes very little difference.

 

"But it shouldn't do that" isn't much of an argument. Daemons shouldn't be popping out of the Warp to eat your face either.

 

It's. A. Game.

 

How realistic it is should NEVER be more important than how fun it is.

[Ishagu]

Monstrous Creatures no longer exist in the game.

There are simply models with abstract statlines that represent their performance.

 

You shouldn't think of Tanks as creatures, those distinctions no longer apply.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

How realistic it is should NEVER be more important than how fun it is.

 

So. . . if I derive fun from realism, I guess I should just pack up my armies and ebay them, eh?

 

 

Look, I don't want to play "Ultra-Realistic Wargaming Simulation" 40,000.  I just want vehicles to be treated the way they've been treated for the last thirty years.  I'm not going to get that anymore, so I'm disappointed.  I just wish the rest of you would stop trying to convince the likes of me and Damo that our opinions on a purely subjective issue are objectively wrong.

[Ishagu]

C'mon Deus.

Some of the wording is changing, and some silly tables are gone, but vehicles are better to use now.

 

I love the 40k tanks so much I should hsve been an Iron Hands collector.

 

It's exciting to think that the battle tanks can now face off against Riptides for the first time!

[Leif Bearclaw]

Immersion isn't the driving force behind the vehicle changes.

 

Fun is.

 

It isn't fun to end up in a game that no amount of lucky rolls or brilliant strategy can win because your heavy weapons are dead and your opponent has tanks parked on 5 objectives by the end of turn 2.

 

You can't do anything, so picking up your models pr getting tabled are your only choices.

 

In 8th, if that happens, you can keep fighting. You'll still lose, but at least it won't feel completely futile to try.

 

If vehicles have to change in order to stop the above scenario from happening, so be it.

 

You still aren't going to be destroying tanks with nothing but lasguns, so it ultimately makes very little difference.

 

"But it shouldn't do that" isn't much of an argument. Daemons shouldn't be popping out of the Warp to eat your face either.

 

It's. A. Game.

 

How realistic it is should NEVER be more important than how fun it is.

 

But 'realism' and fun aren't mutually exclusive. Tanks should feel like tanks. If they're getting arbitrary wounds stripped by rifle fire, that bothers me, because that's just not how tanks work. So my lovely armoured behemoths I've spent hours modelling and painting don't feel right in game. Therefore it's less fun (whichever side of the tanks I'm on). Disagree? Great, have a blast. But I'm never going to agree, and it saddens me how GW seem to be taking the game in direction I don't enjoy.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Oh sure, they're better.  I'm not denying that.  I'm not denying that they should be better.  I'm merely stating that the method of their improvement is immersion-breaking.  This is, after all, a thread about immersion, not in-game effectiveness.

[Claws and Effect]

Okay, I have a question for you:

 

If the 8th edition vehicle rules were how it had always been for the last 30 years, would they still feel wrong?

 

It is it just that they aren't what you're used to? If AV and damage tables had never existed, would you still hate this so much?

[Ishagu]

I think my Landraider getting stuck on a shrub is more immersion breaking than any of the new rules could ever be :-/

[Excessus]

The point is that 100 dudes firing small arms at a tank will never kill the tank. Ever. That's the immersion-break.

 

If a Leman Russ only has a single wound left it's most likely a burning swiss cheese already so a lasgun killing the last crewmember through one of the gaping holes in it's sides or finishing off the final mechanism keeping it functioning since the armour protecting the device is blasted off already doesn't seem too far fetched. It's only an immersion-break for you if you lack imagination in this specific subject...and I suspect I know why...

 

 

I'm a combat vet.  I was around military vehicles for a decade.  I know how hardy they're designed to be, so no amount of "imagine, if you will..." scenarios are going to convince me that 8th Edition's vehicles mechanics are not personally immersion-breaking.  I'm still going to play the game by its rules, and I'm still going to take Rhinos and Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts.  But trying to convince me I'm wrong and GW is right is not going to work.

 

I suspect you being a combat vet somewhat inhibits your ability for immersion when it comes to 40k vehicles, you see all the similarities and not the differences. Though your combat vet status would count as much towards made-up 40k vehicles as an ancient chariot crewmember's veterancy would count towards modern combat vehicles. Heck, you would most likely know waaaay more about your vehicle than a crewman on a Leman Russ would know about his, if something broke down they wouldn't be able to fix it without a mechanicum representative, especially not on an alien planet where the atmosphere is acid and the enemies are nightmare-creatures...

 

 

So far I haven't seen a single argument in this thread by anyone on why 8th ed would be worse for immersion than 7th.

[Damo1701]

Immersion isn't the driving force behind the vehicle changes.

 

Fun is.

 

It isn't fun to end up in a game that no amount of lucky rolls or brilliant strategy can win because your heavy weapons are dead and your opponent has tanks parked on 5 objectives by the end of turn 2.

 

You can't do anything, so picking up your models pr getting tabled are your only choices.

 

In 8th, if that happens, you can keep fighting. You'll still lose, but at least it won't feel completely futile to try.

 

If vehicles have to change in order to stop the above scenario from happening, so be it.

 

You still aren't going to be destroying tanks with nothing but lasguns, so it ultimately makes very little difference.

 

"But it shouldn't do that" isn't much of an argument. Daemons shouldn't be popping out of the Warp to eat your face either.

 

It's. A. Game.

 

How realistic it is should NEVER be more important than how fun it is.

 

If I have nothing that will effectively deal with a vehicle, and I am facing tough vehicles, that's still not going to be fun.  Why would it be fun for something that makes zero sense, as in, stretched and snaps any form of suspension of disbelief?  If I can't believe it's going to happen, why would I even bother trying to do it?

 

You defeat your own argument by claiming you can deal with tanks without AT weapons, then go on to state that you won't destroy tanks without AT...  So, in reality, neither situation is fun, therefore the point of the game is defeated.

 

Okay, I have a question for you:

 

If the 8th edition vehicle rules were how it had always been for the last 30 years, would they still feel wrong?

 

It is it just that they aren't what you're used to? If AV and damage tables had never existed, would you still hate this so much?

 

None of us can answer that.

 

We have had the damage tables and a more realistic approach to vehicular damage since the game began.  Therefore, it's always going to be the superior system.  The biggest issue was when hull points, or wounds were introduced, and you were able to kill vehicles without actually destroying them.  Yet, I understand a Hull point system, as tanks could be ground to ineffectiveness.  It's just there was the opportunity to totally kill a tank, with the right weapons.

 

I think my Landraider getting stuck on a shrub is more immersion breaking than any of the new rules could ever be :-/

 

Somebody, either in this thread, or some other thread, was talking about people using sheets to immobilise tanks, as weapons.

 

Couldn't some foliage or rubble foul tracks?  Block exhaust ports?  Cause enough damage that, either immediate repair is required (Techmarine) or, for the period the game lasts, the vehicle can't move until the techmarines reach it to run a repair?

 

Instead of toughness and the chance for every weapon to damage vehicles, the table should have stayed, and armour values should have carried on.  I mean, there has to be a bonus for actually getting behind a vehicle.

[Ishagu]

Playing the game will be the true test.

I think if armies function as their theme suggests, and units are effective and live up to their own lore, then ultimately we'll be more immersed!

[Claws and Effect]

"Therefore, it's always going to be the superior system"

 

Subjective opinion presented as objective fact.

 

You do it quit a bit and should probably try not to. It comes off as condescending, as though you believe you know more about the game than anyone else.

 

Doesn't do your position any favors when you state why you're displeased with something.

 

It's probably why you're getting so much grief over this.

[Claws and Effect]

Would it be as big of a deal uf Toughness was called Armor and Wounds were called Hull?

[MysticTemplar]

 

Okay, I have a question for you:

 

If the 8th edition vehicle rules were how it had always been for the last 30 years, would they still feel wrong?

 

It is it just that they aren't what you're used to? If AV and damage tables had never existed, would you still hate this so much?

 

None of us can answer that.

 

We have had the damage tables and a more realistic approach to vehicular damage since the game began.  Therefore, it's always going to be the superior system.  The biggest issue was when hull points, or wounds were introduced, and you were able to kill vehicles without actually destroying them.  Yet, I understand a Hull point system, as tanks could be ground to ineffectiveness.  It's just there was the opportunity to totally kill a tank, with the right weapons.

 

I remain unconvinced that damage tables are actually a more realistic approach than the individualized degradation tables - Necron Monoliths are described as needing to be destroyed in a way that perfectly matches 8th's idea of how to kill big models, for example - slowly blowing holes into the armor until the last shot finally kills it - perfectly analogous to the Monolith having wounds taken off of it until the last one kills it.

 

 

 

I think my Landraider getting stuck on a shrub is more immersion breaking than any of the new rules could ever be :-/

 

Somebody, either in this thread, or some other thread, was talking about people using sheets to immobilise tanks, as weapons.

 

Couldn't some foliage or rubble foul tracks?  Block exhaust ports?  Cause enough damage that, either immediate repair is required (Techmarine) or, for the period the game lasts, the vehicle can't move until the techmarines reach it to run a repair?

 

Instead of toughness and the chance for every weapon to damage vehicles, the table should have stayed, and armour values should have carried on.  I mean, there has to be a bonus for actually getting behind a vehicle.

 

I find this breaks the abstraction a bit, honestly - when you've got a maneuverable skimmer like a Pallas, how would you even get around to target its rear armor effectively? Shouldn't it be maneuvering around to avoid giving you that sort of shot? Although we're back to the weirdness of the game taking place awkwardly in full turns - there's no particular reason that a tank crew shouldn't be reacting to, say, the drop pod descending towards them before the things inside actually murder them.

[Claws and Effect]

Also, the difference between "I can't even scratch the paint" and "This thing will take forever to kill"?

 

That's the thematic difference between fighting a glorious last stand and getting slaughtered like cattle.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I think my Landraider getting stuck on a shrub is more immersion breaking than any of the new rules could ever be :-/

 

Oh, I agree on that one.  But that has nothing to do with AV being replaced with Toughness, does it?

 

 

 

 

I suspect you being a combat vet somewhat inhibits your ability for immersion when it comes to 40k vehicles, you see all the similarities and not the differences. Though your combat vet status would count as much towards made-up 40k vehicles as an ancient chariot crewmember's veterancy would count towards modern combat vehicles. Heck, you would most likely know waaaay more about your vehicle than a crewman on a Leman Russ would know about his, if something broke down they wouldn't be able to fix it without a mechanicum representative, especially not on an alien planet where the atmosphere is acid and the enemies are nightmare-creatures...

 

 

 

 

 

Except that I'm not talking about anything that is related to 41st Millennium super-science.  I'm talking about the basic mechanical principles that make hydrocarbon-powered vehicles operate.  And we know that Imperial tanks operate on the same basic principles as modern-day combat vehicles.  Am I blinded by experience and logic?  Entirely possible, I guess.

 

 

 

Would it be as big of a deal uf Toughness was called Armor and Wounds were called Hull?

 

 

Yup, because Hull Points were a crappy idea from the start. 

 

 

Also, the difference between "I can't even scratch the paint" and "This thing will take forever to kill"?

 

That's the thematic difference between fighting a glorious last stand and getting slaughtered like cattle.

 

 

And?  Combat tactics are about creating as much of a mismatch on the battlefield as you can.  If small arms really can halt an armored thrust, then why didn't that happen in 1991 when American M1s steamrolled Iraqi conscripts?  In 1939 when German Panzer IIs and IIIs crashed through Polish lines?  Sometimes, you as a commander find that you just don't have the weapons available to meet the threat you face.  Now I understand that this isn't a simulation, that it is a game and games are supposed to be fun; and that being faced with literally impossible tasks isn't fun.  I'm not a game designer, though, so it's not my job to find the happy medium between "what makes sense" and "what is fun."  GW thinks they found that middle ground, and I happen to disagree.  Like I said before, there's nothing I can do about it, and also like I said: I'd appreciate it if you'd stop throwing up scenarios trying to convert me.  My subjective fun and your subjective fun don't agree, period.

[Claws and Effect]

Fair enough.

 

But in the same vein, *I* don't appreciate being effectively told that I shouldn't share my viewpoint simply because you disagree with it.

 

You basically just said, in so many words: I don't agree, so shut up.

 

Not exactly conducive to civil discourse.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

At no point did I demand anyone stop voicing their opinion.  I asked that people stop trying to convert me.  There's a difference between explaining your position and asking things like:

 

 

Okay, I have a question for you:

If the 8th edition vehicle rules were how it had always been for the last 30 years, would they still feel wrong?

It is it just that they aren't what you're used to? If AV and damage tables had never existed, would you still hate this so much?

 

 

Would it be as big of a deal uf Toughness was called Armor and Wounds were called Hull?

[Claws and Effect]

I wasn't trying to convert you by asking those things.

 

I was trying to determine what it is about the rules that makes them "not act like vehicles".

 

Specifically by asking if you would still feel the same if the 8th edition rules were how it always was.

 

Basically, are the rules themselves the problem, or the fact that they are a change from different rules.

 

To elaborate a little further, now that ANYTHING can be wounded on a 6, small arms are in effect not as weak as they were.

 

What if that had always been the case and enough laser rifles could kill anything given enough time right from the start?

 

I think part of the perception here has to do with lasguns being seen as weak. Being a combat vet, would you view a weapon capable of burning straight through the equivalent of modern body armor and out the other side as "weak"? Because that's basically what flak armor is, and it has been well established that a lasgun can go right through it.

[Bryan Blaire]

Look, I don't want to play "Ultra-Realistic Wargaming Simulation" 40,000. I just want vehicles to be treated the way they've been treated for the last thirty years. I'm not going to get that anymore, so I'm disappointed. I just wish the rest of you would stop trying to convince the likes of me and Damo that our opinions on a purely subjective issue are objectively wrong.

Alright then, understood, but then there is nothing to discuss. I'm ambivalent on the new abstraction, but we are getting it and I'll use it despite it not being perfect, it's functional and can make sense. You prefer the old abstraction, but that won't be staying and you have already stated that you won't take the action to keep it amongst your play group.

 

End of story.