State of the HH vs 40k 8th edition

[Mogsam]

I like AoD and can't stand 8th. But this is mainly for three reasons.

 

1. I don't like the fluff for 8th (or 40k for that matter). So therefore I don't want to play it. This is the same reason I don't play AoS. If you destroy Tilea, then my Dogs of War are worthless.

 

2. Most Heresy players are sensible and don't enforce the stupidest or most illogical of the rules.

 

3. It took me 1 game of 8th to realise that rhino's stopped big tanks firing by ramming them into combat. It was stupid.

 

I think the 2nd bit is the most important part for me. I don't really care what the rules say alot of the time and usually just accept what the opponent wants to interpret it as. 30k is about having fun and even at events, taking a sub optimal list is fine because it's fluffy.

 

The only thing I don't like about about AoD is when there's a stupid rule that ruins immersion or wrecks an entire build. For example, I have a Legion with 3 anvillus and a Khabalsis, so you're looking at a big investment, both in points and money. I was happily using this in my group and it was great fun, if not massively effective - especially as I play EC and fill them full of meh units.

 

Then I then discover in a game that they can be surrounded in combat and the units inside killed automatically. I'd be happy with the unit having some big disadvantage, but straight up dying is just.. Well lame. Its not exciting, it's not tactical etc, it's just 'gamey'. Sorry horus, you can't get out of the transport so the heresy is over. Good job 40 levy militia bodies.

 

The 2nd point mitigates this. I have a conversation with my opponent before the game if I go to a narrative event and most of the time, they agree with some of the dodgier rules and we work it out. If they want to play RAW fine, but that's few and far between.

 

I also see far less dick punching lists in 30k.

[Noserenda]

Not a fan of the current direction of the Horus Heresy game at the mo, 7th is by far my most disliked, bloated mess of an edition with a barely changed Psychic phase from the most hated Magic system Warhammer ever fielded (Though at least they stopped one of the awful powers) and junk vehicle and especially super heavy rules, masses of pointless and annoying minutiae, seriously whoever thought of combining USRs into USRs that are just "You have 2 USRs" needs to be donkey dropped.

This only gets worse as things go on tbh, as now our groups have barely played it in a couple of years we are basically glued to rulebooks and thats playing relatively stripped back versions because any decent sized game is just unplayable compared to any specialist game or 40k as is.

Its not just clunk either, Adeptus Titanicus is clunky as hell and yet those rules are eminently more playable, even characterful (Much like Battlefleet Gothic) as you direct your largely ponderous engines of destruction at each other. While its rulebook is also laid out by a madman we find ourselves referring to it a hell of a lot less and a lot more smoothly and we have literally yeeears of playing iterations of 7th (Which i suspect may also be the problem, 5 similar editions and 3 outliers is a lot of brain room!).

Some of it is play group, the folks i play 8th/AT/Necromunda/Warcry against are a much better class of players than those i tend to end up playing Heresy with, ive never noticed this weird toxic belief in Heresy players somehow being a better class of people out in the wild, ever since the original TF events at Warhammer world (When you had to hand convert your entire army, before the FW bandwagonners got on board) there were just as many of any given "class" of player as any other system ive played. Some of the worst players ive ever had the misfortune to play or witness were Heresy gamers, though i will admit they did have fantastically painted armies too  

The attitude of FW has been the real downer though, you really feel the loss of Alan Bligh at basically every level and the sympathy i could feel for trying to feel such a large void has long since evaporated in the face of their attitude, half arsed releases, contempt for customers and a general sense of entitlement which infuriatingly some people are happy to fan and indulge. I love the 30k setting and when there was no better alternative i loved the game, (Though its worth noting our group had largely abandoned 7th even before 8th got announced) but these things have been long poisoned and its painful.

Due to my disability if i ever want to start a new project i basically have to sell an old one in some capacity and its getting hard to shift Heresy models right now, probably a good time to hoover up though, i sold an entire company of blood angels for £300ish after fees after months of trying to get more for it, make of that what you will.


TLDR? The Setting is good, the Black library is doing sterling work once again but Forgeworld does not care anymore, 7th is garbage and the community is shifting inward towards toxicity and elitism, all of which is baaaaad.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Slips
Dont dodge the swear filter, even with abbreviations.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

1. I don't like the fluff for 8th (or 40k for that matter). So therefore I don't want to play it. This is the same reason I don't play AoS. If you destroy Tilea, then my Dogs of War are worthless.

 

I kinda agree here, having returned after many years away from the hobby I was a bit excited that things were happening. But when I had taken most of it in, it is kinda weird. Most of it does not make any sense or add up (lol, even for the weird reality 40k is!) 30k is much more interesting fluff wise, in my humble opinion.

 

I also think that the main protagonist and antagonist should awlays be the Imperieum against the forces of Chaos. This crap about the Tyranids going to eat everyone, being the biggest threat to everyone bugs me (lol, see what I did there?    )

Xenos races should be threats, minor threats, not small threats but I mean -  The Imperiums biggest enemy should be Chaos. The remnants of the Legions, uprisings all over the universe by cultists etc.But that is my opinion anyways and I am not against the occassional campaign like The Third Armageddon War, that was fun. But apart from that..

 

 

As for the Tyranids, someone build huge lobestr pots, filled with some useless carcasses and then have the whole lot be sent into some super nova already..

[mughi3]

1. I don't like the fluff for 8th (or 40k for that matter). So therefore I don't want to play it. This is the same reason I don't play AoS. If you destroy Tilea, then my Dogs of War are worthless.

Arch warhammer explained it best-primaris marines cannot happen the way the lore explains.

 

I unuderstand it was a marketing play to get people to buy different marine models, and the models do look fantastic, but instead of primaris they just said "these are the new stats for basic marines" then it would have been ok, that's a good revamp.

 

Generally I hate 8th as well outside of one version-playing it in epic scale(using half ranges for weapons/movement) where it works to streamline large scale gameplay in 6mm, since things like facing and terrain movement become hard to track.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Yeah, they made some weird decision with the Primaris. The models look great, it just :cusss a bit on the normal ones, ruleswise, I think. I can see why they did what they did.

 

Sounds like a cool idea. The rules got dumbed streamlined pretty decently. I absolutely hated going from 2nd Ed. to 3rd but learned to like it (well, I did when 4th Ed kicked around anyways..) Kinda the same with 8th - I looked at the rules and felt disgusted. No teplates?? But then.. I play Orks too and that was suddenly not too bad..

There are pros and cons and even though it is very simple it works surprisingly well.

 

But on the other hand, I have more fun in games like Shadow War: Armageddon these days.. But when you want to play some bigger games, 8th Ed. is not that bad, is it?

[MegaVolt87]

Yeah, they made some weird decision with the Primaris. The models look great, it just :cusss a bit on the normal ones, ruleswise, I think. I can see why they did what they did.

 

Sounds like a cool idea. The rules got dumbed streamlined pretty decently. I absolutely hated going from 2nd Ed. to 3rd but learned to like it (well, I did when 4th Ed kicked around anyways..) Kinda the same with 8th - I looked at the rules and felt disgusted. No teplates?? But then.. I play Orks too and that was suddenly not too bad..

There are pros and cons and even though it is very simple it works surprisingly well.

 

But on the other hand, I have more fun in games like Shadow War: Armageddon these days.. But when you want to play some bigger games, 8th Ed. is not that bad, is it?

 

Interesting thing about the advantage of bigger games with 8th ed, it seems the new Apoc is actually even better at that than 8th ed itself for anything over 2k points in 8th ed. 

[mughi3]

I'm still a hardcore 5th ed fanatic for an army battle game(not a skirmish game like 2nd). that's counting the fact i started in 3rd and have been in the game ever since (including the nightmare that was 6th) it had some of the best codexes, best universal special rules, best psyker rules, and best tactical play, as an ork player don't you miss the ramshackle table for your trukks? that stuff was great!

 

 

Now that's not to say 5th was perfect. vehicle assault rules were better in 4th IE-moving more for less effective shooting was a trade off for being harder to hit in CC/attacking armor facing. grenade throwing, snap fire, overwatch, close combat weapons having an AP value were all great things from 7th that would have made 5th even better.

 

The biggest thing I think is that people who only play 40K have limited experience on how different games play which locks them into a certain mind set. it actually caused me a bit of burnout back when 6th dropped since I was playing 3+ games of 40K every Saturday for years. I took a break from it for almost a year and focused on other systems where the feel, the mechanics and complexity helped give me a better perspective on gameplay/design

 

This brings us back to the HH/8TH dispersion. personally think HH is a far more interesting game than 8th but it is not promoted and supported to the point of 8th. this is of course marketing because 8th has a much bigger range and reach. so the mass majority of players are going to want to play the current thing.

 

a simple comparison is the fact that HH took 7th and got rid of the formation bloat while making every unit interesting and worth taking. while 8th is relying on gimmicks that almost completely remove actual tactical play for list building exploits. maxing command points/character buff bubbles to pull off things to break core game mechanics like bolter storm(got that used on me last night)-automatic hitting with all your shots combined with wounding on 1 less than needed with another strategem. leaving me to ask-this isn't a re-roll bubble you literally don't have to roll to hit with every shot in a tactical wargame, how is that even reasonable? even flamethrowers that auto-hit in their own way don't always hit for max damage as it is a random d6 hits(I think the new salamanders max damage command point stuff is stupid as well and I am a salamanders player).

 

Another player came buy and made question "isn't 8th kinda alpha-strikey?" and the guy I was playing against tried to defend it by saying every edition of 40K was that way. I had to counter that it wasn't true because in previous editions cover had a serious effect on survivability if you didn't go first.

 

I hope HH keeps doing well, but I have little hope the power creep in 40K 8th ed will not keep getting worse. it is the dominant property for GW as their main money maker.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

I never played Orks past 4th Ed. I think I left as 5th rolled in. I checked the Codex out but felt gutted. Atleats my army translated very poorly. I played Goffz, I had converted 60 Skarboyz from the torso from WHFB Big Bosses, - yes, bought that many sprues and had iron gobz on everyone. Suddenly they were boyz instead.. Which might have been fine but then most of the wargear went iirc.. Very streamlined options.. That´s how I remember it anyways. :)

 

It went the wrong way for me.. 3rd Ed was, at the beginning seriously stupid. Like Souped up Rhinos (BAs) moving 18", jump out 2", assault 6". Kill some clueless bunch of dudes and Sweeping Advance (sure you could be shot but..)

Then 4th fixed alot of that but 5th seemed to screw up other things, dumbing the game down, in my humble opinion..

 

Not sure where I am going anymore.. Damn.. Nevermind..

 

I am trusting in you guys saying AoD is kinda fine. What do i know.. I was, i think, just slightly defending 8th Ed. that all is not bad. But I am absolutely fine with AoD staying where it is.

I am back in line! Trying to listen more instead and drink less ale..

[Gederas]

Kinda the same with 8th - I looked at the rules and felt disgusted. No teplates?? But then.. I play Orks too and that was suddenly not too bad..

Templates were removed because of tournament play. Because if you have templates, then someone could cause a slow-play to happen by arguing over how many of their guys got hit by the template, or how many were only partially hit.

 

I only played a few games of 40k in 7th, but in the ones I played, as well as ones I observed, I saw template arguments happen every. single. game.

 

.... Also probably because they wanted people to be able to play horde armies again without a hilariously easy to get hard-counter to the hordes. :lol:

 

Because a major gameplay aspect that can, and often does, cause one of the people playing the game to feel cheated out of a decent game, is not something you want in your game to have a healthy game.

[mughi3]

i disagree-they fixed templates in 5th-the 4th partials only hit on a 4+ was what led to arguments. the removal of templates was a terrible idea, there is a reason why every other game system still uses them for ease and speed of play.

 

Lets face it most tourney players are super competitive jerks. GW created the monster with sanctioned RTs and GTs in 3rd ed. they have since seem to be moving more towards narrative play, but that hasn't stopped that certain crowd from trying to break the game with rules abuse.

 

I stopped playing in any kind of tourney setting in 2011 because it was simply toxic and not fun. if we have templates I hand over my template and say here you check how many are under, then I roll with it. no need to be a jerk, but then again I play in a casual FLGS setting. everybody likes the win, but the best games are the ones you never know the outcome until the end.

 

The problem with templates in 8th is the random roll and the severely small number of possible hits. a d6 on a battle cannon template is pretty ridiculous considering you can possible get many more than that with an actual template. previous experience colors current opinion.

 

Ideally if I play 8th edition I would like to play without any stratagems or command points. allowing people to build fun armies without having to worry about maxing the spam command points. In fact next game I play of 8th I think I will see if we can do a game like that.

[Vykes]

I'd say they improved templates by the removal of the old 4+ on partials, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they were 'fixed'.  Frankly, like Gederas, template drift and concurrence is something I still see happen and become time sink arguments a fair bit among our more heated players.  I tend to just err on the side of 'when in doubt, the opponent is right' because at the end of the day, I don't care enough to turn it into an argument.  I personally don't like templates*: great idea, bad results.  The nice thing about non-templates in 8E is that my formations can look like the cover of Galaxy in Flames rather than looking like a checkerboard with max-spaced squad coherency, and still have an effective enough unit.  I still have to deal with the gamey frustration of Ring Around the Rhino, but whatever.  

 

CP and Strategems are EXACTLY like Templates to me: great idea, bad results. 

 

*The games I otherwise play just don't have them.

[MegaVolt87]

To me the CP and stratagem system feels like a non committal design of simplification and complexity. Formations being a CP tax/ sink in exchange for advantage, may potentially bring back problems from 7th ed formations again. HH detachments are very nice, big rewards, big risks. 

[Vykes]

At the risk of detouring a touch into the usual 8E strict territory: I agree there Megavolt, mate.  But I think it's also an unintended consequence of the complexity of the building process between armies.  30K's army basic building block is very similar and thus the advantages/disadvantages aren't so stark.  But while I adore 40K's concept of alternate Force Orgs (as it in part replicates what can be done with the 30K Rites of War), the simple fact is that different armies have very real CP generation and strategem dependency issues that are endemic because they're inherently linked to the construction process.  And given there's the cross-faction batteries problem that 1 CP generated is as good as another and aren't linked to the formation they're created for, it's become difficult to balance out the CP advantages and relative cost when used in the game itself. 

 

Warcry/Kill Team's Wild dice/CP turn based generation feels a lot more interesting and could keep that from becoming the front-loaded mess that it is now, as would be locking the CP use to the formation that generated it.  I like the use of CP as a resource to do one or two unique and interesting things.  Awesome, very cool idea. But it's currently a quagmire.  30K's version is essentially stuff like Deredeo interceptor, augury mechanics, salvo guns, and until not long ago, Punisher cannons and Moritats.  It's bookeeping while 40K made it a limited on demand resource.  I don't think it's necessarily bad, it's just a different approach that I find kinda interesting.  

 

Bringing it back: AoD construction and force customization works remarkably well as far as I'm concerned, and is pretty balanced (though as Indefragable's thread brought to light, especially in the comments, the generic Rites are usually pretty so-so compared to legion specific options, so some minor adjustments would be nice).  But that really only extends as far as the legion list.  I'm currently working up my Voidclade Militia army and trying to get it to 2500 points, and I ran into something I never have before at this point level: I'm constantly hitting my troop slot cap hard.  The same mechanics that allow me a nice plethora of choices for legion options is not translating over to grenadier armies that aren't just running a ton of tanks.  Having a 40K 'Brigade' sized slot selection would sure be nice right now. 

[mughi3]

*The games I otherwise play just don't have them.

.infinity-templates check

.dust 1947-templates check

.warmachine-templates check

.flames of war-templates check

 

 

both battletech and B5 wars using a template style system based on measuring distance from center of hit location.

 

 

the simple fact is that different armies have very real CP generation and strategem dependency issues that are endemic because they're inherently linked to the construction process. And given there's the cross-faction batteries problem that 1 CP generated is as good as another and aren't linked to the formation they're created for, it's become difficult to balance out the CP advantages and relative cost when used in the game itself.

Infinity already fixed this problem-every army has the exact same number of command points (4) they can never get more no matter the build and can never get them back, also they are only allowed to be used on 7 specific things

1.re-roll a heal check

2.re-roll a repair check

3.reform a link team

4.make a coordinated move

5.regain control of a hacked TAG

6.prevent your opponent from using more than 1 CP in their next turn(it costs 2 of your 4 to do it)

and

7.if you have an EVO in your army it allows a re-roll on hacking checks.

Edited November 11, 2019 by mughi3

[Vykes]

I never said the games don't exist, I said that games I play, don't use them  . 

 

I'd have to take you at your word as Infinity is an interesting system that I know next to nothing about other than it uses D20's and I couldn't ever get into it because I couldn't find anyone that wanted to give it a try. 

 

As for me: if someone implemented a CP c\system to do things like Fury of the Legion, or a die reroll per turn, (or just purchase reroll dice with warlords), or a moritats shots, or a rerolled scatter die, etc etc, I'd be interested in at least trying it out.  Because while the current system is something that works, it doesn't mean that there aren't at least interesting alternatives in how to implement their usage through different means.  

 

Post Scriptum: I was gonna fix that c\system thing but it it just made me really nostalgic for DOS...

Edited November 11, 2019 by Vykes

[m0nolith]

Although much as been discussed so far, I’ll keep it simple and direct.

 

-I am very happy with 30k as it is right now.

-I am open to changes with AoD 2nd Ed when the time comes, as long as it plays and has a basis in 7th, (honestly, 3rd is the real basis). This includes aspects of 8th that I would be open to like split fire and multiple units in a vehicle.

-Overall, I and many others that play 30k dislike how 8th ed plays.

-Business wise, it makes sense for GW to keep a second game to cater to and receive business from 7th fans, while 8th fans have 40k.

-There is definitely elitism in the game, but it’s been overblown. There are two main rules to 30k: Paint your models and don’t be a jerk. It’s really that simple. If that’s misconstrued as elitism, then that’s a sad state of affairs.

 

The end

Edited November 11, 2019 by m0nolith

[MegaVolt87]

I never said the games don't exist, I said that games I play, don't use them  . 

 

I'd have to take you at your word as Infinity is an interesting system that I know next to nothing about other than it uses D20's and I couldn't ever get into it because I couldn't find anyone that wanted to give it a try. 

 

As for me: if someone implemented a CP c\system to do things like Fury of the Legion, or a die reroll per turn, (or just purchase reroll dice with warlords), or a moritats shots, or a rerolled scatter die, etc etc, I'd be interested in at least trying it out.  Because while the current system is something that works, it doesn't mean that there aren't at least interesting alternatives in how to implement their usage through different means.  

 

Post Scriptum: I was gonna fix that c\system thing but it it just made me really nostalgic for DOS...

 

Don't open that box of a CP system to use things like fury of the legion as a stratagem. This is just shifting the goalposts to that non committal design we were just talking about IMO. On the whole from what I have seen, HH needs a trim, not a clean shave for a HH 2ed. 

[Bung]

From my experience games tend to rise and fall on the people involved at your local level.

I have 2 Nerdstores in an equal distance and both handle AoD and 40k very different.

The first even my favorite of them doesnt cater to AoD cause its mostly Forgeworld stuff he cant earn anything from (even as a store he has to pay normal FW prices) so he duscourages an using FW Models and rules and is supported by a group of hardcore tourney players that dont want to see anything from FW books in their games, cause they may have to rething´k their army. 

The second one even has small AoD group starting armies including me and is supported by the main store owner for bringing cool painted models to the table.

Big plus is they guys are fun to play against, no hardcore tourney players to be found so mostly relaxed games under gentleman 

 

Personly i prefer AoD cause i prefer converting and bring your own look to the games, while 40k tends to be "You can only play the stuff in the box you bought, cause we wont any freeloaders to make a profit of our games with stuff we are not willing to produce."

 

For the rules i prefer something like AoD or Infinity. A rules system that lets you benefit from experience of playing games instead of buying a flavor of the week army from an online armylist.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

As for templates, there is pros and cons.. I presonally feel it is dumbing down and making it too easy and yes, too random from 1 to 6 hits ost of the time.. But on the current board size standard of 6 x 4 feet, some armies are at a disadvantage when force to spread out so hard to not get annihilated by templates. or am I wrong?

I played Flames of War for a while and I did like the tactic of forcing the enemy to spread out or take more casulties (realistic), pin him and then make it easier to assault since he is spread out and have harder to respond/counter attack. So maybe I am wrong after all.

But my first feeling of seeing them gone when returning, to being disgusted, changed a little bit after trying and it kinda, helped game play. But again, not saying I like everything about it.

 

From my experience games tend to rise and fall on the people involved at your local level.

I have 2 Nerdstores in an equal distance and both handle AoD and 40k very different.

The first even my favorite of them doesnt cater to AoD cause its mostly Forgeworld stuff he cant earn anything from (even as a store he has to pay normal FW prices) so he duscourages an using FW Models and rules and is supported by a group of hardcore tourney players that dont want to see anything from FW books in their games, cause they may have to rething´k their army. 

The second one even has small AoD group starting armies including me and is supported by the main store owner for bringing cool painted models to the table.

Big plus is they guys are fun to play against, no hardcore tourney players to be found so mostly relaxed games under gentleman 

 

Personly i prefer AoD cause i prefer converting and bring your own look to the games, while 40k tends to be "You can only play the stuff in the box you bought, cause we wont any freeloaders to make a profit of our games with stuff we are not willing to produce."

 

For the rules i prefer something like AoD or Infinity. A rules system that lets you benefit from experience of playing games instead of buying a flavor of the week army from an online armylist.

 

It is really annoying, the trend of removing options because GW did not include it in a box - that might be old and the option was elsewhere. Ork Boyz is one example of that. Big shoota and rokkit launcha in the box but no burna. Burna used to be an option but since you do not get it in the box and the OTT BNurna models are a separate unit - gone!

Kommandos lost their special weapons too, even though there was a resin, first metal, big shoota boy (long gone). Gheez, where did the hobby aspect go? The konverting, kit bashing?? That in these cases are not hard! In these cases you take a piece of plastic from another box and glue it to this other boy..

 

 

I personally feel a bit.. Negative? About tournament play and pure tournament players. Yes it can be fun and some are nice people. ;) It is just that the rules are not chess or any random balanced sports. There are too many variables and too much left open for the players to exploit, still. I think you are missing a huge part of the hobby, yes hobby, not league. The fluff. Yes I think you can never really look away from it and it is a narrative game based on the background. The system is not balanced enough for hardcore competetive play when there are these minority of "that guy" around.. Sorry..

 

More random ramblings..

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

By the way, there is some merit on begative AP modifiers instead of flat out full save or not at all. I kind of like that. Not over the top but a little negative modifier here and there, like heavy bolters reducing the effectiveness of power armour a bit. Like some heavier weapons making you 4+ or 5+ even on basic Marines.

(Not sure going back to 2nd -1 flat out for all bolters is necessary however.)

 

But yeah, there are some good things in 8th Ed, in my humble opinion.

[Marshal Rohr]

They could even add that in without math. Heavy bolter always treat Armor better than 4+ as a 4+ save. Armor 4+ or up gets no save.

[Vykes]

Aye Marshal Rohr, but then you get the question of things like autocannons which are in the same boat. Then there's weird little interactions like why they would reduce a Terminator's armour save to 4+ and make them as 'bad' as marines while missile launchers would deny marines saves and do nothing to terminators, unless we were to apply the rule to all Heavy weapons, which would make some weapons like the volkite Caliver's pretty appealing, etc etc.

 

Honestly, I do think that taking a few cues from newer games (and perhaps some like 8E's in concept, but not necessarily the ones in practice*) could at least be a worthwhile discussion.

 

I kinda feel like I have to be clear: if you like AoD wholesale, that's cool.  I'm happy that it's a stable system I don't have to worry about rolling over into a new edition every 2 years.  But there are no sacred cows: things can always be better and a few of AoD's deficiencies and concepts strike me as archaic leftovers from earlier editions (Slow and Purposeful, anybody?) that could potentially benefit from some revision streamlining to make it more intuitive.  As it stands, some very good ideas come from a long line of tweaks and fixes stemming from 3rd edition that were always 'patched' and never cohesively invented for AoD itself.  So perhaps, just perhaps, certain concepts could be looked at and evaluated for what it could contribute or enhance.  

 

*Which is what I was getting at with the idea of CP and strategems: not adopting 8E wholesale, but at least evaluating some of their ideas and seeing about the thought experiment of adopting similar tweaked concepts into the arena of 30K's choices and options.  I'm not saying it should be implemented, merely that looking at how that might be is an interesting notion.  

[Marshal Rohr]

I mean the -X AP system isn’t hard to implement, and would be fine it’s just 40k of any edition has a problem with anti tank weaponry losing out to high rate of fire mid strength weapons becUse of the nature of probability. That’s why before anything else I think weapons need a USR called ‘Anti-Armor’ where weapons without this USR can’t hurt vehicles at all.

[Vykes]

Hmm -ponders that- actually that's a pretty neat idea, too.  It's also one I kinda like. 

 

More a musing than an actual observation, but how would that interact with the big bad multi-tool of the 30K scene: plasma?  I mean, if it has 'Anti-Armour' then it's just as devastating as it is right now with it's 'wounds just about every infantry unit on 2, no save, one in six/thirty-six chance of maybe possibly causing some self inflicted damage, and still really powerful against vehicles.  However, if it doesn't, then it feels a little weird that it can't hurt said flying couch landspeeder at all, but a weaker krak grenade can. 

 

And if you flip it around and have the 'Anti-Personnel' rule where a weapon can't hurt vehicles, it has that same sort of borderline problem. 

 

Like I said, I like it, it's not a complaint in the least, I'm genuinely curious as to what the concencus would be with a rule like that.  Especially if something like a plasma pistol/gun might have one rule while less frequently used plasma cannons and the Omega plasma burner might have another to differentiate them a little.  

 

Post Scriptum: "Vykes's 'for the record' #2285' or so": 8E's elimination of USR's for in-profile special rules was a reaaaaally bad idea.  Now there's rules which were meant to be the same, are written the same, are called the same thing, and work dramatically different because one got a patch and one didn't. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Vykes

[mughi3]

By the way, there is some merit on begative AP modifiers instead of flat out full save or not at all. I kind of like that. Not over the top but a little negative modifier here and there, like heavy bolters reducing the effectiveness of power armour a bit. Like some heavier weapons making you 4+ or 5+ even on basic Marines.

(Not sure going back to 2nd -1 flat out for all bolters is necessary however.)

 

But yeah, there are some good things in 8th Ed, in my humble opinion.

I do not think there is merit at all, it does nothing but add game abuse, and extra mechanic tracking. the reason terminators used cost so much is because you had a 2+ save all the time. now units really are not worth taking unless they have a good invul save, cost less, or have enough multiple wounds to survive a few hits. especially now with the doctrines in effect.

 

it is the opposite of what they did removing the WS/BS comparison chart and making base hit numbers standard for simplicity.

 

 

It's up there on my list of annoying things in 8th like las guns being able to hurt land raiders, vehicles being monsterous creatures without need for facing or LOS from the weapon mounts(seriously breaks immersion, I still turn my dreadnoughts to face in game because it seems wrong otherwise) and loosing stable platform rules for dreads, terminators, bikes and aircraft.

 

DUST 1947 does a better job on this part. it started out as a wound system game without a damage chart from the beginning, so in that way it is similar however infantry and armor are broken up into classes (1-4 for infantry 1-3 for air and 1-7 for armor lower number the lighter the armor) they balanced it by limiting how many shots and how high up the scale you could hurt things with the weapons you have. so a .30 cal could hurt up to class 2 or 3 vehicles but a .50 could hurt up to class 4 and so on, air was also addressed. there is no penalty to hit, the weapons that can even target air are limited. so the main gun on my ranger bulldog heavy tank cannot engage aircraft but the pintle .50 can (dust has split fire like 8th). with all that however facing and firing arcs are still required for a weapon to engage an enemy unit. additionally there is no direct penalty for moving and firing any weapon save loosing the ability to use suppression fire(IE count your shots as twin linked by using both your units actions to shoot/shoot).

 

I actually consider it a far better mechanic system than 40K because the dice use a symbol system- all hitting and saves are standard across all factions and with alternating unit activations there is no way to alpha strike your opponent if you go first.

 

somewhere along the line of switching from HH/7th edition over to 8th GW seems to have lost sight of the tactical wargame part and replaced it with list building/abusing strategy part.

 

It goes all the way back to something jervis once said about changes to vehicle assault rules from 4th to 5th. something along the lines of "if a vehicle gets assaulted you DESERVE to hit it" you deserve NOTHING you earn it with you tactical skill as a commander on the table as part of the wargame.

Edited November 11, 2019 by mughi3