The Old Wound Chart is Superior to what we have now:

[Noserenda]

The main problem with the old morale system was how underused it was, nigh on every army had a way around it, mitigating factors or just straight up ignored it. I like the new system because it integrates all sorts of reasons for those missing models from "too stupid/brave to duck" to "legged it" without a myriad pile of systems and special rules to get basically the same effect. I mean its not like running away is even a realistic reaction to broken morale most of the time, it just looks pretty, unlike "malinger in cover until an officer spots us" :D 

I do kinda miss pinning though, but i do also agree "miss a go" is always a mistake in game design, its just tedious, especially in a 3-6 turn game like 40k. 

[Closet Skeleton]

 

The most immediate thing that strikes me, is that it was much more impactful for heavier anti-infantry weapons. Heavy Bolters could cut into T3 models on a 2+, reflecting that kind of firepower its bringing, instead, now, it's just a bolter, with -1 ap. 

 

Before, it was impossible to harm certain targets, with light weapons fire. A Lasgun should not be able to harm, say, a Land Raider. It's not possible under any reasonable or rational circumstances.

 

The current chart often favours weight of dice over any other factor, certainly, more AP and wounds always help, but if you've got the shots, spamming those shots will increase success, they've gotta fail an armour save sometime.

 

Heavy bolters are better in 8th than they've ever been.

 

Why shouldn't a lasgun be able to harm a land raider, a one wound land raider is already basically a smoking wreck full of holes, that's the only time a land raider fears a bunch of lasguns in the rules.

Any dice system favours weight of dice. Under the AV system Autocannons were statistically better than lascannons after all.

[Berzul]

That really is something that I dont understand.

 

Why get rid of USRs?

 

They are still there, just on different names.

[TorvaldTheMild]

The main problem with the old morale system was how underused it was, nigh on every army had a way around it, mitigating factors or just straight up ignored it. I like the new system because it integrates all sorts of reasons for those missing models from "too stupid/brave to duck" to "legged it" without a myriad pile of systems and special rules to get basically the same effect. I mean its not like running away is even a realistic reaction to broken morale most of the time, it just looks pretty, unlike "malinger in cover until an officer spots us"  

 

I do kinda miss pinning though, but i do also agree "miss a go" is always a mistake in game design, its just tedious, especially in a 3-6 turn game like 40k. 

The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was the fact that it effected no one.  They should keep 7th though after one turn of falling back and then they are fine again, that way you don't lose models for no reason at all but you are still penalised for falling back.  Its also realistic its what would happen in real life as in war if a squad falls back they do so but they don't run away becoming AWOL, even if they do that is extremely rare as you fall back as an army if you run away from your platoon and you are on the front lines there is more chance you'd end running towards another whole enemy force or you'd be captures while running away etc.  You are far safer being with your platoon.  

[Vykes]

 

The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was the fact that it effected no one.  They should keep 7th though after one turn of falling back and then they are fine again, that way you don't lose models for no reason at all but you are still penalised for falling back.  Its also realistic its what would happen in real life as in war if a squad falls back they do so but they don't run away becoming AWOL, even if they do that is extremely rare as you fall back as an army if you run away from your platoon and you are on the front lines there is more chance you'd end running towards another whole enemy force or you'd be captures while running away etc.  You are far safer being with your platoon.  ...

 

 

The new system ain't my jam either, but just 'cause you/me don't like it doesn't make it objectively awful.  It works well enough as an abstraction for representing what it's supposed to as battle shock taking troopers out of action.  The 'run one turn then regroup' feels way more like a video game (notably Total War) than reality, that's for sure.  For all the talk of simulation and realism, we're still taking two balanced forces with unlimited ammo and either 'alive' or 'dead' status with perfectly replicated equipment and equal training with almost nothing in the way of communication break down, all ruled by an omnipotent field commander that is utterly callous with 'the arithmetic of war'.  It's still a game: there's not much of the asymmetry we've seen in combat or the fog of war implicit in reality.   

 

And more over, 40K isn't modern war.  Platoons aren't even a thing for most of the armies out there.  Treating it as such as doing both 40K and the modern military a pretty big disservice. I mean, 40K has a lot of patterning on WW1 and WW2, with some aesthetics and images of the classical romanticism of the Napoleonics.  It's one thing to say modern military dogma of XYG-ica and whatever other country you want, is to fall back in good order and regroup then call in some air support: but it vaguely goes to the eye of terror when mind-goblins and faster-than-tracking creatures are screeching in surrounding buildings and half the squad just had their innards liquified by some stupid reality hopping eldar spider-trooper yelling 'monkey!'  Even if your squad of big he-man guardsmen aren't cowering in trenches as the mortars drive them insane or staring out into no-mans-land*, they might well be shaken enough to not even really be a factor in the fight (a la the Yanks Civil War where troopers would just load more and more patches powder and never actually fire their muskets).  So getting suddenly startled and then coming right back fresh as a daisy is just as weird. 

 

then we have marines.  Every time I look at astartes, then read any of the novels, I have to say 'it's a big abstraction' because as egregious as things like the St/T charts were and people's grousing about lasguns wounding Land Raiders, it felt just as egregious about how utterly frail Terminators were.  "But now sixteen lasgun shots can theoretically kill a Land Raider!" yeah, but before, 1 could kill a Terminator.  

 

Basically, it all comes down to YMMV, but I don't think that there's anything exactly 'certain' about it.  We're all gonna find a number of things we like and don't like.  No need to engage in us vs. them tribalisms. 

 

@Berzul... Lord Lupercal the removal of USR's was a mistake... -shakes head- Slim them down, tighten them up, cool.  But 'gone', and then realize how many sources they have to update in order to just 'fix' one of them?  Ugh.  

 

*Or the Eldar equivalent of the thousand yard stare which I imagine is the same while writing a haiku about the transient nature of mortal life. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yes, but when your platoon is being butchered by 8-foot tall lightning-shrouded post-human monstrosities wearing the faces of the last platoon that stood and fought, you might decide to take your chances.

[Lord_Starscream]

 

 

The most immediate thing that strikes me, is that it was much more impactful for heavier anti-infantry weapons. Heavy Bolters could cut into T3 models on a 2+, reflecting that kind of firepower its bringing, instead, now, it's just a bolter, with -1 ap. 

 

Before, it was impossible to harm certain targets, with light weapons fire. A Lasgun should not be able to harm, say, a Land Raider. It's not possible under any reasonable or rational circumstances.

 

The current chart often favours weight of dice over any other factor, certainly, more AP and wounds always help, but if you've got the shots, spamming those shots will increase success, they've gotta fail an armour save sometime.

 

Heavy bolters are better in 8th than they've ever been.

 

Why shouldn't a lasgun be able to harm a land raider, a one wound land raider is already basically a smoking wreck full of holes, that's the only time a land raider fears a bunch of lasguns in the rules.

Any dice system favours weight of dice. Under the AV system Autocannons were statistically better than lascannons after all.

 

 

 

Except against vehicles they couldn't harm.

 

And the reason to not allow certain weapon, spammable weapons, to harm certain things, was to not make the game just buckets of dice being thrown at one another. It adds different dynamics to the game, it presents different issues and how to solve them.

 

I recommend trying non GW or Privateer games for a while, it really does give you a fresh look on things. Bolt Action is my game of choice now, I mostly stick around 40k at all because of the models at this point.

[Lord_Caerolion]

How about an easy fix. If the Strength is more than double the Toughness and causes a successful wound, on a 4+ it does double damage. If the Strength is less than half the Toughness, it doesn't wound on a 6+, but must roll another dice and only if that is a 4+ does it successfully wound.

[TorvaldTheMild]

 

 

The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was the fact that it effected no one.  They should keep 7th though after one turn of falling back and then they are fine again, that way you don't lose models for no reason at all but you are still penalised for falling back.  Its also realistic its what would happen in real life as in war if a squad falls back they do so but they don't run away becoming AWOL, even if they do that is extremely rare as you fall back as an army if you run away from your platoon and you are on the front lines there is more chance you'd end running towards another whole enemy force or you'd be captures while running away etc.  You are far safer being with your platoon.  ...

 

 

The new system ain't my jam either, but just 'cause you/me don't like it doesn't make it objectively awful.  It works well enough as an abstraction for representing what it's supposed to as battle shock taking troopers out of action.  The 'run one turn then regroup' feels way more like a video game (notably Total War) than reality, that's for sure.  For all the talk of simulation and realism, we're still taking two balanced forces with unlimited ammo and either 'alive' or 'dead' status with perfectly replicated equipment and equal training with almost nothing in the way of communication break down, all ruled by an omnipotent field commander that is utterly callous with 'the arithmetic of war'.  It's still a game: there's not much of the asymmetry we've seen in combat or the fog of war implicit in reality.   

 

And more over, 40K isn't modern war.  Platoons aren't even a thing for most of the armies out there.  Treating it as such as doing both 40K and the modern military a pretty big disservice. I mean, 40K has a lot of patterning on WW1 and WW2, with some aesthetics and images of the classical romanticism of the Napoleonics.  It's one thing to say modern military dogma of XYG-ica and whatever other country you want, is to fall back in good order and regroup then call in some air support: but it vaguely goes to the eye of terror when mind-goblins and faster-than-tracking creatures are screeching in surrounding buildings and half the squad just had their innards liquified by some stupid reality hopping eldar spider-trooper yelling 'monkey!'  Even if your squad of big he-man guardsmen aren't cowering in trenches as the mortars drive them insane or staring out into no-mans-land*, they might well be shaken enough to not even really be a factor in the fight (a la the Yanks Civil War where troopers would just load more and more patches powder and never actually fire their muskets).  So getting suddenly startled and then coming right back fresh as a daisy is just as weird. 

 

then we have marines.  Every time I look at astartes, then read any of the novels, I have to say 'it's a big abstraction' because as egregious as things like the St/T charts were and people's grousing about lasguns wounding Land Raiders, it felt just as egregious about how utterly frail Terminators were.  "But now sixteen lasgun shots can theoretically kill a Land Raider!" yeah, but before, 1 could kill a Terminator.  

 

Basically, it all comes down to YMMV, but I don't think that there's anything exactly 'certain' about it.  We're all gonna find a number of things we like and don't like.  No need to engage in us vs. them tribalisms. 

 

@Berzul... Lord Lupercal the removal of USR's was a mistake... -shakes head- Slim them down, tighten them up, cool.  But 'gone', and then realize how many sources they have to update in order to just 'fix' one of them?  Ugh.  

 

*Or the Eldar equivalent of the thousand yard stare which I imagine is the same while writing a haiku about the transient nature of mortal life. 

 

When did I say it was 'objectively' bad?  Yeah I was using the term platoon to describe a sizable force other than a squad.  I mean seriously dude.

Yes, but when your platoon is being butchered by 8-foot tall lightning-shrouded post-human monstrosities wearing the faces of the last platoon that stood and fought, you might decide to take your chances.

Yeah you'll fall back, you won't run away as a single squad around by yourselves in space marine territory.  Also you ain't out running space marines lol  In all seriousness I get your point, but its still not going to happen often, guard, guardians, firewarriors etc. are used to fighting against big scary stuff.  They know what they are getting into, its not like Aliens (well actually they did know they just didn't believe Ripley).

[Lord_Caerolion]

A read-through of the Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer would show you that's a dirty lie. :p

 

Guardsmen have very little clue what they're getting into. Their lasguns are the most feared weapons in the galaxy, second only to the Holy Bolter, and all xenos are but pitiful wretches before them. Orks will drop like a sack of sand after a single bayonet to the face, and are short and physically unimposing. Eldar are all cowardly fools who run in terror at the sight of your glorious platoon. Tyranids? They're nicknamed "bugs" for a reason, so crush them under your boot, Private!

[Vykes]

Torvald, you use a lot of antagonistic and absolute language in a lot of your posts, so it comes off as uncompromising and needlessly aggressive.  

 

"The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was..."

 

Stuff like that sounds pretty absolute and doesn't leave much room for an actual conversation. 

 

Anyway @Lord_Caerlion.  It's an interesting one, I'm just kinda scared how that sort of a thing would operate in the neo-GW 'rerolls for everyone' set up. 

 

And kinda back on the old S/T chart, it always struck me that there was a noteworthy divergence point in the monsters versus vehicle arena because there was a plateau that firearms couldn't wound some monsters, yet even with AT weapons they couldn't count on lucky shots to put monsters down the way that armour could with a bad penetration roll.  When it got to the extremes of the older St. vs. T chart it felt like it broke pretty badly.   

[TorvaldTheMild]

Torvald, you use a lot of antagonistic and absolute language in a lot of your posts, so it comes off as uncompromising and needlessly aggressive.  

 

"The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was..."

 

Stuff like that sounds pretty absolute and doesn't leave much room for an actual conversation. 

 

Anyway @Lord_Caerlion.  It's an interesting one, I'm just kinda scared how that sort of a thing would operate in the neo-GW 'rerolls for everyone' set up. 

 

And kinda back on the old S/T chart, it always struck me that there was a noteworthy divergence point in the monsters versus vehicle arena because there was a plateau that firearms couldn't wound some monsters, yet even with AT weapons they couldn't count on lucky shots to put monsters down the way that armour could with a bad penetration roll.  When it got to the extremes of the older St. vs. T chart it felt like it broke pretty badly.   

Yeah I'm expressing my opinion.  Do you expect everyone to preface every opinion with "In my opinion the new model is awful.  In my opinion the only problem with 7th was"  That is not absolute language, absolute language would involve language that is absolute.  Saying 'the new model is awful' can be taken as an opinion and it 'can' be taken as an absolute statement, for it to be definitively absolute I would say 'The new morale is awful and that is incontrovertible'. Taking what I said as absolute is just being purposefully obtuse or you are reading into my statements what you want to read into.  Go look at everyone else say 'this is awful or better' no one else is accusing them of absolute statements, because you are 'choosing' to view mine as absolute.  As for being aggressive that is ridiculous, quote me being aggressive.  That is completely baseless and unfair.

[Lord_Starscream]

Torvald, you use a lot of antagonistic and absolute language in a lot of your posts, so it comes off as uncompromising and needlessly aggressive.  

 

"The new morale is awful.  The only problem with 7th was..."

 

Stuff like that sounds pretty absolute and doesn't leave much room for an actual conversation. 

 

Anyway @Lord_Caerlion.  It's an interesting one, I'm just kinda scared how that sort of a thing would operate in the neo-GW 'rerolls for everyone' set up. 

 

And kinda back on the old S/T chart, it always struck me that there was a noteworthy divergence point in the monsters versus vehicle arena because there was a plateau that firearms couldn't wound some monsters, yet even with AT weapons they couldn't count on lucky shots to put monsters down the way that armour could with a bad penetration roll.  When it got to the extremes of the older St. vs. T chart it felt like it broke pretty badly.   

 

 

On a quick note, I'm not for bringing back the old vehicle rules. The unified system isn't a bad thing for stats. I think having vehicles and monsters with the same statlines are fine, it's more as a mechanism of how they are injured that I have an issue, rather than the entire system.

[Vykes]

Aaaand you're still doing it, good job Torvy, good job.  You sure showed me.  

 

Lanparth, there's a kinda weird balance in the new vs. old St.vs T system that I was a lot more sure of before I started reading this thread. I like the idea of armour facings and some of the old vehicle rules is one thing, but the 3-7E chart is starting to feel weird.  All in all, I kinda wonder if we're at a legacy point converging two systems made all the more peculiar by the reintroduction of the older AP system. 

 

I'll confess, I don't like charts that much, but using the the unified system does feel like a nice middle ground for reconciling that difference, but I kinda wonder is something like the heavy bolter better or worse?  I mean, sure, with its strength it was blasting gribblies like tyranids and guardsmen into gibbets every time it hit because of its high strength and the old AP system, but the AP got negated pretty hard by the cover system which some armies had a penchant for really gaming (with jinking, shrouded, etc).  And in its base variant, it wasn't that effective against marines or the truly dangerous monsters.  So I'm put in a bit of a quandary here because I think the 8E shorthand is good but I have to wonder if, as was mentioned earlier, we're still essentially in the base 2-9 attribute system which is kinda holding us back a bit.  

[Klod]

I only joined at the beginning of the 8th edition, but I like the idea of small guns not being able to hurt heavy-armoured things.

[Marshal Rohr]

Just a point about the platoon thing, it doesn’t matter if it’s space scifi or space fantasy or demon armies or Star Wars or lord of the rings, armies organize from the squad up. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, call it a dinner party, tent group or whatever, in five hundred years when we are all half computer and floating brain jars there will still be squads, and platoons, and companies. It’s a fundamental nature of three dimensional organization. Of all the ‘you need to suspend disbelief’ arguments this one holds no water whatsoever. 40k may not exactly replicate military organizations, fine, whatever, but it should approximate it.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Aaaand you're still doing it, good job Torvy, good job.  You sure showed me.  

 

Lanparth, there's a kinda weird balance in the new vs. old St.vs T system that I was a lot more sure of before I started reading this thread. I like the idea of armour facings and some of the old vehicle rules is one thing, but the 3-7E chart is starting to feel weird.  All in all, I kinda wonder if we're at a legacy point converging two systems made all the more peculiar by the reintroduction of the older AP system. 

 

I'll confess, I don't like charts that much, but using the the unified system does feel like a nice middle ground for reconciling that difference, but I kinda wonder is something like the heavy bolter better or worse?  I mean, sure, with its strength it was blasting gribblies like tyranids and guardsmen into gibbets every time it hit because of its high strength and the old AP system, but the AP got negated pretty hard by the cover system which some armies had a penchant for really gaming (with jinking, shrouded, etc).  And in its base variant, it wasn't that effective against marines or the truly dangerous monsters.  So I'm put in a bit of a quandary here because I think the 8E shorthand is good but I have to wonder if, as was mentioned earlier, we're still essentially in the base 2-9 attribute system which is kinda holding us back a bit.  

Doing what, explaining why you are wrong.  You can't be that sensitive, that saying you are wrong is being aggressive.  Read back to what I said, just because you don't like it does not mean I'm being aggressive, I wasn't even being rude.  Seriously what's your deal?  

[toaae]

=][=

This thread has veered way off-topic from its original post, and then got very personal. I urge you all to not be so emotionally invested in discussing the rules of a game that you allow it to get so heated. There is no need to turn this topic, or any topic, into a flame war.

 

=][=