No1 rule that you think needs changed.

[kombatwombat]

I wouldn't say those things are problems per se.

Only if you forcefully try to bring back some of the old rules. It's a different edition with rules written so they work in that edition and not in another edition. That's like saying all the traffic regulations today are bad because you forcefully try to make people ride around on horses again instead of using cars (and now imagine horses with tons of light signals attached everywhere and neatly waiting in front of traffic lights even though they could have passed the crossroads without a problem :D ).

True, but of the things I listed, do you think any of them are not problematic?

 

- current ‘my Shadowsword fires its fixed-axis cannon from its aerial at your flag’ LoS rules

- incredible lethality meaning the game is decided by T2, and generally by who shoots first

- units being allowed to waltz out of combat with no repercussions, leaving the unit that did all the work to reach them high and dry

- transports being entirely useless for assault units, since they get close where they want to be, then get surrounded and destroyed along with the unit inside

 

Don’t get me wrong, there are elements where 8th Ed is much better than 7th (like Movement stats and multi-damage weapons, for instance), but 8th has a lot of problems that would be solved by taking a look back at how it was done in the past.

 

That's ITC rule about getting round non-existent terrain modeling standards not due to the LoS rules.

Thing is, those standards haven’t changed over time, but the LoS rules have, and the first level of ruins blocking LoS wasn’t necessary under the old system. Which implies that the current LoS rules are the problem.

[PeteySödes]

 

Considering the number of LOS arguements I've seen, no thanks.

Interesting. In five editions of playing I’ve never seen one argument about it, or even a debate that went beyond either ‘let’s just roll for it’ or, at an event, asking for a player from the next table to make the call.

I actually have had more this edition and it’s kinda frusteraring personally. I model for coolness which tends to include non standard banners, elevated scenic bases, and other “sticky-outy” bits.

 

Previous cover and LOS rules included a sort of “main bulk” rule and specifically called out that it did NOT include banners. The new if you can see a corner you can shoot it has sparked some really bleh conversations in competitive play. The amount of time I’ve had to just take a banner off in the middle of a game that started with an agreed on “I don’t use this part to draw from so can we just not” and ended with desperate beardyness is higher than it should be.

[Panzer]

 

I wouldn't say those things are problems per se.

Only if you forcefully try to bring back some of the old rules. It's a different edition with rules written so they work in that edition and not in another edition. That's like saying all the traffic regulations today are bad because you forcefully try to make people ride around on horses again instead of using cars (and now imagine horses with tons of light signals attached everywhere and neatly waiting in front of traffic lights even though they could have passed the crossroads without a problem ).

True, but of the things I listed, do you think any of them are not problematic?

 

- current ‘my Shadowsword fires its fixed-axis cannon from its aerial at your flag’ LoS rules

- incredible lethality meaning the game is decided by T2, and generally by who shoots first

- units being allowed to waltz out of combat with no repercussions, leaving the unit that did all the work to reach them high and dry

- transports being entirely useless for assault units, since they get close where they want to be, then get surrounded and destroyed along with the unit inside

 

Don’t get me wrong, there are elements where 8th Ed is much better than 7th (like Movement stats and multi-damage weapons, for instance), but 8th has a lot of problems that would be solved by taking a look back at how it was done in the past.

 

 

No I don't think those things are necessarily problematic or that they would become better by returning to how things used to be.

 

The LoS thing for shooting is not a problem, just abstract. Firering arcs are what actually created many problems and arguments back then. Especially with vehicles that aren't boxes on tracks.

The lethality is absurd, that's true. However that's been a constant problem of 40k and wasn't much different in 7th where everybody just spammed grav and S7 shooting because it straight out ignored every armour in the game or overwhelmed with rate of fire that either wounds everything on a 2+ or glanced vehicles to death without needing any AP. Though games aren't necessarily decided by turn 2 anymore these days fortunately. That was a big problem of early 8th that got somewhat addressed now.

 

Falling back is something I love in this edition. The only adjustment I'd like here is to pass an LD check to be able to do so.

 

Transports aren't entirely useless for assault units. They just work differently. Though I wouldn't mind to get back to how it worked in 7th there I admit. Neither version is superior.

[Marshal Rohr]

If you had 7th Edition's rules, with 8th Editions commitment to FAQs and bi-annual updates, most of the 'we used to argue about this' or 'this caused serious confusion' wouldn't matter. 8th Edition isn't tighter because it is special. 8th Edition just coincides with the post-AoS engagement with keeping the semantics and rules tight, while providing word of god designers commentary to explicitly drive home Rules as Intended. Things like firing arcs and cover and TLOS sucked because the design philosophy was disengaged. If it was engaged, it would be tighter. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[BitsHammer]

They had 6 editions to fix firing arcs. In the end model design caused too man problems and it discouraged cool conversion ideas like this:

since it changes the firing arcs of the model.

 

I do want to see a return of "wings, banners, weapons and other small bits don't work for LOS" since then it'd draw LOS to and from the bulk of a model again.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Fulkes

[Marshal Rohr]

If firing arcs manage to work in Titanicus, I'm sure they can work something out for 40k. 

[BitsHammer]

If firing arcs manage to work in Titanicus, I'm sure they can work something out for 40k.

You mean in the game that has a specially designed template solely to make firing arcs work? The fact a special designed template is needed proves firing arcs don't work as they were originally given to us.

[Marshal Rohr]

Right, and if I could change a rule, I would happily adopt a system like that so that firing arcs work.

 

 

 

Like this thread isn't for dick measuring. It's a wishlist thread. Stop challenging other posters on what rules they'd change. If someone says they'd change something, and provides a reason why they'd change it, it doesn't require a comment about why X is better or Y is better. It certainly doesn't require snarky sniping from the peanut gallery. This isn't dakka. Let people enjoy things, Jesus Christ. It isn't hard. \

 

 

Edit: Not you specifically, Fulkes. Just in general. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Ficinus]

The lack of firing arcs is most insane/weird on fliers, given they still have the turning and minimum movement rules. What sort of requirement is a max ninety degree turn when the model can shoot front facing weapons out of its rear? It makes no sense.

[BitsHammer]

Right, and if I could change a rule, I would happily adopt a system like that so that firing arcs work.

Fair enough. I just don't want the old firing arc system back since it was broken (and in the case of walker vehicles discouraged doing anything intesting with the model's posing, an issue only compounded on by armour facings).

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Right, and if I could change a rule, I would happily adopt a system like that so that firing arcs work.

Fair enough. I just don't want the old firing arc system back since it was broken (and in the case of walker vehicles discouraged doing anything intesting with the model's posing, an issue only compounded on by armour facings).

 

 

 

 

Normally, I expect the people I'm playing with not to stretch the rules in a way that gives an advantage. So Armor Facings or Dreadnaught Firing arcs weren't a huge issue, because if someone was trying to claim advantage based on a pose, it would go against what we tried to do in the game. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

On a separate note, those people who mentioned advanced, optional rules for LoS/cover might be onto something. Even GW’s own tournaments are using the house ruled version that ground floors block LoS unless it is a clear opening, no more drawing LoS through a window or bullet hole.

 

That shows they’re aware that the rules are a bit lacking in that regard and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they address that with an optional update in the future.

 

That's ITC rule about getting round non-existent terrain modeling standards not due to the LoS rules.

I know where it’s from, the point is that GW have incorporated it into their own tournament, not an ITC one because they’re aware that cover/terrain/LoS is an issue.

 

The major point is that they’re willing to use an outside/house rule for their own events because they’ve realised their own rules don’t work to a sufficiently high standard. I therefore expect them to update cover/LoS/terrain (call it what you will) in some optional advanced rules at some point.

[Ishagu]

Firing arcs were one of the worst things about the game, and I wouldn't look to Titanicus for any inspiration for rules - that game isn't particularly enthralling.

 

Remember the game is abstract. Imagine in your head that the vehicles are moving around during the shooting phase, ending up in the same spot as they were at the end of the movement phase.

[Panzer]

You know, Firering Arcs would be much less troublesome if ALL vehicles had bases you'd measure from. That way you could make actual templates you attach to the base to check firering arcs or if it's a rectangular base just measure from edge to edge. It was never a problem in fantasy and only became a problem with round bases and models without bases. Just saying.

[Marshal Rohr]

That is a great idea, SF. Vehicle bases would definitely go a long way to help make a more robust firing arc system. It's why Titanicus is so clean and fun. 

[Ishagu]

It's one of these rules that pushes the game into simulation territory. It's OK in small games, but it's slow, clunky and punishes certain models more than others.

 

We're playing a game. The vehicle designs are wacky and impractical. If you're really keen to bog the game down with measuring arcs instead of aggressive tactical play maybe 40k might not be for you.

 

Titanicus is not clean and it's not particularly fun. It's a massive rng fest. Also it's far lower model count than 40k - not a game to compare.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Ishagu

[Marshal Rohr]

It's one of these rules that pushes the game into simulation territory. It's OK in small games, but it's slow, clunky and punishes certain models more than others.

 

We're playing a game. The vehicle designs are wacky and impractical. If you're really keen to bog the game down with measuring arcs instead of aggressive tactical play maybe 40k might not be for you.

 

Titanicus is not clean and it's not particularly fun. It's a massive rng fest. Also it's far lower model count than 40k - not a game to compare.

 

Well those are certainly personal opinions and not objective facts. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Ishagu]

So are your comments about Titanicus. I don't think it's particularly fun. It's inferior to 40k on almost every way.

 

I wouldn't use it as inspiration for anything in 40k. At all

Edited August 26, 2019 by Ishagu

[Marshal Rohr]

You're right, it is certainly different to 40k in every single way. 

[Ishagu]

You're right, it is certainly different to 40k in every single way.

If it's superior in your opinion and you want 40k to copy it, why isn't it more popular? The models are stunning, it's well supported.

 

I guess people just don't like the game.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Ishagu

[Volt]

It's one of these rules that pushes the game into simulation territory. It's OK in small games, but it's slow, clunky and punishes certain models more than others.

 

We're playing a game. The vehicle designs are wacky and impractical. If you're really keen to bog the game down with measuring arcs instead of aggressive tactical play maybe 40k might not be for you.

 

Titanicus is not clean and it's not particularly fun. It's a massive rng fest. Also it's far lower model count than 40k - not a game to compare.

How the hell is it hard to determine a firing arc for a weapon unless the player is being a dishonest arse about it? That can be done on the fly by anybody who is even slightly familiar with 40k vehicles.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Volt

[Marshal Rohr]

 

It's one of these rules that pushes the game into simulation territory. It's OK in small games, but it's slow, clunky and punishes certain models more than others.

 

We're playing a game. The vehicle designs are wacky and impractical. If you're really keen to bog the game down with measuring arcs instead of aggressive tactical play maybe 40k might not be for you.

 

Titanicus is not clean and it's not particularly fun. It's a massive rng fest. Also it's far lower model count than 40k - not a game to compare.

How the hell is it hard to determine a firing arc for a weapon unless the player is being a dishonest arse about it? That can be done on the fly by anybody who is even slightly familiar with 40k vehicles.

 

 

I'm sure the Chester tournement scene is representative of the entire hobby. Hence why Titanicus never took off. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Ishagu]

 

It's one of these rules that pushes the game into simulation territory. It's OK in small games, but it's slow, clunky and punishes certain models more than others.

 

We're playing a game. The vehicle designs are wacky and impractical. If you're really keen to bog the game down with measuring arcs instead of aggressive tactical play maybe 40k might not be for you.

 

Titanicus is not clean and it's not particularly fun. It's a massive rng fest. Also it's far lower model count than 40k - not a game to compare.

How the hell is it hard to determine a firing arc for a weapon unless the player is being a dishonest arse about it? That can be done on the fly by anybody who is even slightly familiar with 40k vehicles.

It's not hard. It's just clunky, slow, unfun and punishes certain models.

 

8th edition's streamlining and simplification made 40k the most popular it has ever been. Players now focus on tactics, movement and positioning instead of wasting time with templates, firing arcs and vehicle damage tables.

 

 

 

I'm sure the Chester tournement scene is representative of the entire hobby. Hence why Titanicus never took off.

Can you tell me how big the biggest global Titanicus event is?

 

If I limited myself to my local area I might have ideas as misguided as yours.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Ishagu

[Brother Casman]

Well, despite numerous warnings, we evidently can't play nicely with one another, so I'm going to lock this up.