>Of everything that stands, the end.

goodbye wh40k

>>53598799
>>53598976
Good Riddance to 7th. If you liked it, you can go too. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

>>53598998
>t. games workshop employee

>>53598799
Single roll rules when?

>>53599015
No, I've been playing since 3rd edition. The game has gotten progressively worse. 7th was not in need of just a few adjustments, the foundation was crap.
I like that the game is faster, smoother, less confusion, less memorization, and I can take whatever units I like and still be effective. I can brute force my way out of bad situations if needed. It's not just watching my opponent set up a hard counter to my army and thinking I'm fucked because I didn't bring X types of units to win.

I'm a Blood Angels player and I've had to suffer through 3 years of shit. At least this new edition makes my army playable and brings back the stuff I liked, my psychic powers are more limited but useful, assault marine spam is back, Sanguinary priests work again and have AOE effects, Death Company are good, Lemartes is useful, the sanguinor is a beast.

Yeah, I'm happy with this edition and as far as I can see the only people complaining where the WAAC tourney fags who blew lots of $ on the latest and greatest flavor of the month army.

>>53599123
The sad thing is you've been duped, baited, and tricked.

Coinciding with the streamlining of gameplay and dumbifying of fluff, the game's going to die identically to Fantasy Battles.

Age of Emperor is not a meme, anon, it's reality. Your Blood Angels will be worthless 6 months from now when everyone's buying Roman gladiator figures of the Emperor and wacky Warp Ork models while playing single dice roll rules and games that last 3 minutes.

>>53599176
>Slippery slope fallacy

>>53599176
Fine with me, I actually like Primaris Marines too. Can't wait to buy the new dread and the repulsor.

You have to accept the fact that not everyone is upset about these changes.

>>53599222
It's not a fallacy when there's strong anecdotal evidence of the exact same thing happening under the exact same circumstances in a very similar way with a somewhat similar property owned by the exact same people.

>>53599123
>it dumbs down the game and permits me to not think
>this is good
It has less depth than kings of war. Or for a better comparison, warpath.

>>53599280
Fantasy is owned by CA now.
Speaking of Fantasy, pc rpg when?

>>53599176
The fluff is fine you grot. I am excited for the arrival of the primaris marines.

>>53599353
>The fluff is fine you grot

If you enjoy watching another episode of "Chaos is suddenly unstoppable because we say so and they're destroying everything because we say so but we want you to care about these worthless side characters who will lose but hey fuck you we're Games Workshop and you can lick our dicks"

>>53599284
Oh fuck off you pretentious twat.

Like death stars and riptide spam or war conclave or elder scatter bike spam were all about thinking.

No, in reality it was "which combination of units can I take to make rolling the dice a formality and make my units mathematically invincible."

7th was complex, but that complexity was bad and easily abused.

>>53599176
Capped this post for reference. Look forward to rubbing it in your face when the game's doing better than it has in years.

>>53599403
No one is saying 7th was perfect.

It sucked, I agree.

But 8th is not the way to go.

Reverting to refined older mechanics would've worked, not numbing down the rules so that babies could understand them and giving the lore a lobotomy.

File: 729.gif (137KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 340x340px

I'm enjoying all the waacfag tears.
The new edition is a fucking improvement in nearly every aspect over 7th

Let's be completely honest here for just a moment.

The vast majority of 40k players out there are casual players who just like getting a couple games in on the weekend.

Very few players are hardcore tournament types (although /tg/ would make it appear that they are the majority).

Most people didn't like the fact that games took too long and had too many convoluted phases and special rules. There were always disagreements every game about what meant what, or what unit could do what. Don't even get me started on template disputes over what was under or partially covered.

Most people want a game that they can easily get into for not that much money and enjoy with their friends.
They are not looking for a hardcore war simulation and being required to drop upwards of $400 to really get an army started. Nor are they looking forward to memorizing a goddamn college textbook of rules!

So yes, simplification and trimming the fat is a good thing. I do not want to have games where a single half of a turn can take an hour.

Maybe you want that, but I don't. Sorry that the game is moving in a different direction but myself and many others are happy to leave 7th behind.

>>53599430
The mechanics are older mechanics, for the most part - just with fewer d100 tables to reference. The lore argument I see both sides of. Part of me likes all the grimdark and this deus ex machina bullshit just seems cheap and rushed, and part of me agrees that stagnation is fucking boring and all the "no hope" bullshit doesn't really make for compelling storytelling either.

>>53599511
This. It was bloody amazing how fast the 500 point test games I played went. Definitely an improvement

>>53599444
>>53599511

Fools! Basking in your own ignorance! You have not born witness to that which I have. I once was akin to you, a kindred spirit through and through. I partook in Fantasy Battles for the lengthier end of a span of some eight years, and I enjoyed it verily so. 'twas among the most entertaining times of reveling I'd experienced in such a genre. Yet, the calamitous clouds of devastation spiraled overhead. We knew not from whence they came, only but that they intended our doom. The hour of our demise was at hand. Before our very eyes, hark! Suddenly all the details and chronicles of the Fantasy Battles setting were destroyed, replaced with nonsensical scribblings like that of some mad old hermit trapped within some deep forest cave for centuries without even the slightest glimpse of another life or the sky above! And as the setting was stripped from our person, so were our miniatures! Figures that we'd set aside great salaries for, holding back on tithes, holding back on our just taxes. They were gone! Lifted up by the cruel and uncaring hands of this calamity before us! In their wake plastic figurines like those swaddling youth would have their games with! A set of guidelines for engaging in wargames that were so simple they ached the brain! All we knew was lost, taken in one fell swoop, and all that remained was the echoing laughter of that horrid abomination, twisted and disfigured. We only remain here to warn you, o players of the 41st millennium, that that creature is coming for you next, all that you cherish in your setting. It cannot be stopped, reasoned with, or persuaded. It is Games Workshop. It is eternal, its wrath and disdain for its own creations unending, and it is coming for you.

>>53599644
Actually I rather like AoS and I was looking forward to the AoS-ification of 40k.

>>53599444
This. Fucking Taufags are having their "so what army should I play now that Tau suck?" therapy sessions and shit.

I, for one, welcome 2e style 40k over the bloated 3e bullshit we've been playing so far.

>>53599644
Anon, I started with WHFB and hate AoS for everything it has done, but I also played 2e 40k back in the day and at times play it with some friends, and I tell ya, I got no problems with 8th. There are problems, which I will attribute to current army rules being just "slap some shit together", but there's a lot of room to improve.

I ain't even mad about moving the timeline forward, because at least we get rid of everything happening in 997-9.M41, because the Tau and all the special characters have to be present for everything.

>>53599681
Tau player here, excited about the changes!

>>53599776
I ain't mad about the timeline moving forward, I'm mad that the only way GW knows to do that is by having Chaos win with no contest, and that Nu-GW refuses to let Chaos ever lose.

>>53599975
There is no story without an antagonist, idiot.

Chaos is the GREAT ENEMY.

>>53600004
In Nu-GW maybe. There used to be other threats besides Chaos.

Also a story with a completely unstoppable antagonist is boring and that antagonist comes off as some kind of villain mary sue, which is exactly what post-2013/Fantasy End Times Chaos has been in both Warhammer universes.

>>53599975
>thinks Chaos is gonna not-lose

I play Chaos and even I know it's a silly preposition.

At least the world was shaken up a bit. I'm sure there's gonna be some stuff happening and Girlyman will push the forces of Chaos back with his bros, and the rift across the galaxy will most likely get reduced to contested mini-eyes, thus giving traitors some other locations besides the Eye to set up shop (that is, well established and GW supported locations).

Did the idiots really remove vehicle facings?

>>53600091
Why should a walker have a facing but a monstrous creature doesn't?

It just slowed the game down.

File: tears.gif (3MB, 305x172px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 305x172px

What a bountiful salt harvest

>>53600091
Well, seeing that we had a ton of vehicles that didn't even use vehicle rules, what's the actual difference?

>>53598799
Hmm... yeah, we were really about due for another 40k hate thread. What's the schedule then? One 40k bile thread for every two D&D and Pathfinder hate threads?

Anyway, remember kids, the best way to win the argument is to keep on replying with reasons the other person has Shit opinions until they give up on defeating your level of autism.

>>53600103
There is no excuse whatsoever for removing facings from tanks, its just lazy. Walkers are another issue entirely but obviously a walking vehicle could have thinner armour in the back.

Tanks not having to position themselves so they can use their guns properly and not have their vulnerable armour exposed just dumbs things down.

>>53600178
>nu-/tg/

>>53599403
I'm not your elitist waac boogeyman, but how about instead of making the most boring basic roll dice rules you make simple rules that allow for complexity to come from the player?

>>53600179
I like it better now. You are obviously free to disagree.

>>53600205
That's exactly what they did in 8th!

>>53600179
I hope you've been mad about bikes not having facings and being able to fire their TL bolters behind them while zipping across the board for all this time.

>>53600178
It's poor etiquette to use a name when your identity isn't relevant to the discussion.

>>53600189
Are you agreeing with me? Doing that thing where you try and insult me using smug greentext? I can't tell. You need more substance to really get me, or others angry.

A better option might have been
>t. Butthurt Plebbit Namefag.
Keep trying though. It wasn't a bad effort.

>>53600284
Looks like he got the (you) he wanted

>>53600273
Yes, but given present company and topic I think I can afford to be rude.

Besides. It's hilarious because the idiots who think I'm doing this for egotistical reasons and to gather (You)'s respond by, well... giving me (You)'S. It's like a microcosm of the stupidity that is current /tg/

>>53600305
Glad to oblige.

>>53600259
>>53600158
>bikes
>MC
>walkers

All besides the point.

Tanks should be weaker in the rear unless they are specifically tough all round. It kills suspension of disbelief and dumbs everything down otherwise.

>>53599374
>in this fiction Y does X because we, the writers, say so
That's usually how it works.

>>53600349
Go fuck yourself. Seriously.

>>53600349
So should MkIII power armour, but I don't hear you demanding that to happen.

>>53600364
Doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid

>>53600341
This is all your fault Wayne you asshole

>>53600179
ffs, tanks irl don't have vulnerable sides. There isn't a magical weak spot on an abrams. Why do you want a gamey unrealistic mechanic that punishes players?

>>53600373
What the hell is your problem?

>>53600389
Infantry facing would be awkward to do with the granular way infantry armour was done.

Tanks being like tanks is just basic stuff that makes the game feel more fun. Especially to lots of Guard players.

>>53600349
>It kills suspension of disbelief

Anon, we are talking about a setting with a giant psychic lighthouse built to navigate a sea of emotions, robotic undead aliens fighting space bugs from another galaxy and fungi primates capable of making things work by the simple power of their primitive minds. Why in hell would it not be possible to make tanks as strong in the rear as in the front in that kind of universe ?

>>53600505
The majority of tanks have weaker side and rear armour in real life, why bullshit about something anybody can look up? It was the same in the period on which many 40k tanks are based.

Why do you want to punish the people who want their tanks to feel like tanks and not have it all dumbed down?

File: IMG_0890.jpg (287KB, 760x548px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 760x548px

>>53599644
YOU LIE
OUR GAME SELLS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>53600505
Yes they do the side armor and rear armor of the tank are the vulnerable points. Go back to armor school you pog.

>>53600389
Doesn't reflect a marine turning to take a shot on his pauldron instead of his spine. Tanks can't quickly turn in place to deflect shots better.

>>53600411
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

40K is a pulp scifi franchise to sell plastic doodmen. The iconic figures eat brains to steal memories, paint themselves in bright primary colours and fight soccer hooligan space orks with chainsaw swords. There's cool shit, but its always going to be fucking stupid.

File: 9fa.jpg (13KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 275x183px

>>53600543
>Pic very related

>>53600523
I think we need to call this the Star Wars Fallacy, because you see it a lot when discussing Star Wars.

>someone says something doesn't make sense or isn't reasonable
>the only counterargument is "it's a setting of space wizards and lasers, why are you questioning it?"
>while factually true that the setting contains such things it does not counter the argument and provides no point against it
>therefore it is an invalid argument

>>53600575
Then explain me why a civilization with the technological capability to make flying cathedrals wouldn't be able to make a tank as tough on the front than on the rear.

>>53600575
Exact same thing in fantasy.

>dragons exist so nothing has to make sense

Everything has a Toughness Value and Wounds now, that doesn't work with a facings type system and saying "the front is toughness 9 while the sides and rear are toughness 7" is overly complicated and unnecessary.

Stop whining, either suck it up and play or quit.

>>53600605
suspension of disbelief. Imperium tech is beyond shitty, it's basically a WWII tank

>>53600618
Also we don't want to have fucking arguments about how many degrees to the left or right, and whether or not your models can only see the front or the sides of a tank when shooting.
It's all just so unnecessary and interrupts the speed of the game.

>>53600605
Same reason people don't do it IRL.

It makes the tank heavier and more expensive without being worth it. Special vehicles like the Land Raider are the exception.

Last time I checked 40k was full of treadheads, where did they all go.

>>53598799
Good, warhammer is fucking cancer meant for edgy highschoolers with a space fetish.
Literally nothing of value will be lost.

>>53600624
>Imperium tech is beyond shitty, it's basically a WWII tank

What about no.

>>53600656
Yeah, sure, just ignore the fluff like the rest of GW.

>>53600636
>tactical depth, common sense and making it more interesting are unnecessary

And fuck off with this pathetic attitude that all changes must be blindly accepted without comment.

>>53600575
>>53600617
Actually, I think there is a fallacy I've heard of that's just that. It was either called the Dragons or Orcs fallacy IIRC and it was basically describing the non-argument of "the setting has ____ so therefore it doesn't have to make sense or be explained".

>>53600543
>not have it dumbed down

This is more the key. You can scifi handwave 360 armoured tonks, but it removes an aspect of manoeuvre and positioning from the game. The game was already fucked trying to cram as many tanks onto the board as possible given the scale and rules, so its not like it was that complex to start with though.

The company is trying to market large scale battles to sell kits, not to make a complex wargame. I never found keeping track of av, facing, ws charts, short and long range, sustained fire dice, etc. to be very hard, but I get how people don't want to do that, and how those people will probably buy more shit than me.

>>53600605
Everyone who can make a tank can make a tank as tough on the front as on the rear. They don't because strapping and shaping the back as much as the front increases weight, which reduces speed, which is more important than being better at taking hits from behind, and that will hold true regardless, your engine does worse pushing a larger mass no matter how powerfull it is.

>>53600679
Well buddy, sorry to tell you this but 8th edition is here in two weeks. Deal with it.

I can give you some lighter fluid and some matches if you really want to quit.

File: 1496477885179.jpg (122KB, 457x459px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 457x459px

>>53600649
KYS ya edge lord

>>53600739
Why are you even here if you are so offended by people voicing their opinions on changes?

>>53600618
Bolt Action is basically 3e 40k in WW2 but better written and it combines toughness with vehicles facings just fine.

>>53600679
>Accepts the premise of a genetically altered super soldier interred into a living sarcophagus.

>Cannot accept the idea that said walking sarcophagus has equally thick armor on all sides.

>>53600189
>nu*

You should leave and never return.

>>53600510
Either everything should have to deal with facing or nothing should.
They picked the latter option.

>>53600510
You're upset that you can't move forward with a wall of armor 13 or 14 aren't you? Just be honest, that is what this is really about.

>>53600232
>age of sigmar
>allowing any sort of player complexity
Just roll your dice and drink your beer.

>>53600805
It would be easy enough to make everything with the vehicle and monster KEYWORDS™ have facings. They already do that for the "gets worse as it takes wounds" and they're big enough that having a facing is pracitical.

>>53600682
This isn't "Dragons or Orcs" though.

We KNOW that the Imperium has ridiculous engineering capabilities. For fucks sake, they have bipedal gun platforms! Heavily armored ones!

This isn't a case of "There are Dragons, so there must be Orcs" this is a case of "Those dragons scales are impenetrable, they must make good armor".

>>53600872
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THESE GAMES ARE FOR!
Holy shit! You tourney kids are so fucking weird.

>>53600899
>tourney
I don't know about you but just rolling 3+ 4+ every single god damn time for everything isn't fun.

>>53600888
It ain't fucking happening so crying about it changes nothing.

>>53600837
>people have legitimate complaints about dumbing down
>hurr powergamer

You people are parroting the exact same GW fanboy arguments we had 2 years ago when people objected to AoS.

This is about GW removing tactical depth and shitting on the treadheads for no actual reason.

>>53600890
Being as well armoured on the back as on the front isn't a case of not being better armour though. Taking the armour you've put on the back and putting it on the front will give you a tank that's better at tank vs tank warfare than one that has put it all of its armour equally around itself.

>>53600899
You can have a fun game without fucking up its fluff and casualizing the mechanics to the lowest common denominator.

You think people didn't eat pizza and drink beer and have laughs while playing AD&D?

>>53600921
... so you prefer more things to happen on 2+ and 5+?

>>53600921
>Totally ignoring the fact that there are several different ways for units to modify those standard scores.

>Also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of 40k was already 3+/4+ and that no one really wants to play 2+ or 5+

>>53600934
What does that have anything to do with whether it should have been a feature that was kept in or not?

>>53600946
>muh tactical depth!

>>53600975
You objected to a shitty change GW made so that means any argument you make is 'crying'. You should blindly accept all their changes because GW knows best.

>>53600975
It shouldn't have been kept as a feature.
It only led to arguments about how many millimeters the tank was tilted left or right so that it was majority front armor or side armor.
The new system is flat out better for the sake of gameplay and speed.
You claim to want realism while the rest of us just want a fun game.

>>53600965
Not everyone plays marines on marines.

>>53600958
Not an argument.

>>53599123
My only issues with the new edition are:

1. The switch from templates to random roll is bullshit.
2. Cover should have been a -1 to hit for soft cover and a -1 to hit/+1 to armor save for hard cover.
3. Indexes should have been $20.

>>53601026
No, it made proper manoeuvring actually relevant and also made the game more fun for lots of people. Claiming fun is mutually exclusive with tanks actually feeling like tanks is daft.

>>53601051
It's not an argument. It's a question. Are you having issues with reading comprehension?

>>53601026
So because some tourneyfags get upset we have dumb everything down?
If it's a friendly game then 9/10 who gives a shit, that last 10 is then just roll a die on 4+ it's that side.

>>53601026
Maybe I just play with less argumentative people than you, and I don't really want realism, I agree with the other guy that wants facings, but my motives are wanting there to be at least the slightest amount of thought put into maneuvering during gameplay.

>>53601054
1. Your opinion. I like my Baal Preds with Flamestorm cannons much better now tyvm!
2. Needless extra complexity. I can foresee arguments about "hey dude that's hard cover! Not it isn't!"
3. Really? Haggling over $5! Get a fucking job.

>>53601076
I never said it was an argument, thus "not an argument". It was a fallacious statement, because you were only getting that out of tanks and powerfist guys.

I feel we have been here before 2 years ago.

Lots of people like killing space aliens and robots with WW1/2 style tanks that feel like tanks. Lots of people also liked killing elves and orcs with medieval style knights.

For some reason a few people have a problem with that.

>>53599222
Slippery Slope is only a falacy when there's no precedent. This *DOES* have precedent.

>>53601065
>>53601085
>>53601087

Keep crying I guess, but it will get you nowhere. The game is what it is.

>>53600637
Bullshit

So in real life do enemy infantry Teleport behind you with anti tank weapons?

In real life do enemy flying tanks get behind you quicker than you can rotate your turret?

In real life do you get swarmed by ravenous space aliens /psychic demons and physically tear the Armour to pieces?

In real life it makes sense to only Armour the front because that's usually where the enemy is. In the 40k universe the enemy is likely to be on all sides so you best Armour it all equally.

>>53601112
asking questions is a fallacy then, got it. The rules on this board are weirdly autistic.

>>53600742
>calls someone else an edge lord
>Is a fan of fucking 40k, the very epitome of grimderp, and edginess

Oh the delicious irony of this post.

>>53601140
>resorts to calling legitimate arguments 'crying'

Well at least you admit you were just shitposting.

>>53601065
>>53601085
>>53601087

HEY HOW COME THERE'S NO TOP ARMOR FACING FOR WHEN THE ENEMY IS SHOOTING DOWN ON YOU?!

Where the fuck does it end with you people?

The rules are designed for streamlined play, not your idea of what is "realistic" for tanks.

File: plans within plans.png (469KB, 642x414px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 642x414px

>>53599644
>this much of a faggot
>with this much class
Nice to see this thread produce something of worth.

>>53601197
Top was side and bottom was rear was a reasonable enough principle that kept it simple, did you really find this overly complicated prior to this?

>>53601197
Why doesnt the turret have a different armor rating than the hull? That's a pretty important part of tank combat.

>>53600637
Yeah

Any why does the angle of the facing not count?

Penetrating the side of a rhino at an angle of 45 degrees should be harder then the same at 90 degrees

>>53601197
>>53601228
And now we have an idiotic strawman argument, well done.

>>53601151
It's a fallacy because it was used as a therorical situation to equate it to the prior argument and make it seem as ridiculous as that one.
Or would you have preferred fake news?

>>53601140
>just accept it, GW is our lord
Let's see, they made lord of the rings worse, they killed fantasy for something that was better off left as a boardgame, and now they're making 40k into that boardgame.

>>53601253
Not an argument

>>53601282
And being such a braindead child you pretend objecting to dumbing down means you want to play a 100% realistic tactical simulator is?

>>53599123
>No, I've been playing since 3rd edition. The game has gotten progressively worse.
>worse than 3E
kys, cuck

>>53599176
compared to 1E, 3E was the biggest dumb down ever and i am still salty. 8E feels a bit like a return to the glory days of Rogue Trader.

>>53601026
If you can draw LOS to the side armor it's a side hit.

>>53600805
Infantry are small and maneuverable, they can easily turn this way and that in the arbitrary amount of time in a round. They've got Schrodinger's facing tanks and MCs should BOTH lack that.

>>53601121
it's still a fallacy if there is no convincing evidence why the slide must continue

>>53601147
>So in real life do enemy infantry Teleport behind you with anti tank weapons?
tanks do get ambushed, particularly in urban environments. now shut up.

>>53601197
>HEY HOW COME THERE'S NO TOP ARMOR FACING FOR WHEN THE ENEMY IS SHOOTING DOWN ON YOU?!
IIRC there was a rule that top armor is equivalent to your weakest facing, not sure where I read that though.

>>53601226
Oh, equivalent to the sides for top and rear for bottom with mines and such?

>>53601334
Because it has in the past, under very similar circumstances, you're confusing basic pattern recognition with the Slipery Slope.

>>53601304
That was an edition with templates for literally everything where tanks didn't even move like infantry and had fucking turning circles. All you've got is everyone getting their own movement characteristic.

There is no point in complaining here. It's really just the equivalent of a grown man having a tantrum over his favorite toys.

You have three options as I see it:
1. Play 8th and deal with it.
2. Try and find some small group of people to play an edition of the game you like.
3. Quit.

Anything else is just wasting your time and energy.

>>53600934
they can easily faq facings back into the game

>>53601392
>dicussion thread made for the sole purpose of discussing the changes in a board made for discussing things tabletop gaming related
Why are you even here?

>>53601026
>You claim to want realism while the rest of us just want a fun game.
in other words: you're a bunch of assholes. okay, got it now.

>>53601410
buuuuuuuuuuuuuut they won't

name one time where they FAQ'd a major new rule into an edition

protip: you can't

>>53601426
>equivocation

>>53600510
You're fuckwit

>>53601448
Only one grenade melee attack.

The funny thing is that 8th isn't even out yet so calling it a fun edition is a baseless statement, same for calling it braindead.
Maybe there will be something in the codexes that says "if this unit attacks a tank from the rear it triples the amount of damage it deals".
Maybe tau will somehow be even more broken than they were before but for a different reason.

>>53599123
>and as far as I can see the only people complaining where the WAAC tourney fags who blew lots of $ on the latest and greatest flavor of the month army.

Or the people like me, whose strategy for winning was exploiting armor facing weaknesses and crucifying opponents who didn't utilize cover and positioning effectively.

The loss of Armor Facings - while I understand from a "streamlining" perspective - removes a major strategic aspect from vehicle combat. MC's were broken, and vehicles needed a buff, but armor facings actually added value and depth to gameplay.

>>53599222
>Muh fallacies
This is why I stopped browsing 4chan.

>>53598998
I'll wait for you when 9th Ed. comes out in a year or maybe 15 months.
Cannot waste my money right now.

>>53601274
How did they make lord of the rings worse, pray tell?

>>53599444
>The new edition is a fucking improvement in nearly every aspect over 7th

Oh, wait until 9th edition comes in 12 months.
Oh, Newsflash!! 10th edition is coming in 15 months.

Sorry to interrupt but we have a last minute rumour 11th edition happening in 2018!!!

>>53600605
Because you gotta put the exhaust vents and engine somewhere that can be easily accessed by a repair team, and that is logically on the rear of a vehicle in 99% of situations?

>>53601228
>Why doesnt the turret have a different armor rating than the hull?

To take your bait:

1. You cannot target individual weapons, only the tank itself except in very specific circumstances.

2. When targeting a vehicle, you measure from the hull, not the weapon. The hull would be hit before the turret in the overwhelming majority of cases, with the exception of things like sponsons - however;

3. In situations where a weapon would provide a major weak point, the relevant Facing would be lowered accordingly or the vehicle would have a special rule that made it blow up faster/easier.

So giving turrets any Facing would be pointless, because it's covered by other rules.

>>53601551
Armor Facing That's about the only thing of worth that was lost...
And it still was mediocre at best. Try asking a military vet about armor facings on a tank. They will laugh at you. that 18mm thick armor is the same thickness the whole way around. They don't have a thin facing except the under carriage. So instead we get more realism in our game.

>>53601522
All the rulebooks were leaked already and people are already playing it dude. Your a lot late to the party.

>>53601578
>no more volley
>gone are army lists, just a lump of good and evil
>the way special strikes were implemented, because it's still a free for all with modeling (yes my black guard of barad-dur do have axes now take a strength 8 hit now)
>neutering the mahud and removing the khandish mercenaries while not really fixing haradrim archers
>the 12 man warband limit stifles what is a good way to balance heroes and ease deployment
>no more model limit, have fun with 60+ orcs on the other side of the board
>heroic strike
>monsters went from comically too bad to comically too good
>spell channeling
>move and fire penalty, we're already trying to wound toughness 6 or 7 guys with strength 2
Not gonna get to the new armies, their look isn't GW's fault and they are not really that special. They even released mattock dwarves alongside the random phalanx Jackson put in.
I guess making pikes only support with pikes instead of with just a spear counts, but it stops shit like a goblin spearman giving a berserker +2 attacks thanks to the pike behind him.

>>53601743
No, the indexes are.

>>53601522
We do at least know the lore blows now.

>>53602069
>now

>>53602069
How does the lore blow?

>>53602227
Probably girlyman's super duper secret marines and how he even got back in the first place thanks to an eldar that will be shitposted as his waifu for the foreseeable future.
It's stupid over the top, not cool over the top like an old man turning himself into a cyborg monster to fight off greenskins.

>>53602227
Girlyman's mary sueing, Chaos' mary sueing, Eldar taking over the Imperium: you know, stupid shit.

Honestly, if 8th didn't have bad cases of gunblob-itis, retarded fly rules, dumbass lack of armor values (how hard is it to add rules to heavier vehicles that say "-1 to wound roles from when attacked from the front"?) and retarded character rules, I'd like it a lot.

I do like a lot of the other stuff though, even if I was initially saddened by the loss of the Black Knightstar.

>>53601743
>Try asking a military vet about armor facings on a tank. They will laugh at you. that 18mm thick armor is the same thickness the whole way around.

That's completely untrue. Like, "what the fuck are you even smoking" untrue. Tank armors have always been different thicknesses on basically every tank ever built, based on where the designers assume the hits to be coming from.

>>53601709
>So giving turrets any Facing would be pointless, because it's covered by other rules.
Same arguments could be made for different edges of the model having different durabilities. This explains why it doesn't exist in the current rules, as a response to hurrrposting about why something else shouldn't exist in the current rules. You'd need to explain why aiming for turrets doesn't muh tacticals to properly tackle that bait.

>>53599444
>444
Well, that settles that, then

>>53601743
Actually, armor facing is super important in real life. The M1 Abrams, the main battle tank of the USA, has never been penetrated from the front in actual combat. When the Army lost some due to terrain issues, they were destroyed by missles sent into their backs.

That said, I agree losing armor facing in a game with weapons that shoot actual stars is not a big loss.

>>53604136
But it would be easy to reflict it in the game even with the current rules.

anythig Rhino-ish gets a rule.

"Front Plating: Vehicles with this rule gain +1 to their save when attacked from the front."

Or a -1 to wound rolls on attacks to the front, whatever is the slimmest mathematical advantage.

>>53598799
40k is better now than it was in 7th, eat shit

>>53605214
you eat shit

>>53606413
No thanks, I just got a new edition of 40k so I can stop eating shit and start playing a good game

>>53599123
>plays Blood Angels and has 'suffered through 3 years of shit'
>thinks he's been treated unfairly
Fuck off, mutie lover, try playing Chaos for the last four editions before you come bleating to us about how you've fucking suffered. And your Primarch died like a bitch, too. Bitch.

Weren't you 40k faggots playing your 5th edition like 5 or 6 years ago?

How many of these things do you go through??

>>53606602

The game updates fairly often anyway but last few editions were garbage.

1st lasted 5 years.
2nd lasted 5 years.
3rd lasted 6 years.
4th lasted 4 years.
5th lasted 4 years.
6th lasted 2 years.
7th lasted 3 years.

>>53604390
Or just overhaul the rules to Front/Side/Back 3+/4+/5+ with unified toughness to represent structure, and wound to represent integrity.

And Walkers get Front/Back 3+/5+ and use the keyword to represent any limb propelled machines that was bigger than 40mm.

Its not hard really, not even an elementary grade players in my place had ever have a problems on facing in any game.

>>53606792
Oh and made the MCs to be the same as walkers, except that they were vulnerable to poison.

>>53601743
>Try asking a military vet about armor facings on a tank. They will laugh at you. that 18mm thick armor is the same thickness the whole way around.
>HURRRRRRRRRRRR
RPG warhead built 30 years ago with design from 40 years ago which some camelfucker has access to won't pen an Abrams from any direction but that doesn't mean it's the same effectiveness all the way around, moron. Why don't you strap yourself into one and drive it ass-first towards a T-90 or T-14; see if you have a very good time?

>>53606792
>>53606811
Does every vehicle, walker, and monstrous creature have the same save?
Because now they do, with your 'simple' system. Unless you're saying it's -1 sides -2 back, or +1 front -1 back. And that doesn't take things like the Land Raider, Monoliths, or...pretty much every Tyranid monstrous creature into account.
And messing with toughness essentially doesn't matter. Small arms have the exact same chances most the time, bigger stuff that is currently equal or one off gets a slightly different chance of wounding, enough to make the entire tactical point that's wanted from facings irrelevant unless the backside was in danger from weapons designed to clear hordes.

>>53606792
As well, going from 3+ to 5+ is saying 'this tank's armor varies SO MUCH it goes from being as protective as a Space Marine's power armor to only as good as a guardsman's armor'
Not having facings isn't saying that the armor doesn't vary, it's saying it's not enough of a difference for game purposes.
Though to be fair I could've sworn guardsmen had 6+ instead of 5+, but I've not played guard so eh.

>>53606828
>implying a camelfucker has ever designed an RPG
Anon, only Euros are good at anything.

>>53599280
>It's not a fallacy when there's strong anecdotal evidence
That's a fucking fallacy you idiot

>>53599284

>removes random warlord trait
>removes random psychic powers
>removes random deep striking
>removes more random elements and adds tactical replacements

>game is dumbed down

what

>>53598799
LOL
It is funny to see 40kfags tears now. They didn't flinch when they killed fantasy, thinking they precious pupil was safe from the AoS treatment.
Hystory is an harsh teacher.
Can't wait to read the moaning and complaints in the 40k generals.

>>53600575

But the fallacy works both ways?

"in real life tanks have weak rear armour therefor the tanks in this sci-fi world must have it"

is just as much of a logical fallacy because your imposing real world sense into a world with almost none

File: face donaldsmug.jpg (6KB, 142x165px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 142x165px

>>53598998
Actually, this: 8th seems pretty damn decent so far, and for every hysterical crybaby whining about AoRabooty40k:
>mfw AoS being the vastly superior game to fantasy 8ed

File: IMG_7440.jpg (614KB, 2737x846px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 2737x846px

>This entire thread

>>53601743
Jesus fucking Christ you dumb mayne

>>53599644
> blog post written in gay pretentious prose
Kys