Fixing 8th Edition

>>53618068
>"Don't give me problems, give me solutions".
Sell everything 40k, if you ride the hype wave right, you should be able to make your money back and cut even. Put thus acquired money into a better game.

>>53618068
Potential issues:
Flyers sniping characters.
Transports leaving their passengers behind as they charge into combat.
Flamers being the ultimate anti-air weapon.
Vehicles being just as tough in the front as the rear.

Anybody think of any other issues pointed out so far?

>>53618143
The rules for shooting flyers are absolutely stupid. They need to at the very least further reduce bs vs flyers.

>>53618068
>No first turn charges
>Units can't simply walk away from a combat.
>Morale works like before, caveat of far less fearless across the board and atsknf works like in 30k. Just let's you regroup at anytime. Maybe a reroll too.
> Penetrating vehicles works like before.
>Templates back
>Units need to roll to move through cover as before
>Units removed from the front as before, caveat that wounded models need to be removed first in multi wound units.
>Entire unit doesn't need to be in cover to get benefits
>Deployment is chosen randomly as before ( it's absurd you have to place objectives and then your opponent can pick what deployment you play )
>Units obviously disembark after their transport moves.

All I can think of for now. God 8E is a mess though , basically just cluster fuck mobs of infantry running into eachother and dice/ who has the bestest rules decides what wins. I'm glad I've got a core group of 30k players to game with.

>>53618210
While I hate flyers I agree it's absurd they can now be flame throwered to death. They're basically just skimmers again now. I like that jump troops can assault them though.

>>53618236
>Oh yeah bring back weapon skill values so exarchs /bloodthirsters aren't as likely to be hit in combat as a grot.
>Bring back intiative values.

>>53618236

Just play 7th then

>>53618470
Most stores won't allow you to play older rules/games.

>>53618470
Good plan! That's what I'm going to do anyway. 8E is trash, but those are my suggestions for at least polishing the turd.

>>53618503
Lucky I'd never want to play in a games workshop anyway. Literally a hive of autism. ( Granted my local.manager is actually one of the few cool guys who wouldn't care )

>>53618533
I just play in the same shop I play magic in, they have 2 sections, it's pretty chill.

>>53618236
Maybe 8th isn't for you. It seems like a game for laid back people to have fun.

>>53618068
i only dislike one thing so far: lack of facing for vehicles. it could be easily fixed by giving -1 to saving throws from the side and -2 from the rear. sth like that.

>>53618143
I don't understand how any of these are actual mechanical problems.

Are people complaining about problems because they just don't like it or is it because it doesn't work?

>>53621151
Until every vehicle gets mounted on a rectangle base, never.

>>53621259
we had facings before, it worked.

>>53618068
Well haven't play yet so I'm not going to affirm anything.
I would say that my main fear is that everything just move too fucking fast.

>>53621456
Noooo, it did not.

Just look at Eldar vehicles.

Do tell me where exactly does the front, back and sides begin.

Or the Doomscythe even.
People just had really fucking low standard for rules if they played 40k and most definitely did not play other games and didn't even know how stupid the rules have gotten.
Until 40k goes the way of fantasy battle where things are measured from bases and are clearly defined by base's shape, facing is a rule that should never come back.

>>53621630
>Do tell me where exactly does the front, back and sides begin.
your imagination is so limited that you can't visualize a bounding box around them?

>>53621630
i think wargaming might not be for you

I think the core rules are (Mostly) good, most of my issues are with particular units that could do with a fixing.

File: 1421677437959.png (76KB, 400x400px)

76KB, 400x400px

>>53621955
I should not imagine to play the game. 40k isn't an RPG. Rules should clearly define where things must be measured from. Rules exist to prevent ambiguity, not cause it.
>>53621968
No, shit rules are not for me.

>>53618143
>he doesn't understand the new rules
I think you forgot that /tg/ is horrible at 40k

>>53622059
Well easy solution, kill yourself pedshit trash

>>53621229
They're retards who are sperging out about rules they don't understand. So business as usual for both 40k and /tg/ in general

>>53618236

So which parts of 8e do you actually like?

>>53618503
Switch to 30k

>>53622566
>this

8th ed is fucking awesome and all yall can go away and let me have my fun.

>>53622675
I don't think he knows any of the rules of 8th edition well enough to know what he would like, let alone accurately describe what he doesn't like.

>>53621955
Different anon but I don't think it's that for most players, it's just that the box may be differently sized for different imaginations, and that often caused a point of contention, luckily eldar would have the same armor value on the side or front, but things like the battle wagon model, I've never seen as many verbal scuffles about facings as I have for that one model

I would reduce the point cost on riptides as my first order of business. Then restore marker lights to 7th edition.

>>53622951
Can't wait to hear you retards bitching at the LGS as you gaze forlornly at your rebalanced animu shit

>>53622975
Most Taucucks won't even make it to the lgs, they seem to be selling their armies on mass

Also what the fuck is this thread
>Hurr let's change the rules for an edition no one has played more than a game off and isn't even fully out yet!

>>53622059
>I should not imagine to play the game.
PLEASE neck yourself

>>53622579
Not in the rulebook.

This is why exclusive 40k players should not make any rules suggestions. They don't even know what's possible in the ruleset

>>53623061
explain to me why imagination is such an important game mechanic, rule so important that no miniature game has rules on.

Exploding vehicles hurt anyone around but not the squad inside. That is fucking stupid. I assume it's just a typo that's going to be errata'd but what the actual fuck?

>>53623110
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Get out of 40k please.

Make large blast 2 + 1d6, and small blast 1d6. Or make it so that for every five models in the unit, you add 1 to the number of attacks.

>>53623110
Because you EXplode, not IMplode

:^)

>>53623130
cry about it dipshit

>>53623110
If a unit is inside a vehicle, roll a 1d6 for each model. On a 1 it dies. Seems pretty deadly to me.

>>53623146
>Explodes: If this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing it from the battlefield and before any embarked models disembark. On a 6 it explodes and each unit within 6" suffers one mortal wound.
>Before any embarked models disembark

If they haven't disembarked they are not on the battlefield and are therefore not within six inches of the vehicle. They're just sort of hanging out in the nebulous "embarked in transport" dimension.

Buff eldar
Wtf why they nerf

Mortal wounds are handed out way too liberally.

>>53623167
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Get out of 40k please.

>>53623130
As blob gard I love the fact that there is no way for the enemy to kill me quickly, and that I have most of the few weapons actually capable of killing hordes effectively. Just doesn't seem very sporting.

>>53623202
Explain how I'm wrong then.

>>53623187
No they aren't.

>>53623167
yeah, then they disembark and suffer the d6 per model thing.

Are you honestly bitching that you don't roll twice for models inside? wasting more time with unnecessary rolls?

>>53623209
If you are embarked on a vehicle, and it explodes, you roll for each midel. It is entirely separate from the D3 mortal wounds to nearby units.

>>53623209
Shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit

You know, this thread is kinda making me understand why GW was so proud about not doing market research.

Jesus fucking Christ.

>>53623258
Because morons never read and understand rules before they start bitching about them? Yeah. That's why GW was pretty explicit about how they've done a ton of TESTING on the new rules, not a ton of asking morons what to do

>>53618068
>Flyer transports being over 3" off the ground
>If you can't place a model within 3" it is slain
This one's easy, use the base. Why it's not already in the rul-Wait, it's GW.

>>53621630
We always just used a ruler to X across funny shaped vehicles. The top panel on serpents/falcons/fireprisms has easily identified corners to connect off of.

Doom scythe are a little tricky but that's why you establish the points for angles before game.

>>53623399
And now you'll never have to waste time doing that ever again

>>53618143
>Flyers sniping characters
How? They can't move within 1" of enemies, so the only way this will happen is if the character is the closest model, which means either they are the first in line of fire, which makes sense, or you've killed their chaff, which makes sense.

>Transports leaving passengers behind
What? What awful assault strategies are you using? First drive assault up close to enemy, but outside of 1". On their turn, they flee 6", maybe a bit further due to advance. On your next turn, disembark assault and march them and vehicle up to flee unit. Vehicle will definitely end within a couple inches, assault unit shouldn't be further than 3" or so depending on enemy Advance. This is a very easy charge to make.

>Flamers being the ultimate anti-air weapon
What? How? Sure, they get auto-hits, but the low S, D and AP means they'll be pretty awful at causing sizable damage. Use actual anti-vehicle stuff if you want to down flyers.

>Vehicles being just as tough in the front as on the sides
You mean like real military vehicles? What a shocker.

>>53618068
All of my complaints basically boil down to smaller balance tweaks and wanting stuff like chapter rules and relics back.

There's just some units and guns that don't feel right or strong enough, and they should be better even if it takes a point hike

>>53623440
Don't bother, morons gonna moron.

>>53623423
>15 seconds when the rare occasion of not easily knowing facing comes up
>waste of time
I'd rather keep some kind of semblance of fun and tactics with vehicles thanks.

Bring back Initiative, Weapon Skill charts and Vehicle Facings and I'm happy.
By all means have a caveat that gives units that charge a bonus to Initiative, and change Facings to match the new Toughness-Wound style of Vehicles, but the Weapon Skill thing has no reason for existing, Grots shouldn't be just as likely to hit Lucius the Eternal as they would a Guardsmen.

>>53623460
>ITS NOT FUN AND TACTICAL IF I CAN'T ARGUE ABOUT FACING ON THREE OUT OF THIRTY TYPES OF VEHICLES

You are a stupid piece of garbage, kill yourself

>>53623479
No, those rules were terrible and it's good that they are gone. Cry about it loser.

>>53621955
>>53622059
I mean, the easy answer would be to only have rules for 'front' and 'rear' for vehicles, and then declaring each of those as the respective half of the model if you measured it from tip to end.

Straightforward

>>53623399
and I'm just saying that level of negotiations for a game is unacceptable. Having to negotiate to identify features of an object means that it's poorly defined and has no place in a ruleset.

Honestly, I would prefer all vehicles to come with bases for precise measurements, none of this garbage measure from weapons themselves bollocks, but baby steps.

>>53623460
>wasting 15 seconds isn't wasting 15 seconds guys

Fucking hell.

>>53618143

Half the shit isn't even pointed correctly, someone did the maths on the Hive Tyrant weapons and the free ones are statistically the best.

>>53623529
>I heard someone who is as retarded as I am saying something, it must be true none of the point values are correct

King of the game tables over here boys

>>53623440
>like real military vehicles?
The front glacis on most MBTs is thicker than the sides friend. Turrets are relatively uniform however.

>>53618503

>what are friends?

>>53623514
Even there is a chance for ambiguity unless it's defined where it must begin and must end.

Can an ork player extend the area where only his front parts are exposed to the enemy while getting closer by adding a deffroller?

Vehicles with bases would be the most unambiguous thing if people want facings so damn much.

40k is casual dice rolling exercise game so it doesn't matter and simplicity is good for making it a casual dice rolling exercise game.

>>53623492
>argue
I've played since the beginning of 4th and have never had to argue with any one. When the question came up we would just measure it real quick and move on. Never was a big deal.
>>53623521
Having defined bases for vehicles would be fine. I would have no problem with it. I do a lot of tanking and I just enjoy the need to be careful of my positioning and watching my flanks. It adds a bit of delta I like and feel the game is a little more bland for its loss.
>15 seconds isn't time
That wasn't what I was trying to imply. I was simply saying that 15 seconds is inconsequential to me when it only pops up 1 out of 10 games I play.

To each their own I'm not trying to tell you you are wrong.

>>53623440

>Flyers sniping characters

When you have a flying vehicles that can move 3 feet a turn, positioning your characters safely can be difficult. I played a game just two hours ago- my Corvus blackstar killed both my opponent's HQs by flying in such a way that his characters were closest and then shooting the fuck out of them.

>Real military vehicles

Facing is very much an issue for real military vehicles, anon.

That said I like what I've played so far. I do agree that flyers are absolutely hellish to deal with now that facings don't matter and they have 360 arcs of fire. My corvus was absolutely worth the points I paid for it.

>>53623673
>my opponent is a retard and let me fly my flying vehicles directly on top of his HQ units and didn't shoot my vehicles down, better change the rules

>>53623647
my apologies if I sounded more pissed off than I needed to be.

I'm just pissed off by idiots like >>53623061
>>53621955
>>53621968
who think making shit up is somehow part of the rules and if not, should be made as a rule.

>>53623741
cry more dummy

>>53618236
>first turn charges are bad, shooting is ok though
>units having to roll to love through cover introducing even more fucking randomness
>bringing back the awful wounds from front mechanic that was hell to work out and horribly punished assault armies

Sounds to me like you just have shit taste.

>>53623673
Why wouldn't you just bubble wrap your character all the way around? If you intentionally leave your character at the edge of the blob, you're asking for an attack up the rear, by flying or deep strike.

>>53618236
Go play 7th you fuck

>>53623543

He posted the statistics you fucking mongoloid.

Now maybe stop sucking GW's cock for five minutes and accept 8th edition has some problems.

>>53618514
>8e is trash
>7E is better
You cant be serious

File: 1421037355543.jpg (81KB, 460x613px)

81KB, 460x613px

>>53623759
>calls others dumb
>when wanting 7th ed shit back

ok, fag, where is your ebay listing? I'll give you money to quit the hobby.

>>53623808
I guarantee that if this scenario actually took place (it didn't) the guy was ignoring the minimum movement of his flyer or something equally stupid

>>53623741
I understand. I'm just used to having to fudge things to some degree in everything I play if there isn't a cut and dry option so it has never bothered me. But I also don't regularly play tournament style scenes where people start chucking dice and having a spergfest everytime something doesn't go their way. I tend to avoid that shit like the plague now so "iffy" situations are pretty easily resolved even it just goes to a coin flip.

I've just never been a "hard rules" guy and prefer a little more depth and tactics even if it can get funny rules wise.

>>53623954
>depth and tactics
>I can see your vehicle from the side so it has different numbers now
pick one

>>53623508
Initiative was a good rule, it made sure faster units hit first, which made sense. Now we have some units hitting first when they charge and some units like Daemons of Slaanesh and other similar high initiative units occasionally breaking the new borked "activate units" rule to hit first.
Vehicle facings added a depth of strategy to fielding vehicles, now there's no reason to move around behind a vehicle in order to get damage in, make the facings save modifiers but don't get rid of them.
Explain why a Space Marine with a knife should get 3+ to hit in combat with models like Lucius the Eternal, a master swordsman, or similar models like Greater Daemons, you braindead trog.

>>53623989
>watching position to not expose weak points to enemy
>needing to use terrain and overlapping postioning to cover angles
>manouvering to bring fire arcs to bare on enemy positions as he tries to avoid them
>flanking to take enemy vehicles out using weapons they would be immune to from the front glacis
>not tactics or depth
Reducto ad absurdum can apply to make everything seem retarded
>tanks that can withstand oceanic pressure and orbital weaponry
>vulnerable to smallarms fire from every angle
Pick one

See

>>53624074
Nope, you're an idiot and can't admit that you're wrong. This is why the hobby is purging you.

>>53624074
Faster units do hit first now though.

you move around vehicles to deny cover

Grunt gets 3+ with the knife because that's his above average skill. Lucius and Bloodthirster will still win that fight since their stats are far superior.

>>53624124
I just feel weird charging genestealers with IG and getting all of my attacks in before they can react.
Like somehow they didn't see me running at them from the front over open ground.

>>53624124
this

File: 1420335160241.gif (3MB, 249x141px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 249x141px

well, since so many chucklefucks want facing for vehicles, I propose a different "solution"

facing for everything.
Now the game is still homogenized and tactical depth that's being buzz worded around can be applied to everything. Tactical depth for all

I'm sure Ork, Nids, and Guard players won't mind arguing with you over every infantry saves and wounds as you try to circlestrafe like a DOOMmarine.

Facings for all!

>>53624156
Aggressor gets in the first hit, dry your tears or fuck off

>>53624205
NO WAY DUDE DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT ALL INFANTRY ARMOR IS EXACTLY THE SAME STRENGTH FROM ALL ANGLES

>>53624156
well, if they let you charge them, they obviously didn't. battlefield, like love, can be confusing and distracting.

>>53623862
>>53623808

This definitely took place. I was not ignoring the minimum movement of my flyer, which was 20''. At one point I did go into hover mode, which allowed me to ignore that. My opponent was playing very low model count admech, so it was difficult for him to bubblewrap. He also could not really do anything about my 14 wound, t7, 3+ flyer because his shit was hitting and wounding on 5's most of the time. He will certainly bring different shit next time, and play differently.

Again, I am not the anon that is calling for the rules to be changed. I had a lot fun playing today, and the entire group did as well. I'm merely stating that flyers can and do snipe out characters.

>>53624205
>>53624222

> People going to this length to defend a company that would squat their game as soon as it isn't selling a million units a year.

Or maybe we just be big boys and realise that GW seems to be incapable of doing something every other game can do? Maybe they're lazy or maybe the just don't care.

>>53622059
>pedoshit WAAC weeb tau player refuses to his imagination

Color me surprised.

>>53624119
No you're an idiot, do you actually have reasons these were bad rules or are you just resorting to ad hominem because you never learned how to have reasonable discussion in your formative years?
I never said i was quitting because of this, everything else about 8e is fine by me, these 3 are 3 minor things that are downgrades rather than improvements on the system.
>>53624124
No, no they don't. Units that charged this turn hit first, then you take turns activating combats starting with the person whose turn it is. The exception is units with Abilities that let them hit first, but if the enemy charged, they cancel each other out. This means if one squad of IG charge a unit of Daemonettes and that's the only charge that happened this turn, those IG hit first because the turn player activates their combat.
You move around anyone to deny cover.
Why is it just as easy to hit a grot as it is to hit a combat specialist? Your grunt shouldn't be hitting warbosses as easily as they hit grots.
>>53624209
>thread is about proposing fixes to problems in 8e
>"8E IS PERFECT DRY YOUR TEARS LOSERS OR FUCK OFF REEEEE"
you have autism

>>53618103
I love how every one of these "Hurr durr, sell your stuff posts" never bothers to tell us what game we SHOULD be playing.

>>53624209
I just said it feels weird man. I'm not throwing a shitfit over it.

>>53624265
40k is a permissive ruleset. Unless it defines the rule of imagination, it cannot be used in game.

>>53624074
>Vehicle facings added a depth of strategy to fielding vehicles, now there's no reason to move around behind a vehicle in order to get damage in, make the facings save modifiers but don't get rid of them.

So they're like every other unit now? I fail to see how that's a problem. You could make the same argument for infantry, MC's or anything besides a monolith.

>>53624261
>assblasted whiners going to this length to hate objectively better new rules just because they hate the company that printed them

>>53624274
No game. No game community is vile enough deserves you.

Eh, maybe infinity. I do really hate that game. Go play Infinity.

>>53624296

I didn't say 8E was worse than 7E, that would likely be impossible even if they tried, but it's not exactly the second coming of Christ either.

>>53624292
True, but I liked it on vehicles because it made sense, most vehicles I fielded had same front and side AV with a weak point in the rear, made sense to me I guess.

>>53624205
>an aspect of armored vehicles since their inception is enjoyable for some people in a war game
>WHY DON'T WE JUST APPLY TANK RULES TO INFANTRY THEN FAGGOT REEEEEEEEEEEE

Chill friend. Some people like tanks to act like tanks and not meat blocks with treads.

File: New Model Army.jpg (586KB, 1598x839px)

586KB, 1598x839px

>>53624274

Historicals of course.

>>53624243
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that vehicles are SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful now.

I played my AdMech against an Eldar player and his three Wave Serpents were pretty much free to just constantly fly over my infantry, charge my heavy shit and keep it from firing because there was no real way for me to do enough damage to kill them.

At the very least more of the heavier vehicles should be able to fire after falling back. It's not like a Russ is going to be prevented from firing because 5 guys are kicking it's treds.

>>53623479
I wonder if they could work out a system where front was +1 save, sides add nothing and rear was -1? Still has the issue of facings, I almost wish geedubs would have published a top down profile with the X for each vehicle, maybe in the box or something, or even just a online pdf/image

>>53624335
And some people would like to be able to shoot infantry in different spots and not treat them like a steel wall with no difference between chest plate and knee joint

But you see, only one of the two viewpoints is pissing themselves crying and then projecting said tantrum onto the other

File: 1418619900707.jpg (7KB, 225x225px)

7KB, 225x225px

>>53624335
and I'm just suggesting that infantry act like infantry if you want tanks to act like tanks.

people aren't good at defending against attacks from back and side

>>53624343
Historicals are okay but lack in the hobby aspect. I like doing customization and paint schemes without having to follow strict painting guidelines for a specific regiment during a specific time on a specific front of a war.

I'm not a die hard simulationist but not a pure gamist either. I like being somewhere in between.

>>53624374

The easiest way is to use the flames of war method, ie. you just have a line rune horizontal with the rear of the tank. Any vehicle that is past this line is counted as being in the rear arc and gets the bonus of say -1 T.

>>53624335
They could at least have put something about facings in the "Advanced Rules" section.

>>53624402

A solider can rotate in about half a second though.

A tank can't, as least not before the enemy got a shot off.

>>53624343
No thanks; I'd rather play literally anything else, and I'd rather paint anything else too.

>>53624419
>you should not use this simple solution because it isn't realistic
>you should use this completely bizarre entirely unrealistic solution instead

>>53624443
damn dude if only all those poor soldiers who have been shot in the back and sides just knew to turn around and place their heaviest armor in between themselves and the incoming fire

you must be some kind of fucking genius, are you sun tzu? you should be

>>53624402
>>53624395
We have that with cover and terrain. Landing behind a unit of infantry stationed at a wall is an effective tactic to deny the bonus to their defense.

Most of the people critical of the loss of facings are not asking for specific engine hits, magazine cookoffs, tread loss, panel blowout or other simulationist detail. Just that manouvers like flanking can be more rewarding than just run towards it.

I don't understand why everything that gets criticized has to be taken to some absurd degree.

>>53624443
bullet moves faster than person turning around.
>>53624457
or we could not have facing and stop trying to cling to a a adherence to realism over a fictional vehicle

>>53624457

How is it bizarre? If they enemy has gone past that point they are mathematically at an angle where they can see the rear armour and they would give that shot priority.

>>53624503
>we aren't unreasonable we're just throwing a tantrum about something stupid that didn't make the game better

>>53624521
That isn't how flames of war actually works though. In FoW once one model in the tank unit can see rear armor they all get to shoot at rear armor, which is retarded

>>53624476
>>53624505

Yep you're right, I'm such a fucking idiot.

I better get the army on the phone and tell them to stop using loose skirmish formations and instead go back to infantry blocks and wheeling so they can better organise which way they're facing.

>>53624540
>we aren't being unreasonable, we're just throwing a tantrum because someone preferred a mechanic we think is too cumbersome

>>53624552

Yes, in order to speed the game up. I didn't say to use this method though because doing it per vehicle wouldn't slow 40K down because each side has a handful of tanks each not entire troops like FoW.

>>53624587
so it's literally only okay when they do it, gotcha

>>53624503
>I don't understand why everything that gets criticized has to be taken to some absurd degree.
Because the facing crowd has gone to insane degree to defend their shit system.

Don't get me wrong, I like facing in skirmish games, but asking for it in 40k, a game of immense scope and most definitely not a skirmish gaming using facing on select model type is unnecessary detail. This adherence of adding extraneous shit is how you get decades of additive rules that eventually bloat to 7th ed.

People should ask for facing when the models can actually support it. When the models can actually have defined angles and measurable sides with zero ambiguity. current 40k models cannot support a simulationist's vision of a tank battle.

>>53624540
Outside of what appears to be one faggot having a spergfest who else is throwing a tantrum?

And I do feel it made the game better by having things like facing. It allowed for varied tactics for both players. Would you also approve of them removing weapon range too because it doesn't add anything to the game?

>>53624614

I don't really know what you're getting at here but unless your a Californian girl in her early 20's can you like literally stop dropping the word literally into a sentence that doesn't need it?

As far as I know you can't make something figuratively okay.

>>53624616
Considering they are doing a lot of rules per unit they could easily do that though. It's hard to not be able to recognize the sides of a Russ for instance. Honestly a lot of Imperial vehicles have very defined facings. Things like the Wave Serpent are harder to spot but they already get special rules for unique shields and such so it would arguably balance out.

>>53618068

...it's not even out yet and you are trying to fix it?

>>53624616
Again, I would be fine of they added some kind of marked base for odd shaped tanks. But it just seems like a suddenly recent problem to the game like templates and blast markers. I've been playing for 15 years and have had maybe 8 instances where either of these things became a major issue but now that they are going away suddenly everyone is going "oh thank god all of that was such bullshit."

Maybe my LGS is just full of functional adults, I don't know. I'll still play 8th it just seems a little more bland than previous editions.

>>53624656
ummm sweetie why don't you go back to crying about vehicle facing before you literally give yourself a heart attack

Before 8th edition came out, nobody was talking about armor facing being terrible, and hoping 8th would get rid of it.

Now that it has though, everyone who likes 8th is flocking to its defense and calling armor facings terrible.

I really don't care much one way or the other, and have no strong opinions on 8th, but some of you guys are being really transparent with your cognitive dissonance right now.

>>53624699

I know, they should take the AoS approach and just play a shit game for two years before everyone leaves because it's awful.

>>53624727
Before 8th edition came out, nobody was talking about armor facing being good, and hoping 8th would keep it.

Now that it has though, everyone who hates 8th is flocking to attack it and calling armor facings the only way to preserve vehicle tactics.
I really don't care much one way or the other, and have no strong opinions on 8th, but some of you guys are being really transparent with your cognitive dissonance right now.

>>53624727
It just seems like a complaint from a tourney standpoint. Where people get their panties all wadded up over every little thing. I fight Eldar of many varieties pretty regularly and if we couldn't figure it out we would flip a coin.

>>53624756
Except there was a lot of people saying they hoped 8th would keep facings.

>>53624756

Because in most games it's a given.

What next, are we going to have to defend having BS and WS?

Well nobody sung it's praises so we're getting rid of them, everything auto-hits from now on.

>>53624778
They already changed WS and BS to improve them sweetie. Try to keep up.

File: where's-the-beef.jpg (102KB, 873x627px)

102KB, 873x627px

>>53624687
tell me where the exact colored line the side begin and ends.

>>53624756
No one talks about weapon range/gets hot/deepstrike/assault weapons/movement/painting being good so I guess 8th should have dropped that too.

>>53624756

If you can't actually come up with an argument, maybe you should think more about why it is you believe what you do.
Or maybe I'm just an autist/gw hater/whatever label you need to apply to me so you can disregard what I said without getting upset.

>>53624773

Yeah i think in a previous edition, that's what they said to do, but with a die roll
Could be misremembering though.

>>53624826
I lost muh precious vehicle facings that I didn't care about until just now so better remove all the rules flip the table sell all my models and kill myself because I'm an assblasted maddie

I just dislike how mass flamer squads can bury small units in dice. Even on 5+ to wound, 8D6 hits is going to do some mad damage and likely destroy any kind of walker. (Talking specifically of Rubric Warpflamers)

Blasts and templates need better interaction with the number of models in the unit. I think changing everything to D3 hits and adding more D3s for every n models in the target unit would work. (2D3 for 5 models, 3D3 for 10, etc.)

>>53624810

Fuck me, do you actually go on like this during a game?

Sometimes I think 40K players and GW deserve each other.

I bet if you could only see the tank commanders nose you'd argue it was a 4+ cover save.

>>53624810
Next to the green line. You know, the side of the tank? Did you ever actually have someone argue that the edge of the tracks count as side armor?

>>53624846
>repeating shit you've heard without actually knowing the numbers or statistics
Hey look it's an internet discussion about game rules

>>53624727
One of the reasons I quit 40k a decade ago was because of the idiotic armor facing and lack of actual wounds/hitpoints. I thought I might come back with hullpoint addition, but I didn't start because they still kept the stupid facing and AV value.

I only write now because I'm getting into the game now because they fixed AP and vehicles

>>53624841
>being this much of a tryhard
not even the guy you replied to

>>53624793
Yes, because there was a vocal complaint about WS because the chart was weird/inconsequential. They didn't change it in vacuum. The vehicle changes occured due to complaints about vehicles vs MCs so they just made them both function identically in MCs favor ala AoS.
I had never seen one complaint about how facings were a bullshit mechanic that needed to go. Just that it needed clarification on some vehicles.

>>53624861
Yup, I've also had people argue for the green line to be front armor.

You know what would stop that shit?

Rectangle bases.

>>53624879

> Idiot armour facing.

I mean, I could start by saying quitting a game over this is just about the stupidest shit I have ever have the pleasure to hear, but first I'll say you must have never played another war-game or read a book for that matter because armour facing is pretty normal both in games and reality.

>>53624887
>I've never seen
not an argument

>>53624909
>I mean, I could start by saying quitting a game over this is just about the stupidest shit I have ever have the pleasure to hear
Lucky you.

>>53624841
The point I'm making is simply because someone wasn't singing the praises of it on high doesn't mean it needs to be removed. You don't write letters to GW saying "please keep shooting phases in the game" every other week do you?

>>53621151
So the difference between the front plating and the back playing is as much as the difference between how good power armor is and how good guard armor is?
It's easier to just say that, while the armor is indeed different thickness, it's not enough of a change to be game-relevant considering the difference between those numbers.
Much like how said power armor is thicker on the pauldrons and the powerplant is obviously a weakpoint, but we don't demand facing rules for infantry to deal with that.

>>53624909
I've played plenty of games. Those games have bases on models with clear and defined sides and distance measured.

>>53624900
You've apparently played against the most autistic people the playerbase has to offer.

>>53624879

You come off as someone who got his tank heavy army tabled by exposing your flanks, and ragequit the game out of sheer assfrustration

>>53624932
Cry more, facing rules were trash

>>53624913
If you could point to some discussion sources or forums for the apparent mass disapproval of the mechanic I will happily change my mind.

>>53624869
Sorry what part of this is just what I've heard? Did you miss the bit where I said "Talking specifically of?"

>>53624971

Try 40K general, it gets brought up about 3 times a thread.

>>53624974
If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't be wrong though

>>53624934
I understand what you are trying to say but can you point out a miniatures war game that does infantry that way that is larger than a skirmish game? Because any game I have found with tanks has facing mechanics in some form.

>>53624727
I'll miss armor facing. full stop. But it wasn't in any way required and led to all manner of arguing with people id rather just roll dice with and have fun

>>53624998
This is the worst kind of shit flinging I've ever seen. You haven't even pointed out a single thing in what I said besides "stop saying the same thing I've already heard, GW already took my virginity and they can't give it back." Do you want to talk about the game or talk about the taste of cum?

>>53624961
Only one of them, and it wasn't my armoured company that broke me, it was my Tau. The amount of shitbags arguing against my "gonna penetrate you anyway with my 9 twinlinked railguns, does it really fucking matter whether I'm hitting your 1 predator on side or not" list.

I never said no, but every fucking game, someone would try to bring that shit up and fidget for 10 mins trying their damnest to make sure that I couldn't get side armour on their paper tank then get fucking assmad that I penetrated front armor. Since I was playing static tau, I still lost every game, but bitching would not stop.

Facing is shit on a model that doesn't have a defined standard

>>53624996
Let's try someplace with discussion that isn't just shitposting about SoB/Ynnari yuri stories, genestealer impregnation porn, cheetahslaughing.jpeg, and also isn't full of the exact same posters in here screaming CRY MOAR FAGET at every opportunity. You know, like an actual forum or really anyplace that is actually relevant.

>>53625096
>I'm wrong but it doesn't matter because I don't like the people who proved me wrong

>>53624368
oh absolutely. I charged my rhino at like 9 kataphroni. In 7th that would've meant certain death. Today I lost 2 wounds.

>>53625093

Sounds like you and your opponents deserved each other.

File: 1417377988455.png (117KB, 663x402px)

117KB, 663x402px

>>53625191
You know what we both deserved? a good facing rule or none at all.

Which I got "none" for 8th ed. So it's good for me.

>>53624368
>It's not like a Russ is going to be prevented from firing because 5 guys are kicking it's treds.

Single grot charges Leman Russ. Prevents it from firing indefinitely by waving it's junk directly into the gunnery viewport

Let me actually play a few games and I'll get back to you. Problems exist on paper, yes, but if I those problems do not present themselves too me when I play, I couldn't give less of a fuck.

>>53624727
I feel it's a case of one of the many things people didn't think they WOULD get rid of until they did.
Much like how every time someone proposed fixing the Tyranids they suggested ignoring ID from high S or making Warriors higher T, rather than removing the high S ID rules - because nobody thought it COULD happen.

>>53625342
I for one am glad that GW is willing to step out of the comfort zone and actually do some designs.

>>53624412
There are a lot of much gamier historicals though, like Saga and Bolt Action. The modeling aspect is the only consistent part about historicals. And even then you are given much more freedom with some eras and armies. I didn't follow a single regiment guide when painting up my Dark Age Irish.

>>53618514

Yes yes, we know that you have shit taste.

How is it that the rules for 8th edition 40k leak and suddenly 7th edition apologist pour out of nowhere to argue that it wasn't "that bad" and "the whole system didn't need to be scrapped" - YES IT DID. The whole system was fatally flawed, a few tweaks here and there were not enough to fix it.

>>53625712
3rd edition variants which lead to 7th has been around longer than a decade and 40k fags in general are like DnD players. They refuse to actually get out of their comfort zone and take a look at their system and realize that shit needs fixing. Unfortunately both crowd also ultimately fail to realize that the problem is not surface level flaw and it's systematic.

>>53625141
I'm not saying that it doesn't really count so much as I never use 4chan as a forum talking point for or against something simply by merit of its design. I can just as easily spam a thread with shitposts and use that saying "see others validate my opinion". I tend to prefer a source that requires a little more effort to samefag than the post button if I'm ginger to take a discussion more seriously.

Any other forums that support anonymous opinions in 40kg?

>>53625898
*going

The only two problems I see are that they left in random charges, which is mind shatteringly dumb. It's a terrible mechanic that ruins a significant portion of the game by reducing it to pure random luck.

And flamers are really good against flyers.

That makes no goddamn sense.

>>53625401
Yeah.
I'm actually starting to regain some faith in GW, between this and the Start Collecting boxes.
I don't even care if it's not the best ruleset, it seems like they're actually trying after way too long of not giving a shit.
Of course, considering how far into the negative they were, it's going to take a while before it can be said I have any sort of faith in them at all, but improvements are improvements.

>>53625960
While I don't agree, the random charge is to counter premeasuring and strafing and command points are there to make it more reliable/better.

>>53625960
flamers aren't shit against flyers, lascannons and so on are a much bigger threat

For people that want facing rules, isn't it easy just to houserule something like +1 Sv to front armor, -1 Sv to back armor, or some variation thereof, for vehicles with clear fronts/backs?

>>53626140
yes but then they wouldn't get to bitch and moan online

>>53625992
>While I don't agree, the random charge is to counter premeasuring

Yeah thats the argument, but it doesn't hold water. Games don't actually suffer from that if you take out pre measuring any more than they suffer from shooting ranges.

If you make assault moves longer than regular movements and there is a penalty for shooting if you move then everything is solved. Straight up, there is no problem, it just becomes a factor of skill.

>and strafing and command points are there to make it more reliable/better.

If you have to build a mechanic into your game to make another pain point less painful maybe just remove that mechanic in the first place

File: Squat.jpg (64KB, 738x936px)

64KB, 738x936px

>>53618068
We need more pic related

File: Untitled.png (212KB, 300x415px)

212KB, 300x415px

>>53626249
Wrong. We need pic related

File: Rak'Gol_Marauder.jpg (131KB, 500x555px)

131KB, 500x555px

>>53626249
>>53626266
Both of you are wrong

Show of hands, how many of you bitching about 8e have actually played a game on it yet?

>>53626222
for slower army like Orks they do suffer very badly though, also casualties don't get taken from the front

>>53625960
In the grim darkness of the far future, forcibly overheating engines is a valid tactic.
Apparently.

>>53626288
40k is the only game I have EVER seen that had to implement a mechanic like that, and they did it during a time period when they clearly did not care about how the game played. They also made warlord traits and psychic powers random at the same time.

Their rationale was that it was narrative and lol cool, not for balance or gameplay concerns. These were the same people that created seventh edition.

So many other games dont need that kind of mechanic and are similar tabletop wargames. In many of them that kind of mechanic is considered a PART of the game and is part of skill. Like, if those guys are getting too close move back. You just made a decision and the other guy has to account for that in his own decision making when hes moving.

As it is you go "should I move back, welp, I dont know because if he rolls two sixes it cant possibly run away far enough and if he rolls snake eyes its pointless"

That's not a very skill based decision at that point and it requires almost nothing to make. What was a consideration becomes arbitrary.

File: 1495859185829.jpg (35KB, 385x375px)

35KB, 385x375px

Why is /tg/ so obsessed with never having fun, or worse, pretending to be retarded on a Mongolian Watercoloring board about having fun?

>>53626287

I doubt any of them have because if they had, rey wouldn't be bitching about it. We had so much fun playing 40k for the first time today in a LONG time. Like, I've never see a game go on where at least one person wasn't passively bitching about something until my 8th games today. Even as I was watching a horde of boyz shit all over my mistake after I charged their significantly finished numbers, I was like "Fuck that's terrifying and awesome" because it was.

>>53626486
as I've said before, 40k is an abstracted game with almost non-existent tactical depth and I agree that it's not needed, but I've also gotten over it very quickly. random is far less of a bitter pill when you can mitigate it.

>>53626287
I'm bitching about a mechanic that seriously ruined 6th and 7th, so I feel I don't need to have also played 8th. Random charge ruins everything. It fucked up fantasy too.

>>53626499
Because of newfags like these.
>>53626496
>>53626470

>>53626528
cry more noob bitch assault units are good now get over it

>>53626540
They could have been good anyway, they didn't need to turn the game into infantile randumb garbage to do it.

They were shit in previous editions that also had random charge. Random charge doesnt mean shit for good or bad, it just makes the GAME worse.

File: 1446172115531.jpg (17KB, 634x476px)

17KB, 634x476px

>>53624343
>historical wargames

>>53626557
now melee has distance and you don't have to remove casualties from front. It's not as random as you are making it out to be.

get over it, it's not a big deal

t.4th ed fag

>>53626557
meh cry about it more nobody cares but you pussy

>>53626594
I'm pretty sure the massive exodus from the game in 6th was composed of people who care. You don't care because you have no standards. I do.

>>53626608
I didn't get back in because of flyers.

>>53626608
>we all left during 6th that's why more people are playing today than ever have before in the history of the game

good riddance then moron we don't want or need you but seriously you're missing out 8th is great

>>53625960
Flamer: Assault D6, S4, AP-, D1, auto-hits
Eldar Crimson Hunter: T6, W12, Sv 3+

So a flamer does an average of 3.5 hits per attack
To-wound is a 5+, so 1/3rd of hits will wound
Armor save means 1/3 of wounds will get through armor
So that's 7/2*1/3*1/3=7/18 wounds per flamer on average. So you're going to need to pour about 31 flamer shots into a single Crimson Hunter to down it, on average. While possible, this is certainly not terribly efficient. There's also the matter of it going very fast, and you needing to position 8" flamer units within range of it.


Lascannon: Heavy 1, S9, AP-3, D:d6, plus you can fire it from a much safer position

Assuming a 5+ to hit, due to Hard to hit, 1/3rd hit
To-wound is a 3+, so 2/3rds of hits will wound
AP means that 5/6 beat armor
Average of 3.5 damage
1/3*2/3*7/2=14/18 wounds per lascannon shot, or an average of about 16 lascannon shots to down a crimson falcon.

Now, a flamer costs 7 points and a lascannon costs 20, so by raw average wounds per point, flamers come out a bit ahead. However, good luck chasing the M20-60" flyer around the board with your 8" flamers. The slight advantage in wounds-efficiency that flamers have over actual anti-vehicle versus flyers is not enough to make up for the fact that you are still chasing flyers with flamers, which is silly.

>>53624456

Historical vs. 40k is just choosing between young autists and old autists

>>53626823
that's just /tg/ gaming in general barring Go and Poker, aka games that /tg/ doesn't actually play seriously

>>53618068
>Vehicles and MC's are seperate again
>Vehicles have seperate armor saves ranging from 2+ to 6+ depending on facing (14-10)
>Vehicles don't degrade in the same way as wounds are lost, but either lose main gun or are immobilised if they lose more than 1/2 wounds in one shot.

>All walkers play like MC's, but with the "vehicle" tag for poison and explosion etc


Would be my fix.

>>53626975
Oh, and charges are MV+d6, bring back templates, keep fliers at a -1 and if you fail a charge you still move.

My immediate thoughts are that templates, specifically flamers and flamer equivalents, just need more dice. Not by default, but I believe that ALL template weapons should benefit from the "If (x) number of units, add +1 (weapon attack die)".

In addition, they should be 2d3 instead of 1d6 for Flamers; more reliable curve, and you can just give them another 1d3 hits for the "x unit size" thing. As of right now, bad luck can mean that even if you're shooting a flamer into 30 Ork boyz, you can end up doing fewer hits than a goddamn bolter, and as a flamer, other than range, has the exact statline as a bolter, that's fucking absurd.

>>53626787
thanks for trying to explain shit to dummies

you're doing the emperor's work

>>53626975
>I want warhammer 40k to be a bad game

Noted.

>>53621968
>>53622059
wargaming involving unbased tanks has existed ever since. in fact, armored vehicle combat without the central issue of getting sideshots is a joke. a bad one. if that's a problem for you, our hobby might be, indeed, not for you.

>>53626787
Going back through this, I realize I forgot to factor in the armor save to the final wound calculation on the lascannon. That'll be an average of 70/108 wounds per shot, or about 0.65, for 18ish lascannon shots on average to bring down a Crimson Hunter. Point still stands.

>>53627115
Glad that it was appreciated! If nothing else, I find it interesting to churn through these numbers. Honestly, I'm still surprised that flamers are as effective as they are. While I don't expect to see flamer squads hunting flyers anytime soon, it's enough that if you park your flyer next to a squad, you might come away a bit worse for wear.

>>53627044
Rolling 2d3 for each flamer for a squad of 20 burnaboyz is going to be a pain.

>>53624727
>Before 8th edition came out, nobody was talking about armor facing being terrible, and hoping 8th would get rid of it.
this. it was a non-issue. facing is a main staple of armored conflict, taking it out is stupid, anyone who claims facing slowed the game down significantly is a lying sack of shit.

>>53624756
>Before 8th edition came out, nobody was talking about armor facing being good, and hoping 8th would keep it.
because the default assumption was that it would stay and you know it.

>>53627227
True, I'm too used to using digital dice rollers; forgot that d3 aren't common. Maybe 2d6 drop the lowest like Meltas?

>>53627299
>>53627227
Remembered this AS I posted it, but Burnaboyz don't roll for attacks for EACH ork! You just roll once and apply that attacks characteristic for each Burna that turn.

>>53627291
cry more noob

>>53627299
2d6-drop-lowest now means each of those 20 burnas needs to roll two dice independently of each other, so you're now rolling two dice 20 times, instead of 40 dice once.

Such are the limitations imposed by our physical existence, sadly. Puts a damper on certain mechanical solutions.

>>53624934
>So the difference between the front plating and the back playing is as much as the difference between how good power armor is and how good guard armor is?
yep, sounds fine.

>but we don't demand facing rules for infantry to deal with that.
without facing, tank combat isn't tank combat. it's that simple. the whole point in armored combat is to maneuver anti-tank weaponry into tank's sides. anybody who doesn't get that isn't really a wargamer, sorry.

>>53627324
shut the fuck up you pissy little overdramatic cunt

File: IMG_2633.jpg (117KB, 351x522px)

117KB, 351x522px

Anybody have art of tech-Guard? I just finished Dark Adeptus and the dudes referenced seem like a lot of fun to model/play.

Based off descriptions of lighter pseudo-shock troops with amped-up lasguns, I'm thinking Scions are a good place to go. Any good ideas or images?

>>53627332
Even casual as hell FPSs have "shoot tonk in tailpipe for MASSIVE DAMAGE"

40k is now dumber than COD

>>53627124
sorry, anon, we don't care about the taste of retards

>>53627310
oh, we will. this is just getting started.

>>53627332
the hell i will. we can all look forward to this debate raging on for years, until GW finally fixes it. either an update or a new edition, thank you very much.

>>53627360
>>53627361
>>53627376
lol nobody gives a shit retard

>>53627385
oh, they will. i point to you at the neckbeards complaining about D&D editions wars as reference

>>53627171
just because it's done in the past, doesn't make it good. That's how you get 7th ed as you refuse to ditch the outdated and pisspoor mechanic

>>53621630
Front and side armor were always the same on oddly-shaped vehicles, and rear facings are easily discernible.

I don't get your complaint

>>53624810
Am I the only guy seeing this and going "every facing edge is at least a 40°, no matter what you're getting a glancing hit"
the hideous number of shot traps are another matter

>>53627737
bandaiding bad rules doesn't make the rules good.
bad rules are bad

>>53624934
>but we don't demand facing rules for infantry to deal with that.

Here's a reminder that giving infantry units 360° vision was a mistake and the game was much better without it.

>>53627869
daily reminder that giving your 40k was a mistake and shut up retard

>>53627869
>he doesn't know how to spinhack
>he wants to remove the ability to have your entire army moonwalk up the board

fucking noob

>>53625712
I hated 7th and wanted a change

8th was just too many moves in the wrong direction.

>>53627821
Vehicle facing is an integral part of how vehicles work.
Actually, so is the damage table.

Tanks don't bleed. They literally exist to protect and obscure the most important parts of their functioning.
Representing tanks in 40k and then giving them bland AF AoS rules is downright retarded.

>>53627999
cry more retard all my vehicles are fucking awesome now and actually resilient

>>53627999
Counter-point to you and all other "muh facings" fags:
Where you shoot a person matters just as much as where you shoot a tank. A bullst or blade through the heart or head will be more deadly than cutting off or shooting my pinky. So why not have rules to represent that?
Or what about helmets? Shouldn't wearing more armor make a model more protected?
And why do all posion weapons act the same?
And on vehicles, why stop at facings? Why not go full autist and bring back the early edition rules where I can shoot the treads or the engines or so on?
It's all more realistic, why not do that? What makes facings more important?

While I'm not opposed to facings, muh realism or muh depth isn't a good argument, because it can be applied to thousands of different parts of 40k, yet you aren't arguing for those. The game is an abstraction, and sometimes realism of a science fantasy game must be sacrificed for making it fun, and facings is just one such case

>>53628195
>And on vehicles, why stop at facings? Why not go full autist and bring back the early edition rules where I can shoot the treads or the engines or so on?

Because the game has been watered down so much since it started, and now the only audience it can attract and keep are people who look at the tepid bowl of water they're being served and go "wow, this is some really thick soup!". The game can't be made more complex, interactions between models have to be continually stripped away, and games are won or lost on what models you bring to the table rather than how they're used.

Which is a pretty good deal if you're in the business of selling models.

>>53628255
no, you're stupid

>>53628195
How about, there's a line- and that line I has shifted only to accommodate them selling larger and larger crapshoot models.
Having simplified Armageddon rules and more complicated 40k rules would've been fine- but no, they had to drive sales.

As for "shooting heads on an infantryman", that's what the sniper rending rule was.
As for "shooting unarmored bits on an infantryman", that's what rolling a higher dice was.
Want to shoot the gunner on a tank? Roll a 6. Then roll a 3. Boop, weapon destroyed.

This change I feel wasn't for balance's sake, it was literally because modern vehicles didn't fit into AoS 2.0, and as a person who was perfectly fine having different rulesets for 40k and Apocalypse, I'm fucking furious at having too-similar rulesets for AoS and 40k.

I'm sure AoS is fun, for those who play it- but I chose not to, because the rules weren't interesting to me.
Now that choice has been taken away from me, so I have to go play fucking flames of war or something.

>>53628307
Stop whining you shitty cunt

>>53628296
No, he's right

>>53628312
Sounds like you've got nothing.
Go back to playing with blocks you fag at least they have rules you can understand.

>>53628255

There was literally nothing good about 7E and its complexity.

>>53628320
>>53628334
>assblasted retard trying his best
if you had a single argument in favor of your opinion people wouldn't be making fun of you

>>53628340
>There was literally nothing good about 7E and its complexity.

There's no complexity in it. Was talking about the transition from 1 / 1.5 to 2e onwards; it has been a steady downhill journey where mechanics that lent the game complexity have been removed in each edition.

People lose their shit because the new edition of 40k that comes to replace the one they grew up playing is less complex, but even the edition they're holding up as a paragon of complexity is a pale fucking shadow of the edition that came before it, and so on. What you're holding up as an example of complexity is the watered down version of a watered down version of a homeopathic concentration of a wargame.

>>53628431
>Was talking about the transition from 1 / 1.5 to 2e onwards

And yet 3E was a thing.

>>53628431
that's not true though. it was watered down 3E and then regained complexity (of the gamist, not the simulationist, kind) and now is getting reduced again in complexity. i generally don't mind but the lack of vehicle facings is shit

>>53628195
that's a terrible example that shows that you don't understand small unit tactics. if anything, you'd have to ask for the role of flanking and suppressive fire, not specific hits.

what you should realize however is that there are way fewer vehicles (with some exceptions like bikers, etc. which don't need facing and didnt have any as such) which means you can add some more detail without slowing down the game much.

>>53628515
keep crying retard

>>53628351
That's not even remotely how the internet works.

>>53629946
>t. guy who has never had a single argument in favor of his opinion

>>53618103
>>53624274
You deserve Infnity, but Battletech isn't bad as a game.

Vehicles shouldn't be allowed to fire overwatch. In no situation should a basilisk be able to fire its cannon at someone charging them 3 inches away

>>53631560
I agree that certain weapons could have rules preventing them from firing overwatch but something makes me want to just say "FUCK YEAH I'M FIRING DANGER CLOSE HITS ON SIXES BABY COME AT ME"