Of everything that stands, the end

>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.

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

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

>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"

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.

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

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.

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 Veeky Forums 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

user, 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.

Tau player here, excited about the changes!

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.

There is no story without an antagonist, idiot.

Chaos is the GREAT ENEMY.

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.

>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?

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

It just slowed the game down.

What a bountiful salt harvest

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

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.

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.

>nu-Veeky Forums

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?

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

That's exactly what they did in 8th!

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.

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

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.

Looks like he got the (you) he wanted

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 Veeky Forums

Glad to oblige.

>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.

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

Go fuck yourself. Seriously.

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

Doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid

This is all your fault Wayne you asshole

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?

What the hell is your problem?

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.

>It kills suspension of disbelief

user, 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 ?

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?

YOU LIE
OUR GAME SELLS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

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

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.

¯\_(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.

>Pic very related

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

What about no.

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

>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.

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".

>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.

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.

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.

KYS ya edge lord

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

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

>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.

>nu*

You should leave and never return.

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

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.

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

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.

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".

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

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

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

>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.

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.

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?

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

>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+

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

>muh tactical depth!

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.

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.

Not everyone plays marines on marines.

Not an argument.

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.

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.

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