After reading the new information on charge distances still being random without regard for the new movement stat, and with numarines being a new super-faction, I have gone from excited to dread about the new edition of 40k and am wondering if anyone else is on a similar roller coaster. As someone who was really looking forward to this new edition as an excuse to give 40k a bigger chunk of my free time, and maybe GW a bit more of my money (that is not much but still...), I will have to answer this poll a solid "no" at this point and am sad about it.
To foreshadow Vaktathi's image from his comment below - 'turd in the punchbowl' -
Who is still EXCITED to drink this punch?
They're still fixing up a lot of stuff, just because they kept some stuff similar isn't the end of the world. Considering there will be regular updates, how about we play it for a while and see how it goes - if it's really truly too horrible, it can be changed.
I'm definitely concerned about how lame the Numarines are going to be, but overall I'm still excited. Like Vaktathi said, the rules are looking much better and some of the changes to the GW business model are very welcome indeed.
Vaktathi wrote: Rules look way better thus far than 7E, but given how atrocious 7E plays, not sure how much that says. Either way, rules wise, we're looking better.
NuMarines sound stupid and, in classic GW style, may be the turd in the punch bowl they always seem to have to go out of their way to include.
This sums up my thoughts exactly.
All they had to do was copy/paste most of the ruleset for AoS and be done with it, and we would have had a fantastic game already. Instead they're just adding a bunch of crap for what feels to be just the sake of it.
As for NuMarines, all they had to do was release some new kits and call it a day. I appreciate a move to a more correct scale, but having to fluff them in, especially with GW's track record for just being horrible with their own fluff, means the result is bound to be cringe-worthy at best.
I'm still excited. I still have access to all the old lore even if I decided I don't like the new stuff (generally I just find lore interesting, and the new stuff is not outside my realm of belief for the 40k universe). It'd be fairly hard to stop me being excited for a simplified system. I also think it's way to early to be making judgements though.
Vaktathi wrote: Rules look way better thus far than 7E, but given how atrocious 7E plays, not sure how much that says. Either way, rules wise, we're looking better.
NuMarines sound stupid and, in classic GW style, may be the turd in the punch bowl they always seem to have to go out of their way to include.
Agreed, still I feel like Charlie Brown to GW's Lucy, just waiting for her to pull the ball away as soon as I commit...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
troa wrote: I'm still excited. I still have access to all the old lore even if I decided I don't like the new stuff (generally I just find lore interesting, and the new stuff is not outside my realm of belief for the 40k universe). It'd be fairly hard to stop me being excited for a simplified system. I also think it's way to early to be making judgements though.
This poll is more about feelings then hardcore irreversible judgements. Just trying to get a handle on how everyone out there is taking the news.
While I've enjoyed 7th edition games with friends playing the Malestrom missions, the game is way over-bloated and needs to go on a serious rules diet.
IMO, 7th has been the worst edition to play competitively. However, I really like most of what I'm seeing for 8th.
Wolflord Patrick wrote: While I've enjoyed 7th edition games with friends playing the Malestrom missions, the game is way over-bloated and needs to go on a serious rules diet.
IMO, 7th has been the worst edition to play competitively. However, I really like most of what I'm seeing for 8th.
Agreed, but should we be 'excited' for 'better than bad'?
I am just wondering who is excited to buy into new flaws...
To return to the image above, 'turd in the punchbowl' -
Who is still excited to drink this punch?
5th Edition took away my Berserker's rhino ride and made them unable to assault out of it. It also introduced the heinously broken SM factions in the form of Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights. It also completely destroyed the old fluff of the Necrons.
6th Edition introduced proper flyer rules, random charge distances, overwatch, armies with more than one detachment being the norm, and kicked CSM in the nuts thrice over by giving us the ridiculous cheese that is the Heldrake while nerfing everything else besides plague marines into oblivion. It also introduced the infamous Riptide and Wave Serpent spam lists
7th edition took away any semblance of balance with summoning daemons, no set FoC, Gargantuan creatures, D-strength everywhere, free junk, and ridiculously overpowered models for their point costs. They also made a bunch of armies heavily reliant on Allies (Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, and so forth) to be viable.
8th edition has....just buffed Overwatch and introduced a possible replacement for the Custodes? In the grand scheme of things, the last three editions managed to kick more sand into my face than this one did, and this one is shaking up the most, so I'm still fairly excited.
I have some reservations, but overall I'm excited. It helps that I've gotten older and have less time to play, so a simplified ruleset with faster play time is a godsend for me.
I am very much excited for 40K's new edition. I haven't enjoyed playing 40K lately, outside of special narrative and campaign stuff that some of the local players have cooked up. Anything done to trim out the bloat of the formations, supplements, FAQs, etc, is a good thing. I want to be able to have a good game with my army book and rulebook as the only needed publications for a game again.
Nosferatu71 wrote: I have some reservations, but overall I'm excited. It helps that I've gotten older and have less time to play, so a simplified ruleset with faster play time is a godsend for me.
Pretty sure they're setting up another founding. I would imagine these new humans won't be average soldiers, but almost like a new generation of sub-primarchs. My guess anyway.
And as far as the rules and stuff go - i'm excited, the game could play faster, and getting rid of a lot of rules bloat will really help.
For all we know Guilliman is using the Emperor's genetic material to create these new humans.
I play a buttload of armies, four of which are pretty much poop in the current meta, and two of the others get hissing, ritual cross drawings cries of "CHEESE!" when I try to play them. Something to shore that up a little would be much appreciated.
I'm optimistic still, but at this point, almost anything would be an improvement. Even saying "toss out all of 7e, just play 6e" would be an improvement, and 6e was fraught with trouble.
So, in short, cautious optimism is the word of the day.
As for NuMarines, we'll see how they stink it up, if in fact they do. Best bet is they're gonna be some kind of super-elite unit - GW would not be so stupid as to slow-squat their ultimate cash cow army just to push this thing that nobody asked for, so it'll fit in with existing Marines.
It is almost like SWA / Necromunda reminded them of some rules of the past and they got a good dusting off.
Anything for ease of play or at least more intuitive rules, less random, more choice would get my support and it is looking rather optimistic.
Borrowing a bit from how Bolt Action handles things was really nice to see.
Getting away from I-go, you-go your entire army is a happy thing all by itself.
As for the Uber-marines, they will probably be made into everything a terminator was supposed to be.
Yet another unasked-for competitor for the abused Terminator.
Can we have a campaign "Make Terminators great again" other than the Skynet kind?
Yes. The main thing I don't like is the MarineMarines, a.k.a. NuMarines, a concept for me which takes Marines even further away from likability. But not being a Marine player, I can generally safely ignore them. So it all sounds really good to me.
It's something we've seen before. FW does something cool and gourmet that's well received... and then GW goes all McDonalds and turns it into the new norm.
I'm hoping it's not a new faction
Legion Marine models are already bigger than 40k, so bringing back heresy tech and big marines works. A T5 S5 marine elite slot that comes with hover bikes, some of the "lost" vehicle variants (land raiders, whirlwinds, rhinos, rapier artillery, etc) would be neat.
Shoving the chapters aside for a new Terran Legion would be horrible
I'm really excited for playing with my soon to be stunted Dark Angels Armie in comparasion with the new Numarines.
I will rename then as Space Gobbos
And I expect a nerf to Riptide and Stormsurge and a buff to my beloved Vespids so I can play my Tau as I want without feeling as a stupid player for picking the things that I Like but are useless.
problem is... who trust gw still, after the disaster they did with 7th? i m not one who trust them, gw is always highly capable to destroy anything they touch...
Jacksmiles wrote: They're still fixing up a lot of stuff, just because they kept some stuff similar isn't the end of the world. Considering there will be regular updates, how about we play it for a while and see how it goes - if it's really truly too horrible, it can be changed.
agreed. they can al;ways change charges if it turns out to not work
There is already a precedent for having tougher Space Marines in the galaxy, just not in the regular Chapters as we know them. As for what was recently teased, my guess is the "Numarines" are either a) mass-produced Custodes, or b) reintroduced Thunder Warriors.
Mass-prodecing the Custodes might lessen the impact of having Custodes models, but they are already tougher and bigger and stronger than standard Astartes. Aren't there rumors that they are already being enhanced with the Emperor's own gene-seed? Plus, these "Numarines" might not even be as effective as a Custodes, so they would each have some relevancy.
Personally, I hope for a reintroduced Thunder Warriors, with the same potential for them being crazed berserkers that have to be put down after so much time. It would, to me, be fitting for Guilliman to make the same mistakes as the Emperor without meaning to, and having Thunder Warriors brought back might be a neat way to have some subtle (or not-so-subtle) call backs to the original unification of the galaxy. If it's anything that we can learn from humans throughout history, it is that things will get repeated.
I never really gave a gak about the fluff and I DEFINITELY don't give a gak about space marine fluff(they're just gakky stormcasts imo). So I'm immune to all that.
The rules however I care about quite a bit and they look awesome so far.
As someone who's never played proper 40K, I'm interested in the price drops and new rules. I'm betting it'll be a starting point for new players like myself.
New marines, I'd like to see more about them. But bigger means more detail. We'll see.
I'm more concerned about the implied gutting of the armies like IG with the removal of templates. sounds like there will now be only one IG army: infantry swarm
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm more concerned about the implied gutting of the armies like IG with the removal of templates. sounds like there will now be only one IG army: infantry swarm
Because those tanks with Small Blasts and the Hellhound were really effective to begin with.
It's likely many tanks will actually gain a BOOST from it. How many people remember that the Leman Russ Eradicator is a thing?
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm more concerned about the implied gutting of the armies like IG with the removal of templates. sounds like there will now be only one IG army: infantry swarm
I mean, the weapons still exist, we just dont know how they'll be translated. If a Battlecannon is S8 ASM-3, D6+2 hits that do D3 wounds each for 150pts that can fire other weapons at no penalty, well, Russ tanks will probably be pretty stronk. If it's ASM -2 with D3 single damage hits for 200pts with the same Ordnance restrictions, then we'll have issues.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm more concerned about the implied gutting of the armies like IG with the removal of templates. sounds like there will now be only one IG army: infantry swarm
It's actually quite an improvement for things like Battle Cannons. Not to mention how much better our vehicles in general will be compared to now.
Galas wrote: I'm really excited for playing with my soon to be stunted Dark Angels Armie in comparasion with the new Numarines.
I will rename then as Space Gobbos
Where do you think the "Watchers in the Dark" came from?
Marines from a long forgotten scale update.
blackmage wrote: problem is... who trust gw still, after the disaster they did with 7th? i m not one who trust them, gw is always highly capable to destroy anything they touch...
Really? I felt 7th was pretty good. 6th was the garbage one.
Random charge is in because the intention since the very first editions of WFB and 40k were that assault should be a risk. This is why we didn't have pre-measuring back then. But players quickly showed that guessing distance wasn't a huge imposition and we could entirely mitigate the risk with a keen eye. That is why guess range weapons went the way of the dodo. We were the commander of the army, not its gunner. The to-hit roll (or in some editions the scatter roll) was the "risk" in firing G-range weapons. So when pre-measuring became the norm, they could close that little meta-game loophole and make declaring a charge a risk again. I get why folks don't like it, but there is a reason for it to be there in the first place and it does its job.
I think the version we're getting in 8th has some upsides that will make it less potentially capricious. First the 1" bubble for engagement means that you can hit max charge range a bit more reliably. The second, if we are reading the article correctly, is that even if you fail, you still move.
Overwatch? If GW are moving back toward allowing high-speed assault armies getting stuck in sooner (not something we are certain of yet, but a lot of floating rumours about assaulting from various things that used to preclude it) then this is necessary (alongside disengaging) to keep the end game more than just a curb stomp once a close combat army gets stuck in. Hopefully there aren't a lot of ways to buff it so that it is basically a proper firing phase, but if the assault changes are aimed toward getting them in fast, then it stands to reason that there should be some way of popping a shot off before they get stuck in.
NuMarines? Depends entirely on the execution. It isn't like the 40k-verse has never had more-marine-than-marine things crop up in the fluff. Mysterious improved marines of the Cursed Founding, the Adeptus Custodes, Grey Knights (especially in their original incarnation), Thunder Warriors, hell even Pre-Heresy Marines can fit the bill (because most marines are actually mutated and lessened in this age, its part of the irony that despite their hate of mutation the Imperium's modern heroes are actually riddled with mutation).
And it isn't like they've never done stupid, over-the-top additions to the fluff. But most folks have internalized a lot of the older additions and retcons. You wont hear folks complaining about Orks being fungus and wielding guns that work on shared psychic delusion. Hell most folks have even come to accept Tau at this point. So while my kneejerk is to think they're lame, I have also been through so many fluff additions, retcons, and switches that it is hard to care that deeply anymore. GW has been messing with the fluff since '87. Marines have gone from press-ganged convicts ala Sardaukar to being inhuman murder engines. This is a game that once had Inquistor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau in it. It is a game where the most famous Ork warboss is a dig at Margaret Thatcher. So sure, NuMarines, why not? The game is no stranger to lame fluff that we end up internalizing over the years and decades until it is part of the constant shark jumping the game has been doing for the last 30 years.
So sure, they may be lame, GW my up the execution. Or they may not. Hard to tell, but the game wont be worse for them any more than it is worse for the other dozens of half-arsed ideas they've slung out over the game's history.
I enjoy AoS and 40k 8th is shaping up to being AoS but better. Having a game I would actually enjoy playing in this setting that I love would be great. I am a bit worried about close combat, but until I see more I can't make a verdict on whether or not it will be weakened. I am definitely still excited/hyped.
Yeah I'm looking forward to it. I had resigned myself to a future of GW tinkering at the edges of the rules. This top to bottom overhaul is very welcome in my book.
As for the NuMarines. The background could suck, but it could also be really cool(YMMV of course). But I'm confident the models will be good.
Nosferatu71 wrote: I have some reservations, but overall I'm excited. It helps that I've gotten older and have less time to play, so a simplified ruleset with faster play time is a godsend for me.
qft
Sorry.
My machine spirit doesn't speak "maybe".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ronin_eX wrote: Random charge is in because the intention since the very first editions of WFB and 40k were that assault should be a risk. This is why we didn't have pre-measuring back then. But players quickly showed that guessing distance wasn't a huge imposition and we could entirely mitigate the risk with a keen eye. That is why guess range weapons went the way of the dodo. We were the commander of the army, not its gunner. The to-hit roll (or in some editions the scatter roll) was the "risk" in firing G-range weapons. So when pre-measuring became the norm, they could close that little meta-game loophole and make declaring a charge a risk again. I get why folks don't like it, but there is a reason for it to be there in the first place and it does its job.
I think the version we're getting in 8th has some upsides that will make it less potentially capricious. First the 1" bubble for engagement means that you can hit max charge range a bit more reliably. The second, if we are reading the article correctly, is that even if you fail, you still move.
Overwatch? If GW are moving back toward allowing high-speed assault armies getting stuck in sooner (not something we are certain of yet, but a lot of floating rumours about assaulting from various things that used to preclude it) then this is necessary (alongside disengaging) to keep the end game more than just a curb stomp once a close combat army gets stuck in. Hopefully there aren't a lot of ways to buff it so that it is basically a proper firing phase, but if the assault changes are aimed toward getting them in fast, then it stands to reason that there should be some way of popping a shot off before they get stuck in.
NuMarines? Depends entirely on the execution. It isn't like the 40k-verse has never had more-marine-than-marine things crop up in the fluff. Mysterious improved marines of the Cursed Founding, the Adeptus Custodes, Grey Knights (especially in their original incarnation), Thunder Warriors, hell even Pre-Heresy Marines can fit the bill (because most marines are actually mutated and lessened in this age, its part of the irony that despite their hate of mutation the Imperium's modern heroes are actually riddled with mutation).
And it isn't like they've never done stupid, over-the-top additions to the fluff. But most folks have internalized a lot of the older additions and retcons. You wont hear folks complaining about Orks being fungus and wielding guns that work on shared psychic delusion. Hell most folks have even come to accept Tau at this point. So while my kneejerk is to think they're lame, I have also been through so many fluff additions, retcons, and switches that it is hard to care that deeply anymore. GW has been messing with the fluff since '87. Marines have gone from press-ganged convicts ala Sardaukar to being inhuman murder engines. This is a game that once had Inquistor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau in it. It is a game where the most famous Ork warboss is a dig at Margaret Thatcher. So sure, NuMarines, why not? The game is no stranger to lame fluff that we end up internalizing over the years and decades until it is part of the constant shark jumping the game has been doing for the last 30 years.
So sure, they may be lame, GW my up the execution. Or they may not. Hard to tell, but the game wont be worse for them any more than it is worse for the other dozens of half-arsed ideas they've slung out over the game's history.
Guess range charge has nothing to do with pulsa rokkits.
Overwatch is a necessity but everyone hitting on 6s and as many times as possible, when in the shooting phases a unit can use the same guns only once?
The 1" bubble is going to be as big a headache as a flamer template - base to base contact was pretty cut and dried.
Who are the numarines a dig on? GW Bush? Trump, because they are "huge"?
As someone who prefers assault, the game would be too broken without overwatch and random assault.
As long as overwatch can't be modified below 6+ that is.
Another factor is the potential to charge out of transports, we need this information to be solid.
Did you ever play under the rules that Overwatch must be declared during the player's turn and taken in lieu of shooting,
with the unit sitting in wait for a threat to cross its field of view?
Much better mechanic, imo...
Voted for 'yes', as I am still excited for the new edition.
Basically, I do not play competetively, not in tournaments anyways, so most of the 7th shenannigans of Riptide Swarms and Scatbike Spam went by me even. That leaves me with a bloated rules system where layer after layer of rules, universal special rules, army specific special rules, formation added special rules, and what not has made the game slower and tedious to play in anything but low points cost games. Fully knowing, and accepting, that a rules reset would invalidate all my codices, I still embraced the idea of massive changes, even Sigmarifying the rules.
A couple of specific opinions on the matters at hand:
Random Charge ranges? We don't know enough about this, except that it will be in there, to cry havoc ans let slip the dogs of war. Besides, It might be gone within a year, following GW's own admission that a yearly update might be a good idea. As long as everybody keeps sending in constructive criticism about it. I too have failed one or two charges by rolling 'snake eyes' and having a strong melee unit shot to pieces. Not being for a prize or (inter)national recognition, I just saw the fun of a full brood of Genestealers tripping over their own claws and hooves and, because of their greater independence from the Hive Mind, argue over which morsel looks the tastiest, all the while forgetting to even try and get there in the first place. Would I have liked to see the now returned Movement stat to have mattered? Yes, of course. Will it never? I don't know, but there is a chance, through customer feedback, that this full randomness might only last a year. Or two.
Numarines? I am excited about these, actually. They move the story forward. There is a new player in town, who actually got to see his 'father' get things done. It isn't such a giant leap for my brain to accept that Robby G might still remember OldMarines that weren't genetically degenerated so they could no longer use their Betcher's Gland to spit acid and burn ropes and other bonds. He might have seen his scouts crack open an Ork's skull, devouring brain matter and due to the Omophagea 'learn' or 'remember' the location of the Ork camps and the strength of their forces. No Red Thirst, no Canis Helix, but nineteen fully operational implants. Would I like to see these new models replace the old ones? No, of course not. But my guess is, that they will become a separate elite choice, something any chapter can take one or two of as 'reinforcements'. it also opens up the possibility to start all over again, with a new chapter of your own creation, with nice fluff about it having been lost and now reconstructed, but only better. Besides, in friendly games especially, who is going to stop you from contacting your gaming friends and saying you want to play a game of Warhammer 39K, where you play without publicized named characters (even those that would have been around at that time) and any of that new stuff that only now starts appearing in both lore and miniature form?
Loss of templates? No big deal. While I did enjoy the occasional placement, and counting models hit, and accounting for scatter, I would not miss, nor enjoy, long drawn arguements about whether or not I have moved the template in the correct angle as indicated by the scatter die, thus possibly missing my own little plastic dudes there. "But a random die roll to see how many models are hit is yet another random die roll!" Yep, you're right. So is a scatter die roll, but then with three dice instead of one, or maybe two (we still don't know what the difference will be between a blast marker and a large blast marker in the new system, which I might guess to be 1d6 hits and 2d6 hits respectively). "But now my one Dreadnought might be hit 6 times from a flamer/blast marker (or even 12 times from a large blast, still just guessing)". indeed. But remember, that Dreadnought is a very big target. It has two weaponized arms, two stout legs, and a big torso on top of a tiny waist/hip section. That's six locations to be hit. Now imagine that blast top be super hot, a true explosion where heat, shockwave, and shrapnel conspire to not just hit that dreadnought, but also fry rubber wire tubes, penetrate drive systems, and do whatever damage it will do to all those insides. That's six hit locations on the outside, but also six locations on the inside, for a total of 12 possible locations to destroy something vital. This is, of course, ut a simple example of how one can right wrongs, or just extrapolate from what very little info we actually have on some matters such as the weapons (four profiles, one of which shows that the flamer template will no longer be used). I think I will just wait and see. What I have seen up till now, still gets me excited.
Cover adding to the Armour Saving Throw? I will admit that I would have liked cover to detract from the firer's Ballistic Skill. In my opinion, all stuff that makes you harder to be hit, such as not being completely visible due to standing behind a bush or peering around a corner, should lower your chances of being hit, and therefor affect the attack rolls. Stuff that makes you harder to drop, such as Nurgle marks, extra armour, combat drugs, etc., now that might affect your chances of survival, and through that, your Toughness value or your Armour Saving Throw. But again, once we have the full rules in our hands, we might see nuances that aren't visible right now. And those nuances might be things that make or break our perception of what little rules snippets we have seen now. And who knows, perhaps GW gets so much constructive feedback from people all over the world, that their yearly update of the rules might even change the cover rule from an Armour Saving Throw bonus to a Ballistic Skill penalty again. For that matter, I wonder what they'll do to the rules for Camo Cloaks and the likes?
Weapon Skill hitting on a specific target number? Sure, why not. Ballistic Skill has done so from the very beginning. It had fixed to hit numbers and modifiers way back in Rogue Trader, and it gets modifiers in 8th. With all the rules snippets we have seen, there isn't a single modifier to to hit rolls in combat, but this might just as well be on a model-by-model basis. Perhaps the Howling banshee masks will cause opponents a -2 or -3 to hit in melee and the banshees wail. Perhaps the Harlequins might have a special rule replacing their invulnerable save with a modifier to the opponent's ability to attack. Though I find the table (and the underlying base calculation) for rolling to hit in melee easy to remember, it is just as easy to see a number on a dataslate/warscroll/datasheet/whatchamacallin'it. Like I said above about cover, I think a defensive ability such as "Dodge 1; subtract 1 from your opponent's to hit rolls in melee against a model with this rule" is quite viable. You might even change it into "Dodge 3; subtract 3........" for real close combat monsters such as Lelith Hesperax or The Swarmlord that now has a close combat invulnerable save due to his Bonesabers. We will just have to wait and see.
Looking at my bookshelf and adding up what I spent on 6th and 7th edition... do not want to pay that again.
2nd edition rules are also free
And regardless, rules won't be 'free'... you will be buying books again, under a new name, and maybe two a year per army by design.
One a BRB and two for your end of the grand alliances set in the current and ever advancing story arc with modified points, abilities, and so on.
Yes, because I'll actually be able to start playing. And really the biggest reason I want to play 40k is because of aesthetics, as I hear Warmachine currently has a better ruleset. Haven't actually played that yet either though, because I hate painting. But I don't like Warmachine's setting/models nearly as much. I would like something that's rules heavy and is more of a simulation but I guess that's what historicals and (some) computer games are for. As long as I don't feel like I'm buying models and victory isn't dependent entirely on what you bring I'll probably have fun with it.
Lord Xcapobl wrote: Voted for 'yes', as I am still excited for the new edition.
Basically, I do not play competetively, not in tournaments anyways, so most of the 7th shenannigans of Riptide Swarms and Scatbike Spam went by me even. That leaves me with a bloated rules system where layer after layer of rules, universal special rules, army specific special rules, formation added special rules, and what not has made the game slower and tedious to play in anything but low points cost games. Fully knowing, and accepting, that a rules reset would invalidate all my codices, I still embraced the idea of massive changes, even Sigmarifying the rules.
A couple of specific opinions on the matters at hand:
Random Charge ranges? We don't know enough about this, except that it will be in there, to cry havoc ans let slip the dogs of war. Besides, It might be gone within a year, following GW's own admission that a yearly update might be a good idea. As long as everybody keeps sending in constructive criticism about it. I too have failed one or two charges by rolling 'snake eyes' and having a strong melee unit shot to pieces. Not being for a prize or (inter)national recognition, I just saw the fun of a full brood of Genestealers tripping over their own claws and hooves and, because of their greater independence from the Hive Mind, argue over which morsel looks the tastiest, all the while forgetting to even try and get there in the first place. Would I have liked to see the now returned Movement stat to have mattered? Yes, of course. Will it never? I don't know, but there is a chance, through customer feedback, that this full randomness might only last a year. Or two.
Numarines? I am excited about these, actually. They move the story forward. There is a new player in town, who actually got to see his 'father' get things done. It isn't such a giant leap for my brain to accept that Robby G might still remember OldMarines that weren't genetically degenerated so they could no longer use their Betcher's Gland to spit acid and burn ropes and other bonds. He might have seen his scouts crack open an Ork's skull, devouring brain matter and due to the Omophagea 'learn' or 'remember' the location of the Ork camps and the strength of their forces. No Red Thirst, no Canis Helix, but nineteen fully operational implants. Would I like to see these new models replace the old ones? No, of course not. But my guess is, that they will become a separate elite choice, something any chapter can take one or two of as 'reinforcements'. it also opens up the possibility to start all over again, with a new chapter of your own creation, with nice fluff about it having been lost and now reconstructed, but only better. Besides, in friendly games especially, who is going to stop you from contacting your gaming friends and saying you want to play a game of Warhammer 39K, where you play without publicized named characters (even those that would have been around at that time) and any of that new stuff that only now starts appearing in both lore and miniature form?
Loss of templates? No big deal. While I did enjoy the occasional placement, and counting models hit, and accounting for scatter, I would not miss, nor enjoy, long drawn arguements about whether or not I have moved the template in the correct angle as indicated by the scatter die, thus possibly missing my own little plastic dudes there. "But a random die roll to see how many models are hit is yet another random die roll!" Yep, you're right. So is a scatter die roll, but then with three dice instead of one, or maybe two (we still don't know what the difference will be between a blast marker and a large blast marker in the new system, which I might guess to be 1d6 hits and 2d6 hits respectively). "But now my one Dreadnought might be hit 6 times from a flamer/blast marker (or even 12 times from a large blast, still just guessing)". indeed. But remember, that Dreadnought is a very big target. It has two weaponized arms, two stout legs, and a big torso on top of a tiny waist/hip section. That's six locations to be hit. Now imagine that blast top be super hot, a true explosion where heat, shockwave, and shrapnel conspire to not just hit that dreadnought, but also fry rubber wire tubes, penetrate drive systems, and do whatever damage it will do to all those insides. That's six hit locations on the outside, but also six locations on the inside, for a total of 12 possible locations to destroy something vital. This is, of course, ut a simple example of how one can right wrongs, or just extrapolate from what very little info we actually have on some matters such as the weapons (four profiles, one of which shows that the flamer template will no longer be used). I think I will just wait and see. What I have seen up till now, still gets me excited.
Cover adding to the Armour Saving Throw? I will admit that I would have liked cover to detract from the firer's Ballistic Skill. In my opinion, all stuff that makes you harder to be hit, such as not being completely visible due to standing behind a bush or peering around a corner, should lower your chances of being hit, and therefor affect the attack rolls. Stuff that makes you harder to drop, such as Nurgle marks, extra armour, combat drugs, etc., now that might affect your chances of survival, and through that, your Toughness value or your Armour Saving Throw. But again, once we have the full rules in our hands, we might see nuances that aren't visible right now. And those nuances might be things that make or break our perception of what little rules snippets we have seen now. And who knows, perhaps GW gets so much constructive feedback from people all over the world, that their yearly update of the rules might even change the cover rule from an Armour Saving Throw bonus to a Ballistic Skill penalty again. For that matter, I wonder what they'll do to the rules for Camo Cloaks and the likes?
Weapon Skill hitting on a specific target number? Sure, why not. Ballistic Skill has done so from the very beginning. It had fixed to hit numbers and modifiers way back in Rogue Trader, and it gets modifiers in 8th. With all the rules snippets we have seen, there isn't a single modifier to to hit rolls in combat, but this might just as well be on a model-by-model basis. Perhaps the Howling banshee masks will cause opponents a -2 or -3 to hit in melee and the banshees wail. Perhaps the Harlequins might have a special rule replacing their invulnerable save with a modifier to the opponent's ability to attack. Though I find the table (and the underlying base calculation) for rolling to hit in melee easy to remember, it is just as easy to see a number on a dataslate/warscroll/datasheet/whatchamacallin'it. Like I said above about cover, I think a defensive ability such as "Dodge 1; subtract 1 from your opponent's to hit rolls in melee against a model with this rule" is quite viable. You might even change it into "Dodge 3; subtract 3........" for real close combat monsters such as Lelith Hesperax or The Swarmlord that now has a close combat invulnerable save due to his Bonesabers. We will just have to wait and see.
Thanks for that ...
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Always thoughtful, and respectful.
I especially appreciate your optimism re changing from random charge distances after constructive criticism in a year.
That helps assuage my anxiety.
What about multiple overwatch shooting? Hitting on 6s across the board, as seems to have been clearly indicated?
I suspect that the trouble is that none of the play testers (mostly tourney types from what I could see) were playing during the early days of Overwatch counters.
This and charge distances, and the 1" bubble, these are the big problems.
The loss of templates - OK, let's see how it goes.
The rest, numarines and so on, yes, OK - sigmarines it is then, we all were expecting as much since all the AoSifying 40k talk started.
Vehicles without AV - OK, I can see the upside, let's see how it goes.
Some of the changes are positive out of the box, too - pistols, for example, seem like they are being handled better.
And I have hope that psychic and warlord stuff will no longer be random, but rather paid for in points.
Anyways, thanks for the well reasoned and encouraging post.
Bravo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Started off good...rapidly going in the opposite direction.
Galas wrote: I'm really excited for playing with my soon to be stunted Dark Angels Armie in comparasion with the new Numarines.
I will rename then as Space Gobbos
Where do you think the "Watchers in the Dark" came from?
Marines from a long forgotten scale update.
As someone who prefers assault, the game would be too broken without overwatch and random assault.
As long as overwatch can't be modified below 6+ that is.
Another factor is the potential to charge out of transports, we need this information to be solid.
Did you ever play under the rules that Overwatch must be declared during the player's turn and taken in lieu of shooting,
with the unit sitting in wait for a threat to cross its field of view?
Much better mechanic, imo...
Yeah that does sound good jeff, but then in its current iteration it sounds too weak for 8th edition. Maybe if you chose overwatch instead of shooting, but then had full ballistic skill?
As someone who prefers assault, the game would be too broken without overwatch and random assault.
As long as overwatch can't be modified below 6+ that is.
Another factor is the potential to charge out of transports, we need this information to be solid.
Did you ever play under the rules that Overwatch must be declared during the player's turn and taken in lieu of shooting,
with the unit sitting in wait for a threat to cross its field of view?
Much better mechanic, imo...
Yeah that does sound good jeff, but then in its current iteration it sounds too weak for 8th edition. Maybe if you chose overwatch instead of shooting, but then had full ballistic skill?
That is how it worked, if recall correctly with a -1 to hit modifier for OW shooting that could have been removed...
blackmage wrote: problem is... who trust gw still, after the disaster they did with 7th? i m not one who trust them, gw is always highly capable to destroy anything they touch...
Really? I felt 7th was pretty good. 6th was the garbage one.
if you think 7th was pretty good you should change your pusher quickly....
blackmage wrote: problem is... who trust gw still, after the disaster they did with 7th? i m not one who trust them, gw is always highly capable to destroy anything they touch...
Really? I felt 7th was pretty good. 6th was the garbage one.
if you think 7th was pretty good you should change your pusher quickly....
Umm what? What does it matter if someone enjoys playing 7th? I liked this editions core rules, they were fun, the problem was the power bloat on everything new coming in (especially Eldar)
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Here's a great set of rules! Now here is your faction's special rules which lets you ignore them all!!"
As usual, I'll pretty much have to echo Vaktathi. Some reasonable changes so far, and I'm loving that the tournament community was actually engaged in the design and testing process. I don't much care for anything other than matched play (or the narrative one if it comes with awesome campaign rules that can work with matched points), and I'll have to wait and see what the Guard 'codex' will look like.
But the Marines+ seems like a poor addition. I'll wait and see before I judge too harshly, but I can't say I'm excited for more power armour.
I loathe the term "Numarines" cuz it sounds jarring to me. (I call them Ultra Marines instead. Made by ultramarines, but +1. Whatever.)
I'm keenish for the new edition, though I'm not keen anymore for Death Guard. Thought they'd be out by now or pre-orders by this week, so I'm gonna go with Dark Eldar and pick up the Gangs box, SC! and the troops+transport box to kick it off.
It sounds like charging isn't going to be too much of an issue if movement is faster- you maneuver to within say 7" then attempt a charge. Sure, overwatch is still a thing but I'm liking the look of the changes so far. Gonna miss the templates but I get why they need to go.
SpinCycleDreadnought wrote: I loathe the term "Numarines" cuz it sounds jarring to me. (I call them Ultra Marines instead. Made by ultramarines, but +1. Whatever.)
I loathe nu-marines too, mainly because someone on 4chan said I have a nu-male haircut I don't really know what that means, but I don't like it!
SpinCycleDreadnought wrote: I'm keenish for the new edition, though I'm not keen anymore for Death Guard. Thought they'd be out by now or pre-orders by this week.
>being this impatient
I don't think the Slow Advance of the Death Guard suits you!! (TIC)
I'm very excited. With voluntary withdrawal from CC and slightly buffed Overwatch, my Tau can finally perform the sort of Kauyon maneuvers that I've always wanted them to be able to do.
jeff white wrote: Thanks for that ...
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Always thoughtful, and respectful.
I especially appreciate your optimism re changing from random charge distances after constructive criticism in a year.
That helps assuage my anxiety.
Thanks for the compliments, and as far as the last remark, happy to be of service there.
jeff white wrote: What about multiple overwatch shooting? Hitting on 6s across the board, as seems to have been clearly indicated? I suspect that the trouble is that none of the play testers (mostly tourney types from what I could see) were playing during the early days of Overwatch counters.
Overwatch Issues? I have been around long enough, from the Rogue Trader era, to have seen the start of the Overwatch rules. Instead of shooting, drop down an Overwatch counter (like in Space Hulk, we actually used those). Then, during your opponent's Movement phase you could interrupt his unit's movement at any part during it. So, when he moved from behind one impassable (and fully LOS blocking) piece of terrain behind the next, Overwatch allowed you to shoot his troops while they ran for it. The rule was made in an era where just about every terrain was either soft cover with a Ballistic Skill penalty, hard cover with a stiffer Ballistic Skill penalty, or simply terrain that totally blocked everything. (I know Jeff White probably also knows this, but for other readers this might be new just as well.)
What is currently happening, being able to shoot at a charging unit, I would have probably called "Reaction Shots" or something like that. In a narrative sense, I find there is a big difference between lying in wait, aiming at an open space between buildings, and pulling that trigger when you see something move in the area you are 'Overwatching'. Suddenly hearing a jarring battle cry and seeing a bunch of lunatics jumping out of their cover, running straight at you waving swords, clubs, teeth and claws or whatever they are willing to use in order to gut you... that is a completely different thing. You might just want to indiscriminately spray your ammo in their general direction to make them stop. In part, I believe this is why Overwatch nowadays only hits on a '6' result on the dice, and why charge ranges were randomized.
As for being able to fire (current) Overwatch multiple times in a turn, why not? Coming from a roleplaying background before wargaming, I learnt that a single attack roll does not have to be a single attack. It might be a series of jabs, blows, feints, and then that one, single, telling blow that might get through defenses. I find Overwatch specifically, and shooting attacks in general, to adhere to the same principle here. We have machine gun weaponry at this very moment capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. How long is a turn in Warhammer 40K? Also a minute? More, or less? An Autogun is seen as a rapid firing solid slug weapon. Assume it can put out 30 shots per minute, hardly a serious threat by today's standards, one shot every two seconds. Being a rapid fire weapon in the game, it fires one or two shots per turn, depending on the range. Why wouldn't it, in a narrative sense, just go 'Bududududududududududud. Bududud. (firer waits for a second, and sees opponent peek out of cover to see if it is safe) BAM? Narratively; 60 shots, In-Game; 1 telling blow (or chance of that, as there is to hit, to wound, armour/cover/invulnerable save).
Besides, I believe they still said you cannot fire Overwatch if you are engaged in close combat? But you can retreat? Remember, there is nowhere to retreat to if you are literally surrounded by a blob of 20+ Hormagaunts.
jeff white wrote: This and charge distances, and the 1" bubble, these are the big problems.
Charging the Bubble? Like I said, from a narrative point of view (again, with a bit of imagination from my Roleplaying games) a lot is happening. Charging troops might not get far because they stumble and fall. Or they argue to much amongst themselves (I hear you, Orks and Khorne Berzerkers...), or because they approach far too cautiously on account of incoming fire. Not fire that is actually rolled for as part of game rules except for Overwatch, but the din of war that hangs around a battlefield. Sudden explosions, and the crack of machinegun fire might have them keep their heads low (and as such not run too far, ever tried running forward with your head down?). Even fearless troops might just be cautious, as dead men slay no enemies.
Now, the real problems arise with flat random charge range, and different movement stats. Though it is but a one in thirtysix chance, somebody might roll 12 for the charge range. A 6" Movement Space Marine with such a roll just doubled his Movement for the purposes of the charge, and tripled his total Movement to 6" Movement plus 12" charge. Let's say an Eldar Howling Banshee with a Movement 7 (assumption, for the sake of this arguement) rolls the same and has no special rules affecting her charge distance rolls. She didn't get double her Movement, as double 7" would have been 14", and the flat roll never gets past 12". If the same is rolled for a hypothetical Squat with a 3" Movement stat, the Space Dwarf would have quadruppled his regular Movement total!
However... incorporating the base Movement stat in the charge distance, and adding, say, a single D6, doesn't take away all problems I just pointed out, that only alleviates them somewhat. A Howling Banshee with a hypothetical Movement 7" and no special rules for charging, still can't double her Movement for the charge, even if the absolute minimum has just become 8, as opposed to 2 from a flat 2d6 roll. She just had a 7" Move, plus 7+1d6, for a maximum total of 20" that turn. That Squat still quadruples his Movement for that turn if he moves 3", then charges 3"+1d6 and rolls a 6 for a total of 12" that turn. Which is, by the way, only a one in six chance. And the banshee didn't even triple her total movement to 21"... The Banshee gets farther, absolutely, but the Squat goes faster, relatively.
As such, I agree that any randomization of Movement offers odd experiences sometimes. Especially with different Movement rates. And we still do not know anything about Movement affecting special rules, really. Will Eldar really only get a 7" Movement to represent their natural speed and grace, and no longer something like Fleet? Their finalized unit profiles might tell us more. Would hypothetical Squats actually be able to charge 2d6 despite a low base Movement rate? We'll probably never know, but if they did make a comeback, they might as well have a limit on their charge distances.
As far as the 1" Bubble goes, I don't mind. Practically, it allows your models to stand apart a bit. With forced base contact I sometimes found that Hormagaunts from the Tyranids army couldn't actually be in base contact. They are often built in a lunging pose, leaning forward quite far, often extending their arms with scything claws as well. I always thought it looked silly to have to put my Hormagaunts against my opponent's models backwards, just so their base could touch the opponent's model's bases.
Also, what is Melee Range? If you only have a knife, your effective melee range is just slightly longer than your arm, with the blade extended, and then your ability to leap forward has to be added to the calculation. Ever watched a fencing match? Most fencers are fast, able to leap forward and close range fast. Also, the good ones have such balance, that their range is actually their blade, their arm, and a good bit of their upper body as well. Now add a pike formation somewhere, which might allow people in the third or fourth rank to add a little stabbing to their unit's effective combat capabilities. A lone fighter with a pike has quite an impressive range. However, if you do manage to get past the stabby bit, he better drop the pike draw a sword or dagger, and start defending himself just that tiny bit closer and personal. Like in AoS, I wouldn't mind if melee typed weapons such as Rough Rider Hunting Lances would have a 2" or 3" range for their close combat attacks. The same for an Eldritch Spear or a Hive Tyrant sized Bone Sword. As you can see, I think Melee range is quite flexible.
jeff white wrote: Vehicles without AV - OK, I can see the upside, let's see how it goes.
Tough Vehicles? I have seen this in Rogue Trader. It worked. Just as I have seen the Lascannons deal more than 1 damage (In RT they actually did 2d6!) and that worked too. Far better than those clear plastic aiming templates which you used on a scematic for the vehicle, where even your Boltgun shot would 'scatter' and you would still have to hit a point on the targeting matrix that fell within the outlines of the vehicle data sheet. Because of this, I never, ever, hit a warwalker's spindly legs. Really, google that from 2nd edition!
jeff white wrote: Some of the changes are positive out of the box, too - pistols, for example, seem like they are being handled better.
Pistols and Close Combat When I force you back in close combat, by a forceful kick, or a wide swing with a sword, I might have a chance to aim and pull a trigger before you re-establish close quarters fighting by coming at me again. From what I can tell, this has been incorporated into the new rules by allowing pistols, and only pistols, to be used when within 1" of the enemy. If this means pistols no longer grant a bonus attack, but they can actually be fired more than once or twice in a battle (because of your model being locked in close combat, and pistols adding an attack instead of firing), so be it, and it already feels like a better solution. Still have to find out if it really works like that, and if it works at all, but the first impression is a good one.
jeff white wrote: And I have hope that psychic and warlord stuff will no longer be random, but rather paid for in points.
Right there with you. We are still talking about GW, who kept random charge distances in there, but we can hope, and dream. And badger the customer support rules guys with constructive customer feedback for the next yearly rules update, of course.
jeff white wrote: Anyways, thanks for the well reasoned and encouraging post.
Bravo.[/quite]
You're welcome, and thanks again for the compliments.
Do we really need more "super elite godlike warriors" in the Imperium? This is getting pretty ridiculous at some point. Your basic grunt, the Cadian soldiers, was a brainwashed ,trained since the age of 6 years old by ruthless drill seargent to fight an apocalyptic war, trooper. the least of these guys would make real world special forces look like mooks. Then there is the Scions are just like that but with better gear ridiculously more brutal and harsh training. Then there is the Skitarii, elite soldiers who happen to be cyborg and equipped with the most advance technology in the Imperium. Even more advance are the Sisters of Battle who have all the training of the Scions, power armors and blessed by the Emperor to make them transcend what normal humans can do. Than, finally, there is Space Marines who in addition to the insane training, are genetically advance and biological powerhourse. There is so much power fantasy in 40K right now, that even describing it has a pornographic undertone. Now, we will have bigger, greater and stronger Space Marines (like if those we had right now were not enough)? What could they possibly bring of new and original to the Imperium. Rough Marines would have been more appropriate, weaker, genetically enhance soldiers that could be a throw back to what Space Marines were back in 1st Eddition for example. What about other minor faction of the Imperium with a bit more character and establishment like the Adeptus Arbites, Rogue Traders or even cheap militia? To me those numarines are a real deception. If possible, I would have prefered them to be Chaos aligned to create a sense of dread.
I didn't vote. We need other options besides yes and no. I wasn't excited before, and I am not less excited now either. As someone said, I am overly cautious. While GW has made mistakes before, I will give them the chance they can turn it around.
jeff white wrote: What about multiple overwatch shooting? Hitting on 6s across the board, as seems to have been clearly indicated? I suspect that the trouble is that none of the play testers (mostly tourney types from what I could see) were playing during the early days of Overwatch counters.
Overwatch Issues? I have been around long enough, from the Rogue Trader era, to have seen the start of the Overwatch rules. Instead of shooting, drop down an Overwatch counter (like in Space Hulk, we actually used those). Then, during your opponent's Movement phase you could interrupt his unit's movement at any part during it. So, when he moved from behind one impassable (and fully LOS blocking) piece of terrain behind the next, Overwatch allowed you to shoot his troops while they ran for it. The rule was made in an era where just about every terrain was either soft cover with a Ballistic Skill penalty, hard cover with a stiffer Ballistic Skill penalty, or simply terrain that totally blocked everything. (I know Jeff White probably also knows this, but for other readers this might be new just as well.)
What is currently happening, being able to shoot at a charging unit, I would have probably called "Reaction Shots" or something like that.
As for being able to fire (current) Overwatch multiple times in a turn, why not? Coming from a roleplaying background before wargaming, I learnt that a single attack roll does not have to be a single attack. It might be a series of jabs, blows, feints, and then that one, single, telling blow that might get through defenses. I find Overwatch specifically, and shooting attacks in general, to adhere to the same principle here. We have machine gun weaponry at this very moment capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. How long is a turn in Warhammer 40K? Also a minute? More, or less? An Autogun is seen as a rapid firing solid slug weapon. Assume it can put out 30 shots per minute, hardly a serious threat by today's standards, one shot every two seconds. Being a rapid fire weapon in the game, it fires one or two shots per turn, depending on the range. Why wouldn't it, in a narrative sense, just go 'Bududududududududududud. Bududud. (firer waits for a second, and sees opponent peek out of cover to see if it is safe) BAM? Narratively; 60 shots, In-Game; 1 telling blow (or chance of that, as there is to hit, to wound, armour/cover/invulnerable save).
Besides, I believe they still said you cannot fire Overwatch if you are engaged in close combat? But you can retreat? Remember, there is nowhere to retreat to if you are literally surrounded by a blob of 20+ Hormagaunts.
jeff white wrote: This and charge distances, and the 1" bubble, these are the big problems.
Charging the Bubble? Like I said, from a narrative point of view (again, with a bit of imagination from my Roleplaying games) a lot is happening. Charging troops might not get far because they stumble and fall. Or they argue to much amongst themselves (I hear you, Orks and Khorne Berzerkers...), or because they approach far too cautiously on account of incoming fire. Not fire that is actually rolled for as part of game rules except for Overwatch, but the din of war that hangs around a battlefield. Sudden explosions, and the crack of machinegun fire might have them keep their heads low (and as such not run too far, ever tried running forward with your head down?). Even fearless troops might just be cautious, as dead men slay no enemies.
Now, the real problems arise with flat random charge range, and different movement stats.
...
Pistols and Close Combat When I force you back in close combat, by a forceful kick, or a wide swing with a sword, I might have a chance to aim and pull a trigger before you re-establish close quarters fighting by coming at me again. From what I can tell, this has been incorporated into the new rules by allowing pistols, and only pistols, to be used when within 1" of the enemy. If this means pistols no longer grant a bonus attack, but they can actually be fired more than once or twice in a battle (because of your model being locked in close combat, and pistols adding an attack instead of firing), so be it, and it already feels like a better solution. Still have to find out if it really works like that, and if it works at all, but the first impression is a good one.
Why should a Marine hit on 6s for 'reaction shots' while a grot gets the same?
And though I appreciate the depth and clarity of your analysis - you present as an extremely reasonable person - I can't suspend my disbelief on this one.
In fact, it is exactly my RPG background that sees this as a sloppy hole in the simulation, with grots caught in a comic loop of reaction shots until the cultists stop coming or finally make it in, when my sense of realism demands that they lay down suppressing fire in the direction of one threat only to be overwhelmed by another...
Sure, I can grant that realism isn't everything, but given that the mechanic favors 4 point tossaways for unlimited 1 in 6s over stolid and religiously trained professionals for the same, well this is one aspect of the scenario that my brain can't stomach. Hence, the poll, and the 'no' vote... Excitement done.
I am willing to start up 40k again because of what I have seen released so far. I lost a lot of interest site 3rd, and have lost even more interest each edition afterwards. I sold everything off in 7th because I was just sick of where the game was headed.
SpinCycleDreadnought wrote: I loathe the term "Numarines" cuz it sounds jarring to me. (I call them Ultra Marines instead. Made by ultramarines, but +1. Whatever.)
I loathe nu-marines too, mainly because someone on 4chan said I have a nu-male haircut I don't really know what that means, but I don't like it!
SpinCycleDreadnought wrote: I'm keenish for the new edition, though I'm not keen anymore for Death Guard. Thought they'd be out by now or pre-orders by this week.
>being this impatient
I don't think the Slow Advance of the Death Guard suits you!! (TIC)
Ha, quoted for truth! I used to love the 'turtle' strategy in RTS games, back in the day. Used to slowly expand over initially claimed turf. Nowadays I seem to want to be like an Eldar, speedy, killy but made of glass. Hence the Dark Eldar They're about as speedy, killy and glassy you can get. Plus Biel-Tan is busted, so regular Eldar for me is out. Damn Eldrad, making his own Avatar with blackjack and hookers. Not only that, but if the DG are in the starter, I don't want to be DG player #153,679.
The combination of movement, overwatch and charging (the latter being random) seems to lend itself towards actual tactics and thought as opposed to WTFOMGBBQ levels of high S, high RoF weapons. Shoot a unit from afar, move in assaulters, whittle the unit down some more and charge in from ~6-8". Overwatching more than once sounds bad, but really, if the first charge goes off, then there's no more overwatch.
jeff white wrote: Why should a Marine hit on 6s for 'reaction shots' while a grot gets the same?
And though I appreciate the depth and clarity of your analysis - you present as an extremely reasonable person - I can't suspend my disbelief on this one.
In fact, it is exactly my RPG background that sees this as a sloppy whole in the simulation, with grots caught in a comic loop of reaction shots until the cultists stop coming or finally make it in, when my sense of realism demands that they lay down suppressing fire in the direction of one threat only to be overwhelmed by another...
Sure, I can grant that realism isn't everything, but given that the mechanic favors 4 point tossaways for unlimited 1 in 6s over stolid and religiously trained professionals for the same, well this is one aspect of the scenario that my brain can't stomach. Hence, the poll, and the 'no' vote... Excitement done.
I tend to agree with your points here. I understand why your suspension of disbelief takes a hit when comparing Grots to Space Marines and not seeing any difference between the two with regards to Overwatch chances to hit. However, even Space Marines get surprised sometimes. Even they can be ambushed, or bull-rushed. Unlikely, but possible.
In a way, I have been thinking how to mitigate this, as well, but that would have to be a house rule. Untill GW adopts (something like) it and changes it into the standard rule. One way to handle this sort of difference, is the Leadership check. Make a Leadership test against the lowest Leadership score in the unit firing Overwatch. Failure? Only hitting on sixes. Success? Full Ballistic Skill (or Ballistic Skill -1 for reaction time and some such). This is what the old Rogue Trader era Cool statistic would have been perfect for. Ah, the good old days...
Another thing we have no real precedent for right now, is GW's new communication structure, their community feedback. I have never, ever, seen them so active in the online community. Perhaps we should just play a few games when the rules are available (and complete...), and start to provide customer feedback. No need to spam their Warhammer 40K facebook page with long rants, ending in active threats. No need to simply state "The rools suxxorz, because my Eldar now Suxxorz more than Suxxorzzzz!", but actually provide constructive criticism. In numbers. If one person mentions he doesn't like random charge distances or Overwatch hitting on just a '6', that's a fluke. If 10 say they don't like it, that opinion is becoming just a bit more solid. If 10.000 people support the opinion that Overwatch hitting on just a '6' is bad or that random charge distances should go the way of the dinosaurs, that becomes a pretty big opinion. When this pretty big opinion is then presented to GW in a clear and constructive manner on their facebook page as customer feedback, then they have something to prove. They have to prove their claim that they are now actively listening to us.
On the other hand, perhaps Overwatch is kept as ineffective as it is currently with a reason. Like I said, I guess we'll have to play a couple of games, and not just two or three either, to see how all new rules mesh together. Perhaps Rapid Fire weapons are now unable to fire twice at half range, but get extra shots against charging foes, or they allow Overwatch at full Ballistic Skill. I don't know, because I still haven't seen the actual rules for Rapid Fire weapons. Perhaps the ability to just walk out of combat, and have other units fire with all they have at the close combat units that have just been left standing there, is a real game breaker. When adding a stronger Overwatch mechanic to this, one might stop seeing melee armies altogether. I know this does nothing to alleviate your just claim that Grots and Space Marines have different training levels which are totally ignored in the rules for Overwatch, but it does show at least an attempt at game rule balance. If Overwatch were made stronger by going for full BS, or full BS with a -1 penalty, it might also strengthen all those shooting armies, turn 8th edition into yet another Ranged Weapon Fest.
As such, I understand your reaction, your vote of 'no' with regards to your excitement. And you are free to voice that opinion. My own vote of 'yes' stems from the fact that, though there are a couple of things I don't agree with, there are far more changes I can agree with. And the fact that there is probably a lot of stuff we still don't know. And for those things we all seem to disagree on, there is GW's claim of heightened cummunity involvement.
All we have to do now is to wait for a couple of years, and scour these forums for threads about "GW Customer Feedback is a hoax", or more "GW Suxxorz; Overwatch is still straight '6' to hit for everybody!"
As such, I understand your reaction, your vote of 'no' with regards to your excitement. And you are free to voice that opinion. My own vote of 'yes' stems from the fact that, though there are a couple of things I don't agree with, there are far more changes I can agree with. And the fact that there is probably a lot of stuff we still don't know. And for those things we all seem to disagree on, there is GW's claim of heightened cummunity involvement.
All we have to do now is to wait for a couple of years, and scour these forums for threads about "GW Customer Feedback is a hoax", or more "GW Suxxorz; Overwatch is still straight '6' to hit for everybody!"
And wait we shall for an opportunity to test their metal. Well said sir!
As much as I was disappointed to see the random charge distance and overwatch stay, I am still very much excited about 8th edition. As much for the rules, as for the community engagement and communication with us as players. It's nice to see GW moving in a more positive direction for once.
I wasn't excited to start with, since I really do not like the idea of GW listening to the community. A large portion of you guys just like to play an other game / other aspects of the game than I do. I am one of those players who likes dnd 3.5 rules and 2.0 adventures over dnd 5.0 and actually enjoyed playing 5th edition wfb more than AoS and my local meta did not have any of the competitive issues most forum users seemed to have no grav spam, deathstars or horrible eldar and tau lists. So 7th wasn't as broken for me as it appears to be for most of you, while it allows me to build the army I loved to play with ( as long as it wasn't orks) . Some of the reveals I like others I don't. We will see if this re-balancing was worth the shakeup / simplification. The loss of templates, AV, being safe in close combat and the buff of overwatch makes me kinda sad but who knows perhaps the game is balanced perfectly and has a great flow. it might just all be worth it.
Vaktathi wrote: Rules look way better thus far than 7E, but given how atrocious 7E plays, not sure how much that says. Either way, rules wise, we're looking better.
NuMarines sound stupid and, in classic GW style, may be the turd in the punch bowl they always seem to have to go out of their way to include.
All they had to do was copy/paste most of the ruleset for AoS and be done with it, and we would have had a fantastic game already. Instead they're just adding a bunch of crap for what feels to be just the sake of it.
As for NuMarines, all they had to do was release some new kits and call it a day. I appreciate a move to a more correct scale, but having to fluff them in, especially with GW's track record for just being horrible with their own fluff, means the result is bound to be cringe-worthy at best.
This is all true. 8E looks far less painful to play than the fething gakshow that was 6E / 7E. I'm sure 8E will be almost as good as AoS, but I wonder whether it'll be as good as 3E. For that, we'll have to wait and see.
I'm hoping that NuMarines are just the latest edition of plastic SMs that still match the 3E-7E template, but I doubt it. Not that it matters, as I won't be buying any.
Since we knew that new 40k would look a lot more like space AoS than what we've been playing so far (and that I personnaly feel AoS is an atrocious game), I can't say I've ever been overly fond of this coming edition. Nu Marines sounds excedingly silly too, dont really see what they bring over Custodes.
Still, even though I dislike most of the changes so far (loss of vehicles rules, loss of unit types and the loss of templates being the hardest one to digest) the most damning aspects of AoS haven't been adopted, so I won't throw in the towel just yet on 8th ed. I'm just not too optimistic, especially since they are trying to hype themselves up as new GW that listen to what the community wants (yeah, lets just disregard that "new" GW is a major architect of why 7th edition is such an imbalanced mess) instead of manning up and giving us real answers to why they won't fell in the same traps once again (though the yearly revised points cost is definitively a step in the right direction). In other words I'm still listening, but I'm sure not buying anything new before it drops
I certainly agree that the rules look better than they did before for most, but unfortunately it's starting to look like the price of those better rules is that my own army, unless their special rules are absolutely spectacular, is going to be pretty much unplayable.
In short, it currently seems good for the game but bad for me and other Harlie players.
I am, of course, willing to wait for the full rules and the specific army rules before making any final judgements on this.
As someone who hasn't played for five years and was just keeping track of GW's progress for comedy value.....I'm honestly interested. I'm going to wait for actual play accounts, but all the rules really need to be is "easy to use" and "not horribly broken".
Update for all armies from any one
Better Psychic phase
Charging is fine - the only other option that could work s something like 6+D6, basing it on M stat would mean possible one turn move/charges of 30+" for some units
Reserving judgement till we see stats/rules/points on stuff like Wraith Knight, Scat bikes and Riptides.
For me I'm waiting more info on 30k side thing. For 40k I have better rules to play than the 8th ed so GW's 8th ed will have bigger impact on 30k side for me depending on does FW adopt and will Finland's 30k community switch to it or not if FW switch.
8th ed looks like better than 7th but still inferior to modified 2nd so for 40k it's "meh". And new fluff we ignore anyway. We are already well into 42th millenia so can't incorporate GW's new fluff anyway and the numarines are just boring anyway.
Am I excited? As a whole, yeah, though cautiously so.
I am worried about my Slaanesh Daemons though. They were more middle of the pack before (as I didn't spam Summoning or use the Grimoire), and all the changes revealed so far looks to be weakening them in certain areas. At the same time though I understand we've only seen a snippet of the rules so far, and as such there's likely to be a lot I'm missing that balances this out, or at least lessens the perceived divide.
Numarines could be Marines with two LP like Sigmarines. As there are Bloodwarriors which have two LP too, we might ask for Chaos Numarines.
The new release is as expected. All core rules have been weighted and changed or not.
The new release is also not as expected since it goes in the direction of AoS which makes me wonder.
Maybe in the next edition they are unifying both systems.
As someone else said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I WAS enthusiastically optimistic until they said random charge is still a thing as is overwatch. Plus, overwatch seems to have gotten stronger. I also think the 1" bubble is going to be a pain in the A to manage at times. That was disappointing, but I'm still looking forward to the game as a whole.
I think making it faster to play is a good thing, and it doesn't seem like they're going to completely gut it like they did going from 2nd to 3rd (which I HATED).
RE: the Numarines - dumb name. Sounds like "NuMetal". My initial thoughts when I heard about them were that GW was finally going to make terminators worth while just in time to release a new unit that makes them irrelevant. After seeing the actual trailer video, I'm guessing new faction. Not sure I'm on board with that yet, but fortunately, adding a faction doesn't really screw up the core rules, and I can still enjoy the game itself even if the new faction ends up being stupid.
Davor wrote: I wasn't excited before, and I am not less excited now either
There is your answer, no.
The answer is not No. If to answer the question correctly, that would mean the person was excited for new 40K edition before the announcements and after the recent announcements is either still excited or not excited. So after the announcements I am the same. I guess you can say I am interested or more eager than I thought I would be, but I wasn't excited before the announcement and still not excited about it after.
The last two days had me worried for Assault, but today's got me excited again. I am going to work on balancing my models so they can be used in balanced lists. I am really excited for my Blood Angels since I have reasons to run many of the units I used to ignore. My Crimson Fists need a little work. My Tactical Terminators are probably going to come out to play more. I am definitely looking at running Tactical Squads in Rhinos rather than Scouts in Land Speeder Storms now.
I'm disappointed. Assault should be a fixed stat that doesn't change at all, set it per unit and playtest it to get it right. 2d6 for charging is just ridiculous and 40k should remove as many randomized elements of the game as possible outside of combat, morale, and magic.
The shooting rules sound effectively more or less the same as what we have now, with the addition of small arms now being able to hurt vehicles and different stats on everything.
The assault rules look like a mess, and sticking with the stupid 'charges can be anything from 2" to 12"' randomness is a huge disappointment.
I anticipated something like these results.
20% is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of enthusiasm given that forum activity should indicate a proclivity to fanboy sentiment.
I had been recommending an investor friend to look at GW for short term given a likely bump for 8th, but now I am sorry that it might not translate into the sort of profit that I had originally anticipated. GW should sell a LOT of new boxes, but after that, if the rules are meh, I expect this to falter a bit, and going forward sales in rulebooks and compendiums will be strong, but if the narrative is poorly handled (Matt Ward) then I expect this also to slide. Anyways, thanks to everyone for participating in this poll. Mille gratis!
You can find 20% of people to agree with virtually anything. I'm not trying to dismiss the 20% that don't like the new direction, but pretty much any internet community like Dakka will have a significant number of participants who hang around but don't actually play the game, and would pretty much never be happy with the game regardless of what happens. On the contrary, this shows an overwhelming increase in enthusiasm for the new Ed. 80% of people liking the direction of the game is really an overwhelming amount of support for the new Ed. given that communities like this can be really aversive to change.
My last edition of 40k Never owned any edition of 40k 1% [ 2 ]
I quit after Rogue Trader. 1% [ 1 ]
2nd edition was the last for me 2% [ 4 ]
3rd edition and then I got out 1% [ 2 ]
4th edition was the end of the line 3% [ 5 ]
5th edition was it 6% [ 12 ]
6th edition finished me, I won't be buying 7th edition 16% [ 31 ]
I might buy 7th depending on reviews, reports, etc 23% [ 44 ]
I plan to buy 7th edition. 40k for life! 47% [ 90 ]
Total Votes : 191
jeff white wrote: I anticipated something like these results.
20% is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of enthusiasm given that forum activity should indicate a proclivity to fanboy sentiment.
Oh please. You act as if all of the haters disappeared from the face of the earth..
jeff white wrote: I anticipated something like these results.
20% is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of enthusiasm given that forum activity should indicate a proclivity to fanboy sentiment.
Oh please. You act as if all of the haters disappeared from the face of the earth..
Hmmm... Maybe I am naive.
I wasn't gauging hate just lost enthusiasm...
I was asking about lost excitement and assumed that is what people reported.
Maybe some people just have to be negative.
You can find 20% of people to agree with virtually anything. I'm not trying to dismiss the 20% that don't like the new direction, but pretty much any internet community like Dakka will have a significant number of participants who hang around but don't actually play the game, and would pretty much never be happy with the game regardless of what happens. On the contrary, this shows an overwhelming increase in enthusiasm for the new Ed. 80% of people liking the direction of the game is really an overwhelming amount of support for the new Ed. given that communities like this can be really aversive to change.
My last edition of 40k Never owned any edition of 40k 1% [ 2 ]
I quit after Rogue Trader. 1% [ 1 ]
2nd edition was the last for me 2% [ 4 ]
3rd edition and then I got out 1% [ 2 ]
4th edition was the end of the line 3% [ 5 ]
5th edition was it 6% [ 12 ]
6th edition finished me, I won't be buying 7th edition 16% [ 31 ]
I might buy 7th depending on reviews, reports, etc 23% [ 44 ]
I plan to buy 7th edition. 40k for life! 47% [ 90 ]
Total Votes : 191
Yeah that overwhelming ness is what I was trying to assess...
Yeah, I didn't really enjoy 40k 6E, and I basically stopped play 40k after 7E hit. The only time I play 40k now is for our group Apocalypse bashes, and then, it's only because of the group. I am far more favorable on 8E being AoS-like than I was on 7E being more of 6E.
I went from unenthusiastic to hopefully optimistic right back to unenthusiastic.
I feel like I'm watching history repeat itself right before my eyes.
I've been playing this game for a very long time and have seen play mechanics come and go. A lot of what is in 8th edition has been done before. It didn't work then and it's unlikely to work now.
Confirmed 8th edition mechanics that were dumped from previous editions because they were problematic:
- Movement stat (created issues in 2nd ed. where really fast armies had a massive advantage over slower ones)
- Armour Save modifiers (these pesky things rendered all armour that wasn't terminator armour completely useless in 2nd ed.)
- Drawing nearby units into combat (a complete nightmare from 3rd & 4th that made for some of the most un-enjoyable games in the history of Warhammer 40,000)
- Independent characters able to be targeted by themselves (congratulations! one of the worst mechanics from 4th ed. is back... character sniping is a thing again)
- Mechanisms that heavily favor MSU (this was more of a problem with codexes in 4th ed. - where there was more incentive to take multiple small units rather than max out unit sizes)
- Wound allocation to models of the controlling players choice (does no one remember the dirty wound allocation shenanigans from 5th ed.?)
It's almost like someone pulled the most epic troll on GW and convinced them to bring back for 8th ed. some of the worst 40K game mechanics that have ever existed.
I haven't been this excited about 40k since the 90s. So yeah - I'm massively looking forward to it. I'm not interested in static non random tactics and mechanics. The random is what inflates the replayability. Otherwise I get super bored playing the same game over and over again.
I went from dread to cautiously optimistic back to dread.
Things that I have seen that are good:
-Movement Stat
-Update to weaponry including the rend system
-Monsters getting worse with wounds taken
-Activation of units during combat
-Pistols being able to be used in combat
Things that I have seen that are bad:
-The entirety of the Psychic phase
-The moral system.
Things that have caused me to loose all interest in the game:
-Characters can't join units.
Also, nu marines are the dumbest fething thing I've ever seen.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Yeah, I didn't really enjoy 40k 6E, and I basically stopped play 40k after 7E hit. The only time I play 40k now is for our group Apocalypse bashes, and then, it's only because of the group. I am far more favorable on 8E being AoS-like than I was on 7E being more of 6E.
I am just holding out for 8th to get me on the bus/train the 2 hours to the nearest/only game shop in Seoul.
Still holding out.
Built an ork army with a Morkanaut, and got some new Harlie bikes the last couple years,
got the Imper Agents book and dusted off the Inqu army (what I have of it here, anyways) that I started building ten years ago,
started putting that under the brush (again).
Hoping to use them someday, but if the rules end up bad, well,
I might end up one of the people that GW (used to claim?) claims primarily comprise their customer base,
collectors who don't/no longer play the game.
Frankly, I took the loss of WFB pretty hard, too.
We only have so much time in life to build things before nature tears us down,
and I didn't feel that I needed GW to come out on the side of entropy, there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I went from unenthusiastic to hopefully optimistic right back to unenthusiastic.
I feel like I'm watching history repeat itself right before my eyes.
I've been playing this game for a very long time and have seen play mechanics come and go. A lot of what is in 8th edition has been done before. It didn't work then and it's unlikely to work now.
Confirmed 8th edition mechanics that were dumped from previous editions because they were problematic:
- Movement stat (created issues in 2nd ed. where really fast armies had a massive advantage over slower ones)
- Armour Save modifiers (these pesky things rendered all armour that wasn't terminator armour completely useless in 2nd ed.)
- Drawing nearby units into combat (a complete nightmare from 3rd & 4th that made for some of the most un-enjoyable games in the history of Warhammer 40,000)
- Independent characters able to be targeted by themselves (congratulations! one of the worst mechanics from 4th ed. is back... character sniping is a thing again)
- Mechanisms that heavily favor MSU (this was more of a problem with codexes in 4th ed. - where there was more incentive to take multiple small units rather than max out unit sizes)
- Wound allocation to models of the controlling players choice (does no one remember the dirty wound allocation shenanigans from 5th ed.?)
It's almost like someone pulled the most epic troll on GW and convinced them to bring back for 8th ed. some of the worst 40K game mechanics that have ever existed.
I wonder how GW can stress army comp from a collectors/hobbyists/fan standpoint, rather than from the WAAC list building/3-d deck building perspective that ends up wrecking things?
I mean, I have a lot of models collected over 25 years or so, some if not most lovingly painted and still improving, and when I thought/think about buying a unit I am interested in who/what they are more than what they do on the field synergistically with other models to build deathstar armies of sinner-jism. That attitude is no fun, though it did take me a long time to make peace with the fact that I was often losing.
I just wish that - being a model company and a game company - GW would be able to include in the rules and stress in their literature (WD and so on) the attitude that makes games of all sorts enjoyable, especially this one.
My point here is that I understand and concur with your assessment of the bad rules, and I hope that these are ameliorated during gameplay somehow by way of other rules, but I especially think that the drawing units into nearby combat is a bad idea, and personally the 1" bubble thing seems like it will be a nightmare to sort out, but in the end even these problems can be sorted out with the right mindset on both sides of the table.
I came into this game last year, what made me play it is that it was complex and it had nothing to do with a game like chess and Go where anticipating the other player make all the core of the game.
But rules were too heavy for many and game was very unbalance, as today with moral and close combat rules they are not simplifying it, they are "stupidifying" the system. Many rules or system that are being told that got nothing with strategy, like resolving combat turn by turn and having morale check that makes your model dissapear into thin air. Also with the rumor that has been post today about having independant caracther that cannot joint unit and there is a rules that states that only the closest unit can fire it or any unit within 12 inches. Those makes no sense with wargaming simulation. It's just rules that comes from nowhere and cut reality into the game. Also you can use more command point that your opponent to alter close combat cycling, that also got nothing to do with war simulation. Now your space marines got the same chance to hit a demon prince or a cultist in cc also, where is the logic? True toughness won't be the same, but that does not represent the skill of the confrontation. Don't get me wrong, the game needed change, only thing that can save it now is balance because it is becoming more a boardgame than a wargaming game.
@jeff - by the time GW blew up the Old World, I hadn't played Fantasy in years - thanks to WFB 8E. I'm thinking I'll still play a bit, but definitely, I don't need as much stuff as I have.
I'm pretty concerned that morale is really going to hurt horde armies, which have typically been the weaker/lower tier armies (Orks, swarm Nids, infantry IG). I personally believe all of the factions will be comparatively more balanced than in the past, but already the weaker armies have a core rule that really hinders them, so I don't really expect to see them rise to the top without some hecka strong codex-level rules and point cost buffs.
KommissarKiln wrote: I'm pretty concerned that morale is really going to hurt horde armies, which have typically been the weaker/lower tier armies (Orks, swarm Nids, infantry IG). I personally believe all of the factions will be comparatively more balanced than in the past, but already the weaker armies have a core rule that really hinders them, so I don't really expect to see them rise to the top without some hecka strong codex-level rules and point cost buffs.
I keep seeing this point being made, but I think that it's simply wrong.
Horde armies have directly been buffed by the changes to AP. You are likely going to have to fire a [formerly] AP 3 weapon against a model with a 5+ armor save in order to strip it of its save.
Guardsmen, cultists and orks are now going to get an armor save against boltguns.
Orks with 'eavy armor are likely going to get a save against formerly AP 3 weapons. And if you stick them in cover, they'll still get a save even against formerly AP 2 weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the changes to templates also directly buff horde armies.
Yes, you are going to take more damage in the battle shock phase of the turn.
But you are probably going to take far less damage in the shooting phase.
thekingofkings wrote: The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.
40k started out as WHFB in space, it stands to reason that 41k is going to be AoS in SPACE!* We haven't seen the full picture, but it's looking better than eldar >SM / necrons > tau > the other armies that 7th has going. I think people are flipping out waaay too early (in the most part, not you) and are jumping the gun. I'll admit I'm keen, and this is from selling off the vast majority of my 40k stuff when 7th was new.
*Now with 25% less sodium**
**25% more sodium added as an additional natural*** preservative to maintain flavour****
***all sodium added in this product has been synthetically produced
****flavour in this instance here means 'bland and nondescript'*****
****Just like the Imperial Guard
The moral system hasn't changed. Dark Angels are just as likely to shoot Templars for having information on Fallen as before. Inquisitors are just as likely to call in an Exterminatus for a crazy looking mustache. Tau are just as likely to be causing human worlds to be self-sterilized.
So, yeah, I don't the the moral system has changed at all.
What?
Brutus_Apex wrote:-Characters can't join units.
Has this been confirmed a thing yet, or just a Sigmarizing expectation?
To be honest, most of the arguments till the latest update were how IC's interacted with the units they have joined.
thekingofkings wrote:The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.
Ironic because 40K was WHFB in space for a very long time. Of course, as has been pointed out, AoS is the 40King of WHFB in many ways.
thekingofkings wrote: The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.
... except for the fact that AoS is actually 40k with Fantasy models.
It's really not.
I'm as happy to bash AoS as the next guy, but the only similarity between AoS and current 40K is the shape of the bases.
There's connective tissue there, even in 7th. The systems are very different but the feel is similar enough that you can bounce from one to the other relatively smoothly.
The biggest issue is that one game has a ton of tactical depth and interesting combos that take a lot of time and effort to master and that really emphasizes the skill of the player at all points of play...the other is 40k.
I'm very happy with the direction things seem to be going and my excitement for 8th edition has very little to do with any of the individual rule mechanics we have been privy to so far.
The main contributing factor of my optimism is the 'bigger picture' aspect of how GW has been acting as a company. The splendid community outreach, the fact that they are moving away from the static multi-year editions to a more fluid, evolving annual update system which will allow them to more nimbly correct mishaps and react to feedback.
The fact they have injected the lore with change but have still kept the foundations intact. It allows for the fluff to grow and expand without invalidating what has gone before.
The quality of their miniatures just keep getting better and the new creativity shown towards bringing familiar but new factions in AOS to the fore will hopefully inject 40k with much needed new ideas.
A new take on marines rather than just "Releasing an updated kit and calling it a day?" yes please. This is a very exciting time for 40k and GW in general. I first walked through GW's doors nearly 22 years ago and have seen some of the best (and worst) the company has to offer.
I think we are now entering a new golden age. Bring on 8th!
jeff white wrote: I anticipated something like these results.
20% is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of enthusiasm given that forum activity should indicate a proclivity to fanboy sentiment.
Uuuh whut? Forums tends to boost "nay" over. Dissatisfied people are generally more vocal. Happy ones generally just play.
I am sure that 8th will prove to be both fun and balanced in some ways.
On the other hand i cant see how they will manage to balance the more extreme end of the spectrum. a save mod of +1 or -1 works well if you have flak, mesh or power armour but what about terminators in cover? Suddenly you can have a complete deathwing army that is immune to every basic weapon. Ork green tides will be very different if the board is covered in ruins instead of an open plain, you cant put points on that surely.
I strongly suspect that every faction will be balanced but very limited with perhaps 2 or 3 ways to build each army, like you must have a certain set of characters to limit battleshock fo example.
I have owned and played nearly every army since my first box of beaky marines but the only army that i still like to build, convert and paint is orks and i fear that they will suffer a great loss in diversity along with a lot of other factions.
Command Points and stratagems are the aspects I'm most excited about. These could turn 40K into an actual game with tactical depth and important decisions players have to take. Right now the most important decisions are happening before the game when building a list, sadly.
Has this been confirmed a thing yet, or just a Sigmarizing expectation?
To be honest, most of the arguments till the latest update were how IC's interacted with the units they have joined.
It was the way they corrected their wording during the QA, from "joining a unit" to being "near a unit", or there abouts.
So, nothing stated, just assumed based on indirect evidence.
I dunno, based on how the rest of the forums reacting that's TOO much information. He should of started panicking and assuming back when it was 'nothing'.
ERJAK wrote: I dunno, based on how the rest of the forums reacting that's TOO much information. He should of started panicking and assuming back when it was 'nothing'.
Pfft, people have been panicking about 8th Edition when the rumors of 7th Edition were getting close to the announcement date, so at least there would be company.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Command Points and stratagems are the aspects I'm most excited about.
These could turn 40K into an actual game with tactical depth and important decisions players have to take. Right now the most important decisions are happening before the game when building a list, sadly.
Me, too!
It's going to be like Apocalypse again. Minenfelden FTW!
So, yeah, I don't the the moral system has changed at all.
yes, good joke. serves me right for forgetting to add the "e".
If I'm wrong about IC not being able to join units then I'll gladly be wrong. So far there have been unconfirmed rumours about them not being able to join.
If GW comes out and says that IC will be able to join units, then great. I will be back into the cautiously optimistic camp and actually look forward to giving 8th edition a try.
So, yeah, I don't the the moral system has changed at all.
yes, good joke. serves me right for forgetting to add the "e".
It's an easy mistake. I see it happening all the time.
And considering how the morals of the 40K universe are actually as bad as the morale of most of the peoples (except maybe the Orks), its not like they aren't that incompatible. It's more making fun of the universe than you. I've slipped up on that one. It's not like spell checking can identify it.
Brutus_Apex wrote: If I'm wrong about IC not being able to join units then I'll gladly be wrong. So far there have been unconfirmed rumours about them not being able to join.
If GW comes out and says that IC will be able to join units, then great. I will be back into the cautiously optimistic camp and actually look forward to giving 8th edition a try.
I just wanted to know if I have missed something. As I said, ICs have some great concepts behind them, but have been the cause of the biggest arguments regarding 40K because they also led to some very problematic situations that people didn't want to have to deal with.
If they Sigmarize the Characters, it will actually make it easier on so many of the rule interactions, but leading from the front will be suicide for all but the toughest of beings.
I fully understand the rules dispute issues, and I very much disliked the death star fluff abominations that popped up in 7th.
For me though, a large part of my enjoyment of this game is related to creating characters and running them with their intended bodyguard units or whatever. It's a large part of the fluff and narrative for me.
If it is the case of IC not being able to join units, I won't be able to run my Terminator Chaplain with his Assault Terminators in a Land Raider Crusader anymore. This really bothers me, both from a fluff and rules perspective.
I'm not saying there won't be work arounds, hell I don't even know if the rumour about IC's is completely true. But the whole idea of it for me is an issue.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I fully understand the rules dispute issues, and I very much disliked the death star fluff abominations that popped up in 7th.
For me though, a large part of my enjoyment of this game is related to creating characters and running them with their intended bodyguard units or whatever. It's a large part of the fluff and narrative for me.
If it is the case of IC not being able to join units, I won't be able to run my Terminator Chaplain with his Assault Terminators in a Land Raider Crusader anymore. This really bothers me, both from a fluff and rules perspective.
I'm not saying there won't be work arounds, hell I don't even know if the rumour about IC's is completely true. But the whole idea of it for me is an issue.
Well, we don't know how Transports and Characters are going to work. The closest that AoS has just came out with the dirigibles, and I haven't looked up the information on them yet.
So, it is possible that they may be separate outside the Transport, your Chaplain could be riding the Land Raider with them. Too many unknowns at this point.
I am still excited. I think 8th will be a step in the right direction.
But detachments they've shown really disappoint me. What's wrong with variety by faction? Thematic armies will be relegated to unbound. Formations in general were not a problem, a couple were, but mainly it was specific undercosted units.
I really hate the concept of mortal wounds. It just seems lazy. If it's present only in a few specific psychic powers, that's not as bad, but still. Strong psykers should be able to save against psychic wounds.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I fully understand the rules dispute issues, and I very much disliked the death star fluff abominations that popped up in 7th.
For me though, a large part of my enjoyment of this game is related to creating characters and running them with their intended bodyguard units or whatever. It's a large part of the fluff and narrative for me.
If it is the case of IC not being able to join units, I won't be able to run my Terminator Chaplain with his Assault Terminators in a Land Raider Crusader anymore. This really bothers me, both from a fluff and rules perspective.
I'm not saying there won't be work arounds, hell I don't even know if the rumour about IC's is completely true. But the whole idea of it for me is an issue.
If the transports of the Kharadron Overlords are any indication, you will be capable of putting in the same transport units and characters even if they are not the same unit.
I don't mind if they don't allow IC joining squads, as long as they give them some type of "look out sir!" if near a friendly unit of the same type, and let them join together transports.
In resume: Keep the better parts of IC joining squads with the added benefit of flexibility and no Deathstars.
oni wrote: I went from unenthusiastic to hopefully optimistic right back to unenthusiastic.
I feel like I'm watching history repeat itself right before my eyes.
I've been playing this game for a very long time and have seen play mechanics come and go. A lot of what is in 8th edition has been done before. It didn't work then and it's unlikely to work now.
Confirmed 8th edition mechanics that were dumped from previous editions because they were problematic:
- Movement stat (created issues in 2nd ed. where really fast armies had a massive advantage over slower ones)
- Armour Save modifiers (these pesky things rendered all armour that wasn't terminator armour completely useless in 2nd ed.)
- Drawing nearby units into combat (a complete nightmare from 3rd & 4th that made for some of the most un-enjoyable games in the history of Warhammer 40,000)
- Independent characters able to be targeted by themselves (congratulations! one of the worst mechanics from 4th ed. is back... character sniping is a thing again)
- Mechanisms that heavily favor MSU (this was more of a problem with codexes in 4th ed. - where there was more incentive to take multiple small units rather than max out unit sizes)
- Wound allocation to models of the controlling players choice (does no one remember the dirty wound allocation shenanigans from 5th ed.?)
It's almost like someone pulled the most epic troll on GW and convinced them to bring back for 8th ed. some of the worst 40K game mechanics that have ever existed.
Gotta disagree I didn't play 3rd but Ive played 4th onwards. As I see it.
- Fantasy has always had movestat, lots of other systems have move stats? It maybe why they kept run n assault flat/random and not based on unit speed so to not put to much power in the hands of faster armies.
- currently armour save of 5/6 might as well not exist, how does the current ap system not make armour pointless, yeah pull the other one. This makes cover point fun to all armies units to. IMO great stuff.
-pulling units into combat, only if you can have a big enough Mexican wave or can pile in the tiny distance, not likely to happen often considering the damage ranks of shooting does to horde assault armies.
-not sure yet, look out sir or cover saves from near by units may solve this if characters that are incoherency doesn't prevent snipping, it's not a massive issue in AoS but there obviously less guns. But we don't have all the info yet. Characters need to be big sellers considering single spruce £££ they be daft to make them worthless in game.
-possibly an issue but if max size units open up the support weapons and buffs then it's self balancing.
-wound allocation is stacked on a single model till it dies, so no shenanigans. Unlike currently where you can stand a character at the front soak up wounds them move to make to avoid more, which sounds more like shenanigans.
If they do wound allocation like AoS, where you put wounds in a model until it dies, it will eliminate the shenanigans of wound acollocations.
If you terminator squad of 10 with 2 wounds each takes 5 wounds, you lose 2 terminators and 1 is down to 1 wound. Easy and simple, and lets your heavy weapon and sargeants be in the front and be usefull without having them in the back, letting them be the last to die.
This slow, piecemeal method of reveals has been a roller coaster of confidence in the new edition. Though with the Battle Forged article, my hopes are back almost as high as they were before Morale hit.
Im still excited but was very disappointed to see charges with random rolling being kept. More than disappointed actually.
I think its a big flaw and possible let down.
Apart from that though, looking forward to it!
Well. They´ve killed my Tyranids seemingly for good. They´ve killed my Word Bearers. They´ve introduced that sundered AdMech-joke. They´ve fethed up the whole game with the seventh.
They´ve killed WFB slowly with the eighth. And replaced it with yet another unfunny joke.
Its interesting, but I have serious doupts they´ve got it this time.
I will see. When I have the whole rules in its context.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
Being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Questioning the majority makes you a critical thinker. This kind of "majority is always right" mindset is frankly, quite frightening.
Some of us here including myself gave GW the benefit of the doubt when Fantasy was replaced by AOS, only to have my favourite game destroyed and replaced with what I deem as one of the worst gaming systems ever written.
Maybe this time I'm not so willing to trust GW, considering what they did to a great many things that I loved.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
Being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Questioning the majority makes you a critical thinker. This kind of "majority is always right" mindset is frankly, quite frightening.
Some of us here including myself gave GW the benefit of the doubt when Fantasy was replaced by AOS, only to have my favourite game destroyed and replaced with what I deem as one of the worst gaming systems ever written.
Maybe this time I'm not so willing to trust GW, considering what they did to a great many things that I loved.
Questioning the majority is not in itself enough to make you a critical thinker and don't pretend YOU'RE 'a critical thinker' just because you're a pessimist. Doomsaying=/=Critical thinking and If the polls had gone the other direction you'd be crowing in the exact same way.
Being bitter about Fantasy is totally justified, if you really loved that game seeing it go must be arse; but pretending that AoS isn't a fun game, or that AoS isn't 'tactical', or that it's 'for children' or all the other stupid crap old Fantasy players come out with is wrong and the fact that AoS has seen great success, especially on the competitive scene where it has been slowly drawing away high level 40k players who are sick of the cancerous 7th edition meta, means that as much as it sucks GW were right to choose AoS over WHFB.
Questioning the majority is not in itself enough to make you a critical thinker and don't pretend YOU'RE 'a critical thinker' just because you're a pessimist. Doomsaying=/=Critical thinking and If the polls had gone the other direction you'd be crowing in the exact same way.
I don't have to pretend anything buddy, I already know I am. No one was doomsaying anything. I'm straight up telling it like it is, the psychic system is bad, the morale system is bad. IC not being able to join units is immersion breaking.
Just because you like bad game mechanics doesn't mean AOS is a good game. So lets not pretend like it is just because it has had the same amount of success as fantasy had before 8th edition.
Furthermore, If I was doomsaying, why would I admit to liking some of the mechanics that they have implemented into 40K 8th ed? Such as formations, command points, shooting and weapon profiles.
I was until the formations got removed. Well I guess I still think the edition looks much better and I love how GW is finally engaging with players, but my army is effed without its very specific formation.
Great I can only play a themed fluffy army in narrative unbound no-points army men games now.
Danny slag wrote: I was until the formations got removed. Well I guess I still think the edition looks much better and I love how GW is finally engaging with players, but my army is effed without its very specific formation.
Great I can only play a themed fluffy army in narrative unbound no-points army men games now.
Which army? Maybe it got its necessary boosts without the formation or one of the detachments will be catered to it.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
Then you haven't read a single one of my posts ....
Whiny?
Try again.
I started this thread to generate civil discussion, field insight and frankly to give me reason to not turn negative on GW and this is laregly what had been happening.
Then along came a spider...
Besides all that what is so wrong with being in the minority? You think popular = win?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
Being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Questioning the majority makes you a critical thinker. This kind of "majority is always right" mindset is frankly, quite frightening.
Some of us here including myself gave GW the benefit of the doubt when Fantasy was replaced by AOS, only to have my favourite game destroyed and replaced with what I deem as one of the worst gaming systems ever written.
Maybe this time I'm not so willing to trust GW, considering what they did to a great many things that I loved.
Questioning the majority is not in itself enough to make you a critical thinker and don't pretend YOU'RE 'a critical thinker' just because you're a pessimist. Doomsaying=/=Critical thinking and If the polls had gone the other direction you'd be crowing in the exact same way.
Being bitter about Fantasy is totally justified, if you really loved that game seeing it go must be arse; but pretending that AoS isn't a fun game, or that AoS isn't 'tactical', or that it's 'for children' or all the other stupid crap old Fantasy players come out with is wrong and the fact that AoS has seen great success, especially on the competitive scene where it has been slowly drawing away high level 40k players who are sick of the cancerous 7th edition meta, means that as much as it sucks GW were right to choose AoS over WHFB.
Glad you enjoy it.
Gladder you do it nowhere near me.
Not because I hate the game mind you.
After reading dakka and some other boards been thinking about dusting off the old gobbos and maybe someday rebasing them but again I am reminded what really turns my stomach - wasting an afternoon with spoiled shallow brats berated by their weak minded tribalism and cheap majority machismo fueling their groupthink aggression like cheap whiskey and daddy's credit card.
I didn't start this thread to question any majority. I did it to give voice to concerns various and diverse... But I guess that in the current era this is no longer a virtuous enterprise.
I am also not a pessimist by nature. Rather after everything following second and early third edition and what happened to WFB and then the infiltration of the WAAC deck building ethos into something that simply wasn't that, well I have some basis for expecting people to shall we just say disappoint.
By the way this stuff about crowing over results is your projection onto others and evidences a deep disrespect for other people. Really. Not a good sign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ankhalagon wrote: Well. They´ve killed my Tyranids seemingly for good. They´ve killed my Word Bearers. They´ve introduced that sundered AdMech-joke. They´ve fethed up the whole game with the seventh.
They´ve killed WFB slowly with the eighth. And replaced it with yet another unfunny joke.
Its interesting, but I have serious doupts they´ve got it this time.
I will see. When I have the whole rules in its context.
Yeah I am also looking toward to seeing how the whole thing hangs together.
=======================
Sorry for the edits.
Late. Using a tablet with autospellcheck and had to rewrite a few dozen yous into something responsible.
Marmatag wrote:Strong psykers should be able to save against psychic wounds.
Which I think they still can, by cancelling the other psyker's powers. And maybe some psykers will have their own psychic powers that can affect their defenses, maybe even reducing Mortal Wounds to regular wounds as long as the power is active. That, to me, is the problem with all the speculation... it's speculation. Sometimes even a heavy dose of wishthinking.
But detachments they've shown really disappoint me. What's wrong with variety by faction?
I would be very surprised if there aren't faction -specific detachments on the army books.
We have seen three Force Organisation Charts, I believe. The main rules would have a dozen (or something like that, my memories and their included numbers may vary). The three shown were just basic Patrol, Battalion and Brigade charts. Again, speculating and wishthinking, there will also be an Assault Element chart, with only two troops, two elites, and ten fast attack slots. Who knows (except people at GW, and they're not telling yet)? And like Insaniak opted, what will happen if the 'true' army books (would they still call them codices then?) arrive? They might as well include a Tyranid Assault Swarm chart or a Tyranid Monstrous Creature Terror chart, with the Assault Swarm being a whole lot mote troops and fast attack than a basic Patrol, Battalion or Brigade, and the Monstrous Creature Terror chart focussing more on HQ, Elites and Heavy Support units. We'll just have to wait and see.
It'd be nice if the minority vs majority and critical thinking vs groupthink/bandwagon argument could stop, especially since claiming someone in the majority of this poll is wrong because they're in the majority borders on a personal attack. Invalidating someone's argument because you assume they simply followed the crowd (implying simplicity of thought below that of the average person), when in actuality the vast majority of us read the Warhammer World articles and decided whether the changes were good or bad before discussing it online. So the couple users using that argument to stroke their egos (it's really, really obvious) need to stop. I do not think OP is guilty of this.
Back on topic, when I went to the re-opening of my FLGS yesterday after a management change, I saw almost everyone who plays 40k there at some point during the day. Of those that I discussed the coming edition, everybody seemed to be overall quite pleased with the changes, but we've agreed that we cannot be certain until we know that command points are actually worth organizing an army around, and that certain notable units get point cost changes.
LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
^This is the only reason I mentioned anything about majority/minority thought to begin with.
You wanna talk about borderline personal attack?
It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?
Faction specific supplements are absolutely necessary for money making.
Yep, I've said it before but I'd be willing to bet money that nearly every currently available formation will be represented in some way. The initial 14 will cover most basic archetypes and they'll release faction specific ones in new codices. They just won't be called "formations", and you'll get command points for fielding them as opposed to special rules. Same amount of variety and freedom in army building (if not more), same fluffy and/or sheisty cheesemonger armies, but with a standardized game resource that is easier to tweak and balance as necessary.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because those tanks with Small Blasts and the Hellhound were really effective to begin with.
Local meta involved a lot of nids, so HH was actually effective. Not as effective as Banewolf, but effective.
Vaktathi wrote:I mean, the weapons still exist, we just dont know how they'll be translated. If a Battlecannon is S8 ASM-3, D6+2 hits that do D3 wounds each for 150pts that can fire other weapons at no penalty, well, Russ tanks will probably be pretty stronk. If it's ASM -2 with D3 single damage hits for 200pts with the same Ordnance restrictions, then we'll have issues.
Reading through the proposed statlines they've released I can see where you have a point, and vehicles could be really good or really bad, pretty much at the whim of whoever does the 'degradation' rules.
Otto von Bludd wrote:
It's actually quite an improvement for things like Battle Cannons. Not to mention how much better our vehicles in general will be compared to now.
It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?
It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
Well when you guys make such informative and well-reasoned arguments as these, it IS a wonder not everyone sees things your way
LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.
^This is the only reason I mentioned anything about majority/minority thought to begin with.
You wanna talk about borderline personal attack?
It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?
As I said to him, he was being a sore winner, which isn't okay; however, this is one of almost a dozen borderline flamebait polls that have gone up in the past 2 weeks and it's getting rather tiresome. Having reservations is fine, disliking mechanics that have been fully confirmed (flat to hit in melee, vehicles having wounds, the 8 specific stat profiles, and honestly not very much else) is fine. The problems come in in the language that's being used. The individuals that are unhappy with the general picture we've been given are prone to speaking in absolutes that are absolutely unknowable at this point.
You can't KNOW that guardsman will melt to morale, you can only guess based on the bits and pieces of the system we're privy to. You can't KNOW landraiders are going to melt to guardsman, you can't KNOW that space marines are going to be better than everyone, you can't KNOW that XYZ thing is going to suck because we don't know how everything worls together.
Even when the new edition drops we won't have a real solid base in what's good/bad for MONTHS. It takes a long time for the meta to shake out.
I'm excited for the possibility of playing with all the units I've collected over the last 15 years that have gone in and out of the meta. Not having to read and learn 300+ pages of rules and special rules. Not taking 3-4 hours to play a game with plastic toy soldiers.
I have 15 different armies and keeping up with the codices, FAQs, supplements, and BRB changes is expensive and tiring.
I quit when flyers, LoWs, and other crazy nonsense turned the game into 3-4 hour long affairs.
I quit Fantasy for the same reason 10 years ago and started playing AoS when it came out due to the streamlined/free rules. I can teach someone to play AoS in 30-45 minutes. I barely knew all the rules to Warhammer Fantasy after playing it for five years.
Vryce wrote: As much as I was disappointed to see the random charge distance and overwatch stay, I am still very much excited about 8th edition. As much for the rules, as for the community engagement and communication with us as players. It's nice to see GW moving in a more positive direction for once.
Same here. It's not that long ago that GW were in full self-destruct mode and 40K was a ludicrous parody of what I knew it as, but now they're acting like an actual wargames company rather than....whatever the heck they were trying to be. I'll wait to see how the new edition shakes out before getting back into the game, but it feels like there are good intentions here beyond "How can we tack on more random pay-to-win junk to extract as much short-term cash as possible?" And regardless of the specifics of the rules (any of which could be well or poorly executed), that is interesting.
I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termites were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.
I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!
I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.
Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!
Not excited. Optimistic maybe. I haven't even thought about playing 40k in nearly a year honestly. The complexity is too much to bother tracking. The power level has been cranked so high all but the best can't see play.
Bottom line this is GW. I hope they finally give CSM some love, orks too and all the other step childs of the game. I'm tired of eldar and marines getting the better gak for fanboy reasons.
If they can't balance it this time after 5 editions I'm finally out for good. Theres plenty of fan made rules that crush all over theirs atm..
Edit- fwiw I did vote excited since I'm actually rather pleased by most of what I've read although I'm really not a fan of Age of Calgar.
The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: Not excited. Optimistic maybe. I haven't even thought about playing 40k in nearly a year honestly. The complexity is too much to bother tracking. The power level has been cranked so high all but the best can't see play.
Bottom line this is GW. I hope they finally give CSM some love, orks too and all the other step childs of the game. I'm tired of eldar and marines getting the better gak for fanboy reasons.
If they can't balance it this time after 5 editions I'm finally out for good. Theres plenty of fan made rules that crush all over theirs atm..
Edit- fwiw I did vote excited since I'm actually rather pleased by most of what I've read although I'm really not a fan of Age of Calgar.
Yeah I know the feeling but I am getting too old to quit. Rather hang in, keep the brush wet and contribute to the discourse. The more things change I guess... Totally with you on the orks and chaos being two of the armies I had been investing in these past couple years even given their relative neglect. Do you mean Age of Girlyman?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Sounds far better than 3rd-7th...but not a home-run.
Yeah... I was seeing rainbows and unicorns for a minute there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garrlor wrote: I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termites were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.
I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!
I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.
Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!
Moving is never easy. Best wishes man. Good point on the control over formatachments and power creep. I am interested in if they use the narrative itself to justify rules changes when moderating capacities to tune imbalance issues going forward for example wave serpents have been over used and after seeing such unceasing service are worn and often damaged leaving them with a diminished shield capacity, something that would have made sense in the last edition but I use the example here just to clarify...
The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.
Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.
It's looking like progress but not perfection. Looks like a lot of worthwhile changes that will improve the game overall. Once the dust settles there will invariably be a demand for further changes, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests 8th edition won't be hugely preferable to 7th.
LunarSol wrote: It's looking like progress but not perfection. Looks like a lot of worthwhile changes that will improve the game overall. Once the dust settles there will invariably be a demand for further changes,
-Community feedback
-Dreads and Vehicles now more survivable/finally get an armorsave
-Units all have Splitfire
-Formations are gone.
but I'm not seeing anything that suggests 8th edition won't be hugely preferable to 7th.
Garrlor wrote: I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termies were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.
I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!
I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.
Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!
Moving is never easy. Best wishes man. Good point on the control over formatachments and power creep. I am interested in if they use the narrative itself to justify rules changes when moderating capacities to tune imbalance issues going forward for example wave serpents have been over used and after seeing such unceasing service are worn and often damaged leaving them with a diminished shield capacity, something that would have made sense in the last edition but I use the example here just to clarify...
Not just moving house, moving country! All of my toy soldiers and painting gear on a boat heading back to the UK as we speak.
As for your suggestion, it makes sense that they can tilt the rules with quick rewrites and fluff twists like that. I think the core rules are looking really interesting now, and its going to be the fluff special rules that fill everything out. Like space marines have a chance to shrug off wounds due to thier constitution, eldar dodging close combat attacks etc.
And we still have a lot to learn about command points and how they are used. If a detachment is proving op due to the number/type of command points it provides, it's so simple to faq/errata the detachment without unbalancing a whole army. Thank the lord!
Liking the new to wound table, and the everything can be hurt by anything line.
The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.
Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.
I wouldn't get too hasty. So far it looks like the average flamer will still be garbage. I would say it's even worse now than it was before.
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.
And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.
I'm not a fan of this Split Fire, or whatever you want to call it, if only because it opens up to a lot of lengthy noodling over who is going to shoot what. Not a big deal at all, though.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.
How amazing would it be for the exorcist to be D6 shots with D6 damage? And then imagine if you could squadron them! You'd have a potential damage range(assuming 100% hit and wound) 9-324 in a standard CAD setup
Rippy wrote: Considering how many people are disgruntled with 7th edition, and GW itself, I am surprised there is only 20% of people who pressed no.
LESS THAN 20%!
And yes, that's surprising.
This is still a poll of less than 650 people. So I am taking it for what it is,. There is a a vocal support for AoS here as well. I have played AoS and I find it to be a very bad product, good on you all for liking it, I do not. I DO like 40k as it is now. I do not play in tournaments, I play at home with a circle of friends who have armies we enjoy. That being said, I am not looking for a new edition, if it turns out to be really good then maybe, if not, then no. I certainly am not going to be excited to lose a system a do like and replace it for one that is too close to a game I think is bad. I generally do not like minimalist games, and AoS fits that description for me.
I dont think quicker or more streamlined is automatically better. nor do I believe "newer" is always better. You can always point to 4th edition D&D for a good example of that.
thekingofkings wrote: The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.
... except for the fact that AoS is actually 40k with Fantasy models.
It's really not.
I'm as happy to bash AoS as the next guy, but the only similarity between AoS and current 40K is the shape of the bases.
There's connective tissue there, even in 7th. The systems are very different but the feel is similar enough that you can bounce from one to the other relatively smoothly.
The biggest issue is that one game has a ton of tactical depth and interesting combos that take a lot of time and effort to master and that really emphasizes the skill of the player at all points of play...the other is 40k.
That could easily be said the other way around. AoS is not this mythical in depth system, its 2 pages of actual rules. And those are pretty skimpy, not a lot of detail. I have no doubt there are some skilled AoS players out there, I have seen them in action. But I dont believe the rules have anything to do with that,. just like AoS is no more narrative than any other game out there. Tactics, narrative..those are the effects of players not systems.
A big difference between 7th and 8th of 40k is that its mostly a mechanics change, with AoS it was a complete rewrite with factions lingering as they are slowly replaced/phased out in favor of the new setting. Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th, it will take discipline on GW's part.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.
And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.
It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an antitank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.
ERJAK wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.
How amazing would it be for the exorcist to be D6 shots with D6 damage? And then imagine if you could squadron them! You'd have a potential damage range(assuming 100% hit and wound) 9-324 in a standard CAD setup
It would be nice. I just hope the organ pipes keep being amazingly good at killing tanks, heavy infantry, and monsters. Not giving them multiple wounds per shot would make it fairly terrible.
The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.
Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.
I wouldn't get too hasty. So far it looks like the average flamer will still be garbage. I would say it's even worse now than it was before.
My excitement isn't so much at the flamer, it's I can now run a mixed squad, instead of Melta squad, Plasma squad, etc.
thekingofkings wrote: Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...
Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.
thekingofkings wrote: Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...
Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
No edition has started fresh since 3rd, which was released in 1998. All of the subsequent editions have been built on that release, with the only changes coming in the form of a cycle of Codex releases that made the most recent release overpowered compared to the oldest, along with core rules changes in the form of new editions. In essence, 40k has been a slowly churning power creep of 3rd edition for 20 years. This time is completely different because every previous Codex and rulebook will be null on day one, and new rules for each and every unit will be released all at once. Something that has literally never happened since 3rd came out. So yes, 8th edition most certainly does solve that particular problem, at least initially.
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
No edition has started fresh since 3rd, which was released in 1998. All of the subsequent editions have been built on that release, with the only changes coming in the form of a cycle of Codex releases that made the most recent release overpowered compared to the oldest, along with core rules changes in the form of new editions. In essence, 40k has been a slowly churning power creep of 3rd edition for 20 years. This time is completely different because every previous Codex and rulebook will be null on day one, and new rules for each and every unit will be released all at once. Something that has literally never happened since 3rd came out. So yes, 8th edition most certainly does solve that particular problem, at least initially.
ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.
ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.
True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?
ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.
True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?
That makes sense, of course I am not ruling out that I am a little "butt hurt" about it seemingly steering more AoS than I was hoping.
ok, I get what your are saying. the whole can everything and start over. This of course assumes they dont mess it up. But this didnt require an 8th edition, they could have just fixed all the codex at once, since they are doing it with this 8th edition, it shows they could do it if they wanted.
True, but what better time to hit the reset button than during the release of a new edition which totally revamps the rules?
That makes sense, of course I am not ruling out that I am a little "butt hurt" about it seemingly steering more AoS than I was hoping.
A lot of people seem to hold that apprehension, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it until release. From what I can see, 8th will be closer to 2nd than AoS. It certainly is more complex than AoS. Yes, they are borrowing a couple of things here and there, but they're mainly things that cut down on redundancy and bloat and keep more or less the same effect as before in a more efficient manner. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Edition wars are a thing too, seems that no matter the game, there will always be that split. I am interested in seeing the final product, but it will be a hesitant purchase. Sadly around here GW is the only one of about 7 local FLGS that even bother to carry GW products and that means no preview without braving the tiny 1 man store :(
thekingofkings wrote: Edition wars are a thing too, seems that no matter the game, there will always be that split. I am interested in seeing the final product, but it will be a hesitant purchase. Sadly around here GW is the only one of about 7 local FLGS that even bother to carry GW products and that means no preview without braving the tiny 1 man store :(
At worst, there will be loads of reviews and battle reports on YouTube shortly after release. The GW store might be a bit hectic for a few days.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.
I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.
And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.
It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an antitank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.
And a squad is never considered a gun battery except in your own head. Each model represents an individual platform, not a series of coaxial weapons.
It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an anti-tank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.
And Artillery and heavy weapon teams will likely remain dedicated to one weapon in most cases. (Most people bringing them for extra anti-infantry/anti-tank that the army otherwise lacks The basic infantry squads (Tactical marines/Guardsman etc.) would be more flexible like real world army squads, some bring basic rifles, someone almost always brings a anti-tank weapon of some sort and so on. Now those units will be able to bring the weapons to deal with any threat (like they would) and not render the loadout of the rest of the squad (virtually) useless.
Rippy wrote: Considering how many people are disgruntled with 7th edition, and GW itself, I am surprised there is only 20% of people who pressed no.
LESS THAN 20%!
And yes, that's surprising.
This is still a poll of less than 650 people. So I am taking it for what it is,. There is a a vocal support for AoS here as well. I have played AoS and I find it to be a very bad product, good on you all for liking it, I do not. I DO like 40k as it is now. I do not play in tournaments, I play at home with a circle of friends who have armies we enjoy. That being said, I am not looking for a new edition, if it turns out to be really good then maybe, if not, then no. I certainly am not going to be excited to lose a system a do like and replace it for one that is too close to a game I think is bad. I generally do not like minimalist games, and AoS fits that description for me. I dont think quicker or more streamlined is automatically better. nor do I believe "newer" is always better. You can always point to 4th edition D&D for a good example of that.
thekingofkings wrote: The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.
... except for the fact that AoS is actually 40k with Fantasy models.
It's really not.
I'm as happy to bash AoS as the next guy, but the only similarity between AoS and current 40K is the shape of the bases.
There's connective tissue there, even in 7th. The systems are very different but the feel is similar enough that you can bounce from one to the other relatively smoothly.
The biggest issue is that one game has a ton of tactical depth and interesting combos that take a lot of time and effort to master and that really emphasizes the skill of the player at all points of play...the other is 40k.
That could easily be said the other way around. AoS is not this mythical in depth system, its 2 pages of actual rules. And those are pretty skimpy, not a lot of detail. I have no doubt there are some skilled AoS players out there, I have seen them in action. But I dont believe the rules have anything to do with that,. just like AoS is no more narrative than any other game out there. Tactics, narrative..those are the effects of players not systems.
A big difference between 7th and 8th of 40k is that its mostly a mechanics change, with AoS it was a complete rewrite with factions lingering as they are slowly replaced/phased out in favor of the new setting. Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th, it will take discipline on GW's part.
100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all with new 40K inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Morale is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformations nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Take a look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.
I'm excited - the new rules are going to make it so much easier for returning/new players to jump into a game. Demos are going to be much quicker for GW staff so they can drum up the interest in the game.
I've been playing since 4th and sure it will be sad to see the older mechanics disappear, but the system was just way too clunky. I've barely played these last 2 years because it was just too overwhelming to keep up with all the new supplements/formations.
100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all that the new 40K is inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Moral is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformation nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Just look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.
I don't think that people who have been playing 40k were complaining that it is too hard for them to learn. I think the main complaints are that many of the rules are more or less meaningless and redundant, you can achieve virtually the same thing with less, and that games can just take too long to play. The game being too complex to learn certainly does put a damper on introducing it to friends and family, though. As you said yourself, the barrier to entry for 40k is already quite high. People can hardly be bothered to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours getting an army ready, and learning a mess of self-contradictory and redundant rules is a step too far for the majority. No new players means no one to play with, no sales, and ultimately no hobby.
Less complex does not mean dumber, less interesting or less fun on its own. In fact, it often means quite the opposite.
thekingofkings wrote: Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...
Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
You are objectively wrong here. Especially from 6th to 7th where the codexes were still 100% compatible and I actually have the 5th ed sisters book and could of played that in 7th with pretty much no modifications.
That will not be the case in 8th as supported by what we've already seen.
I am in wait and see mode, but not expecting anything- that way I am not disappointed.
Not excited for the game, whatsoever. Just hoping it becomes playable, again.
I am happy on how GW turned themselves around, but with the advent of the fall of cadia, I was pretty much resigned to wait and see, seeing the price for 3 models, and the ridiculous price hikes continue to the unattainable.
I have my gear for skirmish level, and I'm quite happy with staying on that level.
100% agreed. I never got the ''it's too complex to learn'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that demands a huge amount of money and time (modeling and painting) to get in. Learning a 100 pages or so of rules is a pretty minor investment in the grand scheme of things. To me, AoS is garbage, and I'm not pleased at all that the new 40K is inching closer to it. I just can't figure how someone who played 40K for all these years, a game where Moral is a huge part of the game, and who's happy at how the new Morale tests are going to be resolved. Same thing with templates being removed (even though I do agree in both cases, some units/weapons made these mechanisms unplayable or insignificant). 7th edition was a great ruleset imo. It was ruined by the superformation nonsense and gross imbalance between units and armies. Just look at the pink horrors profile that ''new'' GW just laid down. No ammount of simplifying will make this garbage balanced or playable.
I don't think that people who have been playing 40k were complaining that it is too hard for them to learn. I think the main complaints are that many of the rules are more or less meaningless and redundant, you can achieve virtually the same thing with less, and that games can just take too long to play. The game being too complex to learn certainly does put a damper on introducing it to friends and family, though. As you said yourself, the barrier to entry for 40k is already quite high. People can hardly be bothered to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours getting an army ready, and learning a mess of self-contradictory and redundant rules is a step too far for the majority. No new players means no one to play with, no sales, and ultimately no hobby.
Less complex does not mean dumber, less interesting or less fun on its own. In fact, it often means quite the opposite.
Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.
Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.
Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.
Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.
I imagine that's a pretty common story. Say what you want about AoS, but that ability to engage with and bring in new players and get people excited about the hobby is surely highly coveted by both GW and anyone trying to get their friends into the game.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
Ever since the release of 3rd Edition, GW has endeavored to make things backwards compatible. This meant that new editions couldn't change much and still allow folks to use their old books. Worse, it led to these long codex cycles because there was never a need to redesign armies as soon as a new edition hit.
The long codex cycles led to changing design philosophies creating this waxing/waning effect in codex power level. You might get a run of them where they thought "simple is better, cut down on options and focus design" which was followed by a stint of "people play 40k because of options, add more stuff!"
And this happened over and over again, year in and year out. Codices had no central design conceit, no rhyme or reason, and no forethought as to what later books would be like. Hell, it felt like most of them were developed in a vacuum which led to all kinds of issues. Some wouldn't be updated for one or two editions and still the rules chugged on, adding more stuff without really taking a step back to look at how it all worked together. This meant that a lot of edition change overs were super reactionary, but GW lacked the forethought to plan for how later additions to the line would plug in.
This just led to a big, long cycle of bloat. It started in 3rd, after it removed most of the rules from 2nd (both good and bad). 3rd couldn't handle nuance very well as a result (because modifiers were evil apparently). Special rules were plugged in to create nuance, but no one consulted each other to make this unified (not even after USRs became a thing), things bloated and it became apparent that a new edition was needed to fix the new issues caused by the old edition. 4th was a reaction to the strong meta of 3rd, rather than an objective look at what worked and what didn't when they redid the system. And on and on it went. 40k has been this amalgam of chopped up parts and half-notions that has chugged along for nearly 20 years without taking a step back to look at the whole. 7th was just the tipping point for a great many folks.
40k hasn't had a truly fresh edition in a long time.
Generally when people say '40k was too complicated to learn' they are referring to either Army building, which was actualy a clownfiesta that caught out long term tournament players constantly, or they meant too complicated to TEACH. I had 2 friends I tried to teach 40k. They had armies and their codexes and the rules books and we did practice games and I made cheat sheets but it just wasn't happening. The rules were so opaque and it was so unclear what the payoff for learning them would be that they just couldn't be bothered.
Then I did a 10 minute test game for sigmar with them between rounds of a 40k tournament I was playing and they went 'yep, playing this.' That was 6 months ago they both have 3 full armies now.
I imagine that's a pretty common story. Say what you want about AoS, but that ability to engage with and bring in new players and get people excited about the hobby is surely highly coveted by both GW and anyone trying to get their friends into the game.
We found the rules actually chased people away (alot of older crowd who prefer more in depth games) its simplicity is just as much a negative as a positive. The new setting killed the rest.
thekingofkings wrote: Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th...
Uh, actually it kind of does. They are starting with fresh rules for every unit at the same time, which in itself is probably the single greatest thing to ever happen to 40k in two decades. The only thing they need to do to keep it from getting muddied again is actually support the game and revisit the rules and balance at least annually, which is what they say they will do. We'll see.
I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
You are objectively wrong here. Especially from 6th to 7th where the codexes were still 100% compatible and I actually have the 5th ed sisters book and could of played that in 7th with pretty much no modifications.
That will not be the case in 8th as supported by what we've already seen.
how is "new edition starting fresh" objectively wrong? compatability of codex doesnt really mean anything. sure for casual play you could probably get away with a 3rd ed codex, but playing at our local stores you would not be allowed to use any but the most current. The problem is not the core rules, it is what comes after.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree with you. Any edition by itself starts out fresh, just like 7th, that doesn't mean just switching to a new edition will solve the problem, if it was, they had 7 going on 8 now tries to do it right? the problem is with GW, not the core rules they put out.
Ever since the release of 3rd Edition, GW has endeavored to make things backwards compatible. This meant that new editions couldn't change much and still allow folks to use their old books. Worse, it led to these long codex cycles because there was never a need to redesign armies as soon as a new edition hit.
The long codex cycles led to changing design philosophies creating this waxing/waning effect in codex power level. You might get a run of them where they thought "simple is better, cut down on options and focus design" which was followed by a stint of "people play 40k because of options, add more stuff!"
And this happened over and over again, year in and year out. Codices had no central design conceit, no rhyme or reason, and no forethought as to what later books would be like. Hell, it felt like most of them were developed in a vacuum which led to all kinds of issues. Some wouldn't be updated for one or two editions and still the rules chugged on, adding more stuff without really taking a step back to look at how it all worked together. This meant that a lot of edition change overs were super reactionary, but GW lacked the forethought to plan for how later additions to the line would plug in.
This just led to a big, long cycle of bloat. It started in 3rd, after it removed most of the rules from 2nd (both good and bad). 3rd couldn't handle nuance very well as a result (because modifiers were evil apparently). Special rules were plugged in to create nuance, but no one consulted each other to make this unified (not even after USRs became a thing), things bloated and it became apparent that a new edition was needed to fix the new issues caused by the old edition. 4th was a reaction to the strong meta of 3rd, rather than an objective look at what worked and what didn't when they redid the system. And on and on it went. 40k has been this amalgam of chopped up parts and half-notions that has chugged along for nearly 20 years without taking a step back to look at the whole. 7th was just the tipping point for a great many folks.
40k hasn't had a truly fresh edition in a long time.
I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.
I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.
I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.
I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.
I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.
Bingo!
Special rules in 3rd and on mostly felt like a reaction to the question "how do I do this in the system?"
My favourite early examples from 3rd are Rending, the Choppa rule, and Fleet of *.
Rending and the Choppa rule came from the same well, but handled it differently.
In both cases the devs asked "how do I make a weapon that is somewhat effective against most armour, but not 100% effective so as to ignore it... but without having to use icky modifiers which we decided are anathema?"
The Nid dev came up with Rending. This meant that Genestrealers didn't have to all be equipped with power weapons (and thus super expensive) because they only ignored armour sometimes. The Ork dev decided a Choppa just gave everyone a 4+ save (unless their save was worse). Both were messy, both attacked the same problem, and both did it in a clunky way because the system didn't allow for nuance.
So 4th comes along and makes USRs to try and solve this "two solutions, one problem" thing that 3rd created. But this solution isn't perfect. USRs only exist because the system 3rd became is bad at describing nuances.
"That unit should be hard to hit, but modifiers don't exist, so give it a cover save!"
"What about when a hard to hit unit is in cover?"
" "
That was a common issue for a while that was caused by a combo of just allowing one save while not having anything to modifiy saves outside of just ignoring them. The one save system was a good one (though eventually broken by FNP), but no modifiers basically had a deletrious effect on their ability to modify saves beyond an all-or-nothing construct. Worse, attaching cover to this led to all kinds of messy and incongruous interactions. And eventually it was all moot anyways and GW started giving out modifiers but mostly just to cover saves.
So we went from solving a bloat problem in 2nd Edition (too many saves, but also too many modifiers making most saves useless), to finding out that too much nuance was cut out to make for a robust system, to stacking bloat back on to make up for the overly simplistic basic system before eventually arriving right back where we started, but somehow worse. And make no mistake, this was a reactionary evolution and can be laid at the feet of 3rd's original simplifiaction.
And you can see this history of build-up everywhere you look, and it extends infinitely back. Like some kind of -fractal!
I could go on for hours about the butterfly effect 3rd's simplification had on all future development. It all flows forth from that stream. Each edition was a short-sighted reaction to the last rather than a plain look at making a good game. And because it all started from a bad place and the devs never took time to reflect on what really worked and how problems should be solved you ended up with a game that was a reaction rather than a statement of intent and a real piece of design.
This is why 40k has felt tired and stagnant to me with each new edition, because every change I see is a reaction to what was wrong with the previous edition without a reflection on why it was wrong before. But because they didn't want to put in the work to properly redesign (they didn't even want to do it in 3rd in all honesty, given how sad the default lists in the back of the rules were) things needed to stay close enough so people could still use their 5-10 year old codex in the new edition.
It was a recipe that was bound to lead to a mess and so every edition has basically been a mess made while attempting to clean up the last one.
I wont say your wrong here, but it still says to me the problem was not the core rules to the game, it was the codex and what came after that the problems came about. It seems to me to be more of GW cant balance their factions. I can imagine a good amount of that is sales focused, they want you to buy the new hotness not keep the old.
I think what we're trying to say is that the foundation of 3rd edition, which all of this has been built on since 1998, was faulty. It doesn't allow for granularity or adjustment and thus the only way they could manage the system was by heaping on more and more Universal Special Rules and the like until it became a contradictory morass of ill-balanced, poorly planned game design. When Ronin said he felt like some Codices were developed in a vacuum he may have been joking, but I'm almost entirely certain he's right. It's not like GW is transparent about that kind of thing, but many signs point to them handing an army to one or two of their writers and letting them go to town on both the fluff and the crunch, with basically no communication or foresight. They have said themselves that they are not in the business of publishing games, they are in the business of selling models. The rules have been a distant second for a long time, and it really, really shows.
Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.
By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.
By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.
3rd may have been fine, but the system they created is difficult to tweak and add variation to without adding on another rule... and another.
The big difference between 7th and AoS, or even 7th and 2nd, isn't the level of complexity. It's that 2nd and AoS can represent variation and player choice with a system of mechanics that doesn't have to refer outside itself, where 3rd-7th can only represent variation and choice through blanketing the mechanics with all kinds of exceptions and extremes. The fact that 8th is going back to modifiers and is uncapping stat lines means they can introduce an amount of complexity and gradation that would be unthinkable in 7th, because they can do it by plugging numbers into the mechanics of the game itself instead of having to make special new rules for every different thing they want to represent.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Except that 3E was fine, because the USRs actually mattered. Instead of splitting hairs, which is the same trap that Infinity 3 and Flames of War 3 fell into, 3E required that the designer choose what was important, and what was not. You know, do some actual design work.
By the time 7E rolled around, the designers had completely given up, and were making up rules to fill a page count.
3rd may have been fine, but the system they created is difficult to tweak and add variation to without adding on another rule... and another.
The big difference between 7th and AoS, or even 7th and 2nd, isn't the level of complexity. It's that 2nd and AoS can represent variation and player choice with a system of mechanics that doesn't have to refer outside itself, where 3rd-7th can only represent variation and choice through blanketing the mechanics with all kinds of exceptions and extremes. The fact that 8th is going back to modifiers and is uncapping stat lines means they can introduce an amount of complexity and gradation that would be unthinkable in 7th, because they can do it by plugging numbers into the mechanics of the game itself instead of having to make special new rules for every different thing they want to represent.
Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.
It's 2D6 +1" now, chargers strike first, you can fire pistols in cc, things are easier to wound...
honestly what more do you want.
All these rules changes are superb for the game and fix a boatload of problems that 7th edn had.
If you're still butthurt about 2D6 charge ranges (I hated them to start with... then played... then actually grew to like the rule), I don't know how GW are ever going to make you happy.
If you're still butthurt about 2D6 charge ranges (I hated them to start with... then played... then actually grew to like the rule), I don't know how GW are ever going to make you happy.
Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.
That's an excellent and succinct point. That alone shows that the new system is simply, mathematically easier to scale and balance from a development standpoint.
So far, everything seems like a vast improvement. I was a little bummed about morale wounds, but at the expense of no more fall backs, even my Orks might have a Lil more fight in them.
Our FLGS is having an end of 7th Tournament and at this point, I might just skip it completely. 7th competitive has no been fun.
I've been calling it re-roll hammer 40k for the last 2 years.
Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.
That's an excellent and succinct point. That alone shows that the new system is simply, mathematically easier to scale and balance from a development standpoint.
Mostly, it is more tools in the shed. 3rd Edition basically threw out all the screw drivers with the thought "nails are simple, we just need nails!"
But then then stuff cropped up where a screw would be a better fit... but GW figured nails AND duct tape would do in a pinch. And they just kept finding ways to avoid screws where screws were the simple solution.
2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play). So it was obvious 3rd would be a simplification to allow for larger games, but the actual consequences of what they chose to simplify are what set it down this path.
Instead of, for example, saying "we lean on modifiers way too much and need to scale this all back!" they just killed the whole concept for nearly two decades. It was a great example of unintended consequences, where in trying to streamline things they ended up making the system hard to work with and modify from a design standpoint, thus requiring more complex solutions when a cleaned up version of the first method would have been simpler and more succinct.
2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play).
Slight pedantic correction there... 2000 points was the 'standard' game for 2nd edition. It dropped to 1500 for 3rd.
But the point is spot on - we were regularly playing 3000-5000 point games, and occasionally playing 10000 point games by the end of 2nd edition (Courtesy of not actually attending Uni classes... ) and they took some serious time investment. 3rd edition was welcome there for speeding up those larger games, even if some of the stuff that was chopped was a little disappointing.
Instead of, for example, saying "we lean on modifiers way too much and need to scale this all back!" they just killed the whole concept for nearly two decades..
Sadly, this has been standard procedure for GW ever since. They seem unable to moderate an idea... if something is broken, the answer is to change it completely, rather than fixing it.
2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play).
Slight pedantic correction there... 2000 points was the 'standard' game for 2nd edition. It dropped to 1500 for 3rd.
Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.
Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.
I don't think it was quite that extreme... I don't recall there being that much size difference between my usual 2000-point 2nd ed Marine army and their 1500-point 3rd ed equivalent. Although it was somewhat influenced by just how nuts you had gone with Wargear in 2nd ed, as options were greatly reduced in 3rd.
Actually, If I remember correctly, in one interview, Rick Prestley (I don't remember if it was him), said that just before launching 3rd edition, the Marketing team said them that the battles need to have twice the models, to push sales up (Tom Kirby orders), and they just cut all the point costs in half.
I'd have to dig, but it was pretty close to a halving of the points. Also a rough halving of playtime, all else being equal.
Going from 2E to 3E, the newly reduced points costs per unit, and vastly reduced ways to dump invisible points into models meant that you'd have needed to buy more models to play at the new 1500-pt standard game size.
Galas wrote: Actually, If I remember correctly, in one interview, Rick Prestley (I don't remember if it was him), said that just before launching 3rd edition, the Marketing team said them that the battles need to have twice the models, to push sales up (Tom Kirby orders), and they just cut all the point costs in half.
That does sound an awful lot like GW, especially from that era.
It's possible (even likely) that it was marketing driven... but it was also what the players actually wanted at the time.
People by and large weren't too keep on some of the detail being stripped out, but overall for its functionality for larger games the 3rd ed system was reasonably well received.
To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).
Ronin_eX wrote: To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).
Sounds kinda like 7th ed..
Are you suggesting that marines are still overcosted?
Ronin_eX wrote: To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).
Sounds kinda like 7th ed..
Are you suggesting that marines are still overcosted?
Could swing either way. It was easy to see in 2nd that the problem was marines that overcosted in most units, which is what made the couple of power builds seem so egregious. Worse, because tacs, devs, and assaults all came from the same pool, tacs were the worst of the bunch, having no advantages over the more specialized units. But in an edition where a Guardian with a shuriken catapult (when it was 24" range, sustained fire 1, with a -2 save mod) cost you 14 points it was easy to see that a 30 point marine was just completely off the mark. Hell guard could easily outnumber marines 3-to-1 with infantry and with basic lasguns having a -1 save mod, marines weren't really in a good place if forced to face down a horde with superior numbers. It was pretty glaring,
Now? It could be that the preponderance of S6-7, AP2 weapons devalues the basic marine. But it is just as likely that stacking of rules, free stuff, and various synergies have caused deathstars to become too effective for their relative cost. I'm personally leaning toward the latter, though basic marines do seem lackluster under the current system. Either way, if they are overcosted, it is not nearly so egregious as how undercosted the more powerful units are, and it doesn't approach the level it was in 2nd Edition.
Marine power lists in 2nd were more in spite of the basic list than because of it and they swam in a meta that had plenty of other contenders for "why would you design this?"
Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.
I don't think it was quite that extreme... I don't recall there being that much size difference between my usual 2000-point 2nd ed Marine army and their 1500-point 3rd ed equivalent. Although it was somewhat influenced by just how nuts you had gone with Wargear in 2nd ed, as options were greatly reduced in 3rd.
we have been playing 2nd edition a lot this year and teaching 3 completely new players and 1 7th ed hard core 'win with no friends' gamer (but he is a super cool guy and player...but 7th ed has made him choose that playstyle) . Most of our games have been 1500 or 1000 points. YOU CANNOT BUILD MANY BALANCED FORCES UNDER 2000 POINTS in 2nd ed. Before 3rd came out I really only enjoyed 3000 point games. When 3rd came out the standard 1500 point games had no HeroHammer characters so the actual model count went up by 20% when comparing 3000point 2nd ed vs 1500 point 3rd edition. My PDF 3rd edition tourney force had 102 models! Most 3000 point Marine forces would have about 40 models or so.
Hope that gives some perspective to those who were not there.
I"'ll buy into the game depending on how gw handles three things; hovering initiative (alternate activation), melee combat, and the progressing lore.
Other than that, what is there to say? GW's inability to get away from making gimmicky new space marines: the turd that won't flush, just when you think it's gone, back up it comes.
Everything that I've seen so far checks the "Needs a Fix" boxes I had written out before we started getting info on 8th edition, except one last thing that has dissuaded me from really playing 7th much. That would be the Missions. I liked the Eternal War missions in 6th but that was because only Troops could score so when the Big Guns Never Tire mission was rolled up it was fun to have Heavy Support units get a chance to score. 7th ruined that dynamic. Then came Maelstrom. Cool in concept but I've had TOO MANY games where I or my opponent just got lucky with drawing cards that allowed them to score easy and often leaving the game lopsided and boring. Bad taste in my mouth for sure. I hope Warhammer Community has an article on Missions very soon. Making the missions better will go a long way toward me remaining excited about this edition. Checking that last box of "Needed Fixes" could make this the most fun edition I will have ever played!
v0iddrgn wrote: Everything that I've seen so far checks the "Needs a Fix" boxes I had written out before we started getting info on 8th edition, except one last thing that has dissuaded me from really playing 7th much. That would be the Missions. I liked the Eternal War missions in 6th but that was because only Troops could score so when the Big Guns Never Tire mission was rolled up it was fun to have Heavy Support units get a chance to score. 7th ruined that dynamic. Then came Maelstrom. Cool in concept but I've had TOO MANY games where I or my opponent just got lucky with drawing cards that allowed them to score easy and often leaving the game lopsided and boring. Bad taste in my mouth for sure. I hope Warhammer Community has an article on Missions very soon. Making the missions better will go a long way toward me remaining excited about this edition. Checking that last box of "Needed Fixes" could make this the most fun edition I will have ever played!
Yeah no talk about missions just yet. Might be a good subject for a new thread if you wanted to start one.
Well you guys and GW did it. If I could change my vote I would. Definitely back to excited for 8th edition.
up the execution. Or they may not. Hard to tell, but the game wont be worse for them any more than it is worse for the other dozens of half-arsed ideas they've slung out over the game's history.
