As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

7th? Ew, no!

I'm super excited about 8th. Looks amazing so far!

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

From your wording it seems like 7th favors word bears in some way or do you have a codex that's going away? I'm just curious, but why are you not in a hurry to switch? Rules-wise almost everything i've seen of 8th makes it look like an easier, and much, much improved verison of 40K.

Not too likely, but I'm not setting my 7e books on fire or anything, so the option will still be there. I still have my 6e BRB and 6e codices for Space Marines, Tau, Eldar (and Daemons, but 6e=7e there), so I suppose I could go back to 6e if someone wanted a 6e game. I don't have any 2/3/4/5e books other than the 5e Dark Eldar codex, so I'm not too likely to be doing that.

I'm cautiously optimistic about 8e. I'll be looking things over pretty closely, and I'll give it a few test games even if my reaction to seeing the full rules in print is "this is garbage-flavored garbage with dumpster-fire icing". That's what I thought of Age of Sigmar, after all, but once the GHB came out I actually rather enjoy it.

God, no.

And don't the Word Bearers have the worst rules of all the Legions to boot?

Nah, even if they totally faff on Orks I can at least spend the next year trying to get a killshot on a Landraider with my Grots.

Not sticking with 7th but if my group don't like 8th when it comes out we are going back to 5th. It was when most of us started and when we had the most fun playing.

I'm being cautiously optimistic about the system so far. But some of the lore implications are making me worried, very worried. Depending on how that goes I'll just pretend we're still in a pre numarines age.

There's no guarantee 8-th is going to be good. But it's very unlikely it's going to be worse than a clusterfeth 7-th is now. Power creep has just gone out of proportion. It was passable at start but than all the formations and power releases brought it to the state of "almost as bad as 6-th". I've been enjoying heavilly restricted games though.

Even if 8th was another flurry into the idiocy that was the release of AoS, I'd still not play 7th.

No rules at all is better than 7th in my opinion. I've been trying to wrangle fun out of 7th for years, and I'm bloody done with it. It's a chore, not a game.

nope..

 ChazSexington wrote:
God, no.

And don't the Word Bearers have the worst rules of all the Legions to boot?

The Word Bearers do in fact have the worst Legion Tactic, mostly because they don't actually have one. Every other Legion has some variant of "models with Veterans of the Long War get a bonus" and the Word Bearers...don't. Their main advantage is a good Warlord table, a fairly flexible decurion, an extensive Psyker toolbox, and summoning.

Hell no

FunJohn wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

From your wording it seems like 7th favors word bears in some way or do you have a codex that's going away? I'm just curious, but why are you not in a hurry to switch? Rules-wise almost everything i've seen of 8th makes it look like an easier, and much, much improved verison of 40K.

I played Word Bearers before, and my army was rendered completely illegal when the Chaos Codex was updated by Gav/Alessio in 4th, also rendering Lost and the Damned lists illegal. Given the removal of summoning, the GW statement that "they will have rules for all available models" (aka, nothing about "no model units", like my Disc Lord or Palanquin Sorcerer), the removal of vast swathes of Psychic powers (aka no more Scrolls of Magnus) and what I assume will be a removal of Chaos Boons...

As others have noted, even if 8E ends up being bungled, 7E would not be the alternative, it's awful an needs to...not be a thing anymore.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

FunJohn wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

From your wording it seems like 7th favors word bears in some way or do you have a codex that's going away? I'm just curious, but why are you not in a hurry to switch? Rules-wise almost everything i've seen of 8th makes it look like an easier, and much, much improved verison of 40K.

I played Word Bearers before, and my army was rendered completely illegal when the Chaos Codex was updated by Gav/Alessio in 4th, also rendering Lost and the Damned lists illegal. Given the removal of summoning, the GW statement that "they will have rules for all available models" (aka, nothing about "no model units", like my Disc Lord or Palanquin Sorcerer), the removal of vast swathes of Psychic powers (aka no more Scrolls of Magnus) and what I assume will be a removal of Chaos Boons...

To be fair, relics were always subject to change during codex updates. Across all armies, though some more than others.
So even if we had gotten a codex in 7th, I wouldn't expect the scrolls to still be there.

I don't see them making a return in 8th due to TSons getting their own rules. If anything, TSons will be the only ones to get them.
And the daemonic mounts might be updated only as they release models. So no juggerlords, etc on release imho.
TSons got their discs though So I could see DG getting a palanquin too and the other two mounts will probably have to wait until emperors children and world eaters.
I just hope the non cult legions get some love too. They could get screwed over so as not to dilute the "factions".

Honestly, I feel that 7th did a lot right and other than "Free points" and certain power combos, the rest could be patched up without too much difficulty. 5th was the edition I got the most games in with (back when you could reasonably run a mechanized Ork army) but thems the breaks.

I do feel that one of the major aspects of 40k that needs tweaking is making psychic powers less "all or nothing" no matter what edition it is, but for all its flaws with deathstar-stacking, 7th at least creates a system of diminishing returns for psychic spam.

I feel if you're going to stick with an older edition...use a good one? 5th or 2nd or something. 7th is by far the "worst" I've ever seen 40K.

 Roknar wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

FunJohn wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

From your wording it seems like 7th favors word bears in some way or do you have a codex that's going away? I'm just curious, but why are you not in a hurry to switch? Rules-wise almost everything i've seen of 8th makes it look like an easier, and much, much improved verison of 40K.

I played Word Bearers before, and my army was rendered completely illegal when the Chaos Codex was updated by Gav/Alessio in 4th, also rendering Lost and the Damned lists illegal. Given the removal of summoning, the GW statement that "they will have rules for all available models" (aka, nothing about "no model units", like my Disc Lord or Palanquin Sorcerer), the removal of vast swathes of Psychic powers (aka no more Scrolls of Magnus) and what I assume will be a removal of Chaos Boons...

To be fair, relics were always subject to change during codex updates. Across all armies, though some more than others.
So even if we had gotten a codex in 7th, I wouldn't expect the scrolls to still be there.

I don't see them making a return in 8th due to TSons getting their own rules. If anything, TSons will be the only ones to get them.
And the daemonic mounts might be updated only as they release models. So no juggerlords, etc on release imho.
TSons got their discs though So I could see DG getting a palanquin too and the other two mounts will probably have to wait until emperors children and world eaters.
I just hope the non cult legions get some love too. They could get screwed over so as not to dilute the "factions".

How many armies were updated from 6th to 7th though? Afaik the big three are Space Marines, Tau and Eldar. SM didn't suffer any losses (and in fact got a bunch of new options) while Tau were a reprint with formations and tubsuits. Really, the only notable loss was the Eldar losing Mantle of the Laughing God, which was only being used to turn a Jetseer into the equivalent of a Psychic stealth bomber.

7 no, 2 yes. Don't see point switching to inferior one just cause gw wants to sell new bomks

7th edition was a decent ruleset but the Detachment/Formation bonuses were silly. Why do UMs get 500ish points of free vehicles for fielding a full battle company when Blood Angels do not?

The playing field needs levelling. The other changes in 8th sound mostly good with Deathstars being removed (or at least made harder to pull off). I am sure 8th ed will have its own issues as no system is ever perfect (or perfectly tested) but I am cautiously optimistic that the overall gaming experience will improve.

3rd edition for lyfe baby. Boring as it may be, everything was so much simpler.

I played 7th despite the rules. 8th looks to be a mile better. If it isn't, I'd probably play more Shadow War and make rules for my armies in Rogue Stars or another system rather than play 7th.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
3rd edition for lyfe baby. Boring as it may be, everything was so much simpler.

Huh. . . Why 3rd and not 4th? I always felt 4th was the "ironed out" 3rd with better codexes. If I had to choose, 4th would be my go-to.

 Purifier wrote:
Even if 8th was another flurry into the idiocy that was the release of AoS, I'd still not play 7th.

No rules at all is better than 7th in my opinion. I've been trying to wrangle fun out of 7th for years, and I'm bloody done with it. It's a chore, not a game.

Decades even...

Why would I ever stick with the worst edition of all time? I don't even understand the logic here, if you don't like 8th edition and want to stick with an older edition instead, then why not just pick 5th or 4th edition? I mean, if you had to choose to go back to any editions, why choose the worst?

Personally, I consider 6th the worst simply due to the whole "units in transports may not score" rule, but ymmv. If nothing else, 6th did come with a large set of FAQs to hard-reset a lot of rule inconsistencies. With 7th, Obsec versus a binary "scoring or nonscoring" was long overdue as well.

With 4th, I remember Marine Gunlines. The only thing you saw back then were 5-man lasplas Marine units, and transports were worthless unless you were a skimmer, simply because of Emergency Disembark even if the vehicle wasn't destroyed.

5th is probably the best overall but it still had a lot of weirdness as the result of 3 editions of rules interacting with each other.

No.

Nope.

No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
3rd edition for lyfe baby. Boring as it may be, everything was so much simpler.

Huh. . . Why 3rd and not 4th? I always felt 4th was the "ironed out" 3rd with better codexes. If I had to choose, 4th would be my go-to.

I own both Fish of Fury and Iron Warrior Ordnance Spam. I know the terrible power to be held there and never wish to unlock it again.

Granted, both were technically at the tail end of 3rd edition but still.

After trying to convince a bunch of people to stick with a 7e/8e blend for WHFB instead of abandoning the game when AoS hit I really don't think so. I may try and compose a 'greatest hits' edition (which would be mostly 4e/5e with back-fitted later-released models and some of the standardization from 7e and HH) but that's a long process and I don't know if I could get anyone to try it.

Nope. Not sticking with 7th ed. Good riddance.

Could be fun with a stroll through the editions with a 1500ish points selection. Not sure which army to take there. Wouldn't want hardcounter myself.

FunJohn wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

From your wording it seems like 7th favors word bears in some way or do you have a codex that's going away? I'm just curious, but why are you not in a hurry to switch? Rules-wise almost everything i've seen of 8th makes it look like an easier, and much, much improved verison of 40K.

Summoning rules change so he has to pay for the daemons he summons now.


If you want to stick with modern 40k; go 5th. If you want classic 40k; go 2nd.
7th was a bandaid on 6th which was a mistake from 5th.

 n0t_u wrote:
...If you want to stick with modern 40k; go 5th...

Though you may need to do something about psybolt, 35pt Rhinos, Musical Wounds, and the whole staple-Chapter-Tactics-to-the-special-characters mess.

(No edition is perfect, but 5th takes less patching than most.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
...If you want to stick with modern 40k; go 5th...

Though you may need to do something about psybolt, 35pt Rhinos, Musical Wounds, and the whole staple-Chapter-Tactics-to-the-special-characters mess.

(No edition is perfect, but 5th takes less patching than most.)

Yeh, by best it's probably meant it works the best out of them. I never played against the horror of mech guard more than once or twice but had melta heavy sisters with the witch hunters codex still so it wasn't that bad. Out of it all really the main annoyances were wound allocation shenanigans based.

Dear god no... 7th is by far the worst edition of 40k ever. Explosive power creep, army imbalance on a scale not seen in decades, pay to win models, formations that shatter the game.. just no. I mean, I get that you're mad because you actually have to -pay- for the daemons you summon now, but CSM - legions, renegades, cults, etc. are in the worst place they've been in years. I can't believe you'd actually want to stay with this edition. I have TS and NL, and even with the WoM book, TS are completely shafted. CSM have horrible rules, worse units and over-priced, under-performing units littering our codex/supplements.

I would never - NEVER - stay with 7th.

Nope, I didn't like 6th and while 7th did smooth over some of the issues I really never got into it.

8th seems much more promising.

If 8th bombs I'll likely go back to 5th or homebrew with 2nd.
Wont stick with 7th though - too much bloat and randomness in it.

Breng77 wrote:
No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Will definitely switch.

It would be nice not to have to worry too much about making a broken list when playing casually. I'm tired of holding back the dogs of war a bit. There are a lot of cool models in my collection at this point that don't see the table, simply by way of request of my opponents, which i happily honor.

I will miss the psychic phase. Not some of the powers (summoning, invisibility, other cheese), but by in large when people play a casual game the phase is actually really well designed. That said, they could speed up power generation by simply letting you pick your powers in 8th.

And, of course, game speed. If the game is faster, i'm all for it.

 Vryce wrote:
Dear god no... 7th is by far the worst edition of 40k ever. Explosive power creep, army imbalance on a scale not seen in decades, pay to win models, formations that shatter the game.. just no. I mean, I get that you're mad because you actually have to -pay- for the daemons you summon now, but CSM - legions, renegades, cults, etc. are in the worst place they've been in years. I can't believe you'd actually want to stay with this edition. I have TS and NL, and even with the WoM book, TS are completely shafted. CSM have horrible rules, worse units and over-priced, under-performing units littering our codex/supplements.

I would never - NEVER - stay with 7th.

4e CSM were borderline unplayable. I honestly don't get why people forget how horrid the Gavdex was.

morgoth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

The one where 'rounding errors' exist. Also the one where a lot of the things that make 7th annoying started life in 6th.

Nope. I played 2-4th Edition, and left when 5th came out. I never dreamed of coming back until I started reading up on some of these rule changes, and seeing some of the changes GW have been making as a whole. Very promising stuff!

morgoth wrote:


7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Obviously not the alternate timeline where 7th is actually worth a damn.

 Luciferian wrote:

morgoth wrote:


7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Obviously not the alternate timeline where 7th is actually worth a damn.

Clearly 8th is going to be better, but I don't see why people hate so much on 7th when it was so much better than 6th...

7th as a narrative rules systems functions well enough. It's almost a sandbox game. The codexes on the other hand... those are horrid.

I dunno right now.

morgoth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

morgoth wrote:


7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Obviously not the alternate timeline where 7th is actually worth a damn.

Clearly 8th is going to be better, but I don't see why people hate so much on 7th when it was so much better than 6th...

Which still wasn't as good at 5th sadly.

morgoth wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

morgoth wrote:


7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Obviously not the alternate timeline where 7th is actually worth a damn.

Clearly 8th is going to be better, but I don't see why people hate so much on 7th when it was so much better than 6th...

both editions were major missteps. 7E and 6E both had major core issues, but as many issues as 7E fixed from 6E, it doubled down on others or simply mucked up the transition (e.g. Big Guns Never Tire mission, where in 6E the extra bonus for killing HS units was balanced with HS units getting to score, while in 7E everything could score so HS units were just a liability because they never thought about the missions). 7E also had even more randomness and even worse codex balance, coupled with insane army construction rules, allowing for power combos beyond what any edition has seen before.

Really, both 6E and 7E are the low points of this game's history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Vryce wrote:
Dear god no... 7th is by far the worst edition of 40k ever. Explosive power creep, army imbalance on a scale not seen in decades, pay to win models, formations that shatter the game.. just no. I mean, I get that you're mad because you actually have to -pay- for the daemons you summon now, but CSM - legions, renegades, cults, etc. are in the worst place they've been in years. I can't believe you'd actually want to stay with this edition. I have TS and NL, and even with the WoM book, TS are completely shafted. CSM have horrible rules, worse units and over-priced, under-performing units littering our codex/supplements.

I would never - NEVER - stay with 7th.

4e CSM were borderline unplayable. I honestly don't get why people forget how horrid the Gavdex was.

well, it was playable, it just wasnt terribly fluffy or fun for most CSM factions. I did quite well with the book, particularly in early 5E (mechanized CSM's in rhinos with icons and deep striking termi and oblit squads synergized really well then and worked as an "Iron Warriors" fluff list) but it lacked any sense of soul for the faction as a whole and lacked options for proper fluffy units, particularly for Cult Legion armies.

No.

I have a couple concerns about the 8th ed rules hints, but I'm waiting to see how the body rules is handled.

But, in general, I like it so far. Most of all, I like tossing out formations, the rending AP system, and no more free units (e.g. summoning).

Though, I can honestly sympathize for a CSM player who wanted to get some more mileage out of the traitor's legion book you guys have been wanting for years.

For orks, though, it would be kind of hard to do worse than 7th. Not that they won't try, I'm sure.

morgoth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

Ummmm...the one where it released May 24 2014, it is now May 2017...so it has been out 3 years in about a week. Which timeline are you from. Until recently I played 1 Apoc game between July 2014 and April 2017, so that would be July 2014-July 2016 (2 years) + August 2016 - March 2017 (8 months). SO 2 years 8 months with 1 game. So 2 years was actually pretty generous.

Beyond that 7th was worse than even 6e (which at least started ok before going into the trash), 7e was bad pretty much from the start, and then added tons of rules upon rules. To be fair it may have gotten better after I stopped playing, but to me it took the things I hated about 6e and made them worse. Psychic phase, tons of shooting, adding super heavies.

I enjoyed 7th for what it was. There was lots of ways to build armies, and between 6/7th we had tons of additional forces get added, including Genestealer Cults.

However I'm looking forward to seeing the new rules. I mean, they managed to make Rubric Marines look attractive for the very first time.
Plus it isn't gonna be expensive to get into, which is the key part for me.

Nope, in fact just looking at the new rules they have been leaking, i'm certain I won't play another game until the new edition drops. I can't bring my self to go through 7th ed again.

vaktahi wrote:well, it was playable, it just wasnt terribly fluffy or fun for most CSM factions. I did quite well with the book, particularly in early 5E (mechanized CSM's in rhinos with icons and deep striking termi and oblit squads synergized really well then and worked as an "Iron Warriors" fluff list) but it lacked any sense of soul for the faction as a whole and lacked options for proper fluffy units, particularly for Cult Legion armies.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

Spawn? Unplayable. Slow and Purposeful, and stupid to boot. They *had* to charge the closest enemy, even if said enemy was a Dreadnought.

Dreadnoughts? Unplayable. You always rolled Crazed, no matter what, you had to shoot the closest dudes (including your own guys), and RAW fights took place over whether it could TLOS out its own ass.

Noise Marines? Unplayable. 25 points for a storm Bolter marine that fires an extra shot if stationary?

Rubric Marines? Even more unplayable. You had to pay extra for a Psychic power that didn't synergize with the rest of the guns and jacked costs up further. For all the badness of 7e Sons, you can at least generate a Warp Charge and occasionally roll a decent power.

Possessed? Even more unplayable. One D6 pregame to determine their power. They couldn't even Outflank since you had to deploy before they got to roll Scouts.

Remember 33-point Chaos Bikes, 20-point Autocannons for Havocs, etc? It was truly a dark age.

Oh yeah, and no marks. Only Icons. Snipe (or "torrent of fire") the Icon Bearer, and your Khorne Marines would go "blood for the blood...Bob?"

Really, cheap Daemon Princes and cheaper Defilers were the only thing that codex had over the current one.

To be fair, most of those units werent any better in the 3.5 codex either. Rubric Marines weren't particularly great (they had 2 wounds but no invul or AP3), Bikes were similarly expensive, Raptors were like 27ppm, possessed were even worse, dreads were still pointlessly unreliable, etc. The 4E book didnt create those issues it just took away most of the stuff that made them interesting like proper Marks and the like

I might be able to get some games under 8th. So I'm looking forward to it.

I'm going to give 8th edition a shot. Hoping that it'll simplify things without killing tactical depth.

Currently the amount of preparation I have to put into 7th edition games is equivalent to the amount of effort I put into prepping for a day of airsoft, which is just too much for what it is.

God no, let this monstrosity die. Sorry you don't get 5000pts of free daemons every game now but you being butthurt about having to play fair isn't a very good reason to keep going with the dumpster fire 7th ended up as.

ERJAK wrote:
God no, let this monstrosity die. Sorry you don't get 5000pts of free daemons every game now but you being butthurt about having to play fair isn't a very good reason to keep going with the dumpster fire 7th ended up as.

5000 points...projecting much?

Nope.

Can't wait to play Nu-hammer

Nah. Seventh wasn't that great.

7th is definitely the worst edition I've played. No way am I sticking with this garbage. I think 8th looks pretty darn good, so far.

lol no.

If I'm going to play an older edition of 40k, it'll be 5th. 8th looks like it'll be playable, though I'm waiting on full point listings to see if the balance is any good. I'm enormously pleased formations died.

Nope, 7th is rather terrible IMO. The reality that an AoS version of 40k is probably several times over more playable than 7th is rather sad but just speaks to how little it gets played anymore where I'm at. It makes a lot more sense to AoS 40k than it did with fantasy. Besides, the background is still there, and it's at least the same type of game still.

Played 5th and 7th. 5th was fun but I feel most people here are looking through rose tinted glasses. It had many of its own problems.

I don't know if I will switch to 8th ed or drop out though.

Things I'm excited for in 8th ed
Model Degradation
Movement skill
AOS style morale losses
The removal of gargantuans and SHVs
The new cover system
Multiple Damage system

Things I dislike about AOS
The loss of Armor facings (could've just given vehicles different toughness's for facings

The weapon skill hit mechanic, a grot now hits a marine the same as it hits a bloodthirster.

I dislike the loss of the initiative stat

The loss of templates also makes me sad (muh salamander flamers ;_

So I'll give it a try, but I dunno

My Emperor's Children's think 8th is going to be such sweet cacophony compared to the dirge of despair that was 7th!

No, I won't miss being eiter OP (eldar) or underpowered (CSM/GK (pure no allies).

I really hope they buffed power armour CSM because I just don't like cultists.

8th edition this far has better rules then anything we've seen in 7th thus far, so nah.

If Word Bearers are the army that gets hit the worst in 8th, I think I can live with that.

But seeing as we don't know if they have or not it would be better to wait and see.

 andysonic1 wrote:
If Word Bearers are the army that gets hit the worst in 8th, I think I can live with that.

But seeing as we don't know if they have or not it would be better to wait and see.

...so...you can live with what has been arguably one of the worst Legions of what was arguably one of the worst armies in 40k getting hit the worst. Sounds reasonable enough.

This should be a Poll.

YES - I hate tactics, sticking with 7E
NO - I'm moving to 8E
NO - if I'm doing Oldhammer, I'm playing 3E-5E
NO - if I'm really doing Oldhammer, I'm playing RT/2E
NO! - Ima ragequit and burn my modelz

I'll probably be playing 8E for when we still play 40k.

As a tyraniid player ill definitely be getting into 8th. Finally looks like ill be able to get mileage out of monstrous creatures that dont fly and gaunt units could be really useful. Plus i think the command point system is a fantastic idea if implemented correctly.

I think i would stick with 7th if things go as they are. Perhaps play on tabletop simulator and do genestealer cults or something (right now i do dark eldar).

I think the game needs some serious house rules. Disallow Gargantuan and Super-heavy, no Gathering Storm models, no Formations, no inter-faction armies (imperial bro-force, tau-dar and all eldar factions i'm looking at you) and only allow Bound armies. That would actually probably balance the game out considerably even with a bunch of riptides. Really depends on what the players agree with.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Disallow Gargantuan and Super-heavy, no Gathering Storm models, no Formations, no inter-faction armies (imperial bro-force, tau-dar and all eldar factions i'm looking at you) and only allow Bound armies.

Sooooo basically you would stay with 7th, as long as it doesn't include any of the things that make it 7th?

 Luciferian wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Disallow Gargantuan and Super-heavy, no Gathering Storm models, no Formations, no inter-faction armies (imperial bro-force, tau-dar and all eldar factions i'm looking at you) and only allow Bound armies.

Sooooo basically you would stay with 7th, as long as it doesn't include any of the things that make it 7th?

Would hull points for tanks still be super bad? Sides formations and super huge models aren't a good thing for 40k. Gargantuan and super-heavy were never meant to be in normal 40k. I'd only do customized 7th because then most of the army book rules can stay fairly the same and currently it's what people are playing so not much going back in 40k history. We also still get plenty of options.

Course doing this would probably nerf tau a lot but not so much for space wolves. I suppose a friendlier game would be nice with certain restrictions. Keep the stupid units at home.

jade_angel wrote:I'm cautiously optimistic about 8e. I'll be looking things over pretty closely, and I'll give it a few test games even if my reaction to seeing the full rules in print is "this is garbage-flavored garbage with dumpster-fire icing". That's what I thought of Age of Sigmar, after all, but once the GHB came out I actually rather enjoy it.

That's my assessment of 7th edition.

And Shadow Wars.

That game is terrible.

Even with those changes you'd still have at the very least:

-Almost all vehicles are completely useless
-melee armies are heavily disadvantaged against gunlines
-psychic powers are unreliable and inconsistent in strength, ranging from total dogshit (pyromancy) to game changingly broken (invisibility, summoning)
-warlord traits and formations are inconsistent in strength, ranging from total dogshit (your warlord has fear) to game changing (give half your army infiltrate!)
-USR bloat, with some straight up overlapping or referencing other USRs

7th edition really was a piece of gak with basically no redeeming qualities.

morgoth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

The one where we can actually do math and figure out that there's 3 years between may 2014 and may 2017.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
7th edition really was a piece of gak with basically no redeeming qualities.

QFT!

It's unbelieveable that anybody is defending 7E when it's obviously gak.

Considering the rules are bloated, certain armies are clearly better than others, certain units and play styles are just unusable...no I will definitely play 8th. Plus rules are free and will be updated

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Even with those changes you'd still have at the very least:

-Almost all vehicles are completely useless
-melee armies are heavily disadvantaged against gunlines
-psychic powers are unreliable and inconsistent in strength, ranging from total dogshit (pyromancy) to game changingly broken (invisibility, summoning)
-warlord traits and formations are inconsistent in strength, ranging from total dogshit (your warlord has fear) to game changing (give half your army infiltrate!)
-USR bloat, with some straight up overlapping or referencing other USRs

7th edition really was a piece of gak with basically no redeeming qualities.

Obsec versus binary scoring. Diminishing returns on psykers. Allowing armies to get past non-scalable Force Organization charts (Lictorshame, Realspace Raider lists, etc, would have been impossible in previous editions). A consolidated Psyker Phase cleaned up warp charge bookkeeping while allowing "move-shoot-move" options to armies besides Tau or Eldar. Summoning itself is "good" but was never a gamebreaker (no LVO or NOVA top list for 7th was won due to summons), and focus/Primaris remain usable. Vehicles became far more usable compared to 6th, simply because troops can actually score in transports; the largest complaint here would be that the game favors HP-scrubbing over smaller numbers of hi-strength AP weapons, and that's fairly easy to tweak otherwise.

Plus this was an edition that brought back Genestealer Cults and added Admech armies.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
God no, let this monstrosity die. Sorry you don't get 5000pts of free daemons every game now but you being butthurt about having to play fair isn't a very good reason to keep going with the dumpster fire 7th ended up as.

5000 points...projecting much?

1000pts a turn. If you don't do it it's certainly not because you CAN'T.

Whoopedy feth.

7th edition caused me to quit 40k, having played since late 2nd. I'm not one of the "2nd's the best thing evvah!" because it wasn't. It was a poor game. 3rd was a better game. I liked 5th / Pre-Knights 6th edition best, myself. I liked the small bit of allies that made armies more flavourful.

But 7th edition is just the worst, steamiest, pile-iest of gak to have come from a company known for making nice models and turd-smeared rules. The game made me start Warmahordes. Which I'm grateful for, because it's a fun game. 7th is just a ball-breaking chore of a way to spend time. It is not fun.

If 8th bombs, I'd play 8th. If my friends wanted something else, I'd suggest a mix of 5th / 6th rules, and creating a point-modifier for formations... but I would NEVER play 7th again. I liked the separate Psychic phase but all of the rest of the rules were garbage.

Just so that i don't have to endure the horrid experience it is to just wait while the other guy plays his Psychic phase with nothing to do, i'd switch to 8th right now if i could.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Obsec versus binary scoring.

Did nothing positive for the game- all it did was make codices with strong or spammable troops choices stronger then codices without, furthering the divide in balance. It was a poorly made bandaid for a problem that it itself created- if troops were actually good units then players wouldn't need an arbitrary incentive to take them.

Diminishing returns on psykers... a consolidated Psyker Phase cleaned up warp charge bookkeeping

Addressing a problem that didn't exist. Psykers were fine in 5th edition.

Allowing armies to get past non-scalable Force Organization charts (Lictorshame, Realspace Raider lists, etc, would have been impossible in previous editions).

Every edition has its unique builds- ultimately meaningless- and 7th edition at competitive levels was just as "Metahammer 40K" as any other.

while allowing "move-shoot-move" options to armies besides Tau or Eldar.

MSM is a cancerous mechanic that should never have existed- this is not a plus.

Summoning itself is "good" but was never a gamebreaker (no LVO or NOVA top list for 7th was won due to summons),

It was absolutely a game-breaker- banned in many tournaments and probably THEE most complained about mechanic in the edition.

Vehicles became far more usable compared to 6th, simply because troops can actually score in transports

Only for factions that could get them for free, ala Marines, and transports becoming marginally more useful does nothing for the tanks and walkers, which make up more then half the vehicles in the game.


God, thanks for reminding me how gak it was. I'm somehow even more optimistic for 8th.

7th has become bigger and more bloated than a plague-grandmother's ankles on an 24 hour long flight. Type to pop the cyst and jump into 8th.

BlaxicanX wrote:It was absolutely a game-breaker- banned in many tournaments and probably THEE most complained about mechanic in the edition.

That's odd. I'd imagine that would be universal Ranged D on Eldar (hence ITC D), or unmodified Invisibility. Or unmodified Maelstrom. And it was not banned for LVO or Nova.

BlaxicanX wrote:Addressing a problem that didn't exist. Psykers were fine in 5th edition.

The last 5e Nova tournament ended with Draigo dying to Jaws of the World Wolf, and Njal single-handedly destroyed most of Dash of Dashofpepper's Venom spam army with a single Chain Lightning. So...yeah.

Not to forget No Retreat rules from that edition, or 50% cover allowing for absurd conga-lines. Thanks for actually making me take off the rose-tinted 5e glasses.

not sticking with 7th, dont much care for it. but from what I have seen of 8th, no way in hell I am going over to that "AoS style" turd fest. gonna stick with SW:A

No sarcasm here and I started with GW in 87...I ike 7th for what it is, I took a break from 1,2,3 and 4th ed and finally got back into 7th about a year and a half ago and really enjoy it for what it is. For me it has a very beer n chips feel to it but retains ckunky complicated aspects of rt and 2nd ed. It's far from perfect but my group plays for fun anyway. I really enjoyed the return to hard cover book format which has not really been seen since 3rd whfb and rt. I sure hope 8th is not going to be using the art style from the trailers, because that's some of the ugliest non fitting art I've seen GW use....ever, looks like something some kids came up with over on newgrounds.

I blew about $1500 before aos came out and don't regret it for one minute, I stuck with 8th and will continue to. The art alone for AOS turned me off with how crap it is ( khorne bb are awesome count as updated for chaos in 8th though ). And so far 8th is making me feel the same, the rules itself may be ok of course but no way I would blow money on that softcover animu furry monstrosity edition.

GW art of late is definitely...unimpressive for sure. A lot of it looks far more suited to World of Warcraft or League of Legends (and some of the models are following suit), and in general is more and more rote exact duplication of plastic kits.

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW art of late is definitely...unimpressive for sure. A lot of it looks far more suited to World of Warcraft or League of Legends (and some of the models are following suit), and in general is more and more rote exact duplication of plastic kits.

There is a reason for this and while it's technically not to topic I totally agree, i won't claim 7th art is anything amazing vs GW and TSR golden days, but some of it is OK some is good and a whole lot of it is total crap.

To make a long story short, during the late 70s and 80s and early 90s, TSR and GW ( being mostly the two big powerhouses next to fasa ) had money to hire real traditional high end quality artists, GW also happened to snag a number of very high end traditional artists from the uk who were young ( anyone remember the youngartists copyright on the backs of books of GW ?? ), once the early 2000s hit the filthy ugly modern degenerate era of plastic rushed amateur art was applauded and pushed as all the rage. Every kind of fantastic deviant art photoshop fake painting was regurgitated out constantly, and it's remained that way mostly ever since.

Personally I cant stand that art and I noticed it from the day it happened and it's never really had any impact on me other than....stop fing the dog and pull up guys, they are not exactly mail order anymore, if they can do high production books they can hire some young TALENT ( key word ) vs cookie cutter one trick pony fresh out of digi art class types.

Some people will consider this harsh, I don't...art is for the elite and it should impress and the works of masters do impress and last the test of time. The mediocre should never be praised.




Adrian Smith art when GW had some REAL art.

This is where opinions differ I guess. I personally prefer the cleaner style of AoS and the more current artwork over those pieces. They seem busy to me. Also fetishitic but I think that's intended.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This should be a Poll.

YES - I hate tactics, sticking with 7E
NO - I'm moving to 8E
NO - if I'm doing Oldhammer, I'm playing 3E-5E
NO - if I'm really doing Oldhammer, I'm playing RT/2E
NO! - Ima ragequit and burn my modelz

I'll probably be playing 8E for when we still play 40k.

Not biased poll nope.

I am on board with going back to 5th Edition War Hammer 40'000 if 8th Edition Orks & Grey Knights are no fun.

I had a blast in 5th Edition playing Orks & a Grey Knight/Inquisition Force.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

The last 5e Nova tournament ended with Draigo dying to Jaws of the World Wolf, and Njal single-handedly destroyed most of Dash of Dashofpepper's Venom spam army with a single Chain Lightning. So...yeah.

Not to forget No Retreat rules from that edition, or 50% cover allowing for absurd conga-lines. Thanks for actually making me take off the rose-tinted 5e glasses.

4+ cover save everywhere, diversified wound allocation, horrible messy way IC's worked in close combat...yeah, 5th ed as a ruleset wasn't all what it is made up to be now. And 4th edition grognards whined about it in every turn.

7th Ed. as far as basic rules go would be pretty easy to fix, hopefully somebody will as I sure as heck won't be playing 8th. Alas, the 7th edition Codices are a total mess.

ERJAK wrote:
This is where opinions differ I guess. I personally prefer the cleaner style of AoS and the more current artwork over those pieces. They seem busy to me. Also fetishitic but I think that's intended.

Cleaner is not so much what I would describe aos as, and from what I have seen of the trailers ( this may not be the DESIGN of 8th just amateur slapped together vids ) it's about the most unrelated style of 40k ever. The aos logo itself is quite poor and childish, outright cartoony...and looking back whfb and 40k always were outside of the typical boring americanized childish high fantasy, it was always over the top grimdark and a very gritty setting for both.

It's why I hated the red period so much and seems like the majority of the staff disliked it too once ansell sold it all and it turned into the prim and proper circus it has other than the last year, which is a bit of a good things I would say.

Meh.

My perspective (from my FLGS meta) is that 7th put far too many bonuses to armies that should have been buffed, left others behind (power wise) or simply broke the game by giving ridiculous bonuses or hundreds of extra points for free.

I guess I'm lucky that my FLGS has an unwritten rule: you only cheese if both of you agree to cheese. I'm quietly hopeful that 8th us more streamlined, less bloat, some resemblance of balance and fun. Remember fun?

So yeah, I won't miss 7th, some was good, lots was wrong and some VERY wrong, but I only played 1000pts or less, so I guess I avoided most of the craziness.

morgoth wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
No 7th was my least favorite of all the editions I have played. To the extent where I took almost a 2 year break in playing. The down turn for me started at the end of 6e with more RPS match-ups, deathstars, and uber shooting. I can't wait for 8th. I think the game needs a reset. Will things be perfect right away? no. But they have a much better chance than sticking with 7e. Throw in that I think moving away from the codex model was a much needed change for balance and I will change tomorrow if the edition drops.

7th hasn't been out for two years.
In which alternate timelines do all you 7th-haters live?

From Wikipedia:
Announced in White Dwarf issue 15, pre-orders for May 17 and release date of May 24, 2014.

That's gonna be three years before 8th drops in the timeline I live in. What does it come to in yours?

I can't wait to jump ship to 8th on Day 1, 7th is a load of crap. And I wouldn't go back to an older edition either, there are a lot of core aspects that have been a part of the rules since 3rd that I am very glad they are finally changing for 8th (movement stats, armour modifiers, parity beteen MC's and vehicles, everyone gets split fire etc).

ERJAK wrote:
This is where opinions differ I guess. I personally prefer the cleaner style of AoS and the more current artwork over those pieces. They seem busy to me. Also fetishitic but I think that's intended.

AoS art is just a bland representation of a product. Is the exact opposite of intriguing and expanding, what the old art was. Exceptions are there, but few.
Also, there is some picture that is deviant-art level, as an example the maps. The quality is so low it's insulting. I am amazed people pay all that money for those books.

OP: I don't think I will play extensively, but I will probably give a shot to 8th. Nonetheless, I think I will organise games of 3rd and 5th with the old lads, and perhaps 6th for the FW player.

Generally speaking, I love how the thread devolved into which edition sucked less/more, with hints that we had a general devolution.
FYI, the authors of 8th edition are the same people that gave us all the priceless gems of the post-3rd 40k.

Well who else would write it? I think most of the 4th and earlier writers left.

My little group is sticking with 7th. We don't like the changes GW made with 8th,, are happy enough with 7th, don't really care to learn a brand new game, and above all don't want to spend more money on books when we've collectively invested so much in 7th edition codices and campaign material, all of which will become obsolete.

I think we'd all have at least given 8th a chance if it was backwards compatible with 7th codices.

We're a pretty tight-knit group that only really plays with each other, so we don't have to worry about keeping up with the rules in order to get a game.

I'm curious what my flgs players will do. I think many of the WHFB players didn't upgrade to AoS, so it will be interesting to see if that community upgrades to 8th.

 jasper76 wrote:
My little group is sticking with 7th. We don't like the changes GW made with 8th,, are happy enough with 7th, don't really care to learn a brand new game, and above all don't want to spend more money on books when we've collectively invested so much in codices and campaign material, all of which will become obsolete.

I think we'd all have at least given it a chance if it was backwards compatible with 7th codices.

I can see your thinking, but if they made it backwards compatible it would share all of the issues of the previous editions. Nothing would be rebalanced, things would either be invalidated through rules nerfing them, or become uber powerful through benefiting from the new rules. I'm happier to see some people not move to the new edition than to see the constant build of power creep for through all editions and a retention of the flawed codex model of releasing rules.

I'll be going whole hog 8th edition

No chance I'm sticking with 7th. I'm ready to flush that baby down the drain.

Breng77 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
My little group is sticking with 7th. We don't like the changes GW made with 8th,, are happy enough with 7th, don't really care to learn a brand new game, and above all don't want to spend more money on books when we've collectively invested so much in codices and campaign material, all of which will become obsolete.

I think we'd all have at least given it a chance if it was backwards compatible with 7th codices.

I can see your thinking, but if they made it backwards compatible it would share all of the issues of the previous editions. Nothing would be rebalanced, things would either be invalidated through rules nerfing them, or become uber powerful through benefiting from the new rules. I'm happier to see some people not move to the new edition than to see the constant build of power creep for through all editions and a retention of the flawed codex model of releasing rules.

We actually like 7th for the most part. Since we're a small group, we've been able to handle balance issues introduced by the codices by just talking to each other, not repeating mismatches, some basic house rules, etc.

I certainly don't begrudge anyone their decision to upgrade to 8th, I know that 7th is/was unpopular with alot of people on these boards.

Out with the old, in with the new.

Revenant78 wrote:

There is a reason for this and while it's technically not to topic I totally agree, i won't claim 7th art is anything amazing vs GW and TSR golden days, but some of it is OK some is good and a whole lot of it is total crap.

To make a long story short, during the late 70s and 80s and early 90s, TSR and GW ( being mostly the two big powerhouses next to fasa ) had money to hire real traditional high end quality artists, GW also happened to snag a number of very high end traditional artists from the uk who were young ( anyone remember the youngartists copyright on the backs of books of GW ?? ), once the early 2000s hit the filthy ugly modern degenerate era of plastic rushed amateur art was applauded and pushed as all the rage. Every kind of fantastic deviant art photoshop fake painting was regurgitated out constantly, and it's remained that way mostly ever since.

Yeah, huge quality difference, and the deviantart style stuff works for some things, but really feels off for 40k, the old school stuff by Blanche/Smith/England etc was fantastic and really defined the 40k universe, the newer stuff just feels...out of place and unimaginative, very "marketing-ey".

Shadow War and then 8th edition for me... goodbye Deathstars and broken Eldar / Tau ( I hope ).

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, huge quality difference, and the deviantart style stuff works for some things, but really feels off for 40k, the old school stuff by Blanche/Smith/England etc was fantastic and really defined the 40k universe, the newer stuff just feels...out of place and unimaginative, very "marketing-ey".

What, you don't think this took hours of care and devotion to create?

OK, maybe ten minutes of care and devotion.

 n0t_u wrote:
Well who else would write it? I think most of the 4th and earlier writers left.

Fair enough - I just think that expecting quality from the same people is.. well.. delusional.
People say "is not 7th edition". Well that's a quite desperate statement to be honest.
At best, it will be a decent ruleset with few annoying elements, that will be ruined by the codex writing, because of unbalances, incoherence and lack of vision.
At worst, it will be a poor model for a futuristic battle from the get-go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, huge quality difference, and the deviantart style stuff works for some things, but really feels off for 40k, the old school stuff by Blanche/Smith/England etc was fantastic and really defined the 40k universe, the newer stuff just feels...out of place and unimaginative, very "marketing-ey".

What, you don't think this took hours of care and devotion to create?

OK, maybe ten minutes of care and devotion.

Exactly. Look at the pose and proportions of the marine. And no, the wonkiness is not a conscious stylistic choice.

A major part of the problem is the player base itself. I know in the late 80s early 90s the majority of players I met at the few GW stores that existed, including also conventions that played all manner of rpg and wargames were not of the mindset of today, which mainly got created through the whole win at all costs tournament mentality...and through the constant emphasis on dif 40k forums to build the most hard as nails solid army lists.

I remember once meeting a guy back after the first daemonhunters codex came out for 3rd, and this guy would just not shut up about how powerful and unbeatable his grey knights army was, and the entire time I sat there saying...buddy I would not play you if you paid me, you are the kinds of swine who are doing damage to this game and enticing new players. 40k should be fun, wargames should be fun in general, not some ego tard stroke fest...that mentality would be no dif than trying to play an rts or fps with a semi god mode ability.

Since the start I've always been 100% about themed fun armies, I believe unbound is totally great for that and we already got that in 7th, it's mostly the same in 8th. I realize 7th ( and EVERY edition and I played 2nd a lot it turned into an overwatch snooze fest or with nades ) has it's problems, I realize many people started with this or that edition, but in reality they were all 40k as we have known it at it's core, rick has had little to do with it since 2nd I am pretty sure, but it's remained mostly that same core game with simply variations done to the rules.

Part of the problem is GW itself coming up with rules, not really bothering to playtest them that much, and yes creating some cheese to sell the newest plastic kits.

I think if players worked towards actually trying to have fun and make games friendly with out the @peen ego mentality that let's be honest...nobody gives a f about other than these miserable fks, then the overall attitude towards the game, the atmosphere, all of it would be far better.

You can either have fun or join the people who want to try and break it ( and the fun ) on the first day, in which case just reject them or don't complain.

Revenant78 wrote:
A major part of the problem is the player base itself. I know in the late 80s early 90s the majority of players I met at the few GW stores that existed, including also conventions that played all manner of rpg and wargames were not of the mindset of today, which mainly got created through the whole win at all costs tournament mentality...and through the constant emphasis on dif 40k forums to build the most hard as nails solid army lists.

I remember once meeting a guy back after the first daemonhunters codex came out for 3rd, and this guy would just not shut up about how powerful and unbeatable his grey knights army was, and the entire time I sat there saying...buddy I would not play you if you paid me, you are the kinds of swine who are doing damage to this game and enticing new players. 40k should be fun, wargames should be fun in general, not some ego tard stroke fest...that mentality would be no dif than trying to play an rts or fps with a semi god mode ability.

Since the start I've always been 100% about themed fun armies, I believe unbound is totally great for that and we already got that in 7th, it's mostly the same in 8th. I realize 7th ( and EVERY edition and I played 2nd a lot it turned into an overwatch snooze fest or with nades ) has it's problems, I realize many people started with this or that edition, but in reality they were all 40k as we have known it at it's core, rick has had little to do with it since 2nd I am pretty sure, but it's remained mostly that same core game with simply variations done to the rules.

Part of the problem is GW itself coming up with rules, not really bothering to playtest them that much, and yes creating some cheese to sell the newest plastic kits.

I think if players worked towards actually trying to have fun and make games friendly with out the @peen ego mentality that let's be honest...nobody gives a f about other than these miserable fks, then the overall attitude towards the game, the atmosphere, all of it would be far better.

You can either have fun or join the people who want to try and break it ( and the fun ) on the first day, in which case just reject them or don't complain.

To be fair, if you only ever play Fun, Fluffy, Friendly games (the three F's, as I call them) then you really don't have any idea just how unbalanced this game really is. Also, it's not your place to tell people how they should play or what their aims should be, and the impetus should not be on players to fix the design mistakes of the game's publisher.

Maybe I'm unreasonably optimistic, but I'm encouraged by the fact that GW actually engaged with some high-profile tournament organizers and got the community involved in play testing. I'm looking forward to 8th edition being much more balanced than 7th edition is - not that the bar is set very high by 7th. I'm eager to see how the different FOCs work out, and if they balance well by awarding/withholding Command Points. I'm looking forward to 7th's horrendous psychic shenanigans going away. I'm looking forward to vehicles having wounds and saves, and to heavy weapons that do multiple wounds when they hit. Most of all, I'm looking forward to a game that can be played faster than one can play 7th.

So, no, I'm not sticking with 7th.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Well who else would write it? I think most of the 4th and earlier writers left.

Fair enough - I just think that expecting quality from the same people is.. well.. delusional.
People say "is not 7th edition". Well that's a quite desperate statement to be honest.
At best, it will be a decent ruleset with few annoying elements, that will be ruined by the codex writing, because of unbalances, incoherence and lack of vision.
At worst, it will be a poor model for a futuristic battle from the get-go.

People are expecting quality based on reported testing by known players in the community.

Also the simultaneous release of codices and seeming lack of them going forward as a way to release new rules is promising as far as balance is concerned.

 Luciferian wrote:
[

To be fair, if you only ever play Fun, Fluffy, Friendly games (the three F's, as I call them) then you really don't have any idea just how unbalanced this game really is. Also, it's not your place to tell people how they should play or what their aims should be, and the impetus should not be on players to fix the design mistakes of the game's publisher.

No you misunderstand the points here, obviously winning and having a challenging game as players get better is fun and enjoyable also. I'm not talking about those sorts of situations, I'm not claiming 40k should be ( or any wargame ) as just a casual FFF 100% of the time, I realize the need for tournaments and that players will develop better tactics etc.

It actually is ALL our places to actually have a good time, to enjoy this game, tabletop wargaming is an in person ( mostly yes there is online programs I know ) social interactive experience. Supporting or applauding the kinds of players who intentionally choose to only make the most broken hard as nails list for pure win at all costs is NOT fun, it is NOT going to get people to want to play those people or have a good experience, and it is that mindset you will almost always see online in terms of army list input. You will almost never see anyone say "yea good choice here good choice there very fluffy list don't worry about putting a few extra melta guns in here and dropping those themed units", if you do it's very rare...even when people make it clear fluffy lists are that you almost always get someone telling them "drop this or that" and only for game advantage/winning %.

This mentality has got to the point that it's questionable WHY gw itself even bothers to put entries in codex books when people will simply say "shelve this use this". That is in fact due to that part of the community who are intentionally looking to make the above kinds of list and do all they can to find every weakness and broken thing in the game. That is not fun to a social interactive game. Competition is fine with me, tactics is fine with me, a mostly balanced ( as much as possible ) game is fine to me. Part of it is GW's fault and much of it is also the play base fault for simply going along with the WAC mentality vs choosing to reject that, if you continue to support that mentality...then you are forever going to face problems that everyone complains about in 7th ( and in other editions ).

Do you honestly think GW itself ( it's rules team ) intentionally wants people to play their games in a way that it's a complete broken mess and encourage everyone to pick the most absurd lists so they can win only ? yes they are in the business of selling models mainly and rules is an afterthought in the business context, but the game itself is meant to have some kind of reasonable balance and not someone bringing 10 of x most expensive kit to just win or make it so that someone is tabled at the start. Yea they have broken stuff with the formations I know but I think that is more to do with themed lists and giving bonus as a reward and selling more kits, many of the formations are in fact themed around some aspects or fluff side of an army, regardless if they are broken...due to lack of playtesting.

8th hopefully will fix a lot of the current problems and I'm fall rules if they are good and keep the spirit of 40k alive ( I have some doubts it will be this long term ) but it's also up to the social community of 40k players to set some examples and environment that promotes fun enjoyable AND challenging games, so that both newcomers and vets can enjoy it at those dif levels. Intentional exploitation and advantages that are simply game rules only and knowing full well that it's broken should simply be rejected for what it is, or come up with some house rules to combat that till GW fixes them... if they ever will or just make a new edition ( after 8 ) is up for debate even so called new gw.

Revenant78 wrote:
I'm not claiming 40k should be ( or any wargame ) as just a casual FFF 100% of the time, I realize the need for tournaments and that players will develop better tactics etc.

40k, as concepted and actually played, is FFF 99% of the time. Tournament play is such a tiny fraction of GW gaming it's not even funny. Talk about tail wagging the dog...

Well when AoS dropped i ignored it existed and kept playing WHFB 8th edition. Because AoS is a totally different game, and a style of game I had no interest in.

People will realize the same about 40k at some point. This isn't a new edition of the game. It's a totally different game that just happens to use the same models. Like playing poker or blackjack. They both use a deck of cards but are a totally different experience.

7th edition has it's problems sure, but when played for fun with friends, ignoring broken formations, it is fun. It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex. If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

This is a conversation that is going on all over the place, and I honestly get the frustration with broken, exploitative nonsense. Still I think the fault is with GW for designing a broken, exploitable game. If a video game is released with glitches or exploits that allow players to do something unintended to gain an advantage, the hope is that they will be patched out of the game, not that players will simply adopt the honor system.

Also, not everyone who makes a well-built list is trying to be a jerk and ruin everyone's good time just for the win. I, for example, wouldn't count myself as a WAAC type of player, but I can't help but optimize my list. It's just my OCPD in action.

 Tamereth wrote:
It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex. If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

wait, how is that unique to 7th? Every army in 5th had a codex too, they were just paperback and half the price with the same page count, or in the case of SoB, a free PDF.

Not seeing where 7th has a leg up on that count unless lots of expensive and heavy books are your thing.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is where opinions differ I guess. I personally prefer the cleaner style of AoS and the more current artwork over those pieces. They seem busy to me. Also fetishitic but I think that's intended.

AoS art is just a bland representation of a product. Is the exact opposite of intriguing and expanding, what the old art was. Exceptions are there, but few.
Also, there is some picture that is deviant-art level, as an example the maps. The quality is so low it's insulting. I am amazed people pay all that money for those books.

TBH, those were just some of the older maps. Newer one's are fairly good and detailed, specially Hammerhal Aqsha's.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex. If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

wait, how is that unique to 7th? Every army in 5th had a codex too, they were just paperback and half the price with the same page count, or in the case of SoB, a free PDF.

Not seeing where 7th has a leg up on that count unless lots of expensive and heavy books are your thing.

5th had several codexes that were at least one edition behind, including Chaos (both), Dark Angels/Black Templar (though they got a temporary lease on life with a FAQ giving them 5e Storm Shields/Typhoon/Cyclone Missiles), and Orks.

By contrast, every codex in 7th was either 7th or 6th+assorted updates.

A more annoying issue was that 7e can be divided into "pre-decurion" vs "post-decurion" armies, and Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights didn't get to join in on that party.

 Tamereth wrote:
7th edition has it's problems sure, but when played for fun with friends, ignoring broken formations, it is fun.

It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex.

If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

If you're playing for fun, with friends, then *any* edition is fun. However, playing 3E-5E is faster and less painful.

Wait, Squats got a 40k 7E Codex? And Sisters, too? When did that happen?

Dogs of War player here... I didn't get an Army Book in WFB 8E. Or 7E. Or 6E. Last time Warhammer Armies: Dogs of War was in print was 5E.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Revenant78 wrote:
I'm not claiming 40k should be ( or any wargame ) as just a casual FFF 100% of the time, I realize the need for tournaments and that players will develop better tactics etc.

40k, as concepted and actually played, is FFF 99% of the time. Tournament play is such a tiny fraction of GW gaming it's not even funny. Talk about tail wagging the dog...

This guy nailed it.

No let 7th edition burn the only reason I can see people sticking with it is if your playing tau or eldar.

Not a chance of me sticking with seventh. I eagerly await the arrival of the new edition.

 Megaknob wrote:
No let 7th edition burn the only reason I can see people sticking with it is if your playing tau or eldar.

Or Word Bearers. Or Black Legion. Or Deathwing. Or Drop Pod armies. Or Lictorshame. Or pretty much any army that was built around null or summoning or having choices of Psychic powers.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
... Or Deathwing.

I wouldn't presume to speak for other folks, especially not DW players. Deathwing don't need to be a null-deploy tele-spam army. Certainly they weren't prior to our 4th Edition codex in 2007 when we got hitched with a soft dependency on the Ravenwing that no one was asking for. Dualwing is neat, but that it became the only way to field DW properly was a terrible move, and 6th/7th just made it worse (especially when they made the RW viable enough to make folks question why they were taking DW in the first place).

This Dark Angles player is happy that the age of one-trick DW may finally be over. 6th and 7th wasn't really a keen edition for the Deathwing (none of them were if we're being honest). And I certainly wasn't enamoured with how the list played in either edition. So as a Deathwing player, good riddance. At the very least, 2W terminators is more than we've been willing to hope for in decades.

No idea whether terminators, let alone Deathwing will be good this edition, but so far they're looking more viable than they've been in any one previous. But I don't think I'd go crawling back to 7th if they end up being pants in 8th.

If 8th is bad, then I get my lazy arse back on writing my homebrew 2.5e and ignore GW for another while (I'll probably give it longer than 5 years next time just to be safe).

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex. If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

wait, how is that unique to 7th? Every army in 5th had a codex too, they were just paperback and half the price with the same page count, or in the case of SoB, a free PDF.

Not seeing where 7th has a leg up on that count unless lots of expensive and heavy books are your thing.

5th had several codexes that were at least one edition behind, including Chaos (both), Dark Angels/Black Templar (though they got a temporary lease on life with a FAQ giving them 5e Storm Shields/Typhoon/Cyclone Missiles), and Orks.

By contrast, every codex in 7th was either 7th or 6th+assorted updates.

To me that doesn't sound much different, except again, you paid twice as much and had to carry around a lot heavier bookbag.

Everything is either current or one edition behind. Sure one can argue for some of the expansion material bringing new stuff to some 6E books, but that's not a codex update, many didn't get much of any value, and there were far more design philosophy changes in 6E and 7E than through what 5E dealt with.

A more annoying issue was that 7e can be divided into "pre-decurion" vs "post-decurion" armies, and Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights didn't get to join in on that party.

That's part of that whole thing, the 6E/7E era books had toooooons of issues, making many effectively outdated in far less time than happened to any army in 5E (e.g. IG getting a *very* poor update in the last weeks of 6E, then having power levels ramped up massively in under a year and being way behind the curve, and getting bumpkiss for it through 7E).

To be fair, 5th ed was able to mitigate a lot of power escalation simply due to Rhino hulls being that much of a pain to kill off; you "could" in fact end up with a game where bad rolling has you stun the same Razorback 10 times. (Granted, this turned 5e into "suppression-hammer", at least until you ran into Grey Knight Psybacks). The fact that 4 of the 9 codexes released were Marine codexes probably also did a lot to make things appear more balanced overall. Those books did have their own issues too, and 5e was the edition that first really emphasized the wolfywolfwolfness of Space Wolves. That said, I miss the original Magna Grapnel rules from 5e Blood Angels (now, *that* was a tragedy of 7e rulewriting).

Since I skipped 40k between 5th and 6th, one thing I've wondered is: what exactly made the Guard dex for 6e a poor upgrade? The only glaring thing I can see are the point hikes for the Chimera and Vendetta, and Stormtroopers losing Special Mission Orders.

I dunno...it feels like the "core mechanics" of 7th were a decent halfway point between the annoying factors of 5th, and the overcorrections of 6th. Honestly, I feel like if some unit entries were "mix and matched" between codex editions that it wouldn't be too hard to level the playing field.

The only thing Guard really had going for them in 5th were cheap AV12 hulls. Vets were a good scoring option with 3x special weapons at a fair price, and Chimeras were resilient and packed decent firepower for the edition in 5th. The arty options (of which there were more in 5th than 6th) were almost all viable and many were excellent (Manticore especially).

The 6th ed codex made most of the good options more expensive (like Vendettas and Chimeras), didn't improve upon any of the gak units (everything in the elites section, most of the fast attack section), stripped most special characters, gutted the arty section, removed many important special rules from a bunch of units (lumbering behemoth for Russes and the tracking rule for Hydras), and eventually tried to smooth over the whole thing with a vastly underwhelming super formation that was a clear cash grab. The only workable formation was the arty one which made the already overpowered Wyvern into something even more ridiculous.

In short, it nerfed the good stuff, didn't buff the bad stuff, removed a whole lot of flavour, and gave us a single new arty worth taking that was a monstrous pain in the ass to resolve on the table.

It was gak.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
To be fair, 5th ed was able to mitigate a lot of power escalation simply due to Rhino hulls being that much of a pain to kill off; you "could" in fact end up with a game where bad rolling has you stun the same Razorback 10 times. (Granted, this turned 5e into "suppression-hammer", at least until you ran into Grey Knight Psybacks). The fact that 4 of the 9 codexes released were Marine codexes probably also did a lot to make things appear more balanced overall. Those books did have their own issues too, and 5e was the edition that first really emphasized the wolfywolfwolfness of Space Wolves. That said, I miss the original Magna Grapnel rules from 5e Blood Angels (now, *that* was a tragedy of 7e rulewriting).

5E wasn't by any means perfect and had some outrageous issues and awful fluff stuff, but 7E was just its own whole level of weird

Since I skipped 40k between 5th and 6th, one thing I've wondered is: what exactly made the Guard dex for 6e a poor upgrade? The only glaring thing I can see are the point hikes for the Chimera and Vendetta, and Stormtroopers losing Special Mission Orders.

Point hikes on those units coupled with points hikes on both types of command squads, removal of the Medusa, Griffon & Collossus entirely, Hydra becoming Open Topped and losing its "ignores jink" mechanic for no reason, Elites units remaining largely junk, loss of a bunch of characters like Marbo and Al'Rahem, and really the book felt like a response to some excesses of 5E IG rather than a "4 weeks away from 7E" forward looking book, particularly next to books that came out a mere half year later like Necrons.

I dunno...it feels like the "core mechanics" of 7th were a decent halfway point between the annoying factors of 5th, and the overcorrections of 6th. Honestly, I feel like if some unit entries were "mix and matched" between codex editions that it wouldn't be too hard to level the playing field.

the basic game mechanics had some good stuff in places (e.g. rapid fire rules vs 3E-5E rapid fire rules), but this was overshadowed by the glut of special rules, random rolls for random rolls, pointless microdetail (e.g. powersword vs poweraxe on an irrelevant IG sergeant in an irrelevant close combat challenge in a battle between tank companies...), insane army construction, terrible vehicle mechanics, poor missions (both Eternal & Maelstrom), and awful codex bloat.

Comparing it to video games ( mainly online competitive ones ) what generally happens is...if a dev makes something so broken or so exploited...they either 1 patch it ASAP or 2 if they let it go too long the games usually fails, dies or people stop playing . It would seem people have left 40k in general over the years, I don't think this is anything new with just 7th....those reasons can also be many.

GW has and does release faqs to combat certain things of varying natures, these releases themselves can be all over the place in terms of dates vs initial releases, unlike patches....as patches tend to come out very EARLY in a video games life in order make money/avoid total failure...perhaps FFXIV is an example as to waiting a long time and a total overhaul although that's an mmo not really competitive.

There is of course some similarities but I would claim in the case of video games it's usually rectified asap vs typical gw antics over the years, and their answer to problems has mostly been faqs...but more often than not simply a new edition and new army books, which becomes more of a repetitive domino effect.

I make no arguments that GW is the core of the problem over NOT fixing broken things in a timely manner, but I also stand by it being a certain mindset of the player fanbase itself, I fully understand that the so called tournament scene may be a drop in the ocean vs the actual literal entire playerbase. However one thing remains...the majority of list building online tends to follow the "best build possible", and any time you see "themed lists" posted, you almost always get replies of "drop x take this" and the only reason for that is winning based on the rules/mathhammer, not because that input is there for fluff reasons.

Can you even take a pure Deathwing army in 7th ? I thought due to the formation itself you would auto lose due to no models on the table turn 1, or has this been fixed ? I know you could in past editions but I was pretty sure you had to take something else with them just like ven dreads have to be in a pod for that.

And has there actually been any edition where all army books were for that specific edition/released ? I know 7th was the bandaid and not all codex were 7th releases, chaos stuff was all 6th other than the recent warzone and stuff like that the add on books, but csm, cd, and crimson slaughter were all 6th right ? kdk was 7th. Imperial Guard was 6th.

Ah right, 6th removed the Griffon, Colossus and Medusa. Forgot about that. The Colossus was "good on paper, meh in practice" but the other two had their place. Between that, removing DE and Ork special characters (rip Wazdakka/Zogwort) and axing Mycetic Spores (before making Tyrannocites), GW's policy of "no models=no rules" did not do anyone any favors. Gamers lost, GW lost, Chapterhouse Studios lost...all over legalese about 3rd party models due to a gap in rules and model releases.

Of course, Fire on My Target & Bring it Down got notably buffed, Vets were cheaper anyway (10 points cheaper, so really the same as the old Chimera team...it's not like you were using Krak Grenades...), so *shrug.*

Also, I almost never remember the Hydra tracking rule ever mattering in a 5e game I ever played. Eldar Bikes were already 3+ armor and gave 50% cover to Serpents/Falcons, while Tau had Disruption Pods, Ork Bikes had Exhaust Clouds, and Marine Land Speeders either hanged back with Typhoons or were suicidal Deep Strike...honestly, Hydra tracking ended up being a "rule that did nothing in most games I ever encountered them with.

KDK was only 7th on a technicality lol. Being copied pretty much 1:1 from the 6th source books. It's more of a pseudo dex really.

 Roknar wrote:
KDK was only 7th on a technicality lol. Being copied pretty much 1:1 from the 6th source books. It's more of a pseudo dex really.

Technically the same can be said of the Tau codex, as most of the rules were directly copied from the 6e dex as well.

It wasn't much of a codex really, more of a compilation of supplements. Those supplements partially did add new units though so...a 6.5 dex?
Although I suppose in that sense the new blood thirsters would play much the same roll for kdk.

I thought KDK was pretty good for what it was, a themed khorne warband that semi brought back the csm and daemons together ( with even more options vs 3.5 ) of the 3.5 glory dex ( or ok it was technically 3rd ed but was usable in 4th till 4th one came out which got the horror train rolling till now ). I know you could KINDA do this with allies anyway but after the circus bs after 3.5 we have not really been able to do a themed chaos list like that for ages now. It's not perfect but overall it seems it was well received.

If 8th is as much a watered down sheepfest that AoS is, I will sell off everything except for my one completely painted prized army and shelve it. I have been slowly downsizing my collection and focusing on other hobbies. I get more enjoyment from painting anyway, and worse case I could do contract painting to scratch that itch if necessary.

Yikes, I haven't played for a while but 7th ed must be bad if players are talking about 5th ed as some kind of golden age. I remember 5th as 'carparkhammer/parkinglothammer'.

There are issues with every version of the 3rd-7th era. Some stem from core mechanics and others from the codex balance. Due to perpetual codex creep and edition change, there hasn't really been any one time when the codex balance was fantastic.

If I had to go back to any previous 3-7 version it would probably be late 3rd with the trial assault and vehicle rules (although I'm not sure how easy it is to get your hands on those now) or 4th.

The balance in 4th wasn't terrible to be honest. Holo-falcons were annoying so if you're really concerned about them then you can just make the holofield an invulnerable save or something along those lines.

the same company that made the previous gak are making this one too. its not like they ever really learn their lesson.

Revenant78 wrote:

Can you even take a pure Deathwing army in 7th ? I thought due to the formation itself you would auto lose due to no models on the table turn 1, or has this been fixed ?

Indeed this is true. All units must be placed in Deepstrike Reserve.

 Luciferian wrote:

Revenant78 wrote:

Can you even take a pure Deathwing army in 7th ? I thought due to the formation itself you would auto lose due to no models on the table turn 1, or has this been fixed ?

Indeed this is true. All units must be placed in Deepstrike Reserve.

That's why you bring like 3 Dreads in Pods.

I know some people will complain about it not being only Termintors, but that looks boring on the table and Dreads look cool (plus they also got that small buff with getting 4 attacks as well, but yeah).

Ok so here is a serious question, let's forget ( in case this is part of the reason I don't know not to sound like some x files episode ) that GW may intentionally be making the rules far less than perfect each edition. Let's forget about their business practice also to sell more models...

Is it reasonable to say given GW's rather strange ways, that over the years...yes this includes rick and andy etc, that NONE of these "designers" have ever been competent enough or dare I say it...even cared enough to tweak and fix and do the very best to their ability to make 40k and army books balanced ? One would think working internally in the studio ( and being privy to things months ahead since they work along side the sculptors and create the units they sculpt later ) that they do discuss rules and units and so on with other designers.

Or is it a case that no mattere who is designing or working for them for the rules, that given human nature people will forever break the game ? or is it a case of just a total lack of serious playtesting ?

I know people for years claim GW never playstests or x designer is to blame for ww2 and many other things but what is the true reality here sarcasm and anger aside ? does anyone know truly ?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Revenant78 wrote:

Can you even take a pure Deathwing army in 7th ? I thought due to the formation itself you would auto lose due to no models on the table turn 1, or has this been fixed ?

Indeed this is true. All units must be placed in Deepstrike Reserve.

That's why you bring like 3 Dreads in Pods.

I know some people will complain about it not being only Termintors, but that looks boring on the table and Dreads look cool (plus they also got that small buff with getting 4 attacks as well, but yeah).

That or a small Ravenwing detachment as stated by someone earlier.

 Luciferian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Revenant78 wrote:

Can you even take a pure Deathwing army in 7th ? I thought due to the formation itself you would auto lose due to no models on the table turn 1, or has this been fixed ?

Indeed this is true. All units must be placed in Deepstrike Reserve.

That's why you bring like 3 Dreads in Pods.

I know some people will complain about it not being only Termintors, but that looks boring on the table and Dreads look cool (plus they also got that small buff with getting 4 attacks as well, but yeah).

That or a small Ravenwing detachment as stated by someone earlier.

Although pure deathwing itself vs what the last codex is I think is a bit questionable anyway. I think GW tried to sorta make the formations for the latest more themed to their structure, supposedly it's actually quite rare that deathwing suddenly shows up with tons of terminators, I mean I know they deathwing and ravenwing technically hunt the fallen but it would seem that GW kinda intends to be running DA as more of a mixed force or elements of each section rather than a pure section of one.

I could certainly see 2-3 squads of deathwing in a large da force or for a specific task....but an entire army of them like 6+ squads...hmm that to me is pushing it a bit. Don't get me wrong they may look cool on the table but even in 3rd I felt it was a tad off with it being 100% pure DW.

Revenant78 wrote:

Although pure deathwing itself vs what the last codex is I think is a bit questionable anyway. I think GW tried to sorta make the formations for the latest more themed to their structure, supposedly it's actually quite rare that deathwing suddenly shows up with tons of terminators, I mean I know they deathwing and ravenwing technically hunt the fallen but it would seem that GW kinda intends to be running DA as more of a mixed force or elements of each section rather than a pure section of one.

I could certainly see 2-3 squads of deathwing in a large da force or for a specific task....but an entire army of them like 6+ squads...hmm that to me is pushing it a bit. Don't get me wrong they may look cool on the table but even in 3rd I felt it was a tad off with it being 100% pure DW.

It's pretty easy to run pure Ravenwing, though. In any case, pure Deathwing would have been a pretty low tier army to play in 7th.

Revenant78 wrote:
Ok so here is a serious question, let's forget ( in case this is part of the reason I don't know not to sound like some x files episode ) that GW may intentionally be making the rules far less than perfect each edition. Let's forget about their business practice also to sell more models...

Is it reasonable to say given GW's rather strange ways, that over the years...yes this includes rick and andy etc, that NONE of these "designers" have ever been competent enough or dare I say it...even cared enough to tweak and fix and do the very best to their ability to make 40k and army books balanced ? One would think working internally in the studio ( and being privy to things months ahead since they work along side the sculptors and create the units they sculpt later ) that they do discuss rules and units and so on with other designers.

Or is it a case that no mattere who is designing or working for them for the rules, that given human nature people will forever break the game ? or is it a case of just a total lack of serious playtesting ?

I know people for years claim GW never playstests or x designer is to blame for ww2 and many other things but what is the true reality here sarcasm and anger aside ? does anyone know truly ?

Good question. I suspect that while they were aware of problems, they were following orders from upper management. Note that a good few of them left to start up their own rulesets. Kirby has been quiet of late, but back at the time he kept saying things that implied the models were the main focus and the rules were just a way of selling them. Paraphrasing a bit, but one quote was along the lines of - we make models that customers are grateful to buy from us. Jewel-like models of wonder or somesuch. I'd have to check my collection of annual reports to get the specifics, but it was usually along those lines. From that perspective, 'fixing' the current rules would be a waste of time and money when you could be focusing on creating new (and probably just as broken) rules to sell the customers. I've got the mba (i think that's what its called) of robin dews back from when it was freely available online (have to pay now), and it painted a less than stellar picture of the management system at the time. My interpretation of the whole period is that those who were keen on writing good rulesets left, and those who remained were happy to be company men and not worry about the quality of the rules. Wasn't the prospero burns (or whatever that boxed game was called) outsourced for the rule set? It doesn't paint a good picture of the talent remaining if it was.

I'm going off on a tangent here, so stand back. My question of interest is, has that really changed now that whatshisface has taken the reins? We keep hearing about Nu-GW, but apparently the verdict is still out on whether or not AoS is relatively balanced or being actively balanced as time goes on.

Anywho, that's my 2 cents.

Nah 8th edition can't get here soon enough for me. I can't wait to see if my garbage tier army actually becomes wait for it A LITTLE BIT COMPETITIVE?! I'd be nice to say win 1 out of 10 instead of 1 out of 100. And from what little I've seen my army might even shoot up to tourney eligible.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Ah right, 6th removed the Griffon, Colossus and Medusa. Forgot about that. The Colossus was "good on paper, meh in practice" but the other two had their place. Between that, removing DE and Ork special characters (rip Wazdakka/Zogwort) and axing Mycetic Spores (before making Tyrannocites), GW's policy of "no models=no rules" did not do anyone any favors. Gamers lost, GW lost, Chapterhouse Studios lost...all over legalese about 3rd party models due to a gap in rules and model releases.

Of course, Fire on My Target & Bring it Down got notably buffed, Vets were cheaper anyway (10 points cheaper, so really the same as the old Chimera team...it's not like you were using Krak Grenades...), so *shrug.*

Also, I almost never remember the Hydra tracking rule ever mattering in a 5e game I ever played. Eldar Bikes were already 3+ armor and gave 50% cover to Serpents/Falcons, while Tau had Disruption Pods, Ork Bikes had Exhaust Clouds, and Marine Land Speeders either hanged back with Typhoons or were suicidal Deep Strike...honestly, Hydra tracking ended up being a "rule that did nothing in most games I ever encountered them with.

The Hydra's ability was useful against skimmers, particularly Eldar (never really had a problem with screening jetbikes, they were mainly MSU spoiler squads that liked to stay out of sight) & Dark Eldar (where they were murderously effective), and through most of 6E before the update hit in the last few weeks against Flyers for the ~15 months or so they were very strong.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Ah right, 6th removed the Griffon, Colossus and Medusa. Forgot about that. The Colossus was "good on paper, meh in practice" but the other two had their place. Between that, removing DE and Ork special characters (rip Wazdakka/Zogwort) and axing Mycetic Spores (before making Tyrannocites), GW's policy of "no models=no rules" did not do anyone any favors. Gamers lost, GW lost, Chapterhouse Studios lost...all over legalese about 3rd party models due to a gap in rules and model releases.

Well the No Model No Rules.. Was forced on GW due to the Chapterhouse case, Because GW was suing 3rd parties for IP theft because they were making models for units that didn't have one

Revenant78 wrote:
Ok so here is a serious question, let's forget ( in case this is part of the reason I don't know not to sound like some x files episode ) that GW may intentionally be making the rules far less than perfect each edition. Let's forget about their business practice also to sell more models...

Is it reasonable to say given GW's rather strange ways, that over the years...yes this includes rick and andy etc, that NONE of these "designers" have ever been competent enough or dare I say it...even cared enough to tweak and fix and do the very best to their ability to make 40k and army books balanced ? One would think working internally in the studio ( and being privy to things months ahead since they work along side the sculptors and create the units they sculpt later ) that they do discuss rules and units and so on with other designers.

Or is it a case that no mattere who is designing or working for them for the rules, that given human nature people will forever break the game ? or is it a case of just a total lack of serious playtesting ?

I know people for years claim GW never playstests or x designer is to blame for ww2 and many other things but what is the true reality here sarcasm and anger aside ? does anyone know truly ?

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

 Megaknob wrote:

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

Don't get too excited. Even if the initial release is well balanced, plenty of ways to screw it over with subsesquent releases. AoS GH has been out less than a year and what I gather, balance issues have already surfaced.
I remember when 6th edition came out and nerfed Grey Knights and generally levelled playing field between the codices. First 6th edition Codices were hardly overpowered. Had GW finally learnt its lesson....? Yeah...well...

And cold hard fact is that power creep sells. Look at MtG.

Backfire wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

Don't get too excited. Even if the initial release is well balanced, plenty of ways to screw it over with subsesquent releases. AoS GH has been out less than a year and what I gather, balance issues have already surfaced.
I remember when 6th edition came out and nerfed Grey Knights and generally levelled playing field between the codices. First 6th edition Codices were hardly overpowered. Had GW finally learnt its lesson....? Yeah...well...

And cold hard fact is that power creep sells. Look at MtG.

AoS has some issues with balance yes, Tomb King Settra lists were painful, Fyreslayers were overcosted, something needs to be done a bit about Beastclaw's a bit.. But in general the balance is still better from worst to best compared to 7th. Main thing really is to fill out some of those tiny factions.

Along with seeing how well GH2 improves the balance.

Revenant78 wrote:
A major part of the problem is the player base itself. I know in the late 80s early 90s the majority of players I met at the few GW stores that existed, including also conventions that played all manner of rpg and wargames were not of the mindset of today, which mainly got created through the whole win at all costs tournament mentality...and through the constant emphasis on dif 40k forums to build the most hard as nails solid army lists.

I remember once meeting a guy back after the first daemonhunters codex came out for 3rd, and this guy would just not shut up about how powerful and unbeatable his grey knights army was, and the entire time I sat there saying...buddy I would not play you if you paid me, you are the kinds of swine who are doing damage to this game and enticing new players. 40k should be fun, wargames should be fun in general, not some ego tard stroke fest...that mentality would be no dif than trying to play an rts or fps with a semi god mode ability.

Since the start I've always been 100% about themed fun armies, I believe unbound is totally great for that and we already got that in 7th, it's mostly the same in 8th. I realize 7th ( and EVERY edition and I played 2nd a lot it turned into an overwatch snooze fest or with nades ) has it's problems, I realize many people started with this or that edition, but in reality they were all 40k as we have known it at it's core, rick has had little to do with it since 2nd I am pretty sure, but it's remained mostly that same core game with simply variations done to the rules.

Part of the problem is GW itself coming up with rules, not really bothering to playtest them that much, and yes creating some cheese to sell the newest plastic kits.

I think if players worked towards actually trying to have fun and make games friendly with out the @peen ego mentality that let's be honest...nobody gives a f about other than these miserable fks, then the overall attitude towards the game, the atmosphere, all of it would be far better.

You can either have fun or join the people who want to try and break it ( and the fun ) on the first day, in which case just reject them or don't complain.

What's this all about? If you're having fun with 7-th you'll sure as hell have fun with 8-th. In fact, you'll have fun without rules at all.

 koooaei wrote:

What's this all about? If you're having fun with 7-th you'll sure as hell have fun with 8-th. In fact, you'll have fun without rules at all.

Two things I have most fun in 40K are tanks and blast templates. Both of which are going away in 8th. Also, the game sounds seriously dumbed down - everything can move and shoot with everything. Doesn't leave much tactical choices for the shooting aspect. Basically it sounds like all tactical aspects of 8th edition are in the assault phase, like with AoS. That doesn't interest me in the slightest.

What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings?

Because sitting around waiting while you did the quantum mathematics of a group of Wyverns trying to see how many hits they get was so tactical and so much fun.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

The existence of blast weapons prevents players from doing stuff like running multiple units of troops blobbed together in Napoleonic musket blocks, encourages spreading out after Deep Strike, and gives practical purposes to Tank Shock or other ways to mess with your opponent's movement. Also as written, blasts in 8th can either target a character or a unit but never both at once.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
7th edition has it's problems sure, but when played for fun with friends, ignoring broken formations, it is fun.

It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex.

If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

If you're playing for fun, with friends, then *any* edition is fun. However, playing 3E-5E is faster and less painful.

Wait, Squats got a 40k 7E Codex? And Sisters, too? When did that happen?

Dogs of War player here... I didn't get an Army Book in WFB 8E. Or 7E. Or 6E. Last time Warhammer Armies: Dogs of War was in print was 5E.

Squats don't exist so don't count. Sisters of battle did get a codex, it's called imperial agents it has their whole army in it. When played using standard cad's and at lower points 1000-1500 points he balance between armys isn't too bad. Don't get me wrong eldar / tau are still strong, but it's the broken detachements that ruined the game for most people.

I will stick to 7th because HH (and I just bought Inferno! So DONT switch FW!), but my 40k armies will be going on to 8th (mostly because I played 5th before switching to WHFB, then AoS and then 30k). Unless it turns out to be worse than 7th, in which case all my xenos armies will get Heresified and I'll just play 30k.

If anything I'd go back to 5th edition

8th is looking promising so I want to give it a fair shake. If it does end up imploding though, I definitely think 5th would be a better pick for retro games than 7th.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

In other words, there are no tanks anymore - just generic monsters. Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

I honestly never thought I would play 40k again after 6th edition. Now I am strongly considering coming back with 8th.

Honestly anybody upset about Tanks not having facings is just bring upset to be upset.
Vehicles are just fething garbage, partly because of that along with other numerous problems. If it really upsets you THAT much you're being irrational.

Gave up on the car crash that was 7th, hopefull for 8th

Backfire wrote:
Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

You'll just have to settle for the actual advantages of flanking maneuvers instead of the ones the game mechanics gave you, you know, like people in real battles might.

Backfire wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

In other words, there are no tanks anymore - just generic monsters. Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

So.. because there's no armor values anymore, there's no reason to try & get units into the opponents backfield? What about distracting some of their shooting away from your front line? Tying up a heavy weapons squad in CC? Pushing them off an objective?

I'm starting to think the only reason people attempted to deep strike/outflank units was simply to have an easier shot at a vehicle. Sure, that's a valid decision to make, but it's not the only reason to get units into their lines. Dropping a melta squad into the sides/rear of a tank isn't a TACTIC - it's a GOAL. A tactic would be getting units back there to distract your opponent so you can move more freely up the battlefield. Flanking maneuvers are useful for so much more than getting side/rear armor on a tank. Once people start understanding that, the quicker we can move past this tired discussion of 'Whelp, vehicles only have a T value now, this game is gak.'

While the tactical element of facing on tanks was neat, there were major balance issues with it and having only a single unit type care about facing (when it could apply equally to many or all other units) was rather silly and pointless, and it didnt help that determining facing was not always easy with many vehicles.

I never got started with 7th. Bought the rulebook, saw that it was just 6th edition but with the stupid amped up to 11, and just never bothered with it.

I'll likely give 8th ed a go... And if it turns out to be as bad as it's starting to look (which is disappointing after the initial few sneak peeks looked rather promising) then I'll likely stick to playing 40K at home with friends, using a hybrid of 5th and 6th.

Never in a million years did I think I would hear a World Bearers player express their appreciation for 7e...

 insaniak wrote:
I never got started with 7th. Bought the rulebook, saw that it was just 6th edition but with the stupid amped up to 11, and just never bothered with it.

I'll likely give 8th ed a go... And if it turns out to be as bad as it's starting to look (which is disappointing after the initial few sneak peeks looked rather promising) then I'll likely stick to playing 40K at home with friends, using a hybrid of 5th and 6th.

I can't see you enjoying 8th. You've been militantly against pretty much everything that's been shown so far and, as much without judgement as is possible, that attitude is likely to heavily influence any games you play. It's unlikely you'll enjoy 8th even if it is good, just due to the 'anti-hyping' that's happened.

ERJAK wrote:

I can't see you enjoying 8th. You've been militantly against pretty much everything that's been shown so far and, ...

I really haven't. I had no issue with the statline changes, I like the weapon changes that have been shown so far, I've been advocating for years for vehicles to be shifted to having a Toughness like everyone else, and I love the look of the new Psychic rules.

If I've seemed to be overly negative about certain aspects, it's because they're things that I'm really not a fan of.

Hell no.

7th has terrible rules. The fact that anyone plays it is a testament to how popular and appealing the setting is.

 DarkBlack wrote:
Hell no.

7th has terrible rules. The fact that anyone plays it is a testament to how popular and appealing the setting is.

Not exactly

Every edition of both whfb and 40k were played, the simple reason is 1 GW stores enforce you play the current edition and most FLGS go along with that ( although they still allow oop and other editions ), this mentality also goes right back to the whole meta/waac mentality...monkey see monkey do.

Interestingly enough I've noticed a high percentage of the waac types having the most craptastic looking armies, usually either counts as or tons of terribly painted plastic, they are usually the least creative or passionate types you can encounter or play against, other than their passion for winning and nothing else. I think that's what happens when tools are consumed with their ego or need to compensate for real life insecurities. Still they at least occupy a slot of entertainment at the cost of their own dignity.

As long as the internet and in turn GW stores and FLGS stores continue to follow this mindset, not much will ever really change...other than people leaving and going to other games, which has already happened. The main reason people stick with GW is not loyalty or love for them as a company, it's personal love for their ip's and miniatures. I used to love GW in the late 80s and early 90s, I no longer give a fk about GW but I still love their miniatures and settings...although I stuck by my choice to stick with 8th fb and have never looked back, I can't stand aos and other than the khorne stuff I have not bought anything and never will, it's 8th or any oldhammer for me for life.

It's exactly why I don't have high hopes for 8th, what I honestly believe at this point over 8th...what it's going to be...it's basically going to be aos 40k, with yes nice new models ( and some ridiculous bs models too ), a trainwreck of the existing fluff, terrible animu da style art ( which is even worse than the digital vomit we have now ) and a mostly semi balanced game on initial release that will eventually run into similar issues of the past.

The whole "new gw" thing, what this actually is for the most part is GW finally got some business sense ( perhaps not perfect ) and decided hey...there is still plenty of love and paying customers for rogue trader content/minis....lets bring these back out in plastic and profit, the same thing with specialist games...they know it sells so they are releasing them again in updated plastic and new versions.

GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

You'll just have to settle for the actual advantages of flanking maneuvers instead of the ones the game mechanics gave you, you know, like people in real battles might.

And what advantages are those? Now when the last mechanical advantage is gone, the one which was based on how stuff works, you know, in real battles?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

There are rules in 8th I wish were tweak or just different.

That being said, 7th is a bad game. Not a ok game with some bad turns. It's a bad game. All the core mechanics build towards it being bad. The unit rules are bad. The core USRs are bloated and bad. (For instance why would they make 3 different rules for Bulky instead of 1 Bulky X with x being the number of models they count as towards capacity?) The wording of the rules is poor so as to cause confusion. Core mechanics like tank shocks, the vehicle damage charts (and the accompanying book keeping that needs to be done to pay attention to how each vehicle is now functioning differently based on the random rolls) are bad. Every rule is a pile of exceptions stacked on top of each other. At minimum 7th requires you to reference 2 books to play the most basic game play. Random charge distances and scatter turns what would be tactical decisions into a crap shoot.

It requires 3 templates, a special dice unique to the game, potentially 3 other templates, and depending on the list of missions you are playing either referencing a giant ass chart or decks of cards that were only released in very limited numbers to play.

If 7th was an improvement over earlier editions then my god.... what a fething wreck this game has been for too long.

No. 7th is a mess. Cannot wait for 8th to arrive.

Lance845: The transport capacity one confuses me to this day. Back before AOS, models in Warhammer Fantasy had a relative size/strength value that was used for determining what side outnumbered the other in melee (2 Ogres = 6 Humans, etc). So doing a "size" category could have been a thing for 40k and yet GW didn't do that.

I remember 5th edition. During this edition, there was no "Bulky" USR per se but it was on a "per unit" basis. Rather than not being able to transport Bulky Models, Rhinos simply couldn't "transport models in Terminator Armor."

Which led to one of my favorite YDMC calls where someone wanted to transport Terminator Njal in a Rhino because he wasn't wearing Terminator Armor. He was wearing Runic Terminator Armor. Which, common-sense would dictate would involve saying "no" to, except the Runic Terminator Armor rules were a copy paste of the Terminator Armor rules, rather than "Runic Terminator follows the rules for Terminator armor, with the following exception."

This is how foregoing core rule in favor of copypasting the same rule from one entry to another can lead to system failure.

(Can you tell I do software development for a living?)

I'm coming back to the fold after starting with 2nd and leaving around 4th.

Could have been a poll for this topic.

Frankly I think I played 5(?) games of 40k during 7th. Part of that was schedule problems, the other part was there wasn't anything keeping me engaged with the game play side of things.

I look forward to the new edition and hope GW's promises of fixing any issues as they're raised rings true.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Lance845: The transport capacity one confuses me to this day. Back before AOS, models in Warhammer Fantasy had a relative size/strength value that was used for determining what side outnumbered the other in melee (2 Ogres = 6 Humans, etc). So doing a "size" category could have been a thing for 40k and yet GW didn't do that.

I remember 5th edition. During this edition, there was no "Bulky" USR per se but it was on a "per unit" basis. Rather than not being able to transport Bulky Models, Rhinos simply couldn't "transport models in Terminator Armor."

Which led to one of my favorite YDMC calls where someone wanted to transport Terminator Njal in a Rhino because he wasn't wearing Terminator Armor. He was wearing Runic Terminator Armor. Which, common-sense would dictate would involve saying "no" to, except the Runic Terminator Armor rules were a copy paste of the Terminator Armor rules, rather than "Runic Terminator follows the rules for Terminator armor, with the following exception."

This is how foregoing core rule in favor of copypasting the same rule from one entry to another can lead to system failure.

(Can you tell I do software development for a living?)

I went to school for game design which involved some scripting along with the more abstract design philosophies It's pretty easy to see when someone is at least like minded enough to see 1) the gross inefficiency of the terrible way in which the rules were written and 2) all the potential for cascading problems because of that inefficiency.

 Lance845 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

There are rules in 8th I wish were tweak or just different.

That being said, 7th is a bad game. Not a ok game with some bad turns. It's a bad game. All the core mechanics build towards it being bad. The unit rules are bad. The core USRs are bloated and bad. (For instance why would they make 3 different rules for Bulky instead of 1 Bulky X with x being the number of models they count as towards capacity?) The wording of the rules is poor so as to cause confusion. Core mechanics like tank shocks, the vehicle damage charts (and the accompanying book keeping that needs to be done to pay attention to how each vehicle is now functioning differently based on the random rolls) are bad. Every rule is a pile of exceptions stacked on top of each other. At minimum 7th requires you to reference 2 books to play the most basic game play. Random charge distances and scatter turns what would be tactical decisions into a crap shoot.

It requires 3 templates, a special dice unique to the game, potentially 3 other templates, and depending on the list of missions you are playing either referencing a giant ass chart or decks of cards that were only released in very limited numbers to play.

If 7th was an improvement over earlier editions then my god.... what a fething wreck this game has been for too long.

The basic problem of GW is that they refuse to iterate. If they took a single edition of the game, said "Right, we're sticking with this one until we've updated every army a couple of times, minor tweaks only" and then tried to sit down and fix things over an extended period of time the game might work. But every single edition has to have some grand sweeping swing in the core mechanics of the game that isn't really tested and doesn't have time to become workable before they go hop over to something else.

8e isn't going to fix the underlying problem. They've gone and burned everything down in favour of something new and different they just thought of, that isn't sufficiently tested and doesn't really work. And instead of sitting down and working on it until it does work a year and a half or two years from now they're going to throw 9th edition at us with a whole new pile of bloat stacked on top of 8th. And they're going to keep going until the 8th-derivatives are just as bloated and ineffectual as the 3rd-derivatives have become by 7th, and then burn it down and start again.

The design process is at fault here, but GW doesn't seem to be self-aware enough to notice, or they'd have done something two or three editions ago instead of watching it grow out of control and then burning it all and starting over without touching the actual problem.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

There are rules in 8th I wish were tweak or just different.

That being said, 7th is a bad game. Not a ok game with some bad turns. It's a bad game. All the core mechanics build towards it being bad. The unit rules are bad. The core USRs are bloated and bad. (For instance why would they make 3 different rules for Bulky instead of 1 Bulky X with x being the number of models they count as towards capacity?) The wording of the rules is poor so as to cause confusion. Core mechanics like tank shocks, the vehicle damage charts (and the accompanying book keeping that needs to be done to pay attention to how each vehicle is now functioning differently based on the random rolls) are bad. Every rule is a pile of exceptions stacked on top of each other. At minimum 7th requires you to reference 2 books to play the most basic game play. Random charge distances and scatter turns what would be tactical decisions into a crap shoot.

It requires 3 templates, a special dice unique to the game, potentially 3 other templates, and depending on the list of missions you are playing either referencing a giant ass chart or decks of cards that were only released in very limited numbers to play.

If 7th was an improvement over earlier editions then my god.... what a fething wreck this game has been for too long.

The basic problem of GW is that they refuse to iterate. If they took a single edition of the game, said "Right, we're sticking with this one until we've updated every army a couple of times, minor tweaks only" and then tried to sit down and fix things over an extended period of time the game might work. But every single edition has to have some grand sweeping swing in the core mechanics of the game that isn't really tested and doesn't have time to become workable before they go hop over to something else.

8e isn't going to fix the underlying problem. They've gone and burned everything down in favour of something new and different they just thought of, that isn't sufficiently tested and doesn't really work. And instead of sitting down and working on it until it does work a year and a half or two years from now they're going to throw 9th edition at us with a whole new pile of bloat stacked on top of 8th. And they're going to keep going until the 8th-derivatives are just as bloated and ineffectual as the 3rd-derivatives have become by 7th, and then burn it down and start again.

The design process is at fault here, but GW doesn't seem to be self-aware enough to notice, or they'd have done something two or three editions ago instead of watching it grow out of control and then burning it all and starting over without touching the actual problem.

Arguably most of the core of 8th is based on the testing they have done with AoS. So this isn't exactly something they just came up with. It's something they have been iterating on and tweaking (at least the core mechanics) for over a year now.

Not saying I think GW is good. Just that saying THIS is something they simply pulled out of their ass is disingenuous. Blame GW for what they actually do wrong. Do not blame them for hysterical nonsense. It weakens your position.

AoS has been the Beta-test for 8th edition 40k, thats obvious looking at the rules and how many of the things people don't like about AoS have been "fixed" in 40k. Heck, you can see even how the Kharadron Overlords vehicle rules are exactly ported to 8th edition 40k.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

There are rules in 8th I wish were tweak or just different.

That being said, 7th is a bad game. Not a ok game with some bad turns. It's a bad game. All the core mechanics build towards it being bad. The unit rules are bad. The core USRs are bloated and bad. (For instance why would they make 3 different rules for Bulky instead of 1 Bulky X with x being the number of models they count as towards capacity?) The wording of the rules is poor so as to cause confusion. Core mechanics like tank shocks, the vehicle damage charts (and the accompanying book keeping that needs to be done to pay attention to how each vehicle is now functioning differently based on the random rolls) are bad. Every rule is a pile of exceptions stacked on top of each other. At minimum 7th requires you to reference 2 books to play the most basic game play. Random charge distances and scatter turns what would be tactical decisions into a crap shoot.

It requires 3 templates, a special dice unique to the game, potentially 3 other templates, and depending on the list of missions you are playing either referencing a giant ass chart or decks of cards that were only released in very limited numbers to play.

If 7th was an improvement over earlier editions then my god.... what a fething wreck this game has been for too long.

The basic problem of GW is that they refuse to iterate. If they took a single edition of the game, said "Right, we're sticking with this one until we've updated every army a couple of times, minor tweaks only" and then tried to sit down and fix things over an extended period of time the game might work. But every single edition has to have some grand sweeping swing in the core mechanics of the game that isn't really tested and doesn't have time to become workable before they go hop over to something else.

8e isn't going to fix the underlying problem. They've gone and burned everything down in favour of something new and different they just thought of, that isn't sufficiently tested and doesn't really work. And instead of sitting down and working on it until it does work a year and a half or two years from now they're going to throw 9th edition at us with a whole new pile of bloat stacked on top of 8th. And they're going to keep going until the 8th-derivatives are just as bloated and ineffectual as the 3rd-derivatives have become by 7th, and then burn it down and start again.

The design process is at fault here, but GW doesn't seem to be self-aware enough to notice, or they'd have done something two or three editions ago instead of watching it grow out of control and then burning it all and starting over without touching the actual problem.

In total agreement of this and I do also question two other things, so ok we know GW does plan ahead and both the miniature and edition range is known internally to those who will be part of that/are part of those sections of each game.

There probably is some factor into certain op things due to selling new kits, but the other question is considering so much already exists would it not make more sense to make most units all desirable to spread out the sales of the entire range, people would still most likely buy new kits for the "its new its cool and I gotz ta have it" mentality.

I would really really love for an edition of 40k to last say 10 years and have hardcover books and the art to be high production I would be totally on board for that but I doubt we will ever see it, the closest we ever got I think was RT and 2nd ed.

If I was going to stick with an edition, it would have been 5th. I'm still cautiously optimistic about 8th though. I look forward toward being able to potentially get in two 2000 point games in an evening after work again.

I am very new to the game so don't have any other edition to yearn for, hell I don't even know the rules for 7th all the way yet. But so far I have had a lot of fun with it, and 8th sounds pretty great to me thus far. and perhaps quicker games will get my roommates to stop being salty about my wolves gnawing on their formations, thus leading to more fun and more games.

Side note the formations and detachments did sound ridicules on paper and gave some silly rules, but my unbound Space wolves were still able to break em, so I don't think they were broken.

That's because sw didn't rely on broken formations. They have broken units.

Have ye no wolves?!

7th is convoluted and broken. I stopped playing months ago after 15+ years and moved on to The 9th Age. For me this is GWs last chance. Fuk this up and I'm done.

That said I think the new approach looks fantastic. Liking it more more more.

Ap, cover, AV and the old toughness chart made such a toxic design space it's ridiculous.

Ap was responsible for every bullgak invul/fnp thing that came up which in turn created D weapons and stomp.

Cover was just bad, there were more times when it didn't benefit you, completely shut your army down (ravenwing), or was just flat out ignored than there were times it was a meaningful tactical consideration.

The vehicle rules made vehicles inherently weaker than pretty much anything with a toughness value. The different facings having different armor thing was neat but created practical issues like 'where the gak does the side of a wave serpent or triarch stalker start' and 'nuh uh that's side arc! NO it's FRONT arc!'

The old toughness chart sucked for a lot of reasons. One of the biggest was that it wasn't actually a 1-10 system. It was 3-8 because less than 3 was largely irrelevant and more than 8 was totally overpowering. Then you had the weird breakpoint issues with ID where going up +1 in strength only ever mattered if you were going odd to even, which is a big part of why HB, plasma, and lascannons sucked as much as they did.

MagicJuggler wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Addressing a problem that didn't exist. Psykers were fine in 5th edition.

The last 5e Nova tournament ended with Draigo dying to Jaws of the World Wolf, and Njal single-handedly destroyed most of Dash of Dashofpepper's Venom spam army with a single Chain Lightning. So...yeah.

Not to forget No Retreat rules from that edition, or 50% cover allowing for absurd conga-lines. Thanks for actually making me take off the rose-tinted 5e glasses.

So because Draigo rolled a 6 and the same probably happened for how many shots the RP got with living lightning both are broken to the extreme? Kay.

Ruin wrote:

MagicJuggler wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Addressing a problem that didn't exist. Psykers were fine in 5th edition.

The last 5e Nova tournament ended with Draigo dying to Jaws of the World Wolf, and Njal single-handedly destroyed most of Dash of Dashofpepper's Venom spam army with a single Chain Lightning. So...yeah.

Not to forget No Retreat rules from that edition, or 50% cover allowing for absurd conga-lines. Thanks for actually making me take off the rose-tinted 5e glasses.

So because Draigo rolled a 6 and the same probably happened for how many shots the RP got with living lightning both are broken to the extreme? Kay.

Not Living Lightning, Chain Lightning; you know, as part of Njal's Stormcaller special chart. The one where every unit within 12 or 24 or whatever it was took a variable number of S8 hits. (Imagine a S8 Nova that couldn't be denied). Plus Jaws was a beam, in an era before Look Out Sir, and the moment Kopach was able to flank Blackmoor's Draigostar and force multiple Initiative checks at once to negate the wound allocation mechanics of 5th...

It was a counter to the argument that Psykers "were fine" in 5th edition, because certain matchups were so lopsided (Jaws vs Tyranids) that it's disingenuous to ignore those while saying the 7th psychic system is a broken mess.

A single psyker that was universally acknowledged to be broken does not a strong argument make against the general statement 'psykers were fine in 5th'.

The other issue to 7th ed psykers is how ridiculous the mechanics are. Fifth was simple; roll a Ld check, and on a 2 or 12 you lose a wound to perils. That's it. Out of the gate, 7th was broken, complicated, and had way too much dice rolling. The powers were random and horribly balanced, and the perils chart was an unnecessary addition to the game.

If the worst part of 5th psykers was Njal, I think its pretty safe to say that Psykers were fine in 5th.

 ChazSexington wrote:
God, no.

And don't the Word Bearers have the worst rules of all the Legions to boot?

the word bearers rules are summoning based right now, summoning is being nerfed, that said I suspect word bearers will get new rules for 8th

 Blacksails wrote:
A single psyker that was universally acknowledged to be broken does not a strong argument make against the general statement 'psykers were fine in 5th'.

The other issue to 7th ed psykers is how ridiculous the mechanics are. Fifth was simple; roll a Ld check, and on a 2 or 12 you lose a wound to perils. That's it. Out of the gate, 7th was broken, complicated, and had way too much dice rolling. The powers were random and horribly balanced, and the perils chart was an unnecessary addition to the game.

If the worst part of 5th psykers was Njal, I think its pretty safe to say that Psykers were fine in 5th.

Sure it does. How many other Psykers have the raw potential to destroy half a 2000-point army in one turn?

Plus for every good Psyker, there were the Psyker-dependent armies that only worked if the opponent didn't have any psychic defense or rolled poorly. Tyranids and Eldar were both overcosted based on the "but they have synergy with their Psykers (read: are dependent on their Psykers)." While I'm for Power selection over random powers, the discrepancy in powers was still the same there (I never saw anyone take Smite versus Null Zone for example), and individual powers had individual "when to cast" qualifiers, with Grey Knights having the most "out of sequence" powers ("Champion: Cast when you die").

Having a single phase cleaned it up. Making it "roll a dice pool" let you do resource allocation and added some risk/reward (more dice=better success rate but higher Perils rate). Could it be fixed? Of course. Pyromancy is obviously inferior to Telepathy and Telekinesis is questionable but most every other discipline has practical use, and compared to a game where the "aura" powers and Jaws were the most pronounced, I personally consider that a net improvement.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
A single psyker that was universally acknowledged to be broken does not a strong argument make against the general statement 'psykers were fine in 5th'.

The other issue to 7th ed psykers is how ridiculous the mechanics are. Fifth was simple; roll a Ld check, and on a 2 or 12 you lose a wound to perils. That's it. Out of the gate, 7th was broken, complicated, and had way too much dice rolling. The powers were random and horribly balanced, and the perils chart was an unnecessary addition to the game.

If the worst part of 5th psykers was Njal, I think its pretty safe to say that Psykers were fine in 5th.

Sure it does. How many other Psykers have the raw potential to destroy half a 2000-point army in one turn?

Plus for every good Psyker, there were the Psyker-dependent armies that only worked if the opponent didn't have any psychic defense or rolled poorly. Tyranids and Eldar were both overcosted based on the "but they have synergy with their Psykers (read: are dependent on their Psykers)." While I'm for Power selection over random powers, the discrepancy in powers was still the same there (I never saw anyone take Smite versus Null Zone for example), and individual powers had individual "when to cast" qualifiers, with Grey Knights having the most "out of sequence" powers ("Champion: Cast when you die").

Having a single phase cleaned it up. Making it "roll a dice pool" let you do resource allocation and added some risk/reward (more dice=better success rate but higher Perils rate). Could it be fixed? Of course. Pyromancy is obviously inferior to Telepathy and Telekinesis is questionable but most every other discipline has practical use, and compared to a game where the "aura" powers and Jaws were the most pronounced, I personally consider that a net improvement.

Still had the 'all or nothing' issue to contend with though. With the dice pools working the way they did spicing up your list with a psyker or two was completely useless for the most part. Farseers and Tigurius being the main exceptions even then an army with just tiggy or just a farseer would still have to throw every single dice at a power to even have a shot at getting it off against any chaos, gk, or tyranid army.

Dropped out of the game long before 7th.

Very much looking forward to 8th. The previews have me giddy like a child.

So two things come up: 3rd to 7th was pretty much the same, except for shaking the bag at random times.

GWs main issue was not core rules being bad, but codexes being bad. E.g. Njal and Jaws being over the top, while daemons were horribly bad - solution was to alter the ruleset. But why? Re-write the codexes instead. GW could still make new models to put in them. (Also folks could agree to not use Njall).

Will I stay with 7th, maybe. I don't like anything I am see from 8th so far, and GW has a record of hating IG (except that one time where they messed up and accidentally made guard OP), so when 8th comes out I will give it a try and if it is as bad as it seems then I will either play 7th or just never play 40k again.

Not sticking with 7th, saw more than enough teasers to know I will hate 8th, but LOVING SW:A so keeping with that.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Not sticking with 7th, saw more than enough teasers to know I will hate 8th, but LOVING SW:A so keeping with that.

I'm genuinely curious, what is 8th doing that you aren't a fan of?

 Cannuck wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Not sticking with 7th, saw more than enough teasers to know I will hate 8th, but LOVING SW:A so keeping with that.

I'm genuinely curious, what is 8th doing that you aren't a fan of?

It looks like Age of SIgmar.

Lord Kragan wrote:


It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

 Luciferian wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

Agreed.

 Luciferian wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

He wasn't asked for a compelling argument. He was asked what he doesn't like about it.

If what he doesn't like about 8th edition is that it looks like Age of Sigmar, his response was more than sufficient.

 Cannuck wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Not sticking with 7th, saw more than enough teasers to know I will hate 8th, but LOVING SW:A so keeping with that.

I'm genuinely curious, what is 8th doing that you aren't a fan of?

Fair enough, so far I have not liked anything I have seen or heard about it, it is changing into a game I do not want to play mechanically and I don't see any of the changes as actual improvements (the fluff could have been left alone or change, but thats all easy to ignore anyhow) some highlights that I found particularly off putting are:

The damage chart is probably the #1 thing I really dislike, I am not a fan of the possibility regardless of how slight, that small arms can take out vehicles. I am no fan of losing armor values on vehicles. I dont think toughness and wounds are the right way to go. I dont like the lack of initiative in melee or the new way of armor saves. Command points in principle I do not like. I like having the templates, I will miss those, alot. The new way of morale I do not like.

Essentially I found nothing wrong with the core rules between 3-7 that fixing codex's and not adding a bunch of new stuff wouldn't have taken care of.

I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

AV is too easily abused with the hull point system.

Why? 7th is broken.

GW, after many attempts, seem to finally be doing something right, and we should encourage that.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

Except we aren't dealing with the Abrams or modern day weapons so that logic doesn't apply.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns.

Ever ask a child what weighs more: a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Enough weight behind anything is going to cause damage eventually.

sure, given infinite amounts of time and ammo, but 40k matches are usually what...6-8 turns? the equivalent amount of time shooting an m-16 at an abrams tank will not harm it in any appreciable way at all. It is a matter of opinion, but It is also something I just dont like having be in the game, I prefer the armor value system.

Except we aren't dealing with the Abrams or modern day weapons so that logic doesn't apply.

Honestly at this point I'm convinced they threw in the lasgun/landraiders things as a funny noob trap.

He doesn't like it. Don't tell him he has to like what you like. If he prefers 7th then like what you like. I don't UNDERSTAND it. I think 7th is a gak show. But then I don't have to play the game I don't like and neither does he.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
A single psyker that was universally acknowledged to be broken does not a strong argument make against the general statement 'psykers were fine in 5th'.

The other issue to 7th ed psykers is how ridiculous the mechanics are. Fifth was simple; roll a Ld check, and on a 2 or 12 you lose a wound to perils. That's it. Out of the gate, 7th was broken, complicated, and had way too much dice rolling. The powers were random and horribly balanced, and the perils chart was an unnecessary addition to the game.

If the worst part of 5th psykers was Njal, I think its pretty safe to say that Psykers were fine in 5th.

Sure it does. How many other Psykers have the raw potential to destroy half a 2000-point army in one turn?

Plus for every good Psyker, there were the Psyker-dependent armies that only worked if the opponent didn't have any psychic defense or rolled poorly. Tyranids and Eldar were both overcosted based on the "but they have synergy with their Psykers (read: are dependent on their Psykers)." While I'm for Power selection over random powers, the discrepancy in powers was still the same there (I never saw anyone take Smite versus Null Zone for example), and individual powers had individual "when to cast" qualifiers, with Grey Knights having the most "out of sequence" powers ("Champion: Cast when you die").

Having a single phase cleaned it up. Making it "roll a dice pool" let you do resource allocation and added some risk/reward (more dice=better success rate but higher Perils rate). Could it be fixed? Of course. Pyromancy is obviously inferior to Telepathy and Telekinesis is questionable but most every other discipline has practical use, and compared to a game where the "aura" powers and Jaws were the most pronounced, I personally consider that a net improvement.

Njals storm power wasn't a psychic power, as such is irrelevant to any discussion of psykers being more or equal bad in 5th. That is like saying Immoteks lightning destroyed half my army so psykers are broken. Or the Warp Storm Table killing half an army and using it as rationale for OP psychic powers. Jaws was an issue, but so was Lash in 4e. I would say the latter portion of 5e started the escalation of powers that we saw go to 11 in 6th and then over the top in 7e. The change to the warp dice model was poorly done as it made psykers an all or nothing proposition in many games, bringing just one was fairly pointless. I would also argue the discrepancy in powers in 5e was much narrower than it is now. The difference between Smite and Null Zone, is magnitudes smaller than Invisibility and just about anything else. Invisibility is far more powerful than anything in 5e. So by and large is summoning Jaws was good, but matchup dependent on how good. I agree with the single phase being a good idea, but it was handled so poorly and powers were so unbalanced 7e Trumps 5e by quite a large margin.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
No. 7th is a mess. Cannot wait for 8th to arrive.

Yeah. Bring on the new hotness.

Leaving 7th like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

 insaniak wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


It looks like Age of SIgmar.

If that's supposed to be a self-evidently compelling argument, you might want to take it back to the drawing board.

He wasn't asked for a compelling argument. He was asked what he doesn't like about it.

If what he doesn't like about 8th edition is that it looks like Age of Sigmar, his response was more than sufficient.

Without an explanation of how it looks like Age of Sigmar, there's no meat to this statement though. It's not a statement about rules, tactics, or anything like that, just a vague statement.

I could say i'm not playing 8th because it looks like Mega Ultra Bunny Fruit Loops. Is that more than sufficient, too?

Nope, I basically stopped playing at tournaments because it was just getting ridiculous. I'm so happy to be done with the threshold armor saves too.

 Talizvar wrote:
Leaving 7th like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

This. Been playing since 3rd. Good riddance to 7th . Bring on 8th.

So...does anyone here plan to stick with 7th?

HELL NO!

Bring on the balance and streamlining!

 Elbows wrote:
I feel if you're going to stick with an older edition...use a good one? 5th or 2nd or something. 7th is by far the "worst" I've ever seen 40K.

This. 7th was a steaming pile

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon. The core rules of the game were fine for the most part, the issues we're with all the special snowflake rules for units in the codex's and formations.
Don't for a minute think this is going away with age of darkness (the new game using 40k models, stop calling it 8th. This is first edition age of darkness).
Every single unit in this new game will have it's own special rules, everyone refers to AoS as having 4 pages of rules, it doesn't it has thousands, you have to count all the warscrolls. Age of darkness will be no different.

I disagree. The core rules for 3-7th, with the AP system in place of 2nd's modifiers, were the reason they had to introduce so many special rules and exceptions in the first place. It was an inflexible system that was difficult to scale and while it may work OK when the game has fewer unit types to govern, it doesn't handle diversity or complexity well at all.

Whether or not they continue special rules bloat with 8th is yet to be seen, but from the start it will be a more efficient and scalable system mechanically.

I quit for three years because of 7th its a terrible mess I can't understand anyone liking it in all honesty.

7th stopped being fun for me a long time ago. Traitor Legions helped a little, made World Eaters pretty fun but not really "good". It was still always an uphill battle regardless of who I was facing. 8th is looking like everyone will be able to have their cake and eat it too as long as they are willing to give it a shot.

Lots of things I'll miss from 7th ed, don't 8th will be as fun to play as 7th.

 Tamereth wrote:
People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon. The core rules of the game were fine for the most part, the issues we're with all the special snowflake rules for units in the codex's and formations.
Don't for a minute think this is going away with age of darkness (the new game using 40k models, stop calling it 8th. This is first edition age of darkness).
Every single unit in this new game will have it's own special rules, everyone refers to AoS as having 4 pages of rules, it doesn't it has thousands, you have to count all the warscrolls. Age of darkness will be no different.

So Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was a different game than Warhammer 40k 3rd edition? Is totally reasonable to you to not like 8th edition. But this isn't in no way the scale of change that WHFB receive becoming AOS or Rogue Trader to Warhammer 40k 3rd edition.
The "IS NOT THE SAME GAME BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!" is a silly argument to made here, I think. It was a correct thing to say with the change from WHFB to AoS, but not here.

And people have already been in the band wagon of hating 7th for the past two years

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.


That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

It doesn't take much imagination for me to get past the lasgun vs. Land Raider scenario as a game abstraction. As mentioned, there are plenty of things one can damage on the exterior of an armored vehicle even if the armor isn't penetrated - sensor packages, treads or other means of conveyance, weak viewports etc.

I think the rules properly express the degradation of capabilities a vehicle might experience under that kind of damage.

It's also incredibly unlikely that you'll ever completely destroy a tank solely with lasguns or bolters in the course of a game. You may get a lucky hit to strip that last wound - but in that case the tank is already weakened so it isn't a huge stretch of the imagination to assume you got the last crew member through a weak point in the armor or something like that.

I find the tank comparison funny.. because there have been many modern instances of relatively unarmed civilians taking out tanks.. especially in what would be considered Melee in game terms

 Tamereth wrote:
People really are jumping on the hating 7th band wagon.

That's not a new thing. People have been roundly criticising 7th pretty much from the time it was released. Much moreso than most previous editions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.


That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

How can you even say in reality? Have you ever shot 20+ Bolters at the same time at a modern day Abrams?

The only gun I won't buy it for is the Autogun, and even then if you've got like 30 of them in Rapid Fire range you can consider that a wound done for sure.

Bolters no longer penetrate flak armor. I don't think they'd do jack to an abrams. However, its a mechanical thing im willing to overlook.

You don't know out MBT's with 25mm autocannon rounds or 40mm Grenades from automatic launcher, both weapons far more potent than the bolter.

 Bobthehero wrote:
You don't know out MBT's with 25mm autocannon rounds or 40mm Grenades from automatic launcher, both weapons far more potent than the bolter.

I feel like this is a good time for the daily reminder that you can lose your tank to a bush in this game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

I'm a little bit late in that topic but I will never get back in old editions. I will embrase 8ed because for what I saw/read and my style of play, 8ed will be more fun for me.

Yeah, from what I have read 8th edition will be a lot more fun.

I remember getting the limited edition 6th edition rulebook. It cost more than the starter kit and the new Chaos codex.

So 8th has price going for it as well. As long as CSMs are playable I will be happy.

I'm looking forward to 8th because only bring able to play ONE game in a 6pm-9pm time frame was a bit stupid. I only get to play once a week, so I'd rather get a few games in than just one disjointed mess.

I grew up on Necromunda/2nd edition, so I get a little nostalgic looking at 8th edition unit stats. While I will miss the templates (as they were iconic) the utter bs and timesink they caused will NOT make me look back at them with Rose tinted glasses.

Hopefully, 8th will be quick, intuitive, balanced (to an extent!) And overall fun.

You won't wreck an intact battle tank with a bunch of lazguns or bolters. The most you'll ever achieve is a few wounds. You can consider it to be damage to an exterior.

If you finish off an allready heavilly damaged tank with a lazgun, you can consider it to have gained a weak point or a breach from the heavy fire of your meltas and lazcannos beforehand.

I'm going to at least try 8th, but honestly I've given up completely on 40K straightening itself out and have been furiously working on my own (two) version. Just got to get some folks to try it, but that requires getting my miniatures out of storage which requires the folks remodeling my game room to actually show up...

As evident from my post count, I quit 40k several years ago due to 7th Edition. The chaos player that i've been playing against since 2006 literally couldn't win against me (with depowered lists as well, not tau cheese) and it ruined all the fun of the game. Another factor is the complete and utter hatred of Tau since 6E launched. I went from having fun at LGS's to getting flak just for playing the same army I have for over a decade.

Hopefully 8th changes all this, or i'll finally sell off my 40k.

Luciferian wrote:I disagree. The core rules for 3-7th, with the AP system in place of 2nd's modifiers, were the reason they had to introduce so many special rules and exceptions in the first place. It was an inflexible system that was difficult to scale and while it may work OK when the game has fewer unit types to govern, it doesn't handle diversity or complexity well at all.

Whether or not they continue special rules bloat with 8th is yet to be seen, but from the start it will be a more efficient and scalable system mechanically.

But were those special rules and exceptions all needed. There was variance built into the AP system, but instead of using it GW applied special snokflake syndrome to every unit.

So Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was a different game than Warhammer 40k 3rd edition? Is totally reasonable to you to not like 8th edition. But this isn't in no way the scale of change that WHFB receive becoming AOS or Rogue Trader to Warhammer 40k 3rd edition.
The "IS NOT THE SAME GAME BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!" is a silly argument to made here, I think. It was a correct thing to say with the change from WHFB to AoS, but not here.

And people have already been in the band wagon of hating 7th for the past two years

But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name. 2nd edition, or Warhammer 40,000 as it was called was a different game. 3rd edition onwards is a different game. 3rd - 7th are different iterations of the same basic game. I played through the change from 2nd to 3rd, not many game mechanics carried across.
The same is true for age of darkness, not many game mechanics are carrying across - it IS a different game.

I think 7th is hated so much because people wanted a streamlined balanced version of 6th, instead GW added to the bloat and randomness, and things like the pyshic phase caused games to take longer to resolve without really adding much to the game.

So.. you are just going to call it age of darkness just because?

7th is just a long string of patches since the dark days of 3rd edition.
Yes, the core mechanics are familiar and "worked" but it was designed for a more skirmish game.
We were long overdue for a redesign in order for both GW and us to have a game that can scale appropriately.
Ever since the advent of Armageddon both us and GW had a real want to dip into the occasional big huge epic games.
BUT skirmish games with some detail is very satisfying as well.
It all boils down to the game managing to have the "feel" of 40k, so that characters reflect the power levels read in the Black Library books.

I find it easy to have an open mind since I played all the time from 2nd edition and then found myself grind to a halt in 6th edition, try 7th and with regret give up on it altogether.

Shadow War Armageddon made me happy since I have a horde of Necromunda stuff so I am happy/excited/curious how this new and possibly better GW will proceed with the 8th edition rewrite. It cannot get worse for me: if it is enough to get me playing again it is a huge success. I love the 40k universe but I am a gamer, like to be a competitive one and the 7th edition rules are to put impolitely "garbage" as they stand.

I will wait and see and would just LOVE to dust off my CSM (my first army) and see them stick-it to the imperium again.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.


That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

How can you even say in reality? Have you ever shot 20+ Bolters at the same time at a modern day Abrams?

Bolters are roughly analagous to heavy stubbers, always have been, which are heavy machineguns. We can look at other modern weapons of dramatically greater power than a Bolter has ever been portrayed as being capable of, such as 20mm autocannons, and they won't do squat really either.

The only gun I won't buy it for is the Autogun, and even then if you've got like 30 of them in Rapid Fire range you can consider that a wound done for sure.

Probably not against a proper tank, at least not anything anyone would ever notice or care about.

 Tamereth wrote:

But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name.

No one called it "Rogue Trader" at the time. It was "Warhammer 40,000" to pretty much everyone who played it when it was the new hotness. That's what was printed in huge lettering in the ads and that's what it said on the blister packs and boxes at the time. It may be anecdotal but no one I know ever called it "Rogue Trader" until several editions down the road when we needed a term to describe the first gen miniatures and rules.

If you need some kind of independent confirmation look at the White Dwarfs from those years. The articles talk about "Warhammer 40,000" - just like they do today.


Every game goes thru multiple editions if it lasts more than a few years - Miniatures games, board wargames, RPG's. It nearly always means rules changes. It's nothing unique to 40k.

 Tamereth wrote:


But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name. 2nd edition, or Warhammer 40,000 as it was called was a different game. 3rd edition onwards is a different game. 3rd - 7th are different iterations of the same basic game. I played through the change from 2nd to 3rd, not many game mechanics carried across.
The same is true for age of darkness, not many game mechanics are carrying across - it IS a different game.

I think 7th is hated so much because people wanted a streamlined balanced version of 6th, instead GW added to the bloat and randomness, and things like the pyshic phase caused games to take longer to resolve without really adding much to the game.

Getting your daily exercise from them mental gymnastics I see...

In summary...

NOT A FETHING CHANCE!!!!!

I will not be sticking with 7th Edition outside of keeping the books for my collection.

I am greatly looking forward to 8th Edition 40K. While I don't care for how GW handled the change of Warhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar, I am now greatly enjoying Age of Sigmar thanks to the release of the General's Handbook and its 3 Ways to Play mindset, which to me is that game's greatest strength.

I have played 40K since mid-5th Edition, back when the Leafblower Guard list was a new thing. I played like crazy through 6th Edition, and basically quit in 7th Edition - partly due to time and budget constraints (family will do that to you), but mostly because of the local 40K players have an unhealthy WAAC "Play like you got a pair!" attitude, treating every game as if it were practice for the ITC or LVO.

7th Edition was not fun, it was a chore. Lugging around books upon books just to play cool combos and new Formations/Detachments became cumbersome, and losing constantly to the same players being WAAC jerks was the final straw; the only games of 7th I enjoyed were the Narrative scenarios and the one campaign I participated in, each with self-imposed restrictions on what we would bring and how we would play.

As for 8th Edition, I am super-excited and eager to try it out and read the books. Not only are they getting rid of the Detachment/Formation creep, but they literally made changes to the rules that are exactly what I would have done (AP not outright ignoring Saves, Damage values on weapons, Damage charts for big models, Psykers redone, 3 Ways to Play).

The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

 Hollow wrote:
The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

That's certainly possible.

Alternately, they might just be people with an opinion different to yours. That's going to happen from time to time.

 Hollow wrote:
The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

Maybe so, but the alternative looks even more revolting.

I've already got more friends/family interested in starting to play 40k with me then I had in the entirety of 7th and 8th isn't even out yet. I'm keeping my books on the shelf because the fluff is awesome and the pics are always handy to have on hand. I will say I loved the campaigns that were released during 7th so I'm planning on adapting things like The Red Waaagh!/Hour of The Wolf, Mont'ka/Kau'yon etc for 8th play, because the stories were a lot of fun to play through on the board.

Edit: format error

After seeing today's faction Focus Orks. I'll be dropping 7th.

So with the poll results coming in at approximately 95% in favour [+/- 5%, 19 times out of 20] of leaving the dumpster fire of a game that was 7th to burn itself out... there should have been a poll at the start of this for a more scientific approach.

Lol no 7th edition has been the worst version of any game ever. Sooner its gone the better

IMO, 7th ruleset was great. Sadly, it was turned into a barely playable mess by formations nonsense and the total lack of balance. I don't like most of the changes that 8th edition brings, which is not too surprising considering it's pretty close to AoS and that I find this game unplayable. I especially hate that Templates are removed, that the rules for vehicles were dropped, the new ''Moral'' test and the boring psychic phase being brought back. Dropping universal special rules in favor of each unit becoming a special snowflake seems silly to me too (imo it's far easier to learn USR than each units having a tons of practically identical special rules with different names) At least, it could bring a semblance of balance since they are starting from scratch though I won't hold my breath considering that ''New'' GW brought us the utterly ridiculous pink horrors profile recently.

So, to answer the question, I'm in wait and see mode but if I can find a community of players still playing 7th ed., i'll definitively still play it (and maybe only play it if I don't like this new ed.)