A simple poll surveying overall satisfaction going into the release of 8th edition 40k.


3 categories -


1 - Narrative and background behind the release of 8th edition rules, e.g. introduction of the Primaris marines, explanation of roles for the various races and factions going forward,

2 - Rules as written - what it sez.

3 - Rules as intended - this includes the 'meta', and is basically the hybrid of the first two - how well does 2 work to make 1 work, and how will this translate into a better game/hobby going forward.

Give each ten points in your head and add them up.
For me, 8+9+10 = 27.
A bonus point for a sense of humor and it is solid work with a future.

I started out hot, almost fell sour, then have to say that GW finished off with a bang.
A couple things seemed non-ideal, like totally random charges, but unit abilities and modifiers seem to ameliorate that issue.
So, for a guardswoman/man, the charge really is that random - bomb bits and odd spikes everywhere,
or the poor sap just ambles to keep from herself/himself.
For a harlequin trouper, not so much.

The way they handled points is artful as it seems to paint the table on a different scale.
Big and nasties seemed to get toned down and/or made more expensive to field,
and elites cost elite points, with added layers of eliteness differentiating units within the same forces,
they get a lot of abilities and modifiers, and other units don't.
There seems a broad and sensible flexibility with units character and army composition.
The harlequin caress thing is ... unexpected maybe,
but the fact that my mega warboss modeled with an attack squig leaping from the base is no longer WYSIWYG is a bummer.
I can understand why though, and will have to revisit that model someday soon.

At the same time, I am not happy with the way that cover seems to be handled, i.e. an entire unit is either in or out to get the bonus,
and presuming that wounds carry over into models behind said cover,
would like to maybe go 8.5 on the RaW but club it,
(edit: actually, after seeing the Imperial stuff, and thinking through the keywords thing, a 9 for sure now!)
this can be house ruled and changed in simple practice until GW sees the light of adding a bit more granularity to the advanced rules.
I also am not sure if I am ok with with ruins having magical stairs and units gassing through walls and such,
but I have to see how this works out too.
I think that this is also easily house ruled and changed in simple practice.

29 for me!

• Really like the new fluff and glad they had an excuse for the radical marines model change so lets call it a 10.

• Sad that there are no 'Ard boyz any more :-( But everything else seem really cool so lets call that a 9.

• I couldn't care less about the 'meta', but I gave it a 10 just because the shrill complaints from all the power gamers can only be a good thing haha!

I have got that Friday feeling though, maybe I would be less generous on a Tuesday lunchtime haha!

I can see this ruleset having a lot of mileage though, I am excited to see what they do with Ork clan keywords.

Not a fan of most of the new lore in terms of both the overall theme and the specifics e.g. return of a Primarch and who the Primarch is.

My armies seem to have lost most of the fun stuff or have meaningless penalties that I see no reason for so hopefully the ones I haven't seen take fun to a new level.

I think the Primaris means are lame for the fluff and the revival of a guy who has been dead for thousands of years is stupid too.

The initial Tyranid attack on Baal was terrible as well. So 1 for this category.

I think they are doing far too many over simplification, and the game is mechanically losing a lot of its flavor. It's going from feeling like each model and units are well defined to. This is a differently shaped blob with the same rules. so 1 for that category.

I don't really know what you mean by this category. So I'm just going to declare that I love the fact that they will actively update point costs. Hell, 7th with actively updated point costs would have been a better game than 8th. I'll say a 5?

Weirdly enough, I'm a very optimistic and forgiving person.

"a simple poll"

>makes it a 3-30 point three category poll, two of which no one has any practical experience with so can't really rate.

I dunno man. Probably some part of the upper spectrum. We'll see when we've had a few games and run into the problems that will inevitably occur, and seen just how irrelevant or problematic some of the points people have brought up are.

I gave it a 15 on account to the fact that it has both good things and bad things in equal measure.

RAI and RAW - Simplification and standardization of the rules is a very good point but there are some points in which I believe they have gone too far. There are some RAW that just make me go "wtf were you guys thinking when you stripped it down to THIS"?

Lore - Though I do I like the fact that the fluff is changing - I like the new damage done to the Imperium - I personally dislike the Primaris Marines addition in the fluff. Mind you I like them aesthetically (most of them, anyway) but not in the fluff. Add to this the fact that I personally believe we're getting a copy paste of the AoS "crusade to reclaim the realms" and I tone the marks down.

Things have only just now been spoiled and relatively few people have even played games yet.

Honestly most people are still figuring out what has changed with their army, let alone everyone else's. Until we've had time to see how everything has shaken out this poll really isn't worth much.

I wouldn't even attempt a poll until at least a couple of months have passed. Right now we're still in chicken little mode, as you can tell from a lot of army threads containing a mix of comments from "my army is ruined and I'm quitting" to "holy crap we're the best army in the game and completely broken."

It's simply too early to really say anything, especially because most of the main book hasn't even been properly leaked yet like the army indices.

An 18 for me, around a6/10 average.
Still too early to tell but there are things I really like and others I definitely do not.
Like - less random WL traits, PPs, new scenarios, vehicle rules, T+10 stats, army options, transports.
Dislike - random charge/run, terrain rules, some unit stats/costs.

Fluff-wise I havent caught up but dont enjoy PrimMarines nor Hive fleets being wiped out with deus ex machina nonsense.

I do like the warp rift and Girlymans potential crusade though.

I love it on the basis of Sisters being, tentatively, broke as gak. Even if they don't end up being super powerful they definitely have some really cool tricks and some really varied build options.

Primaris marines are awesome models and I'm excited to paint marines for the first time...ever really.

Core rules look to be a solid foundation to build the game upon, which is great.

Wake me up when the fluff talks about SoB not being jobbed to make marines look cool.

It's not perfect, but it's close enough 30/30.

After seeing the full leaks and one Narrative game test, my current rating is 22.

More balance, tau seem like a fun army to face and stille feels like Tau after yesterdays play testing against white scars. Power rating points seems to be fair in a general sense.

Generally feels like a solid game, i dont miss 7th at all. What we have now is GOOD, and lot of love for missions and deployment wich was greatly needed.


Although.... Cover mechanic feels sloppy as hell. +1 armor for ALL terrain, and no chapter specific rules and stuff like that. I dont get it. Lots of quirks like things were awsome (im looking at you psyhic phase) are now just gone or rendered down to nothing.

It feels rushed, could have been a legendary kickoff. Ill settle with GOOD.

Resurrecting this thread for further votes as more people have a chance to see the rules and chime in...

I went from "probably going to play" to "probably not going to play", but it's really more of a result of playing a few games of 7th with the local 40K fellas...so not entirely 8th's fault.

All in all, not really a game I'm interested in. Probably back to the 2nd ed revival project.

20 for me

narrative 5/10
rules 9/10
overall feeling 6/10

I do not like the main concept of primaris space marines, and hate the new lore that implies more techno aestetic. Too me the Imperium of man lost his unique feeling in WHR40K

the rules are great so far it is what has to be done and all is pretty logic. My only complain is that they removed initiative. I believe a bonus in initiative when charging made more sense

overhall feeling 6/10 the main goal of this new edition is very positive, the attitude of GW is very positive but I disagree on many details when it comes to miniature

25 here - overall just feels like a really solid effort. I was practically done half way through 6th edition and wasn't returning unless they removed a lot of clutter.

Same cool models with cleaner rules - count me as a happy customer.

The chances to play this edition dropped pretty much towards 10% for me.
Too much simplification, about 30% of my collection is quite useless now(AM-artillery, vets in carapace and ][-transports) and they stripped too much USRs and abilities from my last remaining, playable army.
And I don´t like the direction of the fluff.

I could restart my Tyranids, but I don´t think that would work, because that bridge is pretty much burned. And if I would care about Word Bearers anymore, I would be pretty pissed.

Any previous, current and future storydevelopment is pointless with the introduction of Guilliman. Instead of the 'Chaos are winning all is doomed the Emprah is dead' they could have done, they went for 'nothing matters, there is no Grimdark, Guilliman saves all' approach. You just know every storyline will end up with Guilliman winning in the end. As much as they try to sell the Chaos at the front door angle, the universe is safe with Big G back. Mortarion will fail just as Magnus did.

So low points on story for me.
I do like the rules very much. So I ended up at 24 points

 Mayk0l wrote:
Any previous, current and future storydevelopment is pointless with the introduction of Guilliman. Instead of the 'Chaos are winning all is doomed the Emprah is dead' they could have done, they went for 'nothing matters, there is no Grimdark, Guilliman saves all' approach. You just know every storyline will end up with Guilliman winning in the end. As much as they try to sell the Chaos at the front door angle, the universe is safe with Big G back. Mortarion will fail just as Magnus did.

So low points on story for me.
I do like the rules very much. So I ended up at 24 points

Here's to hoping that Girlyman takes a fat one in the guts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reluxor wrote:
20 for me

narrative 5/10
rules 9/10
overall feeling 6/10

I do not like the main concept of primaris space marines, and hate the new lore that implies more techno aestetic. Too me the Imperium of man lost his unique feeling in WHR40K

the rules are great so far it is what has to be done and all is pretty logic. My only complain is that they removed initiative. I believe a bonus in initiative when charging made more sense

overhall feeling 6/10 the main goal of this new edition is very positive, the attitude of GW is very positive but I disagree on many details when it comes to miniature

I get the disappointment in the Imperials having super tech like new grav-tanks and super armor and super geneseed and so on.
I am starting to think of my old marines as the rabble they started out as regardless, jacked psycho jar-heads basically,
and the Primaris as the only real marines as currently intended,
but yeah, the grim darkness that reflected real life under burgeoning real-life neo-liberal financial fascism is gone -
Girlyman may as well have advert space leased on his armor by this point...
I also liked the initiative stat.

Resurrecting this thread as people have had the weekend to sort things out...

I have purchased several hundred dollars in new models in anticipation, many from FW. I also pre-ordered all the rules and overall I felt really good about all of it since I haven't really seen much except what was on GWs site.

Now however, after finding the full leaked documents and absorbing them I am having serious second thoughts.

On the one hand I'm really glad for a reset button. However it seems to me the overwhelming theme of this edition is everything is the same. Samey sameness. That and codex layout is the worst which just adds to it. Feels like I'm going from MTG to pokemon. Maybe I'm hung up on details idk..

I just really REALLY hope it plays better than it looks and builds. Thats my hold out.

I'm enjoying everything so far. So 27 on my part. Cawl is the best part of it, though it has more to do in my having mutated the guy into a meme already.

Fluff? 3. Is not good.

RAW? 2. Is REALLY not good.

RAI? 5. Seems to be designed with the mechanics in mind, but is frightfully dull.

At the time of posting.

Negative comments - 9

Positive comments - 5

Negative votes (20 and under) - 57

Positive votes - 99

Goes to show that the vocal minority are the ones not happy. People have no issues raising their voice to complain about something they don't like but are much less likely to do it to sing its praise when they do like it.

I am kinda sad this pole didn't include a "40k", "OVER 9000" and "UP TO 11" reference.

Played my first few games today. 1850 points with my Imperial Guard and then with Dark Angels. Both games were against my friends Tyranids. I have to say that I like the overall "toned down" balance but there is a lot wrong with this edition unfortunately. Here's what I noticed:

Cover is almost non existent. The bonus it gives you is not that great and a lot of your units will not be eligible to use it. This is a real shame and you will find yourself doing all sorts of things that don't make sense. Shooting through labyrinths of stuff and your opponent not getting any cover because they're not all inside of it!

Nerfing everything is a step in the right direction, however don't expect 8th to have amazing balance cause it doesn't. They've done this thing where they made units and upgrades have ridiculous points values (93 pts...) and the idea is that all of the units have been expertly balanced. Anyways let me tell you right now that they're not! Just like AOS you're going to find a ton of stuff that's just not good. Tyranids for example have a unit that fires 12 plasma shots that deal 2 dmg each and can fire at BS 3+. It's priced at around the same as a Leman Russ but its 10X better in dmg output and just as survivable. Also, Tyranids can instead build this creature into one that has a giant mouth and is CC only...it costs way more in points and is just way worse. There is no reason anyone would take it :p So anyways, balance it sort of garbage.

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

For me it's 8 7 8 = 23.

The fluff I have seen is ok but some bad marks are there. Keeping in mind that we have not yet seen all the fluff.

The written rules have some glaring issues RAW, but RAI it's a very well functioning game.

My biggest issue is IGOUGO. It's still a long boring wait watching your oppenent go. With how deadly everything has become it's even worse to watch an enemies entire army move and shoot before you get to respond. And finally alternating unit activation would add in a lot of tactical depth that the game sorely needs.

On the plus side I think the game can be house ruled to have Alternating activation with VERY few changes (2 or 3 at worst) and me an another player will be play testing it next weekend.

Forgetting about the fact that it is very early to tell any of these things aside from the fluff that has been released so far as we do not have all the rules and units and how they all interact yet, the poll itself is very difficult to read and get conclusions from.

This is because you have used 28 options and only had 179 replies (at time of posting) this doesn't really show us anything from the graphic of the poll. 3-15 would have shown us more, or 3-12 even better. 28 options dilutes any trends we could see. Also it gives the impression (as seen above) that 15 is the middle when it is actually 16.5.

This may help more:
Mode 30
Median 24
Mean 21.4

The interquartile range is between 17 and 27 which means the middle 50% of people have given it a reasonably high score. This is a reliable sample being the middle 50%.

47% of people have said it has only dropped up to 5 marks from a perfect score (this includes those who dropped it no marks at all).

So overall it still looks like 8th is being viewed very favourably.

4/8/8 here for a total of 20 points. New fluff is kind of dull, but the rules are actually well set up, barring some typos/mild teething issues.

Voted a nice simple 3.

 jeff white wrote:
1 - Narrative and background behind the release of 8th edition rules, e.g. introduction of the Primaris marines, explanation of roles for the various races and factions going forward

1/10. Everything I've seen of the "narrative" lately keeps reminding me why I stopped paying attention to new fluff, and it doesn't help that the new models range from "meh" (new tactical marines) to "WTF IS THAT TRASH" (new tank). Throw it all out and nothing of value would be lost.

2 - Rules as written - what it sez.

1/10. It's probably better than 7th, but only because you'd have to deliberately try to make bad rules to get something worse than the complete dumpster fire of 7th. Narrative/open play are stupid, homogenizing everything and making a shallow game even shallower is terrible design, easy first-turn charges are stupid, and they even managed to go back on one of the few good ideas 40k had: the use of USRs over giving each individual unit its own special version of basic rules. And when you publish trash you don't get extra points just because your previous work was even worse.

3 - Rules as intended - this includes the 'meta', and is basically the hybrid of the first two - how well does 2 work to make 1 work, and how will this translate into a better game/hobby going forward.

1/10. I don't care about some hypothetical intent for the rules that exists only in the mind of some GW author, what matters is the rules GW actually published. RAI gets the same score as RAW.

My vote went 1/5/3.

1 - Dues Ex Gulliman really burns me, as does the Eldar shenanigans (I don't play them as an army really, but always did like their fluff). Cawl's supermen is a complete turnoff, and I know that eventually they will replace the current marine line as soon as they get all the kits converted over (in a year's time?).

5 - Rules look like typical GW fare, complete with Vehicle Explodes! Going to give the game a go with the rules leaks, but I'm not expecting much.

3 - Rules are ripe for abuse. Yeah, looks like mid-sized fights will go faster, but the light touch on the rules is just going to develop into all kinds of crazy rule arguments. Guess it's good we still have the dice-off for solving rules questions?

RAW 9/10 - best rules set I've ever seen for 40k, mind they have set that bar pretty low, but the rules are clearly worded, and don't leave much wiggle room.

RAI 9/10 - A lot of thought went into making the game play like the fluff, and the various compositions took a lot of forethought.

Fluff 5/10 - The primaris marines are the laziest plot contrivance since new crons, and while I like the IoM being the underdog, not much else about the indomitus crusade turns my crank.

Cover rules aren't really good. In practice they almost never work for the attacker and always work for the bunched up defending gunline - which you can now build more easilly as you no longer need troops in your cads. And they don't even loose mobility cause they can shoot heavy weapons on the move.

Played 5 games now, SM vs Daemons and Eldar.

The narrative's the same as usual; interesting premise, poor execution.

The changes to gameplay did not go quite far enough for me; maelstrom still has a bit too much random; chickening out of making the whole game alternate activations. However it is by and large fun, involving and encouraging tactical/strategic decisions.

I think the 'meta' will be player-driven rather than developer-driven, if GW can restrain themselves in future updates.

Terrain, for my group, works just fine. The rules are simple and straightforward, almost as good as my personal favourite system for handling terrain: Kings of War.
We use a ton of ruins and walls on our table, covering at least a full third of the 6x4 (although I am a firm believer that everyone should always be getting a save of some sort). We also like to play fast, aggressive lists, so bunkering down is not normally an issue.

So I gave it a 25. Huge improvement, but could use some refining yet. Very optimistic about 40k's future now, whereas before I had not touched the game in 18 months due to the state of the thing.

P.S. I love the basic mission where you have four objectives on the board and score every turn; no first blood, set game length of five turns. Clean, simple, fun.

28 for me. Personally im just glad 7th ed is dead and gone. Such a horrible mess that killed loads of interest but its back on track now

Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

 steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

The Daemon Weapons are pretty much gone along with all other relic sorts.. Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I am kinda sad this pole didn't include a "40k", "OVER 9000" and "UP TO 11" reference.

Yeah. Sorry about that. I am not sure how many would have voted 31+ but it would have been a fun option.

I would like to run a second poll in a week or so to ask how much people have changed their minds.
Maybe I will include such options in that one.

Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

The table was fun, and could give you some fun experience. Its just needed a rework, and not a totall removal. Also, CSM are now a generic SM codex... And it saddens me a lot.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Forgetting about the fact that it is very early to tell any of these things aside from the fluff that has been released so far as we do not have all the rules and units and how they all interact yet, the poll itself is very difficult to read and get conclusions from.

This is because you have used 28 options and only had 179 replies (at time of posting) this doesn't really show us anything from the graphic of the poll. 3-15 would have shown us more, or 3-12 even better. 28 options dilutes any trends we could see. Also it gives the impression (as seen above) that 15 is the middle when it is actually 16.5.

This may help more:
Mode 30
Median 24
Mean 21.4

The interquartile range is between 17 and 27 which means the middle 50% of people have given it a reasonably high score. This is a reliable sample being the middle 50%.

47% of people have said it has only dropped up to 5 marks from a perfect score (this includes those who dropped it no marks at all).

So overall it still looks like 8th is being viewed very favourably.

This was supposed to be about first impressions.
I would like to open a second poll after people have a chance to sort things out.
We can say why we changed our evaluations and point to some problems which were not obvious from the start.
Thanks for pointing out that the middle response value is 16.5
Later on I should calculate an average score...
I was not expecting this poll to be statistically significant so much as offer a structure to organize initial thoughts and give feedback.
For myself, I benefit from making my thoughts explicit, letting others critique them and let myself reflect over them.
That is really what thisnpoll was about.
And I have learned a lot from reading the responses.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

The Daemon Weapons are pretty much gone along with all other relic sorts.. Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

Incidentally, the Chaos Warband was a surprisingly underrated and underused formation afaik. Universal Obsec was a nice ability, and the "roll 2 pick with option to discard one" roll for boons did a lot to give extra mileage to CSM. The formation made me want to actually buy Power Weapons for my Bike Champs: A Slaaneshi Biker with Power Lance had respectable odds of taking out half a 5-man Tactical Squad alone and if you got a Daemon Prince out of it, all the better.

Of course there were those games where it mattered not, where you fought Necrons or Eldar, the only characters either being the mandatory Lord/Zahndrekh and maybe Orikan, or a Farseer and Warp Spider Exarches. Regardless of this, such things helped distinguish Chaos Marines (an army of warriors) vs Codex Marines (an army of soldiers).

Now Obliterators are a Loota Centurion, losing melee, tactical flexibility, the ability to be run as solo minis...they somehow went to being a unit with even less options in-game than Devastator Centurions. Terminators are no longer field able in units of 3. Hell, even Forgefiends got the nerfbat on offensive output, losing the ability to fire on the move without penalty, losing Daemonforge, etc.

bob82ca wrote:
Played my first few games today. 1850 points with my Imperial Guard and then with Dark Angels. Both games were against my friends Tyranids. I have to say that I like the overall "toned down" balance but there is a lot wrong with this edition unfortunately. Here's what I noticed:

Cover is almost non existent. The bonus it gives you is not that great and a lot of your units will not be eligible to use it. This is a real shame and you will find yourself doing all sorts of things that don't make sense. Shooting through labyrinths of stuff and your opponent not getting any cover because they're not all inside of it!

Nerfing everything is a step in the right direction, however don't expect 8th to have amazing balance cause it doesn't. They've done this thing where they made units and upgrades have ridiculous points values (93 pts...) and the idea is that all of the units have been expertly balanced. Anyways let me tell you right now that they're not! Just like AOS you're going to find a ton of stuff that's just not good. Tyranids for example have a unit that fires 12 plasma shots that deal 2 dmg each and can fire at BS 3+. It's priced at around the same as a Leman Russ but its 10X better in dmg output and just as survivable. Also, Tyranids can instead build this creature into one that has a giant mouth and is CC only...it costs way more in points and is just way worse. There is no reason anyone would take it :p So anyways, balance it sort of garbage.

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

I agree on the cover wholeheartedly.
Blast weapons being more useful against single models is also a problem that denies the virtue of blasts.
The way that vehicles work in close combat is also a problem.
I can see how these might be fixed with rules adjustments/rewrites.
Ideally gw will use white dwarf to float alternatives and then get feedback going forward.
The hope is that units can be points balanced as the codexes are released and perhaps updated in a ongoing "live" fashion.
The big mash up in the center tossing dice is something that i expected given AoS.

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

It wasn't the main issue, but it was confirmed that many of the mutations that would've been useful to buy had become part of the randomness to justify it. Rather then allowing for such things as allowing Chaos to buy 2+ armor or the like.

And given I had played CSM long before the invention of the "Chaos Warband" I had plenty of issues of spawndom for important characters, or winning games because of stupid luck of having two Aspiring Champions suddenly become daemon princes... While the whole "You don't keep your artifacts or any gear" for Daemon Princes made it just as bad for my kitted out Chaos Lords. I don't like winning because of randomness or losing because I managed to kill a Sargent and lose my expensive units as a result.

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

Incidentally, the Chaos Warband was a surprisingly underrated and underused formation afaik. Universal Obsec was a nice ability, and the "roll 2 pick with option to discard one" roll for boons did a lot to give extra mileage to CSM. The formation made me want to actually buy Power Weapons for my Bike Champs: A Slaaneshi Biker with Power Lance had respectable odds of taking out half a 5-man Tactical Squad alone and if you got a Daemon Prince out of it, all the better.

Of course there were those games where it mattered not, where you fought Necrons or Eldar, the only characters either being the mandatory Lord/Zahndrekh and maybe Orikan, or a Farseer and Warp Spider Exarches. Regardless of this, such things helped distinguish Chaos Marines (an army of warriors) vs Codex Marines (an army of soldiers).

Now Obliterators are a Loota Centurion, losing melee, tactical flexibility, the ability to be run as solo minis...they somehow went to being a unit with even less options in-game than Devastator Centurions. Terminators are no longer field able in units of 3. Hell, even Forgefiends got the nerfbat on offensive output, losing the ability to fire on the move without penalty, losing Daemonforge, etc.

Since English is not my first language, I couldent say it better!
How I would describe chaos in 8th? You know when you eat a stake, but it has 0 salt or pepprt on it? Its bland to no end, and you cant seem to find anything to season it with? Chaos is that stake.

Also, I have the feeling that 8th edition is like 6th was. When 6th came out, its was garbage. No one liked it, no one cared. So they released 7th, and improved 6th. So I have a feeling, that in 1 year, we will se 9th edition. Which will be an improved 8th.


EDIT.
Also, I cant see GW not adding more option for armies and units via data gaks.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
4/8/8 here for a total of 20 points. New fluff is kind of dull, but the rules are actually well set up, barring some typos/mild teething issues.

I wouldn't say those results are favourable. I work in the game industry and one thing that you will notice is that people in general lean towards positive revues. It's sort of a "fanboy" effect. So for instance a really bad mobile game might have 3/5 stars. So even though it's technically better than 50% it's considered to be quite the failure. Same goes for things like Steam revues, if a Steam game is even 70% positive it's probably pretty bad.

It's very, VERY hard to score less than 50% on revues for mobile/PC game. (User revues that is). Although I will admit that there is a possibility that people (like myself) who are not pleased with it, might be more inclined to click on this thread to speak their mind about it :p

 jeff white wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
Played my first few games today. 1850 points with my Imperial Guard and then with Dark Angels. Both games were against my friends Tyranids. I have to say that I like the overall "toned down" balance but there is a lot wrong with this edition unfortunately. Here's what I noticed:

Cover is almost non existent. The bonus it gives you is not that great and a lot of your units will not be eligible to use it. This is a real shame and you will find yourself doing all sorts of things that don't make sense. Shooting through labyrinths of stuff and your opponent not getting any cover because they're not all inside of it!

Nerfing everything is a step in the right direction, however don't expect 8th to have amazing balance cause it doesn't. They've done this thing where they made units and upgrades have ridiculous points values (93 pts...) and the idea is that all of the units have been expertly balanced. Anyways let me tell you right now that they're not! Just like AOS you're going to find a ton of stuff that's just not good. Tyranids for example have a unit that fires 12 plasma shots that deal 2 dmg each and can fire at BS 3+. It's priced at around the same as a Leman Russ but its 10X better in dmg output and just as survivable. Also, Tyranids can instead build this creature into one that has a giant mouth and is CC only...it costs way more in points and is just way worse. There is no reason anyone would take it :p So anyways, balance it sort of garbage.

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

I agree on the cover wholeheartedly.
Blast weapons being more useful against single models is also a problem that denies the virtue of blasts.
The way that vehicles work in close combat is also a problem.
I can see how these might be fixed with rules adjustments/rewrites.
Ideally gw will use white dwarf to float alternatives and then get feedback going forward.
The hope is that units can be points balanced as the codexes are released and perhaps updated in a ongoing "live" fashion.
The big mash up in the center tossing dice is something that i expected given AoS.

Yeah I hope so but they said the same thing about AOS and I don't think they've changed any of the units for warscrolls. AOS had their 1 year anniversary and goblin spiders are still wrecking face. Those frost giant on mammoths are still doing 6 mortal wounds automatically. I was looking through my undead stuff again and they didn't improve any of the completely useless stuff like Black Coach. Although, when they release the army books it will give them a chance to do a re-balance :p

So. Now the probability to play dropped to about 1% to play the new edition. My pals tend to care about it as much as for AOS.
Oh, well.

This poll format makes me annoyed...

But in the end enjoying the New edition so far

The Dark Imperium novel improves the fluff a bit, but still the Momentum forward has not been my favourite fluff..

Still beats new Crons, as well a BA and Cron BFF's

 steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.
.

The best effect of that change is you are now more encouraged to build up bigger units than go MSU. One of the major drawbacks of building up units in 7th was wasted shots. A unit of 30 termagants has to fire 30 shots at a single enemy unit even if there is one 1 guy alive in that unit. Now that everyone has split fire you don't have to worry about wasted shots, you can take a single unit of 30 guys and decide how to divide it up.

I would say it was very needed as a counter to the MSU no brainer that was 7th ed.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

It wasn't the main issue, but it was confirmed that many of the mutations that would've been useful to buy had become part of the randomness to justify it. Rather then allowing for such things as allowing Chaos to buy 2+ armor or the like.

And given I had played CSM long before the invention of the "Chaos Warband" I had plenty of issues of spawndom for important characters, or winning games because of stupid luck of having two Aspiring Champions suddenly become daemon princes... While the whole "You don't keep your artifacts or any gear" for Daemon Princes made it just as bad for my kitted out Chaos Lords. I don't like winning because of randomness or losing because I managed to kill a Sargent and lose my expensive units as a result.

I miss the Pete Haines list of Daemonic Mutations as much as every other Chaos player does. (I also miss the old GW website that had experimental rules, tactics articles, etc). It was also amusing how much of a Star Wars fan Pete was ("I remembered facing Stormtroopers once and imagining a certain other Stormtrooper...", or how he described a potential unmarked Chaos Lieutenant with Jump Pack and Combi flamer and how he would "leave it at that lest I infringe on another certain intellectual property"). I think 8th could have easily kept such a rule in place ("The Crimson Path") that gave CSM ways to replenish Command Points by wiping out units, taking objectives, etc.

I skipped out on 6th, both because life was in the way (new job, distance from gaming), and because frankly the rules for 6th were messy in a lot of areas (Challenges, models in transports cannot score, etc) and the idea of associating Chaos Space Marines with Heldrakes and Plague Zombies had all the tactical interest of watching paint dry. My Orks gathered shelf space too, as the idea of running them in a tide to support Necrons was also fairly silly.

When 7th patched challenges, added universal scoring and Obsec, and just cleaned up a lot of the core mechanics that steered me away from 6th, I got back into the game conditionally. I still didn't have time to do tournaments but I could get games in. I relearned the army and came to some conclusions about the strengths and flaws of the CSM army: While model for model individual Chaos Marines are not *that* much weaker than their loyalist counterparts, the FOC for CSM is pretty one-dimensional: Every long-range choice was in Heavy Support and every "fast" unit was in Fast Attack. By contrast, the Elite and Troop slots were point-inefficient for fire support and they all had infantry-movement. By contrast: Marines could take Bikes, Pods, or Razorbacks to compensate for any of the aforementioned flaws with their Troops, while they could run Vanguard, Bike Command Squads, Sternguard with 2 Heavies or even the odd Rifle Dreadnought. In short, Loyalists had a far easier time scaling their army, and with less tax to boot. Realistically, a Chaos Elite Slot was either for Termicide or the rare MSU solo Mutilator gimmick. (Incidentally, losing the ability to field Mutilators solo also defeated half their purpose)

I've proposed rule tweaks in the past, to fix this specific issue for CSM. Be it letting Chosen take a second Heavy or purchase Chaos Steeds, be it giving Chaos Plasma Weapons "Gets Really Hot" (Chaos Plasma weapons fire an extra shot, but each roll you have to make *two* armor saves for each roll of 1), etc.

bob82ca wrote:

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

Mainly agree with your post. While I personally like rules heavy games, I could understand why they wanted to streamline the new edition a bit. Still, I feel they went way too far. Removing the rules for vehicles, USR (how in the hell is it easier to have a thousand different rules by different names doing the same thing ???) and templates is simply bonker imo, and makes for a far less enjoyable experience imo. The new Moral test and Pshychic phases are both clear downgrades too. But to answer the topic directly :

I'd give the new fluff a 4 as, not only do I dislike seeing Primarch back into the fray, the fluff behind R.G. revival and the new Sigmarines is simply abhorrent. It still is new though, and maybe it will evolve into something interesting down the line (maybe with the Imperium descending into a civil war), but right now, it's not only childish but unimaginative.

Rules as written is a 3. It seems that there is too many thing that they didn't think of properly (circling vehicles so that they can't disengage, blast being better vs big models than hordes, flamer being better vs flyers, cover benefiting heavily armored units more,....). They simplified the game way too much and it now feels very similar to AoS, which I find boring and uninteresting.

Rules as intended is a 4. As I said before, I like a game with an extensive ruleset so I may be a bit biased here. Still, even with all of the changes they came up with, they lacked the balls or hindsight to drop IgoUgo (or at least, add a gakload of reactionary actions) , one of the biggest problem in a game like 40K were there is so many models on the table. Game feels like it still needs polishing and, once again, they are far too few tactical decisions to be made. Watched a BattleReport of 8th ed. on MiniWargaming.com and it look like an exercise in pushing models and throwing dices around :(

Definitively not for me in its current incarnation. Will wait to see what they'll do with the new codexes and if they realease a supplement for Advanced Rules, but as of right now, I'm planning on sticking with 7th edition (which was great, if you played with similarly minded persons)

Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

RAW: 7/10. The psychic phase was decimated, Psychic Focus in matched play irks me, Grey Knights look to be the worst marine chapter again. Loss of uniqueness across space marine chapters, loss of chapter tactics.

RAI: 10/10. What they're trying to do is create a balanced game that's quick to play and easy to learn, and I can get behind that.

Fluff: 9/10. While I would have much rather seen the creation of primaris marines more as named characters acting as psuedo primarchs, I do like that they've advanced the setting.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

That is an interesting idea re monstrous creatures.
Agree completely re templates.
Eventually they are gonna have to use USRs to fix stuff like land raiders trapped by grots and so on,
I.e. anything with keyword ABC can move through any units with keyword EFG during any movement phase regardless of Close combat.
Enemy models moved through in this way are displaced and injured on a strength v toughness test with armor saves granted.

I haven't been this excited about a new edition since 3rd. Graded on a curve (and I taught public school for 6 years) it's 10/10/10.

I gave it a 3. I was interested, until I saw the new To Wound rules. Weight of fire is in, while accurate firepower is out. The ability of each player to assign wounds was another nail in the coffin. What does it mean? Movement trays are in. There is no longer any reason to space out your models, as Blasts\Large Blasts\Templates are out.

I have the feeling that 40k is going to feel like fantasy. If I wanted tercios of infantry, I'd play Fantasy instead. I remember games where facing and positioning MATTERED, but it won't with 8th.

Lastly, I play Tau. JSJ is gone. Tau are decent in melee now. And there is no way to buff my shooting anymore to the levels that I had (even in third). It feels as though all the armies play the same now. If I wanted that, I'd play chess.

I'll revisit this game when the Tau codex is released, but for now? I'm probably going to sit out of the game.

how are you gonna make a poll and then ask me to do math!?

 steam wrote:
GW really hates CSM....

No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

 Purifier wrote:

 steam wrote:
GW really hates CSM....

No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

Purifier, we need to repeat this as often as possible (which I have seen you do in numerous threads). Many have never been through something like this before, and don't have the time to keep up with numerous updates and info as its released.

You're doing the Emperor's work, my friend.

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

That is an interesting idea re monstrous creatures.
Agree completely re templates.
Eventually they are gonna have to use USRs to fix stuff like land raiders trapped by grots and so on,
I.e. anything with keyword ABC can move through any units with keyword EFG during any movement phase regardless of Close combat.
Enemy models moved through in this way are displaced and injured on a strength v toughness test with armor saves granted.

I think the proliferation of targets with multiple woulds has been, in general, bad for the game. It alters the balance of firepower and resilience in a bad way. Among other things, it overvalues rate of fire and devalues weapon power and armor penetrating ability.
I don't think HP are a very good abstraction for resilience anyway. The idea of "how many hits can I take until I die" is kind of stupid, if you think about it.

But, with regards to a carnifex being a vehicle:
1-4: Crew Stunned/Shaken, It's wracked by pain responses from the hit, rendering it unable to fire and move accurately.
5: Weapon Destroyed. In a bloody mess, the arm-mounted gun comes away at the shoulder.
6: Immobilized. A leg is shot off at the knee. It now is unstable, and has trouble moving if at all.
7: Destroyed. The shot pulverizes the brain, severs the spinal chord, or tears such a chunk out of the creature that it collapses to the ground.

Overall i like it in general the simplicity really streamlines the games. There are some aspects I dont like psychic phase being turned into 3-6 spells per army sucks for me I understand it, but my army was build around being knowledgeable about spells and knowing what to go for with the different armies to face. Now there are exaclty 3 options for the models i have and they cant overlap

 Purifier wrote:
No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

IOW, the simplicity of 8th, supposedly one of its few good attributes, isn't even a permanent thing and will be gone as soon as GW gets around to reintroducing the rules bloat in each individual codex.

8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

 Grimgold wrote:
RAW 9/10 - best rules set I've ever seen for 40k, mind they have set that bar pretty low, but the rules are clearly worded, and don't leave much wiggle room.

RAI 9/10 - A lot of thought went into making the game play like the fluff, and the various compositions took a lot of forethought.

Fluff 5/10 - The primaris marines are the laziest plot contrivance since new crons, and while I like the IoM being the underdog, not much else about the indomitus crusade turns my crank.

Also Lance845, and MaykOI are very close to the average, as is gossipmeng (though high).
All seem to have similar reasons - rules are either good or can be made so and this due to genuine effort and perceived goodwill on the part of GW, with the narrative driving new releases viewed less favorably.

In fact, this is an interesting trend. Few respondents seem delighted with the backstory. Many are upset with the blinding flash of light machinations vs solid if not grinding true grimdark storytelling.
How much this has to do with knights in blue armor sent by the great spiritual liege is unclear, but likely there is an undercurrent of WTF given the sheer expanse of the IoM and the potential for so many different narrative arcs.


For my part, I am sticking to my 27 due optimism that some few things that I really don't like at all will be changed in the next year. Still holding out for that truly scalable system.

If GW can fix cover, make blast weapons reflect the dynamics inherent in BLAST WEAPONS, and figure out how to fix vehicles in CC then I would be able to ignore other failings completely.

So far I have seen literally zero tactics in any 8th edition battle report other than target prioritization. It's just armies smashing into each other via the shortest route or standing still and blazing away because terrain does nothing, positioning does nothing, the game is just a contest in passing saves.

 jeff white wrote:
8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

but if we remove the fanboys and the haters, basically top 3 and bottom 3.
We get 5273 / 249 = 21.17

Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I think the proliferation of targets with multiple woulds has been, in general, bad for the game. It alters the balance of firepower and resilience in a bad way. Among other things, it overvalues rate of fire and devalues weapon power and armor penetrating ability.
I don't think HP are a very good abstraction for resilience anyway. The idea of "how many hits can I take until I die" is kind of stupid, if you think about it.

But, with regards to a carnifex being a vehicle:
1-4: Crew Stunned/Shaken, It's wracked by pain responses from the hit, rendering it unable to fire and move accurately.
5: Weapon Destroyed. In a bloody mess, the arm-mounted gun comes away at the shoulder.
6: Immobilized. A leg is shot off at the knee. It now is unstable, and has trouble moving if at all.
7: Destroyed. The shot pulverizes the brain, severs the spinal chord, or tears such a chunk out of the creature that it collapses to the ground.

I personally always hated Weapon Destroyed.
It was always insanely difficult to keep track of it, and irrelevant on so many things while devastating to others.

Stunned/Shaken always left me a little confused as well on which is which since the 2 names are so similar...

This is how I would have done the Damage Table

1-3 - Shaken - Your weapons hit on 6s this round
4-5 - Paralyzed - You cannot move and your weapons hit on 6s this round.
6-7 - Immobilized - You cannot move for the rest of the game, your weapons hit on 6s this round.
8 - Destroyed - Welp...

Edit - Shaken Alternative - If you move, your weapons hit on 6s this round.
It's a lot less punishing and creates a choice.

AP 1 - +2 Damage
AP 2 - +1 Damage

STR10 - +2 Damage
STR9 - +1 Damage

Extra Armor and similar upgrades could provide resistance and counter values.
Like -1 on the Damage Table. Some Tanks could even have -1 damage table resistance naturally like the Land Raider.

Core rules are great, the army i collect got gak all over.

 Talamare wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

but if we remove the fanboys and the haters, basically top 3 and bottom 3.
We get 5273 / 249 = 21.17

What did you vote? Maybe we could ignore your vote instead?
Why bother using polling data if you are going to ignore the results? After all, '4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest Brand Toothpaste!'

I think it's safe to say that the people who voted 30 or 3 are exagerrating.

 -DE- wrote:


1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

I would argue with that, considering melee is now governed by alternating activations rather than initiative.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 -DE- wrote:


1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

I would argue with that, considering melee is now governed by alternating activations rather than initiative.

It's still just a form of target prioritizing.

 -DE- wrote:
Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

This was my fear. And good evidence for gw to change these things asap.
Pride will stop them from doing so immediately. But by next year I hope that they come to their senses.
Actually. This has to do with the game being a simulation first off.
The more realistic, the better.
The cover and terrain rules suffer due to lack of realism because they defy expectations and this makes the game more about gaming the system for example with msu to take advantage of terrain limitations in order to get cover saves in the first place
And less about strategic maneuvering.
I suspect that asking people to playtest who are better at gaming the system and organizing tournaments than balancing game systems was one reason that things ended up this way.
Getting customers I.e. gamers in and out of the door is an attitude that results in thinking that dice games with expensive markers in the form of models is an adequate substitute for a robust battlefield simulation.
Good thing though is that now it is our turn to deliver feedback so tha gw can adjust.
As it is I simply pretend that the cover rules are different and that cover applies to the individual model rather than to the unit as a whole.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So far I have seen literally zero tactics in any 8th edition battle report other than target prioritization. It's just armies smashing into each other via the shortest route or standing still and blazing away because terrain does nothing, positioning does nothing, the game is just a contest in passing saves.

Yes. This is the AoS ification coming through.
It needs to be purged with fire.

Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

While I agree all of the 8th battle reports are turning into close-combat scrums, I can't say I've seen anything in 7th that remotely resembled tactics or strategy outside of meta-gaming and abusing loopholes to force a situation.

So while 8th may not be the savior, it can't be as bad as 7th. However, even with GW allowing for minor adjustments via Chapter Approved books, I don't think you'll be seeing whole-sale rules changes anytime soon.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

 Purifier wrote:
"a simple poll"

>makes it a 3-30 point three category poll, two of which no one has any practical experience with so can't really rate.

I dunno man. Probably some part of the upper spectrum. We'll see when we've had a few games and run into the problems that will inevitably occur, and seen just how irrelevant or problematic some of the points people have brought up are.

So much this

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

So, I have a question to the people commenting on "it's just target prioritization".

What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

As far as it's strategic depth, I think, even since I've been playing, it's just been target prioritization. Select what target benefits you most to kill this turn, and which target each gun is mot efficient against, and let fly.


And how exactly is getting cover different this edition than in previous editions? Line-of-Sight and Line-of-Fire are still things.

 Talamare wrote:
With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

It really wasn't. The rules were a bloated mess, there was way too much randomness taking away player choices, etc. Unfortunately 8th is more of the same, dumbing down the game but keeping the same rules bloat and idiotic randomness. The only real difference is that a lot of the rules bloat has moved from the core rules to giving each unit its own special snowflake rules instead of USRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

That sounds like a problem with your games. In previous editions, assuming a proper amount of LOS-blocking terrain, there was plenty of strategic maneuvering. Short-ranged units (whether shooting or melee) had to figure out how to get into range of their targets, long-ranged units had to maneuver to get clear shots, units with heavy weapons had to decide between shooting (even if in a less than optimal position) or moving to set up a future attack, etc. Now in 8th that's been significantly reduced. Melee units can charge turn 1 from across the table, heavy weapons can move and shoot (and even charge!) with minimal penalty, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

It really wasn't. The rules were a bloated mess, there was way too much randomness taking away player choices, etc. Unfortunately 8th is more of the same, dumbing down the game but keeping the same rules bloat and idiotic randomness. The only real difference is that a lot of the rules bloat has moved from the core rules to giving each unit its own special snowflake rules instead of USRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

That sounds like a problem with your games. In previous editions, assuming a proper amount of LOS-blocking terrain, there was plenty of strategic maneuvering. Short-ranged units (whether shooting or melee) had to figure out how to get into range of their targets, long-ranged units had to maneuver to get clear shots, units with heavy weapons had to decide between shooting (even if in a less than optimal position) or moving to set up a future attack, etc. Now in 8th that's been significantly reduced. Melee units can charge turn 1 from across the table, heavy weapons can move and shoot (and even charge!) with minimal penalty, etc.

So where did all the LoS blocking terrain go? It looks to me like it's still all there.

Games aren't long enough and the board is nowhere near big enough for there to be strategic maneuvering. Shifting Leman Russes to clear a shot is really just more target prioritization.

What makes short ranged units no long have to worry about getting in range, and Heavy Weapons not have to worry about having an optimal position?


As I said, I find the fluff adequate, if uninspired, and the rules passable, if not particularly praiseworthy. I'm not a fan of the changes to vehicle operation, as I said earlier, and this the goal of equalizing vehicles and MC's would have been done better by removing the Monstrous Creature type as opposed to the Vehicle type. But I don't see how there's particularly less strategy this edition than there was last edition, or the two editions before it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

except was that the armies involved? the players? or the rules?

I'd sure like to know how people are building lists, and being able to play when the dang game or indexes aren't even in stores.

BrianDavion wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

except was that the armies involved? the players? or the rules?

For the 8th game, it was a mix of things. The army for smitespam was a case of low variance between floors and ceilings for killing stuff. Since Smite targets the closest model ("don't choose your target"), ignores "fire in cc" restriction (so you can't hide against it), and ignores saves of any kind so cover is meaningless). With enough Staffs of Change, the Horror player even started just jamming enemy vehicles so they couldn't disengage and just let Smite finish the job for him.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'd sure like to know how people are building lists, and being able to play when the dang game or indexes aren't even in stores.

The entire game, index books included, has been leaked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
But I don't see how there's particularly less strategy this edition than there was last edition, or the two editions before it.

Because everything is homogenized so much. Consider heavy weapons, for example. In previous editions you couldn't move and shoot (effectively), and couldn't charge after shooting. So a unit with, say, lascannons played very differently from a unit with plasma guns. The lascannon unit had massive range but poor mobility, and giving up shooting for a turn to reposition was a tough call. The plasma unit had much better mobility, especially with the transports they often got, but paid for it with much shorter range. Now in 8th the two units are effectively identical. The penalty for moving and shooting with the lascannons is a mere -1 to hit, and you can even charge after shooting. So now it's just a question of which weapon's stat line is better.

Or consider flyers. In 7th they're hard to hit without specialized AA units, but they have some serious drawbacks in their limited firing arcs and inability to start the game on the table. So there's a clear difference between a player who can find a good strategy for handling these problems, and one who can't. But in 8th those differences are effectively gone. The accuracy penalty against flyers is a mere -1 to hit, so you can just shoot whatever random weapons you like at them and not worry about bringing AA specialists. But at the same time the flyer restrictions are effectively gone, so you can just orbit your flyer around the edge of the table without ever worrying about losing shots. There's barely any remaining difference between a flyer and a normal tank, or even a flyer and an infantry squad.

 -DE- wrote:
Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

And yet more people blindly charging forward with this stupid crap. None of the things you've pointed out as 'tactical' decisions ever actually mattered in 6th and 7th. Gunlines were MORE static because hitting on 6s was a bigger deal than either cover system for heavy weapons, melee has NEVER taken any thinking, it was a spreadsheet you filled in with dice rolls, now there's all sorts of tricks you can pull with charges and command points and pile ins whereas before it was just 'herp a derp into your lines and roll dice till on person is dead.'

Positioning never matter because everybody and their brother was rolling in ignores cover and vehicles were so fragile hitting rear armor wasn't even worth the effort it took to move models. Drawing LOS from gun barrels and having arbitrary bullgak 'arcs' on guns just compounded how gakky vehicles were.

There are things in 8th that are problematic sure, but this stuff is just bandwagony bullcrap. Come back when you've delved deep enough into the rules to find the real problems.

The "is only a meele in the middle" is fault of the players, not the game.

I'll say it here as I have been saying this throug all of 6th, 7th and 8th of Fantasy.

If you only play pitched battles all of your battles are gonna end in a big meele in the middle.

If you don't use other battleplans, objetives, LOS blocking cover, etc... it doesn't matter what edition of 40k or Fantasy or AoS are you playing. They are gonna end all of them in a big meele in the middle, or a big meele in one deployment zone if one army is a gun line.

Is absurd to claim that the game isn't more than rushing to meele in the middle when if that happens is 100% the players fault.

Heck, even Infinity, if you don't play the battleplans of the game and use the cover that they recommend you to use, all of the games should end in a big meele in the middle.
But nobody ever has used thas as an argument agains't Infinity.

I suppose is because Infinity players aren't forcing to play in a absurd and stupid way to put the blame in the "edition/game" they are playing.


A daemon word bearer summon spam list against one of the weakest codex in all of 7th was a Back and fort game?

Tell me more.


This past month has been people looking for even the smallest point to support their narrative, prefixed from the beginning. Did anybody make an reasonable oppinion about 8th after playing the game or at least reading all of the rules? All the hate 8th has been receiving has been from people that has been hating it since even before any leak rule existed. (And to be honest, some people have loved 8th before that, too) Fanboys vs haters, always the same, no matter the topic

I have 2 Summoners, period, and I only go for Flesh Hounds on the first turn. Truth be told, for the same points value I could have gotten a Gorepack but I wanted the option for Malediction powers.

Guy was a good player, it was an objective game, and he got Seize the Initiative and one-shotted my Herald with a Master of Ordnance after I fluffed Look Out Sir. Logically, this leaves a Chaos Sorcerer doing the summoning and even with twice the wounds, he Perils on any double.

And there was a *lot* of terrain and he used Marbo, and solo Astropaths that would move out, plink wounds off my bikes with Psychic Shriek, then Move Move Move...at least until I crashed into the first Prescienced blob with a Dirge Caster Rhino.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

Not the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
"a simple poll"

>makes it a 3-30 point three category poll, two of which no one has any practical experience with so can't really rate.

I dunno man. Probably some part of the upper spectrum. We'll see when we've had a few games and run into the problems that will inevitably occur, and seen just how irrelevant or problematic some of the points people have brought up are.

So much this

And many of these problem points have come up in this thread, as people trickle in with their votes after reviewing games and reports, and rules, and others return to comment on how their experiences may have changed their minds and initial judgments.
I created this space for this discussion.
And I am grateful for those who have been contributing their insights.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

Seems right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:


For the 8th game, it was a mix of things. The army for smitespam was a case of low variance between floors and ceilings for killing stuff. Since Smite targets the closest model ("don't choose your target"), ignores "fire in cc" restriction (so you can't hide against it), and ignores saves of any kind so cover is meaningless). With enough Staffs of Change, the Horror player even started just jamming enemy vehicles so they couldn't disengage and just let Smite finish the job for him.

That seems to be a problem, jamming up vehicles.

 jeff white wrote:

That seems to be a problem, jamming up vehicles.

I'm surprised, actually. I was expecting less of it, since it seems difficult to take advantage of and a list built to take advantage of it strikes me as having a lot of weaknesses.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'd sure like to know how people are building lists, and being able to play when the dang game or indexes aren't even in stores.

The entire game, index books included, has been leaked.

Because everything is homogenized so much. Consider heavy weapons, for example. In previous editions you couldn't move and shoot (effectively), and couldn't charge after shooting. So a unit with, say, lascannons played very differently from a unit with plasma guns. The lascannon unit had massive range but poor mobility, and giving up shooting for a turn to reposition was a tough call. The plasma unit had much better mobility, especially with the transports they often got, but paid for it with much shorter range. Now in 8th the two units are effectively identical. The penalty for moving and shooting with the lascannons is a mere -1 to hit, and you can even charge after shooting. So now it's just a question of which weapon's stat line is better.

Or consider flyers. In 7th they're hard to hit without specialized AA units, but they have some serious drawbacks in their limited firing arcs and inability to start the game on the table. So there's a clear difference between a player who can find a good strategy for handling these problems, and one who can't. But in 8th those differences are effectively gone. The accuracy penalty against flyers is a mere -1 to hit, so you can just shoot whatever random weapons you like at them and not worry about bringing AA specialists. But at the same time the flyer restrictions are effectively gone, so you can just orbit your flyer around the edge of the table without ever worrying about losing shots. There's barely any remaining difference between a flyer and a normal tank, or even a flyer and an infantry squad.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Well just cause it's leaked doesn't mean it's really 'available' to read right now.

Well, ok, if you don't want to read the books before they're officially released that's fine. But we have the entire contents of 8th edition, literal scans of every page of rules from every book. It's available if you want it.

Well I've been preaching that flyers should just be large skimmers from day one on a 40K table. There is no logical way flyers could even appear on the table in a fight of this scale. They are much better represented by things like the old Ork fighta bommer 'strafe' you could buy, not even SEE a model, cause it'd be. Whoosh, Explosion, and fighter gone at supersonic speeds. (this also applies to the lance strike mechanics Inquisition used to have, but still it's how flyers SHOULD be represented. No model, just an attack. ) The flyers like Valks, though could see the table because they are SLOWING down to the point they can be picked off. They are really more akin to helicopters in modern day, then an F-22 or B-2 bomber appearing going supersonic.

Sure, that's a fair point, but GW has gone past the point of no return by making 28mm flyer models and putting them into the game. The question now is how to represent them rules-wise, and the absurd homogenization of the unit type in 8th is a disappointing failure. They went from being an interesting strategic element, if not very realistic from a fluff point of view, to a much shallower concept that is barely different from conventional tanks and somehow manages to be even less realistic.

Oh I want to read them, but I also don't want the popo knocking my door down.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Oh I want to read them, but I also don't want the popo knocking my door down.

That's about as likely as the police coming for you because you were on the forum talking about the leaks. IOW, not happening. Read them if you want.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

Well I've been preaching that flyers should just be large skimmers from day one on a 40K table. There is no logical way flyers could even appear on the table in a fight of this scale. They are much better represented by things like the old Ork fighta bommer 'strafe' you could buy, not even SEE a model, cause it'd be. Whoosh, Explosion, and fighter gone at supersonic speeds. (this also applies to the lance strike mechanics Inquisition used to have, but still it's how flyers SHOULD be represented. No model, just an attack. ) The flyers like Valks, though could see the table because they are SLOWING down to the point they can be picked off. They are really more akin to helicopters in modern day, then an F-22 or B-2 bomber appearing going supersonic.

I also agree that heavy weapons should be static to fire. That's the whole freakin' point of them being heavy. Man sized things can't just pick up these weapons and run towards the enemy firing unless they are super strong or one off crazy people...like Sgt. Harker.

Or consider my poor Tau. I play(ed FSE) suit heavy lists, and there was a reason to do so but not anymore. Do you people think that I gave this thing a 3 for no reason? Now my army plays JUST LIKE EVERONE ELSE'S! Why bother with this game? I mean, I'll hold onto my stuff until I see what the Tau codex is like, but if it is more of this crap, I'll join the rest of my local community in dropping this ruin of a game. I started playing this game for a reason. My army had a distinct flavor when I chose an army that (I believed) would age well. Don't get me wrong - the flavor is still there but in a cherry pepsi\coke kind of way. As I said, JSJ is gone, accurate firepower is out, weight of firepower is in. Tau are NOT supposed to be decent in melee, Tau are supposed to be mobile, they are supposed to die to a breeze in melee.

Every time I have heard or seen criticisms about my chosen army it was that they don't play like any other army in the game. They are not supposed to, else I would have chosen another army in this game!

And stop confusing Strategic and Tactical gameplay. Strategic is meta, where you choose what to deploy on the field. Tactical is what you do on the field of battle.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

No, I don't forgive the Godwin.
Majority of FLGS didn't involve the most broken lists at the top.

The vast majority of 7th involved a ton of options that gave people interesting options on what to do during their turn and how to build their armies.
There were vastly more Formations than the few that were broken.

Going instantly to Hitler is weak.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

That seems to be a problem, jamming up vehicles.

I'm surprised, actually. I was expecting less of it, since it seems difficult to take advantage of and a list built to take advantage of it strikes me as having a lot of weaknesses.

Falling back can't shoot.
Good thing is this can be fixed with keyword "vehicle".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Oh I want to read them, but I also don't want the popo knocking my door down.

If this is your fear then sleep easy and wait friend.

I like the new rules and how they implemented them. I stopped playing when 7e came out because the power creep was too real. I'm definitely going to have fun in 8e because they redid all the rules. I'm very happy with points 2 and 3. Its point 1 I dislike. Why?

Well I like how Papa Smurf came back and this massive new warp storm. GM finally cashed in on a bunch of their possible plot points (Cadia falling, Papa Smurf coming back) and I like that direction. However, I don't like the how they handled Primaris Marines.

The Primaris Marines are a bit of a put off for me. I actually like them a lot, in HH they were hinted at. The Raven Guard were gonna make some - but then Alpha Legion trickery. So there existed a reason to have them, and a very strong one in my opinion.

However they kinda glossed over all of that and had Cawl become the deus ex machina and made a bunch of stuff up. It turns out they've existed for 10K years and are here to save the day. Bunch of crap to me.

 Talamare wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

No, I don't forgive the Godwin.
Majority of FLGS didn't involve the most broken lists at the top.

The vast majority of 7th involved a ton of options that gave people interesting options on what to do during their turn and how to build their armies.
There were vastly more Formations than the few that were broken.

Going instantly to Hitler is weak.

Fine, use another more creative analogy then, I just went for low hanging fruit because this isn't really a discussion that warrants great investment of intellectual resources.

15 in total.

I'm ok with the rules and I gave a 7 for both 2 and 3 categories, but I hate nurgle and can't stand ultramarines. Gigantic marines are also awful, not to mention the tank and even guilliman, I can't stand that model too. Not to mention their backgrond, a joke. I gave 1 to the first category.

 Talamare wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

No, I don't forgive the Godwin.
Majority of FLGS didn't involve the most broken lists at the top.

The vast majority of 7th involved a ton of options that gave people interesting options on what to do during their turn and how to build their armies.
There were vastly more Formations than the few that were broken.

Going instantly to Hitler is weak.

Don't give me that rose colored glasses crap. Even if you didn't play hyper competitive there was such a ridiculous power gap between good and bad that it was basically impossible to accidentally have a good game.

Got a friend who's played saim hain since 4th? Hope you don't play one of the 10 factipns in the game who can't do anything about eldar jetbikes. New player really loves the riptide model and only has 1500 points even with 2 of them? Hope you brought grav. Daemon of Tzeentch player? No way you're having a fun game.

Seventh was a minefield to try and get a good game in. Bring 1 too many psychic dice, one too many rerolls, or the wrong formation and you'd decimate someone (or get decimated) turn one and have nowhere to go from there.

Feth 7th, may it rot in pieces.

I don't get the logic behind aggressively defending 8th because 7th was bad. I didn't play 7th. Because it was bad. Telling me it was bad won't help me like 8th.

 Blackie wrote:
15 in total.

I'm ok with the rules and I gave a 7 for both 2 and 3 categories, but I hate nurgle and can't stand ultramarines. Gigantic marines are also awful, not to mention the tank and even guilliman, I can't stand that model too. Not to mention their backgrond, a joke. I gave 1 to the first category.

This is a common feeling it turns out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Novelist47 wrote:
I like the new rules and how they implemented them. I stopped playing when 7e came out because the power creep was too real. I'm definitely going to have fun in 8e because they redid all the rules. I'm very happy with points 2 and 3. Its point 1 I dislike. Why?

Well I like how Papa Smurf came back and this massive new warp storm. GM finally cashed in on a bunch of their possible plot points (Cadia falling, Papa Smurf coming back) and I like that direction. However, I don't like the how they handled Primaris Marines.

The Primaris Marines are a bit of a put off for me. I actually like them a lot, in HH they were hinted at. The Raven Guard were gonna make some - but then Alpha Legion trickery. So there existed a reason to have them, and a very strong one in my opinion.

However they kinda glossed over all of that and had Cawl become the deus ex machina and made a bunch of stuff up. It turns out they've existed for 10K years and are here to save the day. Bunch of crap to me.

This is very much a common feeling.

Not easy to imagine how they would introduce two wound marine nobs any better however...
Eldar deal making?
Cherub from the emperor's mind sent as a message?
Some sister of battle having nightmares from the warp, so Tzeentch's plan to split the Imperium?