I hesitate to say the game is fixed, but it is awesome. There are some mechanics that need to be improved, but overall the imperfections have been greatly reduced.
The best part about 8th edition is how fast you can get though a game. Playing at 2000+ points, have played 5 games and nothing went a full 2 hours.
Its a lot more fun. I feel 7th was the worst of any edition I've played going back to 3rd. It even rates worse than 5th edition for me, which I hated more than anything.
Its not fixed by any means... the min/max crew will destroy it in short order. By December there will be threads complaining about the teabag builds like always... but overall the things I hated like convoluted huge rulebooks and length of gametime have been addressed.
I wouldn't say it's "Fixed", at least not yet, there are small things here and there that bug me, and we haven't seen a single codex drop yet, which will be the moment of truth in my eyes as to the health of 8th edition.
If GW royally screws up the codex balance (again) then it doesn't matter that the main ruleset got improved because balance will go out of the window again.
That said, the indexes seem to be fairly even in power level, so I think while they probably won't be perfect, GW would have to actively try to screw up to break the game half as bad as 7th was.
Seriously, screw 7th edition with a rusty chainsaw. After playing 8th I'm not going back.
It's more fun (except for that reroll rule idiocy), but I feel like it is missing some necessary details such as reserves in matched play and vehicle weapon firing arcs. I also don't care for the mix n match force org charts that allow some really bad combinations that are borderline wose than the previous version (100+ horrors for one).
That said, 7th was the worst edition I have ever played (been playing since the end of 2nd). Good effing riddance.
Its better than 7th but that's not a particularly high bar to clear.
So far out of 5 games noticing that TaC lists dont do tooooo well against skewed lists (speed demon jet bikes and horde lists) but thats probably me not making the right decisions.
but so far nothing seems straight unfair at all which is fantastic.
After one game of eighth I can say so far so good. There are one or two rules discrepancies that were only due to us being new to it. One or two strange rules which I'm stull unure of, vehicle firing arcs as mentioned above, characters not joining units and not being allowed to be targeted etc etc
But overall our group is happy to keep playing.
That said, given what a total pile of garbage 7E turned out to be that's not a hard bar. 6E and 7E were depressingly low points for 40k, and the market reflected their abject failure with 40k losing its tabletop dominance for the first time in...literally ever, to Xwing.
8E is far from perfect, and there appears to be lots of poorly thought out or poorly handled implementations, but it appears thus far to be...playable, which I think is about all we can expect from GW.
I stopped saying "better" or "worse" a long time ago, and now just say "different" or "same". At the moment, 8e is just different. Definitely looking forward to trying out new Primaris Marines, or different Tau, but my beloved Grey Knights still feel the same.
1. Bland. Space marine chapters are incredibly bland. Loss of chapter tactics is disappointing. For instance, was it really necessary to delete Iron Hands completely? Why would you play Salamanders / White Scars / Imperial Fists, to get literally *one* named HQ?
2. Nerfs. Some units are totally worthless now. For instance, the humble drop pod. They cannot carry Centurions & Dreadnoughts, which is disappointing. Does anyone plan on paying 10% of their list to allow TAC marines to deep strike?
3. Faction keyword restricting buffs. Most of this stuff is totally redundant, how many different ways are there to reroll 1s? Why is it that a blood angels psyker can't buff a space wolves unit, none of the powers are good enough to be game breaking.
4. Morale phase & Hordes. There's literally 0 downside to bringing insane blobs of small units. The whole purpose of morale is negated in scenarios where it should be a balancing factor. As a result, "And they shall know no fear" should really read, "They know more fear than conscripts."
What I do like:
1. Faster games. 2. More balance. 3. Nothing that seems totally unbeatable or unkillable.
What I'm on the fence about:
1. Mortal wounds. It's an interesting idea, we'll see how it pans out. 2. Vehicles being very weak in melee, and susceptible to rules exploiting to freeze them in place. 3. No penalty for shooting through your enemies units to hit something in the back. 4. NuMarines. They're not good on the table, like, at all, except hellblasters. 5. charging without seeing your target, or charging through walls.
2) I dunno. by making it not take centurions or dreadnoughts now you have options between centruions walking or devs dropping or sitting back. otherwise why take dev squads when you can have more shots with more wounds that ignore cover with centruions.
dreads.... little disapointing but they are still fine as counter deepstrike back line holders or move up with other units.
It's better than 7th and not as simplified as was initially feared, so in that respect it's a winner.
It's still riddled with all the normal GW game annoyances though, including one of my personal pet-hates about the modern output of the studio - annoying restrictions based not on what makes sense in the lore, nor even based on a rational look at the model range, but on a mindless, vacant, vacuous adherence to the "if we don't make literally the exact model for this thing, it doesn't exist". Made even more infuriating by the fact they don't even stick to the rule themselves.
A good example is Deathwatch - there is no good reason for them not to have Apothecaries and Techmarines. None. There are examples of them in the existing background, there's no in-universe logic why they wouldn't have them, and even if GW don't sell those specific models they sell Techmarines and Apothecaries and they sell bloody Deathwatch pads, so it's not even like putting them in would be tempting people to buy third-party stuff even if you take GW's mental paranoia about third-party sellers seriously. But GW still take the time to explicitly forbid taking them as Deathwatch.
Worse, thanks to the way Keywords work, you can't even rely on higher-level shared keywords to include them since both their key abilities are dependent on sharing the same <Chapter>.
And the indices are riddled with that kind of irritation - random senseless prevention of equipment choices and arbitrary restriction of certain units abound. Now a lot of them are holdovers from the way things worked in 7th, but if they were going to bother to go through and put out fresh rules for literally every unit in the game, you'd think they could have taken a little extra time to do the job properly.
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
I do think it is much better, particularly much better than recent years.
As for different...? Eh. They could have gone a bit further (reducing attack resolution to 2 rolls, at least- some things just generate way too many dice for this three-tier resolution mechanic to be even remotely sane).
In some ways it couldn't be too different, as it had to still support the bloated trash models they cranked out- like flyers and giant things. Though I was pleasantly surprised a lot of those were toned down.
But part of it is an intentional return to older mechanics after an edition that pretty much flopped (and came too fast, and lasted relatively little time). This seems to be a trend in gaming industry. But at least it seems to have worked out better than 5th edition D&D.
There are a few problems, but one of the real tests is if they'll take the simple steps to fix them (conscripts & dire avengers, for example). Alos, multi-wound models and multi-damage weapons interact in an amazingly cumbersome way. Easy batch rolling suddenly careens to a halt and falls off the bridge.
The other real tests if they continue past practice and utterly wreck things with uneven and poorly thought out codexes. Despite the horrid organization of the indexes (another problem area, with wargear there, cumbersome and nigh-useless data sheets there, and weapon points there and unit points there and the metric ton of cross referencing required to put an army together), I'd rather type of a functional spreadsheet with all the information together and ride the sanity train for a couple years before they muck things up. I rather dread the return of <whatever> Tactics to warp sensible listing into demented caricatures based on a throw-away quirk or preference rather than functional force allocations. (We love bikes! Great, go re-build a Hardly Drivable in your spare time. 90% of your combat strength does NOT ride bikes, because you are a codex chapter).
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
2nd was Herohammer. Never played it because I didn't like how one character could kill an entire army and the rest of the stuff was just a character delivery system. It had cool rules, but most were never used from what I could tell. I liked 3rd edition when it came out. 4th was somewhat better I thought and 5th as a ruleset was good, though the individual codices broke it badly (notably Dark Eldar and then Grey Knights). 6th was not fun (whoever thought Invisibility was a good idea was an idiot) and 7th was worse because it was basically a money grab reprint of 6th where the only changes were bad to worse (free formations, etc.).
As for 8th, I like it so far. It feels a bit bland, but I think that should improve as we get new codices. About the only thing I despise is the new reroll "clarification". It basically makes no sense and serves only to confuse people with a non-intuitive rule that I expect literally everyone will probably get wrong at least initially, especially new players.
Things I like:
1. Pretty much no more deathstars.
2. Allies shenanigans are gone thanks to the Keywords idea.
3. no "free" abilities/units if you happen to take the right formation.
4. no summoning spam.
5. no random psychic powers (always hated that idea).
6. no overtly broken psychic powers, e.g. invisibility.
7. Mortal wounds. At least now there is a way to deal with annoying 3++/2++ models. I do worry about the potential to spam the ability going forward, but we will have to wait and see.
8. Faster games.
9. Nothing is unkillable.
10. Alternating combat is nice.
11. Split fire should have always been a universal rule.
12. No more scatter for deep strike!!!!! Finally it works the way it always should have. Random scattering and mishaps was just so stupid, particularly for things like Jump Packs where you can actively see where you are going.
13. Charging after arriving from reserve. Should always have been that way.
Things I dislike:
1. reroll rule (already mentioned).
2. drop pods seem way overcosted now for their limitations.
3. no reserves rule in matched play.
4. I Go, You Go - would have vastly preferred individual unit activations. It's still possible to focus everything on one key unit and destroy / cripple it before it even gets to do anything which I have always hated. The Bolt Action dice activation method works *WAY* better in my experience at mitigating that problem.
5. It appears spam is not quite as dead as I would have hoped. e.g. the 100+ brimstone horrors idea.
6. Reserving points from your total for summoning/reserves does not seem fluffy or even useful IMO. I get why it was done, but I have to imagine there were better options.
7. I originally thought the idea of Power Levels was dumb, and frankly the more I read them the more my opinion on them is confirmed. They may serve as a mild barometer for narrative games, but the disparity between units is way too obtuse to be even remotely valuable in making sure a game is balanced.
8. No vehicle firing arcs. The idea of being able to fire all weapons from any point on the hull just seems dumb and detracts from my suspension of disbelief during a game. I suspect I will never like this rule.
9. Vehicles being able to be locked into place. That is just dumb overall.
10. Charging without being able to see your target.
11. The advance rule should have just been called Run. Calling it Advance is totally counter-intuitive to me and doesn't accurately describe what the unit is doing IMO.
12. Specifically for Eldar - I think the Ghosthelm should have ignored the first Perils of the Warp result, or at least granted a reroll. That was always the fluffy part of that piece of Farseer wargear.
Things I am uncertain about:
1. Morale as it applies to hordes seems like it would be extremely unbalanced, but I have yet to try it or see them in action so who knows.
2. Random charge ranges. I wasn't a fan of it in the last two editions and I still am not now. However, it works so I'm okay with it.
Anyway, I'm sure I will find other things as time goes by. Otherwise I like 8th a lot. Much better than anything since at least 4th edition, maybe 3rd.
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
7th had mostly functional core rules, that were bloated by extraneous items bolted on (Destroyer/Stomp/etc), and some special rules being redundant (Stealth vs Shrouded) or pointless (hi Soul Blaze). However, most the hate for 7th came less from the core rules themselves but from specific armies (hi Eldar) or Formations (hi Riptide Wing).
8th arguably leveled out a lot of things (though this is debatable) but the core rules are...exceptionally quirky, flying in the face of "common sense." Given the choice between salvaging a "mostly functional" core ruleset and cleaning up the extraneous bloat, versus nuking the system with all sorts of glitchy side effects, I'd rather the first choice.
8th is a lot more fun than 7th. It is quicker to play, and more balanced. However there are some issues. Most vehicles (at least in the SM book) are just way too expensive. As someone who normally plays a vehicle heavy army, this hurts...a lot (rip transports and vindicators). Also I think there is just too much random for the sake of random and a lack of variety. I am hoping the variety issue is fixed with proper codicies, and some other the other issues via errata and faq.
Vehicles have gotten more expensive because they are hard as hell to remove unless you focus your anti-tank on them one at a time. Every vehicle got this treatment.
8th is leagues better than 7th. Every army is a lot closer together in terms of power, and the rules are a lot simpler with less need to rush to the rulebook every 5 seconds to check if I'm doing something right. I memorized all the rules for my models and core rules in record time. 8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.
andysonic1 wrote: 8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.
Subject // 7e // 8e
Time to set up a game // 30-120 mins // 5-15 mins Time to memorise the core aspects of the rules // Impossible // An evening Time to understand the rules of your codex // Weeks // One week Ability to keep track of other armies // Impossibru // Possibru Tactical Depth // None // None, but at least you won't be tabled Turn 1 anymore Rules disputes // Take 3+ books and several hours to resolve (if they are even resolvable) // Find quote, then realise GW forgot to define things Playability // Utterly unplayable // Plastic's already on the table m8 Balance // Wtf is balance? // Even the "bottom tier" armies aren't auto-lose Nerd Rage // Over 9000!!! // Over 9000!!!
Seems better overall. Less retardation, more pew pew layzorz.
MagicJuggler wrote: I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.
Honestly the rules are setup in such a way that someone is going to be shot off the board pretty quick. It's their solution to the criticisms of previous versions that they simply took too long to play.
MagicJuggler wrote: I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.
I'm not disputing this but... actually I'm disputing this. How did you play for this happening to you?
I'm sorry but I can't take seriously that 8th is worse than 7th. You can like it less, thats acceptable. You can say that some aspects are worse in 8th than 7th, thats true too, and others are just the same. But, as a whole, 8th is much better than 7th. If that means that is a good game by itself, is something that can be talked about.
MagicJuggler wrote: I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.
Eh, as someone who thinks 8th is definitely an improvement over 7th I could still understand someone who thinks 7th was better. Not sure how you can say that 8th is objectively a better game and anyone who says they think differently is simply wrong?
dosiere wrote: Eh, as someone who thinks 8th is definitely an improvement over 7th I could still understand someone who thinks 7th was better. Not sure how you can say that 8th is objectively a better game and anyone who says they think differently is simply wrong?
Where have I said that 8th was objetively better? I have talked about my opinion. For example, if for somebody, vehicle facings and firings arcs are like the most important thing of 40k, or the one they enjoy more, I can understand how for them 8th is worse than 7th.
I'm on a mobile, so quoting selectively is a big pain, but your post was that you can't take it seriously that 8th would be worse. Maybe I misunderstood.
MagicJuggler wrote: I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.
Lists?
Yeah, also.. Tactics?
I mean, there's not much tactics in 40k, but playing like you did in 7e will get you massacred.
MagicJuggler wrote: I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.
Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.
Lists?
Yeah, also.. Tactics?
I mean, there's not much tactics in 40k, but playing like you did in 7e will get you massacred.
Yeah, I mean trying to walk Marines up the board like you're playing 30k is going to be a bad time. Space Marine bois and Chaos Space Marine bois aren't going to live 5 seconds out of cover. If you really want your squads to live, buy some rhinos and drop pods.
dosiere wrote: I'm on a mobile, so quoting selectively is a big pain, but your post was that you can't take it seriously that 8th would be worse. Maybe I misunderstood.
Yeah. I can't take it seriously , at least not without a proper explanation, because in my opinion 8th is so much better than 7th that I can't concive what makes people think the opposite
As a grognard player myself, I'll say that 8th is categorically more enjoyable than 7th (7th being possibly the worst wargame I've ever experienced...and that's not just limited to Warhammer, I mean all wargames over 20+ years - fething terrible). Comparing it to 2nd ed. etc. would take a hugely lengthy post that I'm too lazy to write.
I'll say this as a rule of Warhammer 40K though: people will ruin it, and your enjoyment will be based on who you play the game with - not what game you play.
He had Draigo, some other GK douchebag, 5 termies, storm raven, dread, LR Crusader. For IG I think 2 heavy weapon squads and 2 line squads and a Valkyrie which was dead weight with it hitting on 5+ on the move.
I had 30 CSM, missile havocs, 5 bikes, 5 raptors, 5 possessed, 5 melta chosen, heldrake, defiler, 2 sorcerers.
I even stole the initiative.
Burned a heavy weapon squad to a crisp, then tied up an infantry squad and the land raider with the heldrake, taking 6 wounds in return. Warptimed raptors into his lines, skorched an infantry squad and engaged a heavy weapon squad. Prescient Heavy weapon fire against Stormraven does 1 wound.
GK kill Heldrake with Smite, probably shoot 15 MEQ off the board with the Dread, LR and Stormraven alone, pull off both 9" teleport charges to wipe the bikes and raptors.
I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.
Dread, LR and Raven mow down another 15 MEQ, mass Smite takes out the Defiler (keep in mind GK Smite does straight up 3 MW to Daemons).
I call it a day and post some hyperbole because I actually still had 10 basic dudes left at the end of turn 2 and I'm sure they'd have had a great time against his whole army minus the 30 IG dudes that I killed.
This was with me winning deployment, stealing the initiative, getting two 1st turn charges, tying up the LR with a pile in move, hugging cover where I could, stacking Warptime and Prescience for max effect, etc. Outside that crap roll there's nothing better I could have done. My opponent hadn't even really read the rules beforehand, let alone tacticas. All of my nope.
He had Draigo, some other GK douchebag, 5 termies, storm raven, dread, LR Crusader. For IG I think 2 heavy weapon squads and 2 line squads and a Valkyrie which was dead weight with it hitting on 5+ on the move.
I had 30 CSM, missile havocs, 5 bikes, 5 raptors, 5 possessed, 5 melta chosen, heldrake, defiler, 2 sorcerers.
I even stole the initiative.
Burned a heavy weapon squad to a crisp, then tied up an infantry squad and the land raider with the heldrake, taking 6 wounds in return. Warptimed raptors into his lines, skorched an infantry squad and engaged a heavy weapon squad. Prescient Heavy weapon fire against Stormraven does 1 wound.
GK kill Heldrake with Smite, probably shoot 15 MEQ off the board with the Dread, LR and Stormraven alone, pull off both 9" teleport charges to wipe the bikes and raptors.
I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.
Dread, LR and Raven mow down another 15 MEQ, mass Smite takes out the Defiler (keep in mind GK Smite does straight up 3 MW to Daemons).
I call it a day and post some hyperbole because I actually still had 10 basic dudes left at the end of turn 2 and I'm sure they'd have had a great time against his whole army minus the 30 IG dudes that I killed.
This was with me winning deployment, stealing the initiative, getting two 1st turn charges, tying up the LR with a pile in move, hugging cover where I could, stacking Warptime and Prescience for max effect, etc. Outside that crap roll there's nothing better I could have done. My opponent hadn't even really read the rules beforehand, let alone tacticas.
All of my nope.
I'm gonna say try at least one other matchup before calling 8e worse than 7e. Also, you're gonna need to expend about 3 points of anti-armour fire per every 1 point of enemy armour to put a dent in things. You brought a 7e list to an 8e fight, they're not even remotely comparable situations.
A dreadknight shot 15 MEQ off the board huh? The odds of a dreadknight killing 9+ MEQ with a Gatling psilencer is about one in a million and a half. And we're not even dealing with the chances of the incinerator killing 5+ MEQ, which is pitifully low.
It is HIGHLY likely that your GK buddy misplayed the rules. I am *guessing* that he did D3 damage with the gatling psilencer, and had it overflow to the rest of the squad, which it does not.
I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.
Rolling 5/5 1's on 5 dice happens about 1 in 8000 times. If you ever see this - ever - you should take a photo to memorialize the occasion, and burn the dice.
At the very least, it sounds like your buddy rolled hot and you rolled cold.
Were your 30 bois in Rhinos? Were the Possessed? Were the Bikes finding the cover they needed? It honestly doesn't sound like your first turn was bad, you did well. The Heldrake is one big distraction that isn't going to live long, so that's fine it dies turn 1. Your bois should have been in Rhinos. Raptors and Bikes are shooting platforms, they should be avoiding combat at all costs (put your raptors at the top of buildings and your bikes in cover). Your deamons are getting smacked around by GK, nothing you can do about that except get more bubble wrap and use terrain.
Your list doesn't seem very good, and you complain about units doing things they weren't meant to do (raptors/bikes in combat, marines in the open surviving, 0 rhinos or drop pods). I would look up a few battle reports for Chaos and see what people like miniwargaming and frontline gaming are doing because it feels like you came at 8th with either a 7th mindset or a 30k mindset.
Galas wrote: Well. I think the problem was the GK smite against demons.
A dread+LR+Stormraven killing 30 CSM in 2 turns isn't really that impresive.
But can just only Draigo, other GK hero and 5 termies do so many Smites?
GK Dreadnoughts get free Smite too, it's easy to miss. Add a few las/melta shots from the Raven to the mix and my vehicles were toast.
But honestly maybe it's just that CSM have ridiculously low damage output. Compare Forge Fiend and Exocrine. The latter has +1 Toughness and about twice the firepower for 20 pts more.
A dreadknight shot 15 MEQ off the board huh? The odds of a dreadknight killing 9+ MEQ with a Gatling psilencer is about one in a million and a half. And we're not even dealing with the chances of the incinerator killing 5+ MEQ, which is pitifully low.
It is HIGHLY likely that your GK buddy misplayed the rules. I am *guessing* that he did D3 damage with the gatling psilencer, and had it overflow to the rest of the squad, which it does not.
I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.
Rolling 5/5 1's on 5 dice happens about 1 in 8000 times. If you ever see this - ever - you should take a photo to memorialize the occasion, and burn the dice.
I think it's highly likely you need to learn 2 read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
andysonic1 wrote: Were your 30 bois in Rhinos? Were the Possessed? Were the Bikes finding the cover they needed? It honestly doesn't sound like your first turn was bad, you did well. The Heldrake is one big distraction that isn't going to live long, so that's fine it dies turn 1. Your bois should have been in Rhinos. Raptors and Bikes are shooting platforms, they should be avoiding combat at all costs (put your raptors at the top of buildings and your bikes in cover). Your deamons are getting smacked around by GK, nothing you can do about that except get more bubble wrap and use terrain.
Your list doesn't seem very good, and you complain about units doing things they weren't meant to do (raptors/bikes in combat, marines in the open surviving, 0 rhinos or drop pods). I would look up a few battle reports for Chaos and see what people like miniwargaming and frontline gaming are doing because it feels like you came at 8th with either a 7th mindset or a 30k mindset.
My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.
I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.
My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.
I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.
Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:
- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)
As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.
lord_blackfang wrote: My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.
I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.
Seeing as his list beat yours I'd say his list was better, or at least well rounded comparatively. But really, you played one game with terrible lists and had a meh time. Spend a little more time building your list and your next games will be closer.
My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.
I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.
Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.
Dunno, I found there were a fair few tricks one could do in 7th. I remember one of the better players at the old LGS was hated for Harlequins being "cheese" when they came out because he was the only guy besides the Dark Angels player that knew how to use Hit and Run, and he was really cheeky about using Death is Not Enough to screw up his opponent's battleline and reposition them as speedbumps before getting into his opponent's backfield.
Truth be told, many games became less about smashing into your opponent (unless you were running Superfriends) so much as trying to get the drop on your foe and zip for objectives in a game of rocket tag.
My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.
I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.
Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.
Dunno, I found there were a fair few tricks one could do in 7th. I remember one of the better players at the old LGS was hated for Harlequins being "cheese" when they came out because he was the only guy besides the Dark Angels player that knew how to use Hit and Run, and he was really cheeky about using Death is Not Enough to screw up his opponent's battleline and reposition them as speedbumps before getting into his opponent's backfield.
Truth be told, many games became less about smashing into your opponent (unless you were running Superfriends) so much as trying to get the drop on your foe and zip for objectives in a game of rocket tag.
Im surprised the "get out of assault at the end of your opponents turn" trick was all that complicated
7th devolved into spam the crap out of the best possible thing. most of that being some flavor of Force a ton of wounds (scatter laser), be impossible to kill (invisibility), abuse codex (super friends, formations) (just examples and they fluxuated in the top lists through the edition)
its probably going to happen in 8th im just hoping the differences will be relatively small enough.
gave it a couple goes. I really do not enjoy the game, the direction it went is the opposite of what I find fun, so dropping it to completely concentrate on SW:A might show up when 9th edition drops in a few years.
andysonic1 wrote: 8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.
Subject // 7e // 8e
Time to set up a game // 30-120 mins // 5-15 mins
Time to memorise the core aspects of the rules // Impossible // An evening
Time to understand the rules of your codex // Weeks // One week
Ability to keep track of other armies // Impossibru // Possibru
Tactical Depth // None // None, but at least you won't be tabled Turn 1 anymore
Rules disputes // Take 3+ books and several hours to resolve (if they are even resolvable) // Find quote, then realise GW forgot to define things
Playability // Utterly unplayable // Plastic's already on the table m8
Balance // Wtf is balance? // Even the "bottom tier" armies aren't auto-lose
Nerd Rage // Over 9000!!! // Over 9000!!!
Seems better overall. Less retardation, more pew pew layzorz.
Well, it's actually even easier to get removed 1-st turn if you bring a wrong army (something without bauble wrap) against, say, an army of plasma scion comsquads.
The interaction with to-hit modifiers and overheats is very odd. Cover rules are crap. But otherwise the core rules are good. Waiting for the reprices and fixes to overheats and if they come in, it's gona be the best edition. So far, it's hardly good for competitive play. Really great for casual with a bunch of restrictions and a couple house-rules.
So far balance-wise it kinda close to 7-th. 2 out of 5. But core rules are 4 out of 5.
thekingofkings wrote: gave it a couple goes. I really do not enjoy the game, the direction it went is the opposite of what I find fun, so dropping it to completely concentrate on SW:A might show up when 9th edition drops in a few years.
Not assuming what you like to play, but that does bring up a point.
As with AoS; GW seems to have chosen a particular target market (for both games). Warhammer looks to be aimed at more casual players that enjoy exciting games more than thinking games (it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy) and are in the hobby for the fluff and models to a significant degree.
i.e. GW are catering to Jimmy, rather than Johnny in terms of psychographic profile.
This is neither a good nor a bad thing, neither kind of player is superior (or "kids" ), it's just a matter of taste.
It does mean that some players who enjoyed earlier editions will be left out though. Which is sad, but fortunately there are many other games and companies catering for those kinds of players.
Had my first game now - tried my Dark Edlar vs Guard and we both had a good time
Bit worried when he used a Command Point to re-roll the Sieze and made it - blew away my Archon/Incubi Raider with two Leman Russ and a Manticore and damaged my Ravager. But charged (or limped across the field) and got stick in.
Made so many flicker field (soo glad they are back on Raiders and Ravagers) and shadow field saves it was untrue. Dark Eldar have lots of great damage limitation stuff that I only lost three models and manged to win on objective but he did have a lot left.
The game worked smoothly and we both comented on that fact that there was little need for rules reference, plenty of maneuvere although it was somewhat less important without vehicle armour variance on different sides. Neither of us had any rules issues.
I really need army cards to save constant flicking inthe books - some of the guys at the club were using Battlescribe but it had some serious errors - Eldar vehicles not having FLY which did make a difference in his fight against Orks.
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:
- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)
As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.
One of my issues so far is the complete invalidation of some units in some armies - the Drop Pod and Riptide come to mind immediately. Overcosted units are just as much a problem as undercosted ones because they lead to stagnation in list-building, which was one of the issues in 7th with only spamming a few units over and over (funnily enough, Drop Pods and Riptides were among the worst offenders for this). I understand the need to address imbalance, but they went too far in many cases, balancing units that were unbalanced in 7th...and this ain't 7th anymore.
Is it just for me or do you feel close combat to be even less useful this edtion ?
A good close combat turn was usually what decided of the winner during my games of 7th, while now even terminators have difficulties destroying a single tac squad.
They will just runaway and runaway and runaway and I need a lot more time to destroy them.
And my opponent's others units stay free to shoot at my assault units every turn.
As with AoS; GW seems to have chosen a particular target market (for both games). Warhammer looks to be aimed at more casual players that enjoy exciting games more than thinking games (it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy) and are in the hobby for the fluff and models to a significant degree.
i.e. GW are catering to Jimmy, rather than Johnny in terms of psychographic profile.
Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.
I played from 1st ed until 3rd and then I didn't pick up a new edition until the Dark Vengeance box came out (7th?). I tried 7th but it really felt like a chore so I packed it all away and forgot about 40k until I was told about the imminent arrival of 8th while picking up some paint. I have now played a few games with my old armies and to be honest it has me interested in the game again. Fortunately having played rulesets such as Black Powder and Bolt Action which have numerous grey areas this edition feels pretty well written. I don't expect a ruleset to be perfect, I'm happy if it gives an entertaining game in a decent amount of time among ordinary, honourable gamers and doesn't require too much homework. This ticks all the boxes for me, if anyone tries to spend five minutes micro-adjusting a melee then they can expect to be despatched to the bar with a very expensive shopping list of single malts as penance. This is the most 40k I have played this millennium and it feels like meeting up with an old friend.
Edited to add...just found out that SM come with 32mm bases now. Knew my good vibe wouldn't last...yay! rebasing!
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:
- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)
As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.
Looks interesting downloaded it already. 8th is too bland for me, boring as hell. Some good ideas, better than 7th, but it's like watching black and white TV, after being used to colour.
usmcmidn wrote: I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?
I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:
- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)
As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.
Looks interesting downloaded it already. 8th is too bland for me, boring as hell. Some good ideas, better than 7th, but it's like watching black and white TV, after being used to colour.
There are definately some good ideas in 8th, but being there to witness 2nd-to-3rd ed transition first hand I'm having deja-vu when it comes to faction blandness - exactly how many iterations of "reroll 1's" "special abilities" can there exist?. Back then great many things got their proper feeling back only when 4th ed kicked in, not when 3rd ed codices came out - those were just as bland as index rules. I fear this time it'll be the same and I'll get convinced to switch to new core ruleset somewhere around 9th or 10th because of the good, old tradition of rules creep. At the moment my closest group stays with our version of heavily modified 7th ed rules (unless we go full speed ahead and revive 2nd ed, because of the Shadow War effect - we have already returned to "proper Necromunda" and we're already having a hard time forfeiting all this detail even when switching to 7th, let alone 8th...)
lord_blackfang wrote: Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.
I think it's both. 8th is intended to be "casual", but because GW's rule authors are incompetent the result is a bunch of things to exploit and a game built around tediously setting up the exploits.
lord_blackfang wrote: Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.
I think it's both. 8th is intended to be "casual", but because GW's rule authors are incompetent the result is a bunch of things to exploit and a game built around tediously setting up the exploits.
If you feel that way about GW's abilities, why do you expect a different result?
After several games of 8th, I actually hate it (and I am surprised by that). Unfortunately, my gaming group is moving over to it, so my choices are limited. I'll probably just play 30k games from here on out, even though I don't like 7th much either.
I have played every edition of 40k, and while I won't say 'this is the worst', I will say 8th is the least fun I've ever had.
Specific things I don't like:
The Morale system in it's entirety.
The way vehicles are now treated the same as everything else (lack of weapon arcs, armor facings, etc).
The amount of randomness involved.
I can see why other people would enjoy this, and good for them. For me, this edition is a huge disappointment.
Crimson Devil wrote: If you feel that way about GW's abilities, why do you expect a different result?
Who said I ever did?
While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.
Crimson Devil wrote: While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.
At least that's the way they read to me.
Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.
Crimson Devil wrote: While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.
At least that's the way they read to me.
Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.
Sometimes you just want to eat at McDonald or watch a Michael Bay movie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Crimson Devil wrote: While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.
At least that's the way they read to me.
Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.
Because he has his right to not like the present situation of something that he liked in the past.
But personally I'll recommend him to just leave 40k behind (Not his miniatures, I have seen them and they are a work of art). Is like a toxic relationship. You can't look away but it only gives you paint. I have experienced something similar with Warcraft. But even with thousands of € spent in comics, videogames, books and merchandaising, is better to just let it go.
Galas wrote: Because he has his right to not like the present situation of something that he liked in the past.
But personally I'll recommend him to just leave 40k behind (Not his miniatures, I have seen them and they are a work of art). Is like a toxic relationship. You can't look away but it only gives you paint. I have experienced something similar with Warcraft. But even with thousands of € spent in comics, videogames, books and merchandaising, is better to just let it go.
on that I agree. definatly healthier to walk away if you just don't like it. but following the developments of a game you just don't like anymore is toxic, and can kill the elements remaining you do like (such as the "hobby aspect"), and ruin memories of better times
I don't like binary rules, I think they're generally inferior to granular rules. I understand that this is my opinion, not an objective fact. Nevertheless, having now played my first 3 quick games of 8th edition; I don't think this edition is 'better' than 7th or 6th. I think it's just different and bad in some new ways. It's a breath of fresh air, but I feel myself getting angry and frustrated with the rules already.
I better explain what I mean by binary:
Examples of binary rules in 7th; Armour Saves vs AP. Amour saves vs cover saves, instant death, movement speed.
Examples of binary rules in 8th; Weapon Skill, Order of combat in the fight phase, 'Slain'.
Examples of granular rules in 7th; Weapon Skill, Initiative
Examples of granular rules in 8th; Armour Saves vs AP. Cover save modifiers, damage.
While I'm at it, I don't think 'bespoke' is better. At least, no the way GW has done it. Having rules on the datasheet is good, I approve. Having many identical rules with different names is bad. Having 70+ 'Universal Special Rules' is bad. Having 0 shared special rules is also bad.
I don't like several aesthetic changes such as WS and BS both being X+ instead of a flat number. I get why they did it, I just don't like it. I'd have preferred to see Armour Save become a flat number which you modify, then add D6 to get 7+.
I also don't like random for random's sake. As seen in 'run/advance' and in the volume of D3 rolls in 8th. I'm not convinced that Dx shots is better than templates and blasts. I can see an argument for removing scatter though.
So, I'll do what I always do, which is write out my idea of what the rules should be. I doubt they'll ever get taken up by the community, but that's ok. I'll start a Proposed Rules thread at some point, but I thought I'd submit my ideas here first.
My Basic Wishlist • Run is just a flat 3" or 4" increase, not a d6 • Restore Weapon Skill. Use the 7th edition SvT formula for rolling to hit with WS vs WS.
• Restore Ballistic Skill. User BSv7 rule with modifiers.
• Flip saves so that power armour is a Sv of 4. User Save v 7 rule with modifiers.
• Reinstate difficult terrain: -2" move or -3" if running
• Restore flamer templates, and possibly blast markers
• Flamers have range and template is the special rule. Effectively they all have torrent at limited range. Regular flamer is only 2". Heavy 4". Redeemer 6". Hellhound still 12". Maybe limit the arc more than torrent did?
• Put some universal keywords in the main rules. Vehicle. Monster. Poison. Ignores cover, Feel No Pain, Deep Strike. Things which are used on many units in many armies. Not every special rule that shows up just once or twice.
• Restore vehicle access points and fire points
• Partially restore vehicle fire arcs
• Reinstate Initiative. Charge gives +2 initiative. When equal, the player whose turn it is strikes first.
Actually Ballistic Skill hasn't changed. Before it was a value that translated to a roll, that you need to see in a small table. Now they give you directly the roll you need to made.
"Oh, I have a BS of 5, let me check... ok I need to roll 2 or more to hit" Now is just "2+ BS" much more clear.
To me thats one of the only objetive improvements from 7th to 8th that is jus flat out better done.
Galas wrote: Actually Ballistic Skill hasn't changed. Before it was a value that translated to a roll, that you need to see in a small table. Now they give you directly the roll you need to made.
"Oh, I have a BS of 5, let me check... ok I need to roll 2 or more to hit" Now is just "2+ BS" much more clear.
To me thats one of the only objetive improvements from 7th to 8th that is jus flat out better done.
Indeed - now both stats use the same method rather than say 7th where they don't.
One thing I quite like in 8e so far is the lack of having to flick through so many pages in-game. Less tables, easier-to-remember-and-track random, less convoluted core rules.
One plus on the lack of USR's is that you just refer to the unit profile for all relevant data. Granulation and standardisation I'm sure will follow with codexes, and I hope it retains the reduced referencing.
Another thing I noticed during play was that aircraft movement restrictions are pointless, they can shoot whatever wherever anyway, so they just fly in a square pattern all game to avoid table edges that looks naff but doesn't really inconvenience them.
lord_blackfang wrote: Another thing I noticed during play was that aircraft movement restrictions are pointless, they can shoot whatever wherever anyway, so they just fly in a square pattern all game to avoid table edges that looks naff but doesn't really inconvenience them.
I played an entire game without thinking about it, carefully maneuvering my stormtalon to get shots until after my 6th turn it hit me that it didn't matter anymore. Going to take some getting used to.
GW removed any tactic and sense remaining in 7th ed. Getting behind a tank to hit its weak rear armor, gone. Fire arcs for tanks, gone. Anything can hurt anything, now any S3 unit can kill any unit with T100. Flamers autohit aircraft flying supersonic speed. Tanks cant move when they are surrounded by infantry. Tanks cant fire when there is an enemy unit within 1".
Regarding vehicles, it is puzzling why all vehicles don't have a relentless like rule that allows them to retreat and shoot. Hive fleet Charybdis' ones have it.... The vehicles for me are prolly the only thing that the new edition fails with. Bringing them under the unified rules for infantry allows for some unwanted interactions.
There is basically no difference between troopers and vehicles anymore. A vehicle is identical in all respects to a foot soldier now, down to the fact it suffers a penalty for shooting a heavy weapon on the move. And so an IG heavy weapons team hauling around a heavy bolter (an equivalent of a super heavy machine gun) that is a bitch to set up is suddenly as mobile and as accurate on the move as a Leman Russ shooting its anti-personnel Heavy Bolter sponsons with no set-up time and no recoil. That's totally what goes on across the battlefields of the 41st millenium in the fiction.
Vehicles got botched royally in the effort to simplify and streamline every aspect of the game. We've got MBTs unable to drive through a single infantryman and squash them like a bug, which turns grunts into veritable dragon's teeth. We've got jets circling around a span the size of a football stadium lest they spontaneously explode upon hitting an invisible wall. We've got vehicles taking a peek over the corner to let loose with all its weapons regardless of their placement (just like a foot soldier).
7th wasn't perfect by any means, but at least the vehicles acted in a semi-believable manner. But no more.
And balance still sucks, let's not fool ourselves.
Current impression is cautiously positive. I don't think the terrain rules are too hot, but the game is playable and once we have got the rules memorized will be relatively quick.
Wins: Faster gameplay, more reliable abilities (like not killing yourself deepstriking), more consistant performance (no "instant death/explodes!" to kill a big unit instantly with a lucky roll, which was a real pain when it decided the battle on turn 1). New missions seem quite interesting. So far balance seems OK
Losses: Terrain/cover seems both bad and unintuitive, and really hurts 6+ save armies while rewarding space marines (although I guess the save modifiers balance out by hurting SM more in general). Currently the books are designed to make picking an army for matched play as hard as possible (having points costs in the back means endlessly flicking around. I hope GW doesn't mind if everyone in the world photocopies those pages).
In many ways it reminds me of 4th edition D&D in terms of simplification and homogenisation. And I quite like 4th D&D.
Seems like the love-fest for 8th is coming to an end for a lot of people...I'm still on the fence about it personally, and rules-wise, it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over 7th, simply dumbed down and homogenized.
So, uhh... The new Primaris Captain and Librarian have come out. £22.50 each, so pretty cheap. And GW had graced us with yet another opportunity to give them money, by giving price hikes to randomly selected kits aged over 2 years old!
I laugh everytime I hear a person from 3rd edition and on say the game is too simplified now. lol
If you want an edition with Vehicle movement rules and fire arcs and Turning limits and even more restrictions that the 'bland' 3rd -7th was try 2nd edition....that should wake you up.
Anyways I do like 8th a great deal.
I really am annoyed when long time gamers, but not long enough, keep using terminology and rules sets from 7th and back to describe similar items from 8th.
THERE IS NO rending or feel no pain. When you use those non-legal game terms you are speaking gooberishgook to players who have returned from many years ago. STOP IT please.
I guess I can chat to you all day about DataFaxes and slow, combat and fast move speeds; Artillary Dice and Sustained Fire Dice to 'equate' the new 8th edition stuff. It would be inane for me to do so to 'communicate' to you about concepts from 8th.
Move On and enjoy the game or do like many 2nd ed players have done...take a 5 10 or 15 year break and then come back.
I wholeheartedly agree that your communication would be inane but also believe it would be greatly entertaining to see your detailed description of the 8th edition nuances less then a handful of weeks after its release. It would be incredibly great and helpful of you if you did indeed have a full days worth of material to discuss compared to the, as you say, blandness of 3-7 editions.
Anyways, I'm hoping the codices add some life and colour to this game as well as iron out the many incidents that slipped through the cracks, despite the claim of being the most tested (only needed 3+ test games for that title.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Seems like the love-fest for 8th is coming to an end for a lot of people...I'm still on the fence about it personally, and rules-wise, it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over 7th, simply dumbed down and homogenized.
It's definitely a huge improvement on 7th. It does still have many of the usual GW problems (like unclear rules), but at least they correct things fairly promptly.
Engagement with the community is continuing - they are already collecting issues for the next faq - I would rather they be doing that than just igoring everything as they did on 7th ed.
The gernal rules work fine and I think many players do need to read the recent pdf which talks about the changes between systems.
There is also def room for improvement in terms of the iritating need to keep looking at various charts to work out army costs rather than the dataslate.
People have complained about vehicle rules, but when Im tearing around 12" a turn with a Predator and firing all its weapons. . . Its pretty sweet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CoreCommander wrote: Regarding vehicles, it is puzzling why all vehicles don't have a relentless like rule that allows them to retreat and shoot. Hive fleet Charybdis' ones have it.... The vehicles for me are prolly the only thing that the new edition fails with. Bringing them under the unified rules for infantry allows for some unwanted interactions.
Because then all vehicles would behave the same way. IG vehicles are at their best not moving, but a Land Raider is a well oiled attack machine.
), it's just a matter of taste.
