Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

And that's how it should be. A greater ballistic skill should benefit you when shooting at units in cover. In the end it benefits the unit being targeted, because that additional 16% chance of missing means that the lascannon might miss you, instead of you gaining a bonus to your armour which won't matter to the meltagun/lascannon, etc.

As above poster said, being in cover should make it harder to hit you, if you get hit that cover shouldn't then give you a better save as it has already been bypassed. Flamers and blast weapons would negate this rule.
The psychic phase has been over simplified. I wanted certain things toned down ie invisibility but think it hasn't got enough powers. I also think the psychic back lash from perils is too strong.
All that being said I am happy overall with the new edition, hopefully they retain the balance whilst adding some flavour with each of the codex releases

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

Since most orks care more about close combat, the added durability is probably a boon to them over the -1 to hit.

Lets take ork 10 lootas shooting at a devastator squad in cover.

In the current system they do 1.48 wounds,
in the -1 to hit they do 1.111 wounds. Not a big deal.

For durability though if those devestators have 4 heavy bolters

Current system = 4.444 dead orks
-1 to hit = 4 dead orks. Not a big deal

If we look at weapons with no AP
30 Shoota boyz at a tactical squad in cover

+1 armor =1.67 wounds
-1 to hit = 1.67 wounds

The 10 marines shooting back with bolters
+1 armor = 4.44 wounds
-1 to hit = 4.17 wounds

so net gain orks with -1 to hit (not a large gain but a gain.)

The real gain would be on any weapon with AP -2 or higher. Marines in cover still get a save, orks get nothing in the current system.

SO lets say those devestators from earlier have 4 grav cannons.

not moving
+1 armor = 7.1 wounds
-1 to hit = 5.333 wounds

Moving
+1 armor = 5.33 wounds
- 1 to hit = 3.5 wounds.

If the orks were shooting those marines with Rokkits (say 10 tank bustas)
+1 armor = 1.39 wounds
-1 to hit = 0.92 wounds



So it helps orks defensively not offensively. It isn't really a big difference either way, but as +1 armor it means things with a 3+ save get cover against anything not AP -5, while things with a 6+ save only get it against things with AP -1

Disappointed that so much was copy/pasted straight out of AoS, I don't dislike the AoS ruleset and I like a lot of the rules that were chosen - I have mixed feelings about activations though, I do miss the initiative stat - I just wish they'd put some effort into improving or at least flavouring the text.
The games I've played have run smooth, mostly slowed by new 8th edition players tracking down unit and weapon profiles rather than chasing rarely employed special rules or arguing about scatter dice results.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

Since most orks care more about close combat, the added durability is probably a boon to them over the -1 to hit.

Lets take ork 10 lootas shooting at a devastator squad in cover.

In the current system they do 1.48 wounds,
in the -1 to hit they do 1.111 wounds. Not a big deal.

For durability though if those devestators have 4 heavy bolters

Current system = 4.444 dead orks
-1 to hit = 4 dead orks. Not a big deal

If we look at weapons with no AP
30 Shoota boyz at a tactical squad in cover

+1 armor =1.67 wounds
-1 to hit = 1.67 wounds

The 10 marines shooting back with bolters
+1 armor = 4.44 wounds
-1 to hit = 4.17 wounds

so net gain orks with -1 to hit (not a large gain but a gain.)

The real gain would be on any weapon with AP -2 or higher. Marines in cover still get a save, orks get nothing in the current system.

SO lets say those devestators from earlier have 4 grav cannons.

not moving
+1 armor = 7.1 wounds
-1 to hit = 5.333 wounds

Moving
+1 armor = 5.33 wounds
- 1 to hit = 3.5 wounds.

If the orks were shooting those marines with Rokkits (say 10 tank bustas)
+1 armor = 1.39 wounds
-1 to hit = 0.92 wounds



So it helps orks defensively not offensively. It isn't really a big difference either way, but as +1 armor it means things with a 3+ save get cover against anything not AP -5, while things with a 6+ save only get it against things with AP -1

You forget, there are many other ways to get a -1 to hit, and they can stack past 6+. If you stack two of them together, orks become incapable of shooting.

Nah, these indexes are advertised as just stopgap measures until the codexes themselves get released. So I don't really expect them to be overwhelmingly interesting. But at least they changed up the metagame, and might actually be getting me back in to 40k tabletop instead of just enjoying the lore as I have been since mid-6th. so they have that going for htem.

I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

Getting a +1 save on an obscured vehicle is hilarious this edition.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

It is less that and things like no cover for being obscured, requirement for whole unit to be in the terrain, difficult terrain only being a penalty to charging units (so cover is double bonus for shooting units in many cases, they get bonus armor, and are harder to charge.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

As mentioned earlier, good AP can override cover so that it benefits those units that ironically are least likely to require it. Some armies (hi Daemons) just don't care whatsoever.

Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

Don't think of it as being harder to hit when in cover, think of it as that lascannon shooting through the cover to hit you. With all the sensors and stuff, it's not like they don't know your there.

I have a few quarrels overall with the rules. I wish intervening models provided cover, I dislike the "done first go first" system, and I find Rule of 1 and Half in Reserves to be unnecessary restrictions that would be better solved by just...designing better rules for deep strikers and psykers rather than gimping certain armies. I mean, is it cheesy and unfun to play with if your opponent takes nothing but light infantry troop choices and a few buffers? Yes. Would it be a good solution to just restrict people to so many light infantry units? No. Design the game better.

But overall, vast, vast improvement IMO. None of the scariest stuff people have been complaining about that I've played against (conscript spam, Hemlock fighter spam, Ynnari, Imperial Knight armies, Tau alpha strike) has even come close to stuff that in 7th was considered relatively tame (Celestine backed deathstar, Necron decurion with Canoptek harvests, Warcon)

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

 Selym wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

Are you sure you don't mean "flies next to a Bastion, so the pilot can hit it with its sword."

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

Are you sure you don't mean "flies next to a Bastion, so the pilot can hit it with its sword."

Yes, that one xD

The only thing I'm actually disappointed about in 8th is the amount of remodeling I need to do for optimization purposes.
My scout sarges need power weapons since they aren't ridiculously overcosted anymore, I need to get a bunch of vehicle twin asc tops for razorbacks, my 30 sanguinary guard now all want plasma pistols...

Also I think I need to get more assassins for the competitive lists, holy carp.

Other than that, 8th seems to be great so far. I'll probably wait for my specific codices before remodeling just to make sure things aren't reworked. I'd hate to tear off 30 angelus bolters just to find out they realized they overcosted them compared to plasma pistols and corrected it.

It's pretty much what I wanted from GW.

If you were playing 7th because you wanted a tactically rich game then you're supporting the wrong company.

Honestly, I am a little bit. When the mortal wound mechanic was introduced, the dev's said "Don't worry, these will be very few and far between. Armies will not have wholesale access to them." Well, apparently that's true - for Tau. Psykers dish those out like candy at Halloween. Snipers, which have become very prevalent in my area, dish out 1-2 per turn. My regular DA opponent manages to throw 3-6 mortal wounds per turn at me, while at the same time, managing to out-shoot my Tau. I played against a TS/Tzeentch Daemon list earlier this week who managed to hit me with 20 mortal wounds in one turn...

My suits have become very points inefficient at killing pretty much anything, in fact, most of my army has become extremely points inefficient in general. Tau sniper drones are pretty worthless, yes, they can target Characters irrespective of enemy unit distance, but don't dish mortal wounds, and generally only hit on 4+. Markerlights sources are just as vulnerable as they have been, while providing less of a benefit, unless you can spam them. Tau generally benefit from MSU in order to squeeze enough drones and Markerlights, which essentially means we just never go first, unless we can seize. Our survival hinges on how many drones we can squeeze in to soak damage, which means we're low on points for items that can reliably kill models.

I have 6 games under my belt now in 8th, and have yet to win a single game. All my heavy hitters have either been made useless - Riptides, Ghostkeels, and to a lesser extent, Crisis Suits, while units like Broadsides that are capable of considerable dakka have skyrocketed in price, making them difficult to squeeze into a list if you actually want to be able to grab objectives. Meanwhile, SM armies are capable of taking LRC's, that can pump out 41 shots per turn @ 12" for ~350 pts, while my 380pt IA Riptide can, at best, pump out 8. I guess if I wanted to spend 700pts, I could take 3 HYMP Broadsides w/ Missile drones and SMS and pump out some 70 shots a turn, but that's almost half of a 2k list.

The base rules are pretty solid, they're for the most part smooth, easy to follow and intuitive. I would prefer it if vehicle weapons actually drew LOS from the weapons instead of a millimeter of tread sticking out from the base of a wall, but that's probably my biggest complaint with the base rules. I think most of the armies are pretty bland too, tbh. I'm hoping that we start getting Codexes sooner, rather than later that address that.

It's still better than 6th/7th, though.

It's different but good. Much prefer 8th edition to 7th edition.

I am not disappointed in 8th only because I never thought it was going to be very good, and didn't believe all the "this is new GW" crap.

I have found that I don't like any of the changes they made, I either actively hate them, or I am entirely indifferent. On top of all the changes I don't like, their rules are still vague leading to arguments or just don't function as written, and all their supposed play testing missed obvious errors, I'm looking at you Leman Russ Vanquishers, and they made every thing soooooo bland with every thing being homogenized. For instance we used to have 7 Leman Russes each with a different job, a tank hunter, a generalist, an anti heavy infantry, an anti infantry, an anti entrenched infantry, an anti light-medium vehicle, and a siege tank. Now we have one anti tank, one anti infantry, and 5 generalists of varying quality.

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
I am not disappointed in 8th only because I never thought it was going to be very good, and didn't believe all the "this is new GW" crap.

I have found that I don't like any of the changes they made, I either actively hate them, or I am entirely indifferent. On top of all the changes I don't like, their rules are still vague leading to arguments or just don't function as written, and all their supposed play testing missed obvious errors, I'm looking at you Leman Russ Vanquishers, and they made every thing soooooo bland with every thing being homogenized. For instance we used to have 7 Leman Russes each with a different job, a tank hunter, a generalist, an anti heavy infantry, an anti infantry, an anti entrenched infantry, an anti light-medium vehicle, and a siege tank. Now we have one anti tank, one anti infantry, and 5 generalists of varying quality.

And the AT one is weaker at AT than the generalists...

I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Isn't it that one psyker can't cast the same power twice in a turn? Many psykers can cast two powers, have smite and can select two powers for the game. Iirc, the rule is to stop you doing shenanigans like casting smite twice per psyker.

I've really enjoyed it thus far.
At the end of 7th it was a mess. Deathstars and Magnus were out of control.

8th has been really good overall. I agree with the mass that I wish terrain had more of an effect, and LOS terrain blocking is mandatory.

Love the ruleset. My main issue is with the current balance. There are a couple of units that need the nerf bat ASAP, #1 priority being Roubute Gulliman who is so undercosted he makes the 7th Wraithknight look like a joke.

I've found 8th disappointing from a "sloppy core rules that make no logical sense" perspective. 7th was disappointing from a "too many random charts" perspective but assorted aspects of it made sense.

Wrath of Magnus was shittily designed all around. Given how lazy the actual rulewrite was, I'm super cynical GW will magically (ha!) know how to make a compelling army out of the 1k Sons.

 Selym wrote:

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
I am not disappointed in 8th only because I never thought it was going to be very good, and didn't believe all the "this is new GW" crap.

I have found that I don't like any of the changes they made, I either actively hate them, or I am entirely indifferent. On top of all the changes I don't like, their rules are still vague leading to arguments or just don't function as written, and all their supposed play testing missed obvious errors, I'm looking at you Leman Russ Vanquishers, and they made every thing soooooo bland with every thing being homogenized. For instance we used to have 7 Leman Russes each with a different job, a tank hunter, a generalist, an anti heavy infantry, an anti infantry, an anti entrenched infantry, an anti light-medium vehicle, and a siege tank. Now we have one anti tank, one anti infantry, and 5 generalists of varying quality.

And the AT one is weaker at AT than the generalists...

That's not actually true.

The LRBT averages more wounds [the difference is, by the way, absolutely tiny as well, something like .3 wounds IIRC], but drops off fairly sharply, while the Vanquisher averages fewer wounds but has a much higher chance, almost twice the probability, of inflicting heavy damage, and thus being able to destroy an enemy transport in 1 turn. Average wounds-on-target doesn't tell you the whole story.

However, neither are good, and Pask makes the LRBT better because he can put the shots on target to make up the difference. Give up on non-Pask Leman Russes for tank killing, just go right to the Shadowsword.


As I said, I'm not disappointed with 8e. There are a lot of things I would have done differently, but we knew what was going down for months, so there wasn't anything to be disappointed about. It's not exemplary by any means, but it's solidly average.

 Selym wrote:

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Isn't it that one psyker can't cast the same power twice in a turn? Many psykers can cast two powers, have smite and can select two powers for the game. Iirc, the rule is to stop you doing shenanigans like casting smite twice per psyker.

I do not think so as it does say "rather than once per psyker per turn.". what you say is the opposite, once per psyker per turn but it seems if you use this psychic focus that is out the window.

 Selym wrote:

Shinzra wrote:
But for some reason I just dont get the same tactical feel from the 8th compared to 7th.

Are you sure you played 7th? Whole thing was a gakshow.

The effects of the USR's is unchanged, they are incorporated into each unit, thus saving having to constantly flick through 2+ books.
If granulation is what you're after, codexes are in the future.
8th is not rushed, not by a long way. 6e was an utter hackjob, and every book released between then and just before 8e has been increasingly hacky, money-grabbing and rushed. That we don't have an obvious auto-lose army is self-evidently proof that GW put more thought into this ruleset than any release since 6e.

The ruleset is a nearly note-for-note port of AoS. That means it probably took less thought than any edition, because most of the work was done, and all that was required was tugging, tweaking, and carving out places for things that didn't exist in AoS (like transports).

Stroggified wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Isn't it that one psyker can't cast the same power twice in a turn? Many psykers can cast two powers, have smite and can select two powers for the game. Iirc, the rule is to stop you doing shenanigans like casting smite twice per psyker.

I do not think so as it does say "rather than once per psyker per turn.". what you say is the opposite, once per psyker per turn but it seems if you use this psychic focus that is out the window.

Battle Primer, Page 4, "Make Psychic Test":

"A psyker cannot
attempt to manifest the same psychic
power more than once in a turn."

So... Multiple Hammerhands, yay?

Psychic focus " with the exception of smite, each psychic power can be attempted only once per turn,...'' Note it does not say each psyker can attempt x power only once per turn. it says each psychic power. focus on the words psychic power and not the psyker. Next, the second part sentence states even more clarification as it even adds ''rather than once per psyker per turn.''

so in editions of past it would follow for any power the once per psyker per turn. Meaning say 10 squads of gk could each attempt hammer hand. However, now psychic focus tells us that this is only true for smite. So now only 1 of those 10 could attempt for hammer hand per turn.

the rule is for match play on pg 215 (edit for pg number)

GW: "You only need the Battle Primer and an Index to play 40k now!"

The Rules: "GW lied, now give them £35 you wealthy moron"

 godardc wrote:
Yes, terrain NEED more fleshed out rules, but that's my only complaint too.

The train rules are fine. The way they work right now is the way it should work. As an improvement to your current armor save rather than a huge Improvement for some well others get no improvement at all. part of the problem before was that cheap units could get good saves with cover. Now it's about improving the save you have rather than giving you a good save that you probably have access to.

7th was too much & cumbersome...

But 8th is by far too less, way too much streamlined.
Sloppy core rules imo.

My disappointments with 8th would be:

1.They went on with their (I guess) original plan of using the already tested AoS rules for 40k. I really wanted a completely new system but to be realistic no one expected this of them and they said that "Ze game will remain Ze same. Ze game will remain Ze same" (dnd joke ) so I guess I have no right to complain...
2. Vehicles interact with infantry on basically the same level. This is really my main gripe with the rules. It is easily fixable by adding some minor addendums though.

Other than these two I think it is an ok playing experience. I give it 6/10 which Is not bad at all.

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Ive said this before. Don't play match play. Play open and pick all the rules from match you want and ditch the rules you don't. psychic focus is dumb. instead house rule it so powers don't stack with themselves so debuffs can't be stacked onto a single unit to cripple them. Now the game scales well without any stupid op gak.

 Lance845 wrote:

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Ive said this before. Don't play match play. Play open and pick all the rules from match you want and ditch the rules you don't. psychic focus is dumb. instead house rule it so powers don't stack with themselves so debuffs can't be stacked onto a single unit to cripple them. Now the game scales well without any stupid op gak.

Hurray!

GW have some really strange ideas about what should be done to make 40k balanced. It's like they have no sense of scale, either really underdoing or really overdoing something that really wasn't that hard to fix in the first place.

Rules Writer 1: Feth, all these powers can stack. It's really OP.
RW2: Damn. We gotta fix that. hand me my tippex!
RW1: What's your plan?
RW2: I'm gonna make sure that players can only use one of each power per turn!
RW1: Yes... That's the only solution!

 Selym wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Ive said this before. Don't play match play. Play open and pick all the rules from match you want and ditch the rules you don't. psychic focus is dumb. instead house rule it so powers don't stack with themselves so debuffs can't be stacked onto a single unit to cripple them. Now the game scales well without any stupid op gak.

Hurray!

GW have some really strange ideas about what should be done to make 40k balanced. It's like they have no sense of scale, either really underdoing or really overdoing something that really wasn't that hard to fix in the first place.

Rules Writer 1: Feth, all these powers can stack. It's really OP.
RW2: Damn. We gotta fix that. hand me my tippex!
RW1: What's your plan?
RW2: I'm gonna make sure that players can only use one of each power per turn!
RW1: Yes... That's the only solution!

I do see some logic behind not allowing multiple usages of some powers in the same turn. Something like warp speed or whatever it's called from chaos+deepstriking could get absurd for example. Honestly, a lot of the problem would go away if most armies had access to more than three powers. Would no duplicate powers even be an issue if each army had, in addition to their unique lore, access to the 6 generic power sets like 7th edition. Even if those power sets also had a mere three abilities, it'd still help a ton.

Nah, I think that would just exacerbate the issue. Way more ways to exploit wording issues and combine things of Op af combos. Tailored psychic lists for each army makes more sense to me, especially if we're keeping things in boxes and not EVAR letting them touch, like with the keyword system.

Making closed-circuit rulesets is handy if you want your tweaking to only affect one or two things, rather than the whole game.

Hmm. I think the core mechanics of the game are fine. Simple is fine, there is still a ton of tactical play you can get out of it, and the simplicity keeps arguments to a minimum. My first 2k game in 8th while looking up rules and reading dataslates took a little over 2 hours. I rarely finished an 1850 game of 7th in 2.5.

GW said the game would be easier for new people to join. Check that box, 100% complete.

For the rest of us veteran neckbeards, I think the larger issue is just the fact we have been so used to such a bloated and complicated system, that we see this simplicity as a negative.

The core rules already have "advanced rules" for additional expansion. It would not surprise me if down the road many more "DLC's" came out.

That all said. I would rate the game 7/10 out of the gate.

My only wish.. in a a future release would be some bonus for flanking units. Making maneuvers more important. For example in 7th, you had an advantage on vehicles by hitting rear or side armor. Perhaps something as simple as, Units targeting enemy models with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword receive +1 to their wound roll when flanking.

Maybe that would be too strong? I am unsure. But vehicles are extremely tough right now, and we can see that in some of the lists people are posting. AT weapons do a lot of damage, but with such low ROF + vehicle saves, they really don't do much more damage than higher ROF and lower S/ap weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An additional rule addition could be modifying the SvT table. Something more similar to 7th but keepign the 6+ cap.

Shurikan cannon vs Shurikan catapult
3 shots S6 -> T4: 3+, T5: 3+, T6: 4+, T7: 5+
vs
4 shots s4 -> T4: 4+, T5: 5+, T6: 5+, T7: 5+

It seems ok at first, but then we hit T7 and all of a sudden this less powerful weapon becomes better simply because it has a higher ROF.

something better IMO would be..
4 shots s4 -> T4: 4+, T5: 5+, T6: 6+, T7: 6+

This atleast keeps lower strength weapons in check. And removes some of those weird nuances as seen above.

It's less powerful by two points - you're looking at the Twin-Shuricat, not the normal Shuricat. It also has 1/3rd the range. Seems a fair tradeoff, and in line with the fluff (there's only so much monofilament metal blades can do).

SilverAlien wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Ive said this before. Don't play match play. Play open and pick all the rules from match you want and ditch the rules you don't. psychic focus is dumb. instead house rule it so powers don't stack with themselves so debuffs can't be stacked onto a single unit to cripple them. Now the game scales well without any stupid op gak.

Hurray!

GW have some really strange ideas about what should be done to make 40k balanced. It's like they have no sense of scale, either really underdoing or really overdoing something that really wasn't that hard to fix in the first place.

Rules Writer 1: Feth, all these powers can stack. It's really OP.
RW2: Damn. We gotta fix that. hand me my tippex!
RW1: What's your plan?
RW2: I'm gonna make sure that players can only use one of each power per turn!
RW1: Yes... That's the only solution!

I do see some logic behind not allowing multiple usages of some powers in the same turn. Something like warp speed or whatever it's called from chaos+deepstriking could get absurd for example. Honestly, a lot of the problem would go away if most armies had access to more than three powers. Would no duplicate powers even be an issue if each army had, in addition to their unique lore, access to the 6 generic power sets like 7th edition. Even if those power sets also had a mere three abilities, it'd still help a ton.

Gee, if only GW could take a hint from 3.5 or other games that have a system that states that in case you are the target of multiple buffs/maluses, only the highest one applies...

...as for Psykers in general, I've found the real issue with them is they're very binary, especially considering how powerful some of the 7e powers were. With something like Scatbikes or a Missileside, you could shoot a target and predict an "average" amount of casualties, give or take a few standard deviations. Psyker powers had more flat distributions as a whole and wider variance. You could throw 5 Warp Charge at a Summon and have a 50-50 chance of it going off. On the defender's side, say the attacking Psyker rolled 5 successes to manifest; 2 successes is the same as 0 successes. That defending player now needa to roll 5 sixes to deny: 4 sixes is functionally the same as rolling 0 sixes.

It's like this to a lesser extent in 8th, with powers being all-or-nothing oncemore, and the higher-power smite results also being that harder 5o deny. If a caster rolls a 10 to manifest Smite, rolling a 9 is the same as rolling a 2.

In my earlier "rewrite 40k" homebrew, I went with the 7e Warp Charge system, with a few tweaks:
-Psykers got more Warp Charge (at first I was thinking 2xML, but 1+ML seems more sane) but couldn't pool it.
-Perils was on double 1s. Psykers could "push", giving an additional "free" die to cast a power, but suffered Perils if it matched any of the non-push dice. (So 1 WC + 1 Push = Perils on any double).
-Rather than having a "floor" value of minimum successes required, every power needed only 1 WC to go off...but the powers started very weak. Additional successes (to a max of 4) would increase the overall effect of the power. So while Scouring Flame on 1 success was S5 AP4, it was S8 AP 1 on 4 successes.
-Likewise, rather than being "match successes", each success on Deny the Witch would subtract a success from the manifestation result. Even if you couldn't fully stop a power from going off, you could blunt the worst of its effects.

Not quite sequential to the ongoing conversation, but if balance with the current psykers looks like an issue, one should note the potentially incredibly destructive effect of Perils this edition - it's an actual goddamn hole in reality that the psyker spawns now.

Battle Primer wrote:
If you roll a double 1 or a double
6 when taking a Psychic test, the
psyker immediately suffers Perils
of the Warp. The psyker suffers
D3 mortal wounds as the forces
of the Daemon-haunted warp
claw at their mind. If the psyker
is slain by Perils of the Warp, the
power they were attempting to
manifest automatically fails and
each unit within 6" immediately
suffers D3 mortal wounds, as the
psyker is dragged into the warp
or else detonates in a burst of
empyric feedback.

Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

So were daemons. What did you think was going to happen? Obviously the top tier armies would have to be nerfed to get all armies to a similar level.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

This guys speaks the truth I ran Guard vs Tau and ion blasters, Long strike rapid fire warriors and drones shot the hell outta me. His riptide threw lots of dice at me as well. it was like both us just grabbing piles of dice and throwing them at each other. we had to end the game turn three my turn but I think I could have pulled through... maybe

 DarkBlack wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

So were daemons. What did you think was going to happen? Obviously the top tier armies would have to be nerfed to get all armies to a similar level.

And yet SM, Necrons, and even Elder are still in a very good place compared to Tau


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

Except the playstyle of Tau is no longer what Tau actually is. Tau is supposed to be smaller units of battle suits, not a horde army of fire warriors, hounds, and drones.

People still hung up on 7th lists and concepts.

lol

not disappointed at the rules them selves.

just some of the sloppy execution.
Tiger shark cant shoot its own macro weapon lol. though faq is supposed to come along.

otherwise im fine with this edition being the Infantry edition.

big things are expensive but tougher but not necessarily killy.

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

ML are absolute trash compared to before. Even the single ML only increases your shots by about 8%.

Signature battle systems are completely gone so idk what you are talking about

Riptides, broadsides, and Battlesuits are all over costed. (especially riptides. they are trash tier now)

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

ML are absolute trash compared to before. Even the single ML only increases your shots by about 8%.

Signature battle systems are completely gone so idk what you are talking about

Riptides, broadsides, and Battlesuits are all over costed. (especially riptides. they are trash tier now)

Rerolling of 1s is a Character level bonus. this is how it is for EVERYONE. but you get to use it without being near characters and multiple squads can use it. its easy to get but you can choose to go ham on one unit that you really need dead by removing penltys and cover and possibly an additional BS boost.

suits also dont instantly die and can take quite a beating for a long time.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

So were daemons. What did you think was going to happen? Obviously the top tier armies would have to be nerfed to get all armies to a similar level.

And yet SM, Necrons, and even Elder are still in a very good place compared to Tau


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

Except the playstyle of Tau is no longer what Tau actually is. Tau is supposed to be smaller units of battle suits, not a horde army of fire warriors, hounds, and drones.

Not necessarily.

Imperial Guard could represent an armored and mechanized-infantry attack from WWII, a artillery-back infantry tide from WWI, or any other generic army-man stereotypes, from special-forces-esque paratroopers to colonial-era british redcoats.

The same goes for the Tau. Anime mechas aren't all that they are.


Also, suits most definitely still can take support systems. The list is on page 49, and on 137.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Not necessarily.

Imperial Guard could represent an armored and mechanized-infantry attack from WWII, a artillery-back infantry tide from WWI, or any other generic army-man stereotypes, from special-forces-esque paratroopers to colonial-era british redcoats.

The same goes for the Tau. Anime mechas aren't all that they are.

For a good deal of their life, Tau were in fluff actually opposed to the idea of humongous mecha, and couldn't understand why the Imperium insisted on using machines the size of skyscrapers, while the Tau focused on mobile warfare.

 Selym wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Not necessarily.

Imperial Guard could represent an armored and mechanized-infantry attack from WWII, a artillery-back infantry tide from WWI, or any other generic army-man stereotypes, from special-forces-esque paratroopers to colonial-era british redcoats.

The same goes for the Tau. Anime mechas aren't all that they are.

For a good deal of their life, Tau were in fluff actually opposed to the idea of humongous mecha, and couldn't understand why the Imperium insisted on using machines the size of skyscrapers, while the Tau focused on mobile warfare.

They also really really really valued the lives of their own fish people and so would use drones and stuff to minimize their losses.

lo and behold drones are amazing

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

So were daemons. What did you think was going to happen? Obviously the top tier armies would have to be nerfed to get all armies to a similar level.

And yet SM, Necrons, and even Elder are still in a very good place compared to Tau


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

Except the playstyle of Tau is no longer what Tau actually is. Tau is supposed to be smaller units of battle suits, not a horde army of fire warriors, hounds, and drones.

Not necessarily.

Imperial Guard could represent an armored and mechanized-infantry attack from WWII, a artillery-back infantry tide from WWI, or any other generic army-man stereotypes, from special-forces-esque paratroopers to colonial-era british redcoats.

The same goes for the Tau. Anime mechas aren't all that they are.


Also, suits most definitely still can take support systems. The list is on page 49, and on 137.

Support systems are different than signature systems (which commanders could take). And they got rid of most vehicle upgrades as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

ML are absolute trash compared to before. Even the single ML only increases your shots by about 8%.

Signature battle systems are completely gone so idk what you are talking about

Riptides, broadsides, and Battlesuits are all over costed. (especially riptides. they are trash tier now)

Rerolling of 1s is a Character level bonus. this is how it is for EVERYONE. but you get to use it without being near characters and multiple squads can use it. its easy to get but you can choose to go ham on one unit that you really need dead by removing penltys and cover and possibly an additional BS boost.

suits also dont instantly die and can take quite a beating for a long time.

Character bonus is much better than ML. A character with that ability can stay behind troops and basically survive all game. Pathfinders/marker drones are going to be killed turn 1.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

So were daemons. What did you think was going to happen? Obviously the top tier armies would have to be nerfed to get all armies to a similar level.

And yet SM, Necrons, and even Elder are still in a very good place compared to Tau


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
Very disappointed. My Tau got nerfed into the ground. And besides the nerfing, they just made them plain boring. They removed essentially everything that made them unique (markelights being effective, signature battle systems, most vehicle gear, suits except commander now stink)

T'au are more exciting than they have been for years, ML's are very effective if used correctly, Battle systems are still very much there and all suits now have a role to play rather than just Riptides.

Except the playstyle of Tau is no longer what Tau actually is. Tau is supposed to be smaller units of battle suits, not a horde army of fire warriors, hounds, and drones.

Since WHEN? Tau has always been about Firewarrior teams supported by tanks, with alien auxiliares, a ton of drones and supported by Suits.

The Suits spam armies are just a thing of 6th and 7th edition. Don't make a bigger flush of the change in the Tau meta for 8th that it really is. Recurring to a just false "fluff" and "Playstile of the army"
Tau have more than one playstile. Just like Dark Angels can be Deathwing, Ravenwing or Greenwing and still be all Death Angels.

notredameguy10 wrote:



Support systems are different than signature systems (which commanders could take). And they got rid of most vehicle upgrades as well.

Everyone lost relics (effectively signature systems) AND everyone also lost a lot of their vehicle upgrades (dozer blades do nothing no search lights)

edit: DAMNIT i screwd up that quote.


rerolls of 1s is a captain level ability with the only next best thing being reroll ALL to hit rolls being a Chapter master level thing which is incredably hard to get and limited

they also ONLY effect units within a short distance of them making them very stationary

Marker lights while being shootable can also be spread way out across the table one multiple units while also being 36" which is a good chunk of the board.

ever two marker lights is a captain on a single unit.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Support systems are different than signature systems (which commanders could take). And they got rid of most vehicle upgrades as well.

Character bonus is much better than ML. A character with that ability can stay behind troops and basically survive all game. Pathfinders/marker drones are going to be killed turn 1.

Ah, yes, those things. Every army lost those things. I, unfortunately can't have the Mantle of Ophelia anymore, so we're all in that boat.

Also, not all characters give re-roll 1's. Some give +1 BS, or other bonuses, and for the Imperial Guard, they just give orders.

Also, in case you missed it, Master of War: Kauyon gives re-rolls if you remained stationary, once per game. Storm of Fire re-rolls 1's if you remain static, and Longstrike gives all nearby Hammerheads +1 BS.

I had high hopes for chaos space marines in 8th, but found their list lacking in a lot of areas....everything SM get is cheaper in power level then the chaos equivalent. Their wargear list is more stripped down then before (no daemon weapons but SM still get relic blades?) Marks of chaos don't do anything. The death Guard army list has very limited options on what you can take- no forgefiends, etc..., chaos lords with a chosen mark don't unlock cult troops like they used to. Their whole list is very underwhelming.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Shinzra wrote:
But for some reason I just dont get the same tactical feel from the 8th compared to 7th.

Are you sure you played 7th? Whole thing was a gakshow.

The effects of the USR's is unchanged, they are incorporated into each unit, thus saving having to constantly flick through 2+ books.
If granulation is what you're after, codexes are in the future.
8th is not rushed, not by a long way. 6e was an utter hackjob, and every book released between then and just before 8e has been increasingly hacky, money-grabbing and rushed. That we don't have an obvious auto-lose army is self-evidently proof that GW put more thought into this ruleset than any release since 6e.

The ruleset is a nearly note-for-note port of AoS. That means it probably took less thought than any edition, because most of the work was done, and all that was required was tugging, tweaking, and carving out places for things that didn't exist in AoS (like transports).

Seems like you somehow managed to know even less about AoS than you apparently do about 40k.

AoS does have transports.

Except the playstyle of Tau is no longer what Tau actually is. Tau is supposed to be smaller units of battle suits, not a horde army of fire warriors, hounds, and drones.

I.. Look at this and wonder if people actually ever read Tau fluff or just played the FOTM army and stuck with it.

^ Definitely the latter.

A bit. My games so far have been a bit dull.

I think my issue is that my main opponents are Guard and Tau so every game for me (Tyranids) is "run forward and engage as fast as possible and hope to not be shot off the table" so I'm willing to give 8th the benefit of the doubt.

If nothing else my opponents enjoy rolling loads of dice and killing my stuff with little effort until the 5 genestealers and a couple of monsters reach their lines at which point they become the bored ones and I get to roll loads of dice and kill their stuff with little effort. I'll need to get one of my other armies on the board and see how it goes.

I seeing a lot of "8th sucks because my army isn't awesome". Do you really not realise how short sighted and selfish that is?

Beyond choosing and army that matches you play style, which army you choose should not give you an advantage. The ideal is that all armies are equally powerful. That means you need skill to win more than half your games and your army should hold it's own and give close games vs similarly skilled opponents. If you expect your army to wreck face and roll over the enemy every game then you are asking for the game to be unbalanced.

 DarkBlack wrote:
Beyond choosing and army that matches you play style, which army you choose should not give you an advantage. The ideal is that all armies are equally powerful.

Unfortunately, they aren't all equal, and which army you chose does give you an advantage.

 Melissia wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
Beyond choosing and army that matches you play style, which army you choose should not give you an advantage. The ideal is that all armies are equally powerful.

Unfortunately, they aren't all equal, and which army you chose does give you an advantage.

Knowing GW, you're probably right. The quality of the edition still shouldn't be measured by the effectiveness of your army though.

What I will say I'm (still) disappointed with is that GW's rules (though better this time) are still poorly written.

Flamers and fliers
Being able to fail plasma gets hot on a 6 assuming modifiers are there
Reanimation protocols
Vaugness about certain rules such as fly and assault
And similarities to age of sigmar because if I wanted sigmar I would play sigmar
Character limit not being shot at because they are out of the 12" bubble but there is a closer unit that is out of Los
And 8 pages of rules shouldn't be a selling point