While I usually love starter sets, I have no plans on buying 8th, so I guess I am stepping back away from the hobby. I am not crazy about the Primaris marines, even though they properly reflect how marines probably should look, and dislike many of the units for them. I know you don't have to use them, but I just think they will eventually replace the normal marines as time goes by.

That being said, I am curious about the gameplay. . . is everyone enjoying the new rules?

First time I've enjoyed 40K in 13 years.

Game play is smoother. Use the big rulebook to figure out the mission and deployment, and then you don't need it for the rest of the battle.

Already my favorite edition.

Loving it. Particularly the way the reset button has been used so I can get back into the game without being at a massive disadvantage to long-term players. I didn't like the Primaris fluff either at first but it has grown on me - reading the novel Dark Imperium helped. Now considering a Primaris-only Smurf-force.

Gets a good vote from me.

I lapsed my gaming credentials around 6th Ed. Wasn't the game, was real life getting in the way.

With the way things escalated, I found it daunting to delve back in - and edition lag rules knowledge was made far worse.

But 8th? Only managed the one game so far, but found it pleasingly straight forward to play. Just need to make more time in the future!

I'm now spending money on Gamesworkshop products...

It's great!

Meh. I have fun with it, but prefer 7th edition.

I've never been in the tournament scene, so killer lists were never an issue with me, and I feel like 7th had more immersion and variety than 8th does so far.

Back in 7th I had given up on 40k and had considered selling up. But then I heard about 8th coming out and being a complete change so I decided to hang on and see what it was like. I'm glad I did because it has rekindled my love for the game.

It has been a big hit in my gaming group. We went from 4 regular players to 9 - 3 returning and 2 new so that's been a big plus. There are of course a few hiccups and things I don't necessarily love, but none of them are deal breakers. Overall I'm enjoying it a great deal - and this comes from someone who did enjoy 7th as well. Right now I'm excited to attend some larger tournaments to see some new lists.

It is good enough to bring me back to the hobby for the first time since 3rd edition.

I am very much enjoying it.

Been loving it. Not having melta squads one shotting my tanks is awesome. Changes to flyers is great. Taking the arguing out of the game is amazing. Physic phase is great.

"Which of my several similar looking psykers did you kill and which knew invisibility? Does it matter?"

No arguing about firing arcs. Flyers aren't useless once they pass over units.

Weird rules about flamers are gone.

Not having to space out 2" and worry about templates.

No arguing about template angles.

Not having your 200pt unit mishap and die (well that was fun)

Having AP4 manticores being useless. Wow I hit your riptide. OH you failed your 2+. Anddddd....1 wound.

No formations giving free units. Or riptide wing.

Not worrying about LoS and whats covered.

Not worrying about vehicle sides. Is it front, is it side?

Not having drop pod spam.

No more books and books of rules that may or may not conflict with each other.

GW maybe putting out an FAQ every few years.

I can go on. Not saying 8th is perfect. But it is so far such a breath of fresh air. GW has put out how many FAQ's? Im optimistic. Plus with codexs rolling out its better than it's been in years.

I give it 7 stars out of 10.

Games are decided almost always before turn 3, and the top armies absolutely trounce the lower tier armies.

We can also look to the second General's Handbook which is coming out very soon.

Yes, it's for Age of Sigmar - but it's functionally the same as what we're promised for Chapter Approved - new rules to offer new challenges, points tweaks, updates for armies.

If GW can crack that (and GH2 tidbits seem to be crowd pleasers so far), I'd say the game seems to be in the best shape since I started playing at the dawn of 2nd Ed (yes, I am old. Yes, GET OFF MY LAWN, DANG KIDS)

I love it.

I think it strikes a balance between being able to field fluffy armies (e.g. superheavy tank companies or flyer wings) with playability (superheavy tanks are more vulnerable, flyer wings are unlikely to win games).

There are some flaws (it's not even close to flawless) but I have seen greater army variety and far far more fluffy armies than I did in 7th.

Disliked having to relearn some things (especially combat) but really like the fact that some of my older armies are finally viable again.

While I've only gotten 2 games in, there's no way I'm going back to 7th.

OP, if you don't want to invest any money but want to play, you can download the 8-page PDF rules off GW's site to give it a go. Or for minimal cost, pick up the $6-$8 "getting started" magazine (which comes with a nice "desktop display" primaris marine) has the same rules. As for army stats, there's plenty of (free) army builder software available so you could try out an army without having to invest in indexes or upcoming codexes.

I'm...painfully bored with it? I dislike the fact GW has doubled down on removing options for units they don't make models for, especially since I have to have both a Codex and an Index in order to play, just so I can field my Chaos Lord, due to him using a Disc of Tzeentch.

I dislike the fact they separated ICs from units, making it possible for them to fail an assault after the unit they're with makes it, and I actually dislike the removal of 7e Challenges (as I really found the 5th ed system of "an Independent Character counts as its own unit in an assault" to be clunky and exploitable). Of course, that doesn't particularly matter since a defender allocates all casualties anyway.

I dislike the usage of band-aid rules to give the illusion of balance. Honestly, I'm just not feeling 8th at all. I've mostly been sitting out, using the time to work on a minis backlog, write homebrew, and dream of running a Mordheim campaign. As a whole though, I dislike the AOSification of the game and am skipping this edition.

After about 20 games and 1 tournament (FLGS), I can say this is the best the game has been since 3rd.

Its good but not the best edition imho.

Haven't played 40k in the tabletop form (played a lot of the FFG RPGs) since 4th edition.

I like that most everything feels "useful" - no, not everything is "Conscript" or "Berserker" good, but most things feel useful.

I don't like knowing what my Ork and IG opponents felt like in 2nd edition when a Virus Missile came down on them before their first turn. "Glad you carted 200 minis with you and spent the time to deploy them, please pick up 75% of them. Ok, your turn."

Will 8th keep me interested enough to go to a tournament, even a local one? No. Will it be something I can do with a few of my friends in our basements on the weekends? Yeah, probably.

Being a Chaos player, I feel like fluffy armies are going to be handicapped unless all players agree to restrictions. \ I am going to field a World Eaters army, which means no psykers, predominantly melee, etc. etc. Your handicap is that you aren't taking flyers and more than one of any given type of unit (to prevent optimized spam).

It has its ups and downs for me.

Positives:
- Gameplay is a lot smoother than 7th (every army doesn't have a million rules to remember)
- Things feel a lot more balanced (it's far from perfect but orders of magnitude better than what 7th offered)
- Infantry is no longer just target practise for Wraithknights and such.
- Necrons are no longer OP.
- Infantry-IG is viable.
- DE don't suck for once.

Negatives:
- Necron HQs not having RPs is really disappointing. As is quite a lot of Necron units being overly weak or expensive.
- On the other end of the scale, my infantry IG army feels a bit too strong, which is a little sad.
- DE HQs are abysmal.
- With a few exceptions, HQs in general are rather bland this edition. I think too much of their gear was stripped away, with Necron and DE HQs having virtually nothing (especially when it comes to non-weapon wargear). What's more, the DE HQ buffs are just terrible, making their HQs taxes rather than effective force-multipliers.
- Corsairs (my favourite army in 7th) have been axed entirely.

I'm hoping that the codices will fix at least some of my issues but I'm not optimistic.

Anyway, for now I'll lean towards the positive side.

Terrific. Our group has never had more people this regularly in the time since I've been there.

My favorite edition in a very long while. It has a few issues, but none of those issues make it feel as bland or painful to play as previous editions. With a little polish, I think 8th can be everything 2nd was without the bloat and complicated rules thrown in just because.

I love 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

Negatives:
- Necron HQs not having RPs is really disappointing. As is quite a lot of Necron units being overly weak or expensive.

Then again, their characters are always a unit of 1 model, and RP doesn't work when a unit is completely destroyed. And don't forget their Living Metal rule, which all their characters get.

As for the OP's question; I like it so far. Haven't played a lot of games yet, but those I did play were refreshing. Loved seeing a couple of throw-backs to Rogue Trader and 2nd edition, loved seeing some new stuff too.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:

Then again, their characters are always a unit of 1 model, and RP doesn't work when a unit is completely destroyed.

Sure. But that was the case in older editions as well - hence why characters had variations on the standard rule.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
And don't forget their Living Metal rule, which all their characters get.

And which is pathetic and no substitute for coming back to life.

I do miss more customizations for HQ's, but overall the feel has been very fun to play.

Having Great fun.

only complaint may be the cover save system and how it interacts with some things.

but otherwise i like this system way more.

I started playing at the tail end of 5th, and I barely remember it (I was still a child) and having played on and off through 6th and 7th I think 8th is great. I never really encountered the OP spam and formation abuse that ruined 7th for so many people, which maybe colours my view a little differently, but I enjoyed 7th (minus the psychic phase, which I never engaged with) and while 8th is a different kind of enjoyment for me, it's one that overall I like a little more. Also there is no way primaris are replacing normal marines for a very very long time, IMO it'll never happen.

I find myself playing more and with people I've not played against more. I'm a regular for gaming nights now since it's much easier for pick up games.

Before I had a select group of people I used to game and even then got bored due to power creep and general arguments about rules.

No, 8th edition is not perfect. But I find it more enjoyable and I especially like the fact that Games Workshop are taking the time to improve the rules at a much faster rate than 'here's an FAQ, go nuts with houserules'.

Why would you need to get a starter set just because it's a new edition? I'm imperial to the core and I couldn't care less about NuMarines. Needless to say, my interest for death guard is even lower.

Yet, this new edition got me playing a proper* GW game since time immemorial. Instead of getting the starter box, I got some** IG-dudes. Though, even if 7th edition was still going on, I would have started 40k regardless and I would have picked IG as my faction.

*Bigger than Kill Team.
**An underestimation!

I'm actually enjoying it. Previously, I only played because all my friends did.

The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Power Creep still exists at the moment by way of the "Haves and Have-nots" dichotomy: If you have a Codex, you by default have access to many more options than your opponent. (In the case of Space Marines and CSM, there's also lots of point cuts that nobody else got either.) We'll have yet to see if it exists in other ways, perhaps in a "Newer codices are better than old ones" manner, perhaps in some other way, but it's still absolutely a problem.

Building entire armies around buff bubbles is also tiresome. They killed single deathstar units, but didn't kill the philosophy around deathstars, and so winning armies at my LGS generally revolve around having a few buffy characters surrounded by infantry units all floating with someone within 6". Deathstars are dead. Long live the deathstar.


A few rules are weird, redundant, or counter-intuitive and kind of aggravating. The way re-rolls, modifiers, and gets-hot type rules are handled all seems needlessly unfair, unfun, and complicated. Stacking positive to-hit modifiers shouldn't make models immune to Gets Hot, but by the same token, firing your gun at nighttime shouldn't make it more likely to explode. If I have a buff that offers re-rolls on all failed to hits, meanwhile, I shouldn't be leaving a bunch of failed rolls on the table because I'm not allowed to re-roll them since the modifier hasn't been applied yet.


Many armies feel very samey. With a few exceptions, most Psykers function as batteries that pump out Mortal Wounds first and do any other functions second.


8th is better than 7th in a lot of ways, but lost a lot of flavor and still feels very samey.

In a lot of ways, I think of 7th as eating a Chicago pizza: It's bloated, overdone, and will give you the runs, but there is that moment where you can find solace in its greasy mess.

By contrast, 8th is like a lightly flavored tofu: It might be healthier in the long run and it's a lot easier to digest, but it just doesn't feel right, lacking flavor or substance.

Waaaghpower pretty much nails most the issues I have, and at the risk of bringing up the "abstraction" arguments all over again, it's very easy to argue that the changes to movement and shooting are one of the reasons Stormravens became so powerful before a series of nerfs. There is something both mechanically "unfair" and in violation of "common sense" physics when a flyer can stop units from moving past it while simultaneously being immune to being charged.

Anyway, I think it matters less which edition ypu play rather than who you play with, but ymmv.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In a lot of ways, I think of 7th as eating a Chicago pizza: It's bloated, overdone, and will give you the runs, but there is that moment where you can find solace in its greasy mess.

By contrast, 8th is like a lightly flavored tofu: It might be healthier in the long run and it's a lot easier to digest, but it just doesn't feel right, lacking flavor or substance.

Waaaghpower pretty much nails most the issues I have, and at the risk of bringing up the "abstraction" arguments all over again, it's very easy to argue that the changes to movement and shooting are one of the reasons Stormravens became so powerful before a series of nerfs. There is something both mechanically "unfair" and in violation of "common sense" physics when a flyer can stop units from moving past it while simultaneously being immune to being charged.

Anyway, I think it matters less which edition ypu play rather than who you play with, but ymmv.

Thats why you have to properly season tofu.

you can ALWAYS add on

but you cant undo a deep dish pizza.

To me 7th was more like one of those chinese buffets; lots of choices and everything tastes good, but ultimately you're just eating the same thing that the local cheap takeout place can do for cheaper and the tastes all start blending together after the first plate.

8th is like fine cuisine; still ridiculously expensive, but it's a subtly more enjoyable experience.

Until you get to the primaris marines. Those guys the the deep fried twinkies at the end of a nice pressed duck.

We have found it to be far and away the worst edition of the game. played it a couple of times and put it in the bargain bin. I personally have not found it to be faster, smoother or even fun. The aesthetic I cant stand, hate primaris everything. I am glad others are liking it but overall I am pretty disgusted with it, maybe a half star out of 10. Will never play 8th edition again. tabled my second opponent in 2 turns, miserable experience.

8th Edition has brought me back into the game (played since 2nd Ed, walked away for 7th). Get the core rules for free, pick up an Index and you are in. There is plenty of bleating about Primaris marines, but I have to admit that they look cool, and who cares about Tactical Squads anyway?

Seriously, give it a whirl.

Very much.

I've played quite a lot of games, on the order of 25 or 30 now, I stopped counting and lost track. Also, my Sisters are really good, and that makes me happy.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though? Rulebook calls for d3 pieces per section, but that's not very helpful, because it doesn't really qualify what a 'terrain piece' should be. From the talk I see on this forum, it sounds like players are calling for massive terrain labyrinths so that no guns can fire more than 15-20", or at least that there should be enough terrain to completely hide your army from gunlines, which sounds really dumb and unfair to me.

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board that offer between 6-10" each of Line of Sight blocking - some of these walls have windows, so you can't hide huge tanks behind them, but your infantry can duck in corners easily enough. It's enough terrain that you can safely tuck some critical units behind it, without making the first turn of shooting completely pointless.

The problem, of course, is that anything NOT completely obscured just... Dies. It happens more often than not that players lose a quarter of their army in one turn. There's just not much coming back from this... Unless I scatter the board with so much line of sight blocking terrain that long-range shooting becomes completely pointless, and melee armies win the day by default.

I've only played a couple games so far, but I've enjoyed them.

Some things I thought might bother me I don't actually care about once I'm actually playing.

It seems more abstract, so we need to use more imagination.

I think if we were using the Indices forever I would be disappointed, but knowing that Codices are coming out that add a lot more flavor back in I don't mind at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though? Rulebook calls for d3 pieces per section, but that's not very helpful, because it doesn't really qualify what a 'terrain piece' should be. From the talk I see on this forum, it sounds like players are calling for massive terrain labyrinths so that no guns can fire more than 15-20", or at least that there should be enough terrain to completely hide your army from gunlines, which sounds really dumb and unfair to me.

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board that offer between 6-10" each of Line of Sight blocking - some of these walls have windows, so you can't hide huge tanks behind them, but your infantry can duck in corners easily enough. It's enough terrain that you can safely tuck some critical units behind it, without making the first turn of shooting completely pointless.

The problem, of course, is that anything NOT completely obscured just... Dies. It happens more often than not that players lose a quarter of their army in one turn. There's just not much coming back from this... Unless I scatter the board with so much line of sight blocking terrain that long-range shooting becomes completely pointless, and melee armies win the day by default.

I think it's "2 pieces per 2' square". Each piece is approximately 8" by 8" and about 2-3 stories tall, from roughly eyeballing GW-issued terrain.

my general rule for cover is there shouldn't be anything more than a dinner plate sized area not being covered by...well cover. And the type of cover should at least be space marine waist high. I haven't met an opponent who didn't agree to this as the minimum yet.

Good to see some very positive experiences.
This is my favorite, been playing since 2nd edition.

I think we are not far off from a couple tweaks and it will be very good.

Yes, the Primaris marines have me a bit concerned of where they are going with this (old vs super tall marines in the fluff? A bit beyond odd).

I like the horde of dice rolling and losing the templates (temporarily?).

It has flavor.
I can play a lot faster, not fuss over silly things and actually execute my strategy and tactics happily.
Some of the changes have surprised me as I saw everything function on the tabletop, had quite a few laughing moments and going "that is NASTY!" and not be thinking something is insane overpowered.

The new models to build and paint up I cannot argue with... I am rather happy with the esthetics of them.

All in all: yes GW is getting my money again, my marriage may be in jeopardy due to unbudgeted spending... I may have to sell other hobby stuff... it is that dire.

Waaaghpower wrote:

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though?...

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board...

Yeah, that's not enough. You need like double that.

As a guidline I would suggest standard 4ft by 6ft table have at least a piece of LOS blocking terrain in every 2ft section.

I build the terrain for my club. Every new piece since 8th edition is either 3", 6", or 9" tall of LOS blocking.

Most people are gravitating to the 6-9" pieces.

Look at this ITC setup.



6 pieces of LOS blocking terrain, plus forrests, plus barricades, plus the billboard.



If you are not playing with enough terrain, you are just giving Adeptus Astartes and Tau an advantage they don't need.

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though?...

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board...

Yeah, that's not enough. You need like double that.

As a guidline I would suggest standard 4ft by 6ft table have at least a piece of LOS blocking terrain in every 2ft section.

I build the terrain for my club. Every new piece since 8th edition is either 3", 6", or 9" tall of LOS blocking.

Most people are gravitating to the 6-9" pieces.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. That's the LOS blocking terrain, not ALL the terrain. We also have at least a couple pieces of area terrain such as trees or craters and/or non-LOS blocking terrain. Those ITC boards are pretty similar, trading 1-2 of the buildings for several very wide foresty areas.

Also: Games Workshop CLEARLY doesn't intend for every board to be a maze of terrain, seeing as some of their missions (including the most recent Konor mission) call for using very little terrain.

The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

I like it but I don't love it. I've played since 2nd edition and it is fun. The lack of deathstars and psychic shenanigans is a welcome change from 7th, but the core rules feel a little too simplified for my tastes.

CONS: I dislike vehicles having wounds and being able to shoot all their weapons from their headlights, and at first I thought they were too hard to kill. A lack of armor facing and weapon line of sight takes away a significant aspect of 7th edition that I loved. (Outmanuevering the enemy.) I dislike characters being separate from their squads and the overall points increases across the board. My armies are definitely much smaller (for example my 1850 Dark Angels list from 7th is now about 2400 points, and it wasn't a Lion's Blade...) but what remains is quite potent. Long range firepower is utterly lethal and piles of plastic dudesmen die each turn. Combined with smaller sized armies and it means games are pretty well decided by turn 3. None of the index armies really feel like they capture the flavor of the factions to me.

PROS: It's easy to get into assaults, but unless you have dedicated melee troops it doesn't really accomplish much. Dedicated assault units are very handy as opposed to being almost useless in 7th, unless you went full deathstar. Vehicles are more expensive, but they actually live a decent amount of time so it's worth the extra points. Grav cheese and detachment cheese are gone. Command points are an excellent addition. Having a few rerolls can really stop plain old bad luck from costing you a game. The indexes feel well balanced against each other, with the exception of IG every army seems like it has a chance to win.

But my favorite thing about 8th is that the humble Sister's of Battle are a force to be reckoned with. Yes, our entire army consists of 15 units in total (by comparison Codex: Space Marines has 31 units JUST IN HQ while we have 3.) but we have 8 or 9 units that rock the house and the rest are at least respectable.

DarthDiggler wrote:
The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

So, do you think less or more terrain would help?

If you cover everything with terrain, no one can move their troops.

If you cut terrain, shooty units will just have a field day.

I play IG and I think you need to have an substantial amount of LoS-blocking terrain but not every square inch should be covered by it. I've basically heard suggestions that all game tables should be walls made of three story buildings... that can't be right, right?

 Desubot wrote:
Having Great fun.

only complaint may be the cover save system and how it interacts with some things.

but otherwise i like this system way more.

I will echo this as my one big complaint. However, this game is ing Fantastic to play. I love it way more than I liked 6th/7th when I started. And on an extra plus side, it's a breeze to get people into the game. No more intimidating MASSIVE sets of rules (I think I could kill someone with my 6th rulebook), and it runs smoother.
Overall, I give it an 8/10. Fix cover, and it's a 9/10.

I see terrain as a sliding scale of balance, that nerfs or buffs various types of units based off of the scale of terrain and the variety.

The more area terrain you add,the more effective melee is and the less effective low-AP shooting is.
The more LOS-blocking terrain you add, the more effective highly mobile units and barrage-type shooting is and the less effective long-range slow units are. I don't think that there's a 'Sweet spot'. Those ITC boards don't look fun to play on, because they apparently have almost nothing to give the +1 to a save, they JUST block line of sight.

 Stevefamine wrote:
I'm now spending money on Gamesworkshop products...

It's great!

Ditto. A lot of that, for me personally, is that I've found a couple of older gamers who are willing to play non-cutthroat.
We don't netlist and we are even okay with playing with the army booklets from the starter if the player wants to.

The game itself has been AoS-ified and I also view that as a good thing.
You can literally put any of your toys on the table (as long as they belong to the major faction) and head off to the races.

EDIT: Oh and I picked up two starters. It has provided us (with addition of only 3 other models kits---2 of which I owned and had zero plans to ever build) with around 2k worth of the starter armies.

I don´t like this edition at all. The vehicle-rules are stupid, realy, they are absurd.

I don´t like the characters, whose seem to be only walking buffs anymore.

Balance? Astra Militarum. Conscripts. Yeah.

I don´t hate it, like the 7th edition, but I like it in the same way as I liked the 5th. Wich I only played, because my friends did. So I don´t play 8th edition, because....nobody of my friends plays it.

RedCommander wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

So, do you think less or more terrain would help?

If you cover everything with terrain, no one can move their troops.

If you cut terrain, shooty units will just have a field day.

I play IG and I think you need to have an substantial amount of LoS-blocking terrain but not every square inch should be covered by it. I've basically heard suggestions that all game tables should be walls made of three story buildings... that can't be right, right?

Well, it looks good, but it's no fun to play on.

Enjoying it, it plays smooth. Terrain rules are lacking, 3rd/4th ed forest rules were better. I havent played enough games to really fully get the feel of it, but overall its quite enjoyable.

Not digging the tendency to make buffblobs. There doesnt seem to be much incentive not to. Templates and weak armor facings helped mitigate this in the past because packing models tightly had immediate risks, and the potential to flank vehicles encouraged attacking from different angles.

The 8th ed look better than the 6th and the 7th.
The general rule set is much smaller which leads to less debates.
Whether the armies are balanced or not, we will see.

Aside from 3 things I am growing to really loathe about it, it is a much better game than most previous editions. The downside is that I am finding it really boring compared to previous editions as well, although I am grudgingly accepting of that.over the almost unplayable mess that 7th became.

The bottom line for me is that it offers a decent, playable game (considering all the units involved not a small achievement), while sacrificing a lot in the narrative department to achieve it. It's far down my list of favorite games but at least it's on it again.

Not even talking about realism etc that makes wargaming different from some boardgame (what this edition is seriously lacking)
I have some serious issues with alpha strike armies (stuff that does major damage turn 1) .In a game that is supposed to last 5 turns, it should not be possible to have the game decided by the end of turn 1, or turn 2 if something went wrong. Really... It is no fun to take your army to the gaming store set up for half an hour, play for 15 minutes, see that you have lost over 50% of your army before you had the chance to do anything.


But the game should IMHO get rid off:
Reliable turn 1 charges (like dropping 18 berzerkers with a kharybdis assault claw, with a chaos sorcerer for warp time and a dark apostle/kharn for re-rolls, or ork boyz with da jump, Stormboyz etc)
Turn 1 deep strikes/alternative deployment (should be some downside to not deploying immediately on the battlefield)
Reliable turn 1 plasma rapid fire with re-rolls... Really... no fun in that. (hate those plasma scions lists)
IMHO they should even remove all battlefield role-spam detachements. They break the game 1 by 1. Giving everyone an A bomb isn't balancing, it is just waiting to see who gets to use his first.

Me and my friends came back to 40k because of it, whether you like the base rules in 7th versus 8th it's the best Games Workshop has ever been.

It's worth play just because things are no longer locked in limbo, they actually release patch updates like computer games, something i have wished for 20 years.

Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

DarthDiggler wrote:
90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

I haven't found this; all my games so far have been undecided until turn 4-5 and even then there was a decent chance of it being turned around.

Most people locally had stepped away from 40K during 7th. With 8th release everyone jumped in to give it a go. A couple of weeks later the excitement has been replaced by meh, and everyone has stepped back to the other projects they were working on.

Some parts of the game sounded like good ideas, such as to hit modifiers and the replacement of the AP system, but in practice just swapped one set of problems for another.

The way vehicles work just piss's off everyone. The cover system frustrates everyone. Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players. Most games are decided early, and worryingly often by whoever goes first.

All in all there was a good idea for a game in there, but they stopped half way through writing the game then rushed out the index's which are full of issues.

I expect the game to be dead by the end of the year locally.

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

It is hundred times better than the broken mess of imba that was 7th. It is far from perfect, but it is a huge improvement.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
My favorite edition in a very long while. It has a few issues, but none of those issues make it feel as bland or painful to play as previous editions. With a little polish, I think 8th can be everything 2nd was without the bloat and complicated rules thrown in just because.

This.
Spit. Polish. Still waiting on that before I invest the 2 hour 50dollar train ride to the nearest game store for a chance to actually play.
Until then, I do my little sims here on my desk between edits and drafts.
And, I find time to paint when I can find time to paint.
But, I see too many reasons not to play to spend the time and money it will take to play - too board/card-gamey for my taste.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

I am sorry that I don't now remember exactly where but I did read a battle report wherein the poster was expecting his hugish conscript unit(s) to wreck a heavy tank, and was disappointed when he was almost successful - only a couple of wounds left.
I think that it was in the context of a tourney, if I recall correctly as well.
Yeah, this is a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Orange wrote:
Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

What other games, if you don't mind my asking?
And, I agree with your assessment - very insightful.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

The only time I've had it game-changingly happen was when my opponent multi-charged his one wound knight into a combat squad with flamer/combi-flamer and another partially destroyed squad. Knight fell to the flamer over watch and took out one of his thunderwolves and none of my troops in the explosion. Otherwise you need lascannons or equivalent. Because of our local meta - even in "friendly" games my lascannon devastator squad is an auto include.

But that is one hilarious example of why we play this game and not a real answer to your question. Nobody in our meta plays mono guard so I don't have good data on lasguns vs land raiders.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

A vet once finished a basi with a shotgun. Was a good time


Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Orange wrote:
Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

What other games, if you don't mind my asking?
And, I agree with your assessment - very insightful.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

It's nice to see the local GWs and other gaming stores become so busy with 40k once again.

Yeah, playing and enjoying 40k again for the first time in years here.

 thekingofkings wrote:

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

Play the lottery, or head to a casino, because lady luck apparently smiles on you.

50-60% to hit, followed by 16% chance to wound, failed save 16-33% to inflict a single wound on your average tank with a lasgun, means they statistically insignificant next to the special weapon and heavy in the squad. If you are popping tanks with a meltagun and a lascannon in each squad, then that is to be expected.

Conscripts aren't doing much against a tank, other than stripping a wound, or two.

 adamsouza wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

Play the lottery, or head to a casino, because lady luck apparently smiles on you.

50-60% to hit, followed by 16% chance to wound, failed save 16-33% to inflict a single wound on your average tank with a lasgun, means they statistically insignificant next to the special weapon and heavy in the squad. If you are popping tanks with a meltagun and a lascannon in each squad, then that is to be expected.

Conscripts aren't doing much against a tank, other than stripping a wound, or two.

I made a similar suggestion to Jay about the casinos after the weekend, but yeah it does happen, and dice luck has nothing to do with odds, it happens or it doesnt.

So far its an enjoyable edition. I skipped most from the end of 4th until 8th due to bad rules and bloat. Having fun. Some issues but hopefully the codex rollout will fix this

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

I just don't buy it.

0.5x0.16666x0.3333=0.027773889 Percent chance of a las gun wounding a toughness 7, +3 tank. Most of the tanks I have been fielding have 14 wounds. That means about 504 lasgun shots. So, a unit of 30 guardsman sitting at rapid fire range for a little over 8 rounds, and assuming that the tank never fires back. Again. I just don't buy it.

As for myself. I have really been enjoying the game. I played a last week. Chaos game against an eldar force. Lost but killed a lot of stuff. Eldar can bring savage weight of fire and every 6 hurts. I still had tanks living long enough to strike back st the enemy. Found terminators and land raiders worth their points again. Fliers seem to have been balanced. I had a great time. Most Excited I have been in ages for the game.

I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So far my biggest take away from 8th so far in the limited number of games I played is that I hate the cover system. Its both boring and generally impractical for anything other than small units of infantry.

The Codices are pretty balanced so far compared to each other so far, and outside some super specific complaints (Conscripts, Roboute, Centurion Devastators are terrible), seems things are on the up and up. Once everyone gets their snowflake rules, things will be pretty awesome.

Game was basically destroyed, 7th was better

 Elbows wrote:
I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

Haven't tried it yet but I own the rules, looks pretty good.

I really like it. It's the best version of 40k by far. I think Age of Sigmar is a tiny bit better though. :-)

I am not a fan. My warlord can fire its massive belicosa pattern volcano cannon into a screaming horde of tightly clustered orks...and kill 6 at best.

Most fun I've had since 3rd/4th edition. Tyranids are playable again (without using like 30 Flyrants) and Sisters have been a pleasant surprise. My Penal Legion gunline still works just fine as well. SO's Tau had a rough start but he's figured them out, though they need that Codex sooner rather than later.

I need to play a few more games with my DE before I'm settled into a real opinion on them, but so far so good.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

GodofHobos wrote:
I am not a fan. My warlord can fire its massive belicosa pattern volcano cannon into a screaming horde of tightly clustered orks...and kill 6 at best.

Seems like the wrong weapon for the Job. I bet if your Titan had an anti infantry weapon like a flames storm cannon you would kill a few more.

Addressing the question of balance. I've heard a lot of people whining that they can't just take win button units they used to take. As a daemon player, lots of folks are bemoaning the loss of the summoning non sense. Etc. I for one am glad that they took that out of the game, My most recent game against an eldar player found him telling me that he was glad that his army had been significantly nerfed. People actually enjoyed playing. Against him. Math hammer on different weapons does show surprising internal balance between weapons now. Overall I feel like they did a great job here.

I agree that terrain needs a change. if they had retained the same name between abilities on data sheets II think it would make the abilities easier to remember. I.e. Disgustingly resilient could have remained feel no pain.

I also agree that I would prefer slightly better rules regarding measuring too and from weapons on vehicles. I.e.measure from the weapon but I can buy the logic that this better represents the tank moving around in the flux of battle.

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

Playing the game I love, the fluff is "meh" still, but I can live with that, I just use the old 1st edition stuff.

Really liking not needing the game rulebook open with a dozen bookmarks to play, only quibble so far is 'smite' not being on the same page as the other powers in the indexes.

The cover rules are a bit odd, GW create a system where you can fire models individually, and the owning player assigns the hits individually, then doesn't allow cover to be on a per model basis. Ditto firing through a wood provides less cover than firing into it, can live with it though.

Enjoying playing again, the game is still unbalanced and trying to apply reality to it still doesn't work, but its no longer irritating to play with the need to constantly cross reference stuff in a way that appears designed to stop people photocopying the rules.

Put the points on the data sheets for sanity (likely to make my own to do just that for the units I have) and very happy.

Combined with the perfect timing of GW releasing this just as Battlefront disappear up their own behinds and its perfect, heck even got me to try AoS.

So far have dropped a few hundred squid with GW, something I've not done in years

I had a game in 7th where my Invisible Daemon Knight with a re-rollable 2++ invul save was fighting against a huuuge unit of wolves with characters rocking a re-rollable 4++ and Invisibility. We played 7 rounds and were in combat from the bottom of t1, and the only things that died were 10-12 wolves and some Pink Horrors.

That's when I decided that the rumors of an incoming "AoS'ing" of the game was a good thing.

My Eldar would table people by turn 2, taking out warhound titans in one salvo. My Renegades were fun until I met someone with an invisible death star when my army literally could not hurt them (ITC house rules on blasts hitting invis was never used here)

And how many pages of community made FAQs did we need? Not to mention different ones, NOVA, ETC, ITC. It was basically impossible to have a pick-up game without a lenghty talk about which FAQ to use and how we were going to interpret various rules that just didn't work.

I'm really loving 8th edition so far. I've found that a lot of stuff dies in the first 3 rounds, but after that it tends to be an even scramble for objectives with the remaining units slugging it out and boiling down to some really tactical choices. The fight phase can be huge if you read the rules carefully and know what you're doing instead of just having the "closest to closest, run right in" mentality.

So yeah, I'm very positive. Whenever things annoy me in 8th, like the cover/terrain rules, I think about what an absolute mess 7th edition was in the end and stay positive about the future.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

My problem with that is that it invalidates tons and tons of wargear that specializes in being cheap but efficient. Nobody will ever take a Storm Bolter when they could bring a Combi-Plasma. Don't bother bringing a Power Fist, just take a Thunder Hammer. Oh, you took a Power Sword instead of a Relic Blade? That's cute.

All Power Levels are set assuming you take the best gear available, so if you don't do that, your gear is all going to be heavily overcosted. Even if you just want that Captain to provide some buffs, he may as well bring a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield, or maybe a Thunder Hammer and Combi-Melta. If those Terminators don't have Chainfists on every model amd a CML, you're intentionally crippling yourself.

Having a blast right now due to better balance and it's way easier to play with my less experienced/ worse-at-rule-learning friends.

RedCommander wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

So, do you think less or more terrain would help?

If you cover everything with terrain, no one can move their troops.

If you cut terrain, shooty units will just have a field day.

I play IG and I think you need to have an substantial amount of LoS-blocking terrain but not every square inch should be covered by it. I've basically heard suggestions that all game tables should be walls made of three story buildings... that can't be right, right?

I think artillery needs a -1 to hit a target out of LOS.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

My problem with that is that it invalidates tons and tons of wargear that specializes in being cheap but efficient. Nobody will ever take a Storm Bolter when they could bring a Combi-Plasma. Don't bother bringing a Power Fist, just take a Thunder Hammer. Oh, you took a Power Sword instead of a Relic Blade? That's cute.

All Power Levels are set assuming you take the best gear available, so if you don't do that, your gear is all going to be heavily overcosted. Even if you just want that Captain to provide some buffs, he may as well bring a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield, or maybe a Thunder Hammer and Combi-Melta. If those Terminators don't have Chainfists on every model amd a CML, you're intentionally crippling yourself.

Power levels are set at an average between no gear and the best gear available, actually.

As for what wargear people bring, 2 comments:

1) "the best" is not always the same thing, because situations vary (is a flamer better than a meltagun against tanks? Are meltaguns better than flamers against conscripts?)
2) I use storm bolters ( the cheapest option points wise) over every other Sisters special weapon in most of my squads, because fluff and they're quite good anyways, even if they're points wise worse.

Really superb.

Games are just as complex, but rules are not.

There will be some added flavour as each faction gets a codex, and I would prefer some better terrain rules, but the games are so much better than the last several versions.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

You are telling me a weapon system that formerly had a 10 inch template, strength d, and the machine destroyer rule is the wrong weapon system for taking on two trucks side by side?

In 7th edition, it would have annihilated the trucks and anything standing nearby : as it should be the case for a weapon system known for turning rock and stone into magma underneath it.

In 8th Edition, you will likely kill a single truck and everyone around it will be peachy. This does not reflect the concept of the weapon. A volcano cannon is NOT a scalpel , but a massive weapon of wanton destruction on a city-wide scale.

Positioning and clustering troops together should be a high risk scenario yet the new 8th edition rules dont support it, nor does 8th edition reward being in favorable positioning by being outside a gunnery arc , as now every tank can fire from any point on the vehicle, even an antenna.

While I agree that changes like this do hurt the "crunch" if a particular weapon, the removal of the defacto no.1 cause of arguments (templates) and no.1 time consumer (horde armies moved with perfect 2 inch gaps)more than makes up for it.

Seriously, 8th edition us actually fun. I can't remember the day people were smiling and actually enjoying 40k as a game rather than a 'deathstar construction spam cheese list simulator'.

Just my 2 pence on the matter.

Entirely subjective.

Believe it or not, some of us actually enjoyed a flamethrower actually projecting a flame.

Or realize that firing a high arc impact-fused weapon like a bombard cannon will never hit a flier. Now it does.

Or that a flamethower weapon would do nothing to a high speed flier. But now its the perfect AA weapon.

GodofHobos wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

You are telling me a weapon system that formerly had a 10 inch template, strength d, and the machine destroyer rule is the wrong weapon system for taking on two trucks side by side?

In 7th edition, it would have annihilated the trucks and anything standing nearby : as it should be the case for a weapon system known for turning rock and stone into magma underneath it.

In 8th Edition, you will likely kill a single truck and everyone around it will be peachy. This does not reflect the concept of the weapon. A volcano cannon is NOT a scalpel , but a massive weapon of wanton destruction on a city-wide scale.

Positioning and clustering troops together should be a high risk scenario yet the new 8th edition rules dont support it, nor does 8th edition reward being in favorable positioning by being outside a gunnery arc , as now every tank can fire from any point on the vehicle, even an antenna.

I swear you meant to respond to someone else.

I did, it looks like the quote system broke.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

My problem with that is that it invalidates tons and tons of wargear that specializes in being cheap but efficient. Nobody will ever take a Storm Bolter when they could bring a Combi-Plasma. Don't bother bringing a Power Fist, just take a Thunder Hammer. Oh, you took a Power Sword instead of a Relic Blade? That's cute.

There's just too many wargear options (and units to be honest) for marines. Any designer would be hard pressed to differentiate all the stuff GW has put out over the years when you're working with D6s. And they doubled down by adding Primaris into the mix.

 argonak wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

My problem with that is that it invalidates tons and tons of wargear that specializes in being cheap but efficient. Nobody will ever take a Storm Bolter when they could bring a Combi-Plasma. Don't bother bringing a Power Fist, just take a Thunder Hammer. Oh, you took a Power Sword instead of a Relic Blade? That's cute.

There's just too many wargear options (and units to be honest) for marines. Any designer would be hard pressed to differentiate all the stuff GW has put out over the years when you're working with D6s. And they doubled down by adding Primaris into the mix.

There's a fine line between calling a Lasgun a Lasgun, versus having separate rules for Mars-Pattern, Necromunda-Pattern, Accatran-Pattern, etc Lasguns, versus not making *Plasma* appreciably different from Bolt Weapons (of course, GW does both, with having rules for Boltguns vs Bolt Rifles!). What should matter is internal consistency within a given class of weapons (ex: All Ion Weapons can Overcharge, all Plasma Weapons are S7 AP 2, etc) yet there were too many weapons added which broke the "mold" so to speak.

I imagine the easiest way to recategorize weapons in 40k would be to make a chart. Rows are "scale" (Pistol, Rifle, Sweeper, Heavy, Superheavy), and Columns are "type" (Bolt, Las, etc). Rather than having stuff like Cyclic Ion Rakers, Plasma Culverins, Flamestorms vs Inferno Cannons, etc.

I've only played a few games and have enjoyed the games so far. I can see it being a better edition but is going to take me time to get fully into it. I am finding some of it confusing at the moment but this is down to me not going fully into reading the rules and learning these.

I'm a little concerned about facing gunline armies with assaulty ones due to the new fallback mechanic. I've realised though that target priorities have changed and that I am going to have to relearn what should fight what.

Not enjoying it.

Deathstars replaced with "Blobstar".

Cover rules stink.

Aura-Hammer.

Smite spam.

Going first means you usually win.

Games being pretty much "over" on turn 1 when the first player deletes 30% of the opposing players army.

Rules being changed at a pace so fast its hard to keep up.

In regards to LOS blocking terrain, we play with 10-17 ruins on our table. They are as large as 12"x6" on the base and up to 12" tall.

There's little I can compare it too, so I'll keep that in mind with my post.

I'm new to 40k and I've really enjoyed the game so far. I observed some friends playing 7th one day and it was overwhelming with all of the little nuances that they had to discuss. It took an hour to decide on that and they hadn't set anything up yet.

I've picked up 8th fairly easily, so it's fun to be able to play games without having to constantly ask for help. I've really enjoyed building my TSons/Tzeentch army and can't wait to complete it.

I've read several posts talking about certain aspects being less than great, like tanks shooting from any point, the deep strike spammers, aura blobs, or the LOS/cover "flaw". What makes those things so difficult to overcome? I mean, it can be safely assumed that a new edition of anything will change or negate a lot of how it was before...

I don't like terrain rules and how powerful shooty alpha strikes are (still) but the game is great otherwise. GW is trying to really bring some balance in. More than ever.

+ Balance is much better.
+ It is much faster.
+ You can use more of your models without restricting yourself to losing. Internal codex balancing is a lot better.
+ It is fun overall.
+ The game is being worked on constantly

- Alpha Strike is still a thing if you don't enjoy building terrain.
- Some armies seriously lack important features. Lots of armies don't have snipers or similar things to kill that fething commisary or weapons that ignore LoS (which is part of why IG is so strong currently).
- Many people complain that the immersion is gone.