Below is my 8th edition experience - is yours the same? Is it different?

Is 8th living up to your expectations and are you enjoying it?

It’s been a few months since I’ve played; I’m just no longer feeling it. It started so well; the release of the new edition came with promises of balance, clarity and play-tested rules. Initially it looked like those objectives would be met. The morale mechanic looked simple and effective, and the early games my group played indicated that it was a pretty tight rule set. The Indicies were a little bland, but they appeared to be well balanced.

The first cracks appeared when we realised that IG had a couple of mechanisms to materially ignore the morale rules, and then with the release of the Space Marine codex the creep began. Whereas previously my marines had been evenly matched, now they had new Chapter Tactics at no additional cost (I was secretly hoping for +1ppm for any infantry model taking chapter tactics). There was room to recover; the promised points reviews would pick that up, right?

Then the AM codex, and the creep train had left the station. There was no going back - subsequent codicies have had a power level also surpassing their index equivalents; that’s an incontestable fact.

But the situation was still recoverable. I could still play small games where we balance things ourselves, or interesting scenarios that don’t beg the question “who rolls more dice?”. With the release of Necromunda it became clear that the strategy was to move 40k into the larger format and to focus the small-scale conflicts on Necromunda. Alas, I can see the future - the small-format 40k games will go the way of the dodo. A number of the players at my LGS have taken up Necromunda and/or Shadespire, and/or alternatives, thus reducing the pool of people against whom I can play.

And so I’m left with little motivation to continue with 40k.

Tell me your experiences, Dakka.

Dropped it like an ugly baby shortly after playing about 11 games of it, learned to never again preorder anything GW that is not LOTR. its not overly misrable at 50PL give or take, but otherwise I am convinced it is the worst miniature game ever made by anybody, including holistic's carnage.

Overall I like the changes, the rules are a breath of fresh air compared to 7th. Not that 7th ed set a high bar for palatability and balance. My biggest gripe is that the necron changes didn't seem particularly well thought out, but I know I'll get mine, and probably soon, but until then I've been having fun with chaos and dark angels.

Basically the same; it's easier to play, but I'm still finding the endless push for bigger and bigger models is making the unit type balance tremendously skewey (the way damage is written certain types of units are always going to be just better), certain models (Magnus, Guilliman, whatnot) have a disproportionate amount of impact on the game to the point that even semi-competitive lists have to be written around what you're going to do if you run into one of them, and the relationship between ranges, movement, and melee/ranged damage output still rewards people for nailing their feet to the floor and nuking everything off the table with giant guns.

It's better than the horrorshow that was 6th/7th, for sure, but the underlying problems inherent in how GW thinks about the game (writing lynchpin special characters that make armies either function or not function, pushing the size of models/guns larger, and trying to address deep-seated problems with minimally invasive patches that don't actually address the problem) are still there and aren't getting any better.

Theres no power creep between Indexs and Codexs. They are different things and play in different leagues.

Now, theres problems with balance both between Indexs and Codexs separately as two cathegorys. But it hasn't been a "power creep"" in 8th edition so far.

I've played 40K since 2nd edition, and I have to say overall 8th is the best edition thus far. It is not perfect, but the rules are clear and mostly logical and amount of annoying micromanaging has been decreased drastically. My biggest gripe are the terrain rules, where I think they went a tad overboard with the simplification (Intervening terrain should provide cover.)

That being said, I'm more an modeller than a gamer, and I play only maybe once a month, so I haven't played that many games, so it is perfectly possible I will still find some things that start to annoy me.

And yes, codex armies generally tend to be a bit more powerful than index ones, even with Chapter Approved fixes, but if they keep releasing the codices at this pace, that problem is soon resolved.

8th is vastly superior to 7th. 7th edition was an unsalvageable mess of a horrifically broken and overcomplicated game that toppled 40k from its place as #1 tabletop game for a literal generation and saw GW reach its lowest revenue point since the 90's.

8th is without a doubt better than 7E.

That said, 8th has its own host set of issues, and is nowhere near perfect. The game has lots of problems, but we're back in the realm of 4E/5E scale issues, rather than the complete failure that 6E-7E was. The game is playable. It is, as has been noted, an ugly baby, but it's a definite improvement on 7E.

 Galas wrote:
Theres no power creep between Indexs and Codexs. They are different things and play in different leagues.

Now, theres problems with balance both between Indexs and Codexs separately as two cathegorys. But it hasn't been a "power creep"" in 8th edition so far.

I disagree, going from codex space marines which limits what gets chapter tactics, to stuff like elder which is basicly "EVERYTHING GETS IT" I'd argue the power creep is real

BrianDavion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Theres no power creep between Indexs and Codexs. They are different things and play in different leagues.

Now, theres problems with balance both between Indexs and Codexs separately as two cathegorys. But it hasn't been a "power creep"" in 8th edition so far.

I disagree, going from codex space marines which limits what gets chapter tactics, to stuff like elder which is basicly "EVERYTHING GETS IT" I'd argue the power creep is real

Then why Dark Angels and Blood Angels that have come after Craftworld Codex isn't more powerfull than Eldar? People need to learn that GW CAN'T do powercreep even if they tried.

Personally im loving it. My main complaint is that im too busy to get more games in. I like how much easier it is. It was hard at first because 7th was so complicated and 8th so simplified , it was hard to stop overthinking possible rules.

My army has never been in a better place and im hoping 8th stays around for a long time.

7th was really bad. 8th is also bad, but better.

I hate how overly simplified it is.

There are some things that it got right, but there are an equal amount of things that they got wrong, but 40K has always been a bad game so nothing new there.

I've pretty much stopped caring after the destroyed Fantasy and brought that abomination AoS to life. Now 40K is just AoS 2.0.

GW still can't figure out how to write rules properly.

I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

The usual lousy balance as expected from GW turned up to notch, rules as hollow as initially seen with no saving grace. Thank god HH stays at the 7th deluxe style it was with some new improvements too. Still not perfect but nothing ever is and at least they have less things to fix than they would need if it had switched editions. Less need to rewrite everything from scratch.

I've had only a couple games of it, but prefer it to prior editions. It has its issues, though.

My son and I have only been playing with the Indexes (I have no desire to buy another round after having bought the 5E and 6E/7E codexes in the past), and only 1,000 points games - the idea was to ramp up to 2,000 but after our experiences I don't expect to be be playing more than 1,250 at most.

Certainly won't be migrating to 9E when it comes out. Like their models, but I feel I can write better rules than they can.

8th edition is my favourite since 3rd. It's simpler to teach and pick up, and there's less worrying about minutia, and fewer rules disputes. Things are more clear cut. There's strong stuff, but the game is fun with whatever you play. Everything sharing the same stats is great. The big increase in wounds is fantastic, as it allows multi-damage weapons, and dealing multiple damage or getting lots of shots is a real decision point - you can take lots of shots like before to help kill hordes, but the big anti-tank guns are still the best ways to take out big stuff. I like where characters are now, as you can't use characters to hide other characters, but it's really hard to pick out characters. I like how almost all HQ's Characters and most Elite Characters buff folks around them. I love stratagems as a way to boost units with fluffy abilities. I also think that it's the most balanced game thus far, with Infantry having their day in the sun by being important in even tourney lists, and there being some good counters to stuff.

That said, it will always need some work. Chapter Tactics and "free rules" is unfortunate in that some of them are just so ridiculously better than others. I'd rather Chapter Tactics and similar come through faction-specific stratagems rather than army-wide rules. I also would rather see minimum unit sizes increase, or for Leadership scores to decrease, so that Leadership matters - because if feels like we're pretty close to it not mattering again. Finally, I'd like to see a rule that the player with the first turn have some kind of drawback compared to the player going second; like all their attacks are at -1 to hit, or they can't bring in reserves turn 1. Something that helps mitigate first movers advantage.

I played 3rd edition years ago and it was fun, but was my first tabletop war game. I eventually quit due to the expense, played a few other games and got back in recently.

The game is vastly simplified since 3rd or compared to almost any other wargame. Maybe over-simplified. Not sure yet. I feel the over-simplification really removes any nuanced tactics and just makes it into a rock-paper-scissors + exploiting broken rules game. I've only been collecting 2-3 months, and have only gotten 2 games in. I feel the games may get boring quickly.

40k still has the same starting problems as it did in 3rd. You need to drop several 100 dollars just to start. That was a big reason I quit. Some games, you can spend $50-$100 dollars and start playing. However, finding players for smaller games is always the biggest problem.

The biggest disappointment I had with 3rd is the removal of facings on vehicles, and the super-simplified rules for giant units like Knights. Considering how much more the large units cost point-wise, I figured they'd keep more complex rules. ie: it takes the same amount of time to manage/run 3 knights as it does 8 infantry squads.(or whatever number) I think something like battle-tech lite would have made Knights and Titans interesting - but no, they're just big infantry units. Just like tanks. And planes. And Titans.

I'm also quite surprised that they *still* haven't figured out how to write cohesive rules. Use a standard language format. ie: "You may exchange any/all/one units WeaponA for a WeaponB". That exact phrase should be used every time with a standard language choice that means a specific thing. I feel their lack of understanding of how to write cohesive rules is what pushed them to simplify the game so much. Regardless, there are still arguments even when the core rules are what - 3 pages?

My hope is that they come out with some form of advanced rules. Maybe something that includes bringing back facings for vehicles and walkers. Some sort of rules that can be discarded for new players, but add depth to games for more experienced players who want to add an more realistic tactics like flanking, location damage, disabled weapons, etc.

In fairness simplication is simply the way things are going these days. Modern war games are simplier and more "Stream lined" then ones 10-20 years ago.

It's a long running trend. Back when I played battletech, about 15 years ago you'd see people commenting that battletech needed to stream line as it was slow and clunky, and noting 40k as an example of a more streamlined system. so yeah it's just a long running trend.

being simple to pick up and learn is IMHO important for 40k especially as IMHO it's the "D&D of wargaming"

I still enjoy it. It has more tactics than 7th, balance is much better and I really like Stratagems. Morale hardly ever has an impact on the game, just like in 7th, but at least it doesn't take time. Psychic phase, CC, wound allocation, vehicle rules, AP System, movement, FAQs, narrative scenarios are all vast improvements to 7th Edition. That being said you should still take 40K for what it is: it's not a very deep game like Lotr, but rather a fun experience. Drink a beer while watching tanks explode and roll on random tables for the scenario rules. 40K is at it's best when played for fluff and not for competition. And it does that better than 7th due to less rules debates.

I like it, but I don't love it. I really liked early 7th before all the detachment shenanigans and codex creep screwed it up, I thought the rules were solid, the minis were awesome, and the game was fun. 8th is enjoyable, but 1st turn advantage is way too significant. The amount of firepower and speed in 8th has meant almost every game I've played was decided by turn 2-3 at the latest, and the side that went first has won the majority of battles. The reroll auras, combined with doubling or tripling the firepower on display really puts out a lot of hurt in the early turns, and rare is the army that can recover after losing a few hundred points in turn 1 before they even get a shot at moving or shooting back.

Most of my groups games have resulted in near tablings by turn 3. We've been putting out a lot more terrain, and that helps, but cover doesn't matter much in 8th so you need 100% LOS blocking terrain. That can be tricky to come by when a Land Raider can fire 4 Lascannons, 2 Heavy Bolters, and a multi melta out of the headlight...

Well, the 8th ed comes with a simplified rule set. Too simplistic if you ask me.
Problems are cover, facing of vehicles for shooting, and withdrawal from close combat.
Its more like a board game now as maneuvering is less an issue.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
40K is at it's best when played for fluff and not for competition.

This pretty much sums it up.

Wow Dakka is on a endless cycle of this topic huh, it always devolved into "I think 8th is better, 7th is garbage" and vice versa.

I play HH, I play 40k and enjoy both. I like I can turn off for a couple of hours when I play 40k / roll some dice while pushing some cool models about and I also like using the complexity of the HH rules to play a real tactful game all the while depicting my favourite hobby thing ever.

What we need to factor in is that with 40k, as with most hobbies, your personal interest will naturally wax and wane over time.

If you played loads in 7th, but are not feeling it now and just have a desire to play less games, this is likely to be the reason for some people. Not that 8th is garbage, but you're just a little burned out on the hobby. Maybe give it some distance for a few months, play something else or whatever, come back and see how it is then.

Stux wrote:
What we need to factor in is that with 40k, as with most hobbies, your personal interest will naturally wax and wane over time.

You know, you’re right. Sometimes I can’t stop painting and sometimes I go for weeks or months without doing it. I’m sure it will come back to me.

Sorcererbob wrote:

Stux wrote:
What we need to factor in is that with 40k, as with most hobbies, your personal interest will naturally wax and wane over time.

You know, you’re right. Sometimes I can’t stop painting and sometimes I go for weeks or months without doing it. I’m sure it will come back to me.

Yeah probably!

The real test will be when you've had a break and get an itch to play, come back and THEN hate it. Then you'll know!

I like it - it's probably the best 40K has been since Rogue Trader.

Not perfect, but I don't expect perfection out of 40K.

90% of my games have been interesting, close affairs where the decisions made at the game table meaningfully changed the outcome. The opposite was true in 7th where 90% of my games were decided before the first model was deployed and the rest was just rolling out the dice.

The decision to boost the profile of narrative gaming has been beneficial to me as well.

I still happily play it at every occasion. I really like 8th and how they learned from AoS. That said, i'm also an AoS fan, so...

I admit I want to play the game alot more in 8th ed. than 7th, so I'm mostly happy with it.

My complaints:
7th was all about getting more free stuff than your opponent with detachments, like space marine transport, improved aspect warriors bs, better necron reanimation etc... and using that to overwhelm your opponent with snazzy rules.
8th is starting to move back in that direction with chapter tactics and the like (-1 to hit an army for free, really?) and strategem (units that can shoot or move twice for example, how does that not cost points?)

rerolls everywhere slows the game down

unimpressive cover rules,

unimpressive morale rules. I'd prefer if these could force an enemy to move or get pinned instead. The game should be about movement and placement, not about who has the most firepower all the time.

smite

I think a lot of people are looking at 8th too much like its actually complete yet. A third of the factions have yet to get their real codex and even then the difference between the first books released which would have obviously been rushed and the more recent ones like Nids and Eldar that have had a bit of time put into them are miles apart.

8th won't REALLY be finished totally until the cycle of getting every faction up to date with stratagems and such is done later this year. At that point is when the devs can focus on tweaking balances properly in codexes. When Space Marines get a new codex then we'll really be in a position to judge because that will really be the first proper codex instead of just a placeholder.

Of course GW might just print the same codex again with the March/November FAQs and Chapter Approved edited in. Who knows?

I love it. I don't play powerplayers so I have fun. I don't just take an op list and destroy people. It is VASTLY better to seventh, which was unbearable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, if you hate what is wrong with 40k, start AOS- because that system works and is fun

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think a lot of people are looking at 8th too much like its actually complete yet. A third of the factions have yet to get their real codex and even then the difference between the first books released which would have obviously been rushed and the more recent ones like Nids and Eldar that have had a bit of time put into them are miles apart.

8th won't REALLY be finished totally until the cycle of getting every faction up to date with stratagems and such is done later this year. At that point is when the devs can focus on tweaking balances properly in codexes. When Space Marines get a new codex then we'll really be in a position to judge because that will really be the first proper codex instead of just a placeholder.

Of course GW might just print the same codex again with the March/November FAQs and Chapter Approved edited in. Who knows?

Lol always at the future and you are saying GW is deliberately selling half-finished products. "Here buy this codex we haven't bothered to even balance with".

What's the next "wait for X" excuse when codexes are out and game is still unbalanced junk? GW doesn't care about balance so good luck waiting for it. They just swing nerf and boost hammers wildly randomly shifting meta one way or other but never actually balancing game.

I don't care about tournaments but still play semicompetitive games other than fluffy ones. I own 3 large armies and none of them has a codex yet, so comparing to 7th edition I only have a few options available. Thousand of points of units/characters are now useless or unplayable even in friendly metas, while only a few units/characters have become viable.

CA fixed a bit my SW making TWC and wulfen decent at least, but orks and drukhari are too limited at the moment and can only play with a few stuff. Again, I'm not even considering tournaments, I'm talking about friendly games.

For now this edition is terrible, from my perspective. I do appreciate the core rules though.

Several months in and absolutely loving it. My enjoyment just goes from strength to strength. Yes, there are some grumbles such as cover saves needing to be fixed but mostly I have no problems with any of it. 8th edition is designed for casual play not tournament or cempetitive gaming, hence the simplicity. This for me is what is making the game more enjoyable.

Started off loving it, now starting to get worried. Uneven balance is a problem already and GW seems incapable of understanding their own game properly.

Too many re-rolls and overpowered characters can turn the game boring pretty fast, and I think Morale needs to play a much bigger role in the game. Nobody should be immune, for starters. We're fine with stats going above 10 so why don't we see Ld for things like Poxwalkers at, say, 20? There's nothing worse than playing a game and feeling helpless to do anything but things like blobs of Fearless troops and blobs of re-rolling massed firepower are pretty close to this for me.

There is hope, though. I don't think the game has too many fundamental problems at its core, it's more the implementation of certain things being a bit off.

8th has made me look forward to 9th

 Tokhuah wrote:
8th has made me look forward to 9th

I hope you will not be disappointed.
Then GW might bring the game into another direction.

I'm enjoying it.

Stopped playing all together none of my armies has a codex, all my friends armies do have a codex.

Honestly don't think I'll bother even once codex are out I'm just not missing 40k.

I miss 7th I liked the old power/toughness table alot better. Formations were a ton of fun. Mortal wounds were a good idea but I feel like they are to tied to smite. I liked the psychic phase more in all most every way last edition. Only thing I like about the new one is no random powers and their is no telepathy tree.

As a nids player who played %100 melee nids in late 7th who didn't care about winning since I'm more a modeler I'm loving 8th.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think a lot of people are looking at 8th too much like its actually complete yet. A third of the factions have yet to get their real codex and even then the difference between the first books released which would have obviously been rushed and the more recent ones like Nids and Eldar that have had a bit of time put into them are miles apart.

8th won't REALLY be finished totally until the cycle of getting every faction up to date with stratagems and such is done later this year. At that point is when the devs can focus on tweaking balances properly in codexes. When Space Marines get a new codex then we'll really be in a position to judge because that will really be the first proper codex instead of just a placeholder.

Of course GW might just print the same codex again with the March/November FAQs and Chapter Approved edited in. Who knows?

Lol always at the future and you are saying GW is deliberately selling half-finished products. "Here buy this codex we haven't bothered to even balance with".

What's the next "wait for X" excuse when codexes are out and game is still unbalanced junk? GW doesn't care about balance so good luck waiting for it. They just swing nerf and boost hammers wildly randomly shifting meta one way or other but never actually balancing game.

I'm sure had they waited 6 months before releasing Codex: Space Marines your complaints would be different. But you'd still be complaining.

Its funny you say that GW is bad at balance but aside from Lictors and Zoanthropes I can't think of any really bad units in the nid dex. Balance between armies is REALLY difficult. Even Privateer Press which is held up as a super competitive rule set with good balance admits that the best they can do is make sure a faction has good internal balance. And I've not seen a large amount of complaints about any book since Craftworld Eldar so I'm led to believe that for the most part the more recent books have a good internal balance. So yes, GW can do good balance. Denying that the newer books are better than the first few is just burying your head in the sand and complaining for the sake of it.

But as I said, certain people will complain about things no matter what.

I like split fire and guaranteed deep strike. Stratagems are useful and add another dimension to the game. It's good that you are allowed to choose your psychic powers again.

I don't like the rules around cover and am bothered by the psychic phase, especially the rules that prohibit the same power being used more than once per turn.

So.... my opinion is neutral. There are some upsides and downsides, it's just a new edition.

After a few games under the belt with different opponent, my initial skeptisism is gone. There are some good idea (and I did not agreed with them in the beginning, for example about removal of AP and Morale-based effects).

But in the end I get used to it. And if it makes the game easier for beginners, I'm okay with that.

My only concerns are:

1) The micromanagement in positioning (specifically in movement during Combat phase, pile in and so. This is terrible. I really dislike it, don't add anything to the game and it's usually a complete waste of time. Also, it's really punishing for new players, make difficult to use terrain properly etc.

2) The overall rules coherency is degrading rapidly... as usual. Or even more.
Luckily I have my Index, but I have to wait at least until all my friends get their Codex (and their full Strategems) before I can propose to roll back to Index+Trait+Stratagems (imho, the best ruleset you can use).

3) Someone will have to write better cover rules, sooner or later. Hope will be GW. Probably will be some fan-made solutions.

But, hey, I've started to paint again, so that's a good thing for sure.

 Crimson wrote:
I've played 40K since 2nd edition, and I have to say overall 8th is the best edition thus far. It is not perfect, but the rules are clear and mostly logical and amount of annoying micromanaging has been decreased drastically. My biggest gripe are the terrain rules, where I think they went a tad overboard with the simplification (Intervening terrain should provide cover.)
That being said, I'm more an modeller than a gamer, and I play only maybe once a month, so I haven't played that many games, so it is perfectly possible I will still find some things that start to annoy me.
And yes, codex armies generally tend to be a bit more powerful than index ones, even with Chapter Approved fixes, but if they keep releasing the codices at this pace, that problem is soon resolved.

Wow.
I can agree or claim everything said here.
8th I have been entering many stats in Excel to keep a handle on them and work out a Squat list for my friend in 8th so I can appreciate that some of the balance tricks are not as simple as they first appear.
I can appreciate that much more effort is going into the design.
The terrain rules had been simplified a bit too much which does not seem to reward making and playing terrain.
Other than that: best rule system by GW for 40k I have seen so-far.

I'm skipping 8th still. It did inspire me to write my own system due to having more issues with its anti-design, more than previouw editions have inspired me.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think a lot of people are looking at 8th too much like its actually complete yet. A third of the factions have yet to get their real codex and even then the difference between the first books released which would have obviously been rushed and the more recent ones like Nids and Eldar that have had a bit of time put into them are miles apart.

8th won't REALLY be finished totally until the cycle of getting every faction up to date with stratagems and such is done later this year. At that point is when the devs can focus on tweaking balances properly in codexes. When Space Marines get a new codex then we'll really be in a position to judge because that will really be the first proper codex instead of just a placeholder.

Of course GW might just print the same codex again with the March/November FAQs and Chapter Approved edited in. Who knows?

Lol always at the future and you are saying GW is deliberately selling half-finished products. "Here buy this codex we haven't bothered to even balance with".

What's the next "wait for X" excuse when codexes are out and game is still unbalanced junk? GW doesn't care about balance so good luck waiting for it. They just swing nerf and boost hammers wildly randomly shifting meta one way or other but never actually balancing game.

8th is disappointing for me. I was excited with the initial claims, however I play GK, BA and Eldar and it's plain GW can't balance still.

GK in particular have been disappointing. Wait for the codex, no wait for the faq, no wait for Chapter Approved.... and nothing has really changed. Instead the revisions in faqs and chapter approved are knee jerk reactions to things seen at tournament level - problems with Conscripts, flyer spam, Guilliman buffing Razorbacks, Smite spam etc

I don't like quite a bit about 8th, but it's still much better than the previous edition.
There are a lot of things that should be changed still and some things where I'm still wondering what kind of drug the author was on, but it's not nearly as much as it was previously.

Although I'm still baffled how someone could design a Codex that is basically -2 toHit while there are armies with a average toHit of 5+. Everything else you can understand a little at least, or chalk it up to poor wording. But that one I can't justify at all.

Overall I'm really enjoying it. It has its problems for sure but having played a lot during 7th in a tournament competitive environment and travelling for events I think 8th is in a better spot than most of 7th.

My gaming group has remained pretty consistent with it, we lost a few guys and gained a few guys with the edition launch so I don't know that my local community has grown from it but it has stayed consistent.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I enjoy 8th edition.

It's flaws:
1) Terrain rules are useless and silly. This is kind of a big deal, because terrain should be important, in my opinion.

2) Alpha strike. This could easily be fixed by letting people hold stuff in reserve up to 50% of their army even if it doesn't have a special rule, thusly allowing armies to preserve the core of their firepower even if they have 2nd turn, instead of simply being gutted.

Wins:
1) Simplicity. I can explain the rules much more clearly now; the only fiddly bit at the beginning was the assault rules and that's just because I can't read and tried to play them like older editions. Now that I've a handle on them, they make sense.

2) Balance. It's not perfect, but I finally feel like the glaring disparities of 3e-7e are gone. There is no one unit type (or keyword, in this case) that I can point to that's flat out better than a comparable unit type; each has their strengths and weaknesses. In 3-7th, the Monstrous Creature unit type was significantly better than the Walker unit type, all else being equal. Superheavies are no longer special snowflake tanks, but instead merely big and intimidating versions of lesser vehicles.

3) Army construction. Armies actually feel like fluffy "armies" now, rather than just a hodgepodge of units crammed together to fit some FOC that didn't really make any damned sense for the concept in question, or some Formation that forced weird choices down people's throats that were also fairly nonsensical sometimes.

4) Customization: so this is kind of contentious I am sure, as customization in the objective sense has gone down somewhat... but on the army scale, it's gone up, because of the aforementioned balance. I saw Rough Riders at NOVA 2017 in spades (though sadly they're gone now, so maybe that's not the case for NOVA 2018!). I fairly routinely see Terminators of whatever flavour. I commonly see mortars and Imperial Guard infantry squads duking it out with Howling Banshees and Swooping Hawks. I see dreadnoughts challenging Carnifexes in an epic duel of titans rather than the Carnifex casually smashing it aside and moving on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I enjoy 8th edition.

It's flaws:
1) Terrain rules are useless and silly. This is kind of a big deal, because terrain should be important, in my opinion.

2) Alpha strike. This could easily be fixed by letting people hold stuff in reserve up to 50% of their army even if it doesn't have a special rule, thusly allowing armies to preserve the core of their firepower even if they have 2nd turn, instead of simply being gutted.

Wins:
1) Simplicity. I can explain the rules much more clearly now; the only fiddly bit at the beginning was the assault rules and that's just because I can't read and tried to play them like older editions. Now that I've a handle on them, they make sense.

2) Balance. It's not perfect, but I finally feel like the glaring disparities of 3e-7e are gone. There is no one unit type (or keyword, in this case) that I can point to that's flat out better than a comparable unit type; each has their strengths and weaknesses. In 3-7th, the Monstrous Creature unit type was significantly better than the Walker unit type, all else being equal. Superheavies are no longer special snowflake tanks, but instead merely big and intimidating versions of lesser vehicles.

3) Army construction. Armies actually feel like fluffy "armies" now, rather than just a hodgepodge of units crammed together to fit some FOC that didn't really make any damned sense for the concept in question, or some Formation that forced weird choices down people's throats that were also fairly nonsensical sometimes.

4) Customization: so this is kind of contentious I am sure, as customization in the objective sense has gone down somewhat... but on the army scale, it's gone up, because of the aforementioned balance. I saw Rough Riders at NOVA 2017 in spades (though sadly they're gone now, so maybe that's not the case for NOVA 2018!). I fairly routinely see Terminators of whatever flavour. I commonly see mortars and Imperial Guard infantry squads duking it out with Howling Banshees and Swooping Hawks. I see dreadnoughts challenging Carnifexes in an epic duel of titans rather than the Carnifex casually smashing it aside and moving on.

You're not in the minority, you're in the majority. I say this to my wife all the time but people don't go onto the internet to tell people on a car repair forum they're new car is working fine. It's easy to feel like everyone hates 40k 8th because the Dakka forums are a cesspool of negativity and people yelling incessantly about things not being competitive and "b-but the muh-mathhammer says its not optimal", but they're a minority and not at all representitive of the people who generally play the game.

The Good:

It's a hell of a lot better than flipping through 3 books.

It's a lot quicker, which means I can get more games in.

It's nice to see some armies doing really well when they weren't so good last edition.

It's great that we now use separate weapon systems on multiple targets, rather than A Leman Russ having to shoot every gun at the same thing.

I actually like the Primaris Marines, though the fluff is 'meh' at best. To me, they play like Space Marines from the fluff.

I am actually amused by people who whine and cry about change and then 'quit the game'. I find it's usually a WAAC player, so good riddance.

The Bad:

The 'power level' system is little more than a scoring system for an Open War objective. Every person I've seen asking to play by power level is usually 500 points over their opponent's list.

I've never seen such a mad scramble to get Imperial Guard units. Can't say I'm a fan of quite a few 'new' Guard players that seem to think they've got skill when they're just laying down nothing but tanks of all shapes and sizes.

Bobby G seems to appear in every Space Marine army I've played against, and people keep telling me to buy him.

Sticking 1" of my tank from behind a wall and shooting every gun I have at someone (even the sponson gun on the opposite side) is dumb. Line of sight from the weapons should be a common house rule.

Some of the whiny WAAC players that 'quit' can't stop hanging around just to complain.

"Sticking 1" of my tank from behind a wall and shooting every gun I have at someone (even the sponson gun on the opposite side) is dumb. Line of sight from the weapons should be a common house rule."

You'd likely need to reduce the cost on vehicles, then.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
The Good:

It's a hell of a lot better than flipping through 3 books.

It's a lot quicker, which means I can get more games in.

It's nice to see some armies doing really well when they weren't so good last edition.

It's great that we now use separate weapon systems on multiple targets, rather than A Leman Russ having to shoot every gun at the same thing.

I actually like the Primaris Marines, though the fluff is 'meh' at best. To me, they play like Space Marines from the fluff.

I am actually amused by people who whine and cry about change and then 'quit the game'. I find it's usually a WAAC player, so good riddance.

The Bad:

The 'power level' system is little more than a scoring system for an Open War objective. Every person I've seen asking to play by power level is usually 500 points over their opponent's list.

I've never seen such a mad scramble to get Imperial Guard units. Can't say I'm a fan of quite a few 'new' Guard players that seem to think they've got skill when they're just laying down nothing but tanks of all shapes and sizes.

Bobby G seems to appear in every Space Marine army I've played against, and people keep telling me to buy him.

Sticking 1" of my tank from behind a wall and shooting every gun I have at someone (even the sponson gun on the opposite side) is dumb. Line of sight from the weapons should be a common house rule.

Some of the whiny WAAC players that 'quit' can't stop hanging around just to complain.

I agree with most of this, except for your second to last point (though your last point is golden):

If you do make LOS from the weapons a house rule, it should be from every model, so a Riptide can't shoot out of it's toe. This was a problem I had in 3-7th editions: why can monsters/battlesuits/dudes/whatever shoot from their toe, or ear, or whathaveyou, while a vehicle must point its guns at the target? But instead of making LOS required for every weapon, G.W. just doubled down on abstraction and said "vehicles are equally insane to everything else" which, if you understand that to be their desired level of abstraction, isn't a problem. Now, you could complain that you disagree with that level of abstraction, but I think it's necessary to play a company scale game instead of drawing LOS for every rifle/machine-gun/grenade on the board.

I love it! It's nice to have a game that doesn't feel bogged down by a bazillion rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you do make LOS from the weapons a house rule, it should be from every model, so a Riptide can't shoot out of it's toe. This was a problem I had in 3-7th editions: why can monsters/battlesuits/dudes/whatever shoot from their toe, or ear, or whathaveyou, while a vehicle must point its guns at the target? But instead of making LOS required for every weapon, G.W. just doubled down on abstraction and said "vehicles are equally insane to everything else" which, if you understand that to be their desired level of abstraction, isn't a problem. Now, you could complain that you disagree with that level of abstraction, but I think it's necessary to play a company scale game instead of drawing LOS for every rifle/machine-gun/grenade on the board.

I'm not sure how it's possible for a Riptide to shoot anything if it's in the proper place- the trash can.

I'm joking, of course. Our rule is "The gun must be able to move and point at the target". This applies to knights, titans, tanks, battlesuits, or anything else. If a Riptide could reasonable aim a weapon at his target, he can shoot it. But sticking just a shoulder or head over a wall and being able to shoot everything is a no-go.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you do make LOS from the weapons a house rule, it should be from every model, so a Riptide can't shoot out of it's toe. This was a problem I had in 3-7th editions: why can monsters/battlesuits/dudes/whatever shoot from their toe, or ear, or whathaveyou, while a vehicle must point its guns at the target? But instead of making LOS required for every weapon, G.W. just doubled down on abstraction and said "vehicles are equally insane to everything else" which, if you understand that to be their desired level of abstraction, isn't a problem. Now, you could complain that you disagree with that level of abstraction, but I think it's necessary to play a company scale game instead of drawing LOS for every rifle/machine-gun/grenade on the board.

I'm not sure how it's possible for a Riptide to shoot anything if it's in the proper place- the trash can.

I'm joking, of course. Our rule is "The gun must be able to move and point at the target". This applies to knights, titans, tanks, battlesuits, or anything else. If a Riptide could reasonable aim a weapon at his target, he can shoot it. But sticking just a shoulder or head over a wall and being able to shoot everything is a no-go.

I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

In our meta, we have the response to this sort of thing.

"Well, thank you for your time and good luck finding a game."

You'd be shocked at how often something as simple as "I'd rather not play with you" will get someone on board with rules. Or, of course, drive away WAAC players. This is a feature and not a bug.

I haven't had nearly enough games, but overall this is my favorite edition by a significant margin (been playing since 4th).
The rules are easy to pick up and play, very few units are "untouchable" by a large portion of enemy units (referring to basic infantry weapons having the capacity to wound larger models that they could not in prior editions), the AP system is my favorite.
I love that a Heavy Bolter actually has an affect on Marines, rather than being a "I'm out of AP3 weapons" last resort.
Cover improving armour save instead of a flat separate roll that only applies if you can't take an armour save is great because it helps way more units that just hordes.

-

I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

Oh, the bully and pout technique. Classic.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

In our meta, we have the response to this sort of thing.

"Well, thank you for your time and good luck finding a game."

You'd be shocked at how often something as simple as "I'd rather not play with you" will get someone on board with rules. Or, of course, drive away WAAC players. This is a feature and not a bug.

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'd be fine with that house rule, I think, though if you tried to apply it to my local meta you'd get a lot of "but this is totally reasonable." Just to use your example: The Riptide has jump jets in the fluff (hence why it used to be able to JSJ). Why couldn't it show it's head to the enemy, boost up and fire like a helicopter, and then gently land back on those flimsy ankles?

In our meta, we have the response to this sort of thing.

"Well, thank you for your time and good luck finding a game."

You'd be shocked at how often something as simple as "I'd rather not play with you" will get someone on board with rules. Or, of course, drive away WAAC players. This is a feature and not a bug.

I was kind of onboard with you till you dismissed a perfectly fluffy explanation. You know riptides aren't static and don't walk about right? They use their jets to boost around the battlefield. Look at any Gundam battle online, they're zipping around all over the place and firing shots and constantly moving. You even acknowledged that abstraction exists in your original post but this one is too much for you? I'm not having a go so don't feel inclined to reply, the idea that the battlefield is static is a bugbear for me when people bring up this particular LoS issue. Like I can get tanks because they're lumbering, heavy and difficult to maneuver but T'au suits are made for GO FAST.

Actually, modern tanks move and fire just fine, too. I know these aren't modern tanks, though. Maybe they aren't modern battle suits. Maybe the Tau are using an abacus to aim their shots. It's GW, and it has to be grimdark.

Yeah, the idea of tanks being "lumbering, heavy, and difficult to maneuver" is... well, wrong.*

*caveat: if they're well built and designed with a trained crew. With 40k's fluff, Leman Russes are anything from steam powered clankers built on a feudal world and crewed by men in plate armour who barely fit in the damn thing to sci-fi monstrosities with adamantium-alloy composite armour, laser data transmission and shared targeting systems with automatic loaders capable of choosing shell types and tactical logic engines to aid the commander in battlefield decision making. So your guess is as good as mine.

Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

Martel732 wrote:
Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

I blame that on the crew, considering a good crew (Pask) can hit the target something like 97% of the time if the tank is stationary and 84% of the time if it is moving (because of his training, not because of the tank. Weird Cadian doctrine thing!).

Even the most modern tank with the best stabilizers and electronics will only hit 50% of its shots if crewed by my next door neighbor who is a hair stylist by profession.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
7th was really bad. 8th is also bad, but better.

I hate how overly simplified it is.

There are some things that it got right, but there are an equal amount of things that they got wrong, but 40K has always been a bad game so nothing new there.

I've pretty much stopped caring after the destroyed Fantasy and brought that abomination AoS to life. Now 40K is just AoS 2.0.

GW still can't figure out how to write rules properly.

If the basic mechanics of your game, movement, profiles, and attack/defense cannot be understood by someone with a basic reading knowledge (Think 10 year old); then you have a massive problem with your game.

Trying to explain 40k to anyone before 8th was always prefaced with, "Ok this is pretty hard but once you get it you'll have fun" ends so many potential customers chances of playing.

When I can teach the basics to my 6 year old son, and he can play space marines and all I have to do is add in stuff as he gets the game more and more, that's a really good game. (It keeps the attention of a 6 year old? Yes please.) This idea that 8th is simple is just a hangover from 20 years of core game complexity. The game is complex once you add in warlord traits, stratagems, relics, and unique missions. The core game is very fun and allows for many tactics and options before you make it complicated.

Look at other "good" games, at their core they usually have a solid but easy to understand mechanics of some kind.
Power Grid, Ticket to Ride, X-Wing, etc.

Just liking another edition more does not make it better imo. But you are of course welcome to your opinion as well.

Finally, I think some dislike 40k 8th because they may be playing really boring missions. The chapter approved stuff is really fun and more events, groups, tournies need to embrace mixing up different aspects of the missions. (Especially the static deployment nonsense that everyone seems to play.)

That doesn't explain marine tanks, though.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the bully and pout technique. Classic.

No one is entitled to a game with someone, if one person doesn't want to play. That's not 'bullying', it's a preference. There are dozens of other reasons I won't play with some persons or against some lists in a fun game. I'm there to have fun, too- not provide a service to the public.

They can go find a game with someone else quite easily, I would think.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

Because it's something that would be exploited. At what point does the model have the capability to 'pop over and shoot'? Does he have to be able to see the target? Then, I might consider it. If he's blocked by the wall entirely, or in such a way that it'd be unlikely for the pilot to get a fix on a target on the other side of the wall- then it's probably unreasonable.

Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the bully and pout technique. Classic.

No one is entitled to a game with someone, if one person doesn't want to play. That's not 'bullying', it's a preference. There are dozens of other reasons I won't play with some persons or against some lists in a fun game. I'm there to have fun, too- not provide a service to the public.

They can go find a game with someone else quite easily, I would think.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Just curious, but why is someone doing something fairly reasonable a WAAC player?

Do you think a unit that is essentially a helicopter should not be able to pop up over terrain, shoot, and then land back behind it? Would you disallow that for a hovering Valkyrie or Vendetta or Vulture, which literally are attack helicopters?

Because what you consider "WAAC" I consider "realistic and intelligent use of terrain, used In Real Life by analogous systems in modern militaries."

Because it's something that would be exploited. At what point does the model have the capability to 'pop over and shoot'? Does he have to be able to see the target? Then, I might consider it. If he's blocked by the wall entirely, or in such a way that it'd be unlikely for the pilot to get a fix on a target on the other side of the wall- then it's probably unreasonable.

Right, we're assuming some part of the model can see it.

And this is what I mean by complexity and abstraction. We're playing a company scale game, where 10 Leman Russ tanks supported by 50-60 infantry fighting against 3 Riptides, a Stormsurge, a couple of Broadsides, a Crisis team, and 30-40 infantry isn't unheard of. Getting fiddly about whether a specific rifleman can see enough of a tank to meaningfully harm it and whether or not a riptide's 3rd lens but not it's second can see the target because of a "just high enough" wall is just exasperating and bogs the game down in needless minutiae.

In 15mm Flames of War, all you had to do with a tank was see the target with a part of it, and you could shoot. So you had IS-2s firing with their right front tread at the fenders of Tiger Tanks angled slightly from behind a wall, and no one had problems, because it is assumed the IS-2 was in an ambush position abstracted by the actual miniature's position, and the Tiger Tank at some point had to move to get where it was going, and either the driver made an error or the IS-2 picked an opportune moment to engage as it drove unavoidably through the open. These are abstractions. Suddenly it becomes a huge issue if you scale it up to 28mm though, even though both are the same "scale" (e.g. on the scale of squad -> platoon -> company -> etc.) level of game.

 Crimson wrote:
Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

Right. And a lot of it is "hey, would you think my X could see your Y enough to shoot?" before the guy makes his move. Most of the time, it's as simple as "Oh, I moved him to that spot because I thought I would be able to get a shot off. Do you mind if I re-position him?" I'm never against people having a do-over within reason.

Like, firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window wouldn't be reasonable, neither would a Riptide dumping every one of his weapons through the window. It's more a 'does this make sense?' rule.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Just agree which parts of the model count for the LOS and which don't. Sure, drawing LOS from an antenna or other similar doodah is silly, so don't do that. And then just be consistent when the enemy needs to determine LOS to that vehicle.

Right. And a lot of it is "hey, would you think my X could see your Y enough to shoot?" before the guy makes his move. Most of the time, it's as simple as "Oh, I moved him to that spot because I thought I would be able to get a shot off. Do you mind if I re-position him?" I'm never against people having a do-over within reason.

Like, firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window wouldn't be reasonable, neither would a Riptide dumping every one of his weapons through the window. It's more a 'does this make sense?' rule.

Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

I'll preface my answer with the following: What are you looking for in a tabletop wargame?

If you're looking for a tightly designed, balanced wargame which is suitable for tournaments and competitive random-play against strangers...Warhammer 40K is not a good game. It's never been suited to that. Ever.

Alternatively...

If you're looking for a good, fun ruleset to play with likeminded buddies to have a good time pushing some models around and enjoying making "pew pew" sounds and rolling some dice? Warhammer 40K, 8th edition is the best version in a long time.

The Good:
-Bringing all types of models into the same system, making rules cross-over very easy and efficient.
-Faster gameplay, generally
-Easy and more logical psyker phase
-No more anti-template movement nonsense.
-Currrently no "free stuff" in a points/power level system.
-Nice selection of scenarios for various types of play
-Save modifiers returning are excellent
-Stratagems, traits and army rules are just clever enough to provide a feel of unique-ness to most playable armies.
-New wound chart is easy and logical (should have been carried over to melee/close combat actually)
-I like that most characters cannot be targeted as it gives them survivability in an increasingly deadly game.

The Bad:
-A bit too deadly. I'd have preferred fewer models with longer lifespans (and hence I still prefer 2nd edition)
-Terrain itself has little impact on the game (cover does), but this is a 5-second "house rule" away from being useful, something we frequently do. Chapter Approved should have included a couple pages of optional terrain rules to appease the masses.
-Auras. These should have been used far more sparingly. While logical for a chapter master or the occasional morale-inducing character, aura combinations can unsettle the game too much.
-Shooting from any small fragment of a vehicle is silly, but my buddies and I simply don't do it...so it's actually not an issue when we play. I can see arguments at tournaments etc. stemming from this.
-The continuance of "buy more models = gain more bonuses" as seen in many vehicle squadron style things - nowhere near the travesty of formations from 7th, but still a bit silly and blatant.
-Power creep is showing up as expected in the occasional codex and various stratagems or abilities which are much more potent than the earliest books.
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.
-Rules brevity. GW shot themselves in the foot here. You can see the result in the "You Make Da Call" forum section here. The desire to "appear" to have very simple and easy rules in 8-10 pages, GW installed on themselves a kind of fake character-limit, where almost every single rule section needed about one or two more sentences the make very clear some of the rules. While the intent is obvious 95% of the time...this is the internet and we are children. I've never seen more pedantic arguments over rules.

The Ugly:
-Army construction. GW's "Sales before gameplay" mantra has made 8th incredibly open...as such the army possibilities are heinous (maybe not as heinous as 7th's "get free stuff" detachment nonsense though). While this doesn't impact me as a casual player, I couldn't fathom trying to get into the tournament setting in this edition. The benefit of building whatever kind of army you like has made the tournament scene appear absolutely hideous.
-GW needs a technical manual for rules writing. Just as editors and writers use "style books" to codify how they write; GW's head of game design needs to issue a proper style book to keep various rules writers making cohesive, cogent and concise rules which are less open to interpretation or poor wording.
-The players. I play a lot of games, and have for 20+ years. 40K is still home to the largest group of 14-24 year olds who are just miserable on the surface. This is more notable online of course, as the local players are generally fine. 40K-heavy forums like Dakka Dakka are still pretty cesspoolish compared to normal wargaming forums. The vitriol, hate, and arguments is still among the worst. If I just read Dakka Dakka, I'd never consider playing 40K. Luckily in reality there are plenty of decent people playing it, but sometimes you wouldn't know from reading the forums. I admit I actually come on Dakka Dakka expressly for this sometimes, because it does amuse me.

In a timeline progression, it looks like this. But in a word disappointed.

Awesome i am in
Cool balanced
Hmm, bland not quite as balanced as initially thought
Ugh, bloody f*"^en over simplified rules can someone explain how my vehicles rear arc gun fires forward? Ya because simplicity. I can use the excuse ninja space elves, but seriously wtf GW.
10 codices before the years end, damn that is a lot, should be interesting.
WTF i just got smite/mortal wound spammed off the table, again.
WTF is this abomination of steel and flesh F*$k AM/IG. I need a break
Well eldar are just as much BS as AM/IG. Guess i will wait for chapter approved, it is going to help fix the imbalances between the codex/index meta.
Well nids are a thing, a scary unfun thing, maybe i should dust mine off... well this is pointless i practically need to buy a new army.
Chapter approved? Well, i guess they fixed forgeworld, ha winning? What miss represented fix for the indexes. Great stratagems, we need at least two or three more here GW. What are we the gamer version of Oliver, one more stratagem sir, please i need one more.
BA/DA codex drops, damn dark angels got some depth in here, Blood angels, well there goes the only 2 aspects of the game i can count on winning, mobility and close combat. Wonderful we got 3 of these players locally how fun.
Well hopefully my codex fixes this crap, time to quit playing 40k and wait.

Then there are the rules issues... the so streamlined, you get to bring a half dozen books to play a game BS some people are already dealing with.

How i feel about 8th, disappointed.

clownshoes wrote:
Then there are the rules issues... the so streamlined, you get to bring a half dozen books to play a game BS some people are already dealing with.

This tends to be personal choice more often than not though.

For example, I could write the Chapter Approved points costs with pencil in my codex (as designed; that's why the points are no on the unit pages after all). Then, build an army from the codex using only the free rules, and go play a game using only the free rules and my codex.

So that's 1 pamphlet and 1 book. If "carrying lots of books" makes or breaks the game, then make the personal decision not to. If it doesn't worry you so much (like it doesn't worry me) then bring the books or whatever. It's no different from not wanting to buy / build / bring certain models because they're harder to transport than other models. I rarely use my Marauder Destroyer for games, not because it's bad or doesn't fit or whatever but because it's fething @$! to transport.

That issue is why I chose to create two laminated front/back sheets for my two armies. On those sheets I have the full stats/rules of every model I own, their updated points costs, all the weapons, stratagems, spells, army rules, etc. I just update them as FAQ's, errata etc. come out. I bring my codex along in case someone has a question or wants to read the printed rules, but I actually don't bring anything to game with besides a rules cheat sheet and my army cheat sheets (with codex on standby).

I will say that one additional "bad" feature is that after CA, and all the FAQ, errata etc...some Codices are woefully wrong across numerous pages --- and I wish codices had been cheaper and softbound so they could be more readily abused with pencils/pens/stickers/post-it notes.

I'm pretty sure that when they first announced 8th, they said that there would be an army builder app or a web tool eventually. I really hope they'd get it done soon; with all these scattered point costs list building is pretty damn tedious.

I generally like it, yet with every edition, there are rules decisions that don't make any sense.

But I still have fun building, painting, and playing.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that when they first announced 8th, they said that there would be an army builder app or a web tool eventually. I really hope they'd get it done soon; with all these scattered point costs list building is pretty damn tedious.

They did but considering it took them a year to get AoS' done and a FB comment stating they priotiritised the painting app that might still be a few months/year out.

Overall I prefer 8th easier to explain to newbies and more penetrable as a whole.

 Elbows wrote:
The Bad:
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.

An average army uses three books now: BRB, Chapter Approved and the Codex or Index. Have you taken a look at what the first two actually contain and how many expansion rule books are basically included in those? If you're still using an Index you have about 15-20 books combined in those three books.

*edit* Just ask any Necron player how they see the release speed. The local Necron players here are crying for faster releases all the time since they're still waiting for theirs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

Why wouldn't it?

Because the barrels are about 5 feet apart, and the window's about 3 feet wide. Railgun or not, even the wall could cause the ammo to veer off-course. A more fluffy answer would be 'it risks blowing out more of the wall and causing the building to collapse on other troops". We play more 'fluffy' than not.

It's just our playstyle, man. I'm not advocating for everyone to adopt it specifically. The only thing I wish was universal was LOS from a weapon.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why wouldn't firing both barrels of an Accelerator Cannon through a small window be reasonable?

Do you subscribe to the video game logic of aluminum barrels and wooden buildings providing better protection against bullets than powered armour and energy fields?

Or do you think a Dark Age of Technology railgun could easily overpenetrate a building and hit a target through a wall?

Why wouldn't it?

Because the barrels are about 5 feet apart, and the window's about 3 feet wide. Railgun or not, even the wall could cause the ammo to veer off-course. A more fluffy answer would be 'it risks blowing out more of the wall and causing the building to collapse on other troops". We play more 'fluffy' than not.

It's just our playstyle, man. I'm not advocating for everyone to adopt it specifically. The only thing I wish was universal was LOS from a weapon.

Why wouldn't it? Because even the explosive shells fired by the Accelerator Cannon have a good chance of penetrating a Land Raider's armour, and I doubt houses are built as durably. And yes, it could cause the ammo to veer off course - that's among the abstractions that the +1 armour value from cover is supposed to represent: intervening terrain interfering with a shot.

I play "fluffy" too and "fluffily" my superheavy company commanders would gladly fire through windows with their huge cannons, even if it risked bringing the building down, if they were truly firing at something that warranted such firepower.

That's the problem with playing "fluffy." I consider myself a fluffy player, and I'm absolutely fine with the way LOS works in 8th, because I understand that there's far, far more going on on the battlefield than the models represent.

nekooni wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The Bad:
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.

An average army uses three books now: BRB, Chapter Approved and the Codex or Index. Have you taken a look at what the first two actually contain and how many expansion rule books are basically included in those? If you're still using an Index you have about 15-20 books combined in those three books.

*edit* Just ask any Necron player how they see the release speed. The local Necron players here are crying for faster releases all the time since they're still waiting for theirs.

I'm a necron player. I'm just glad I won't be waiting more than a year. Next time they whine ask of they'd rather they'd been on of the first books that were basically just the Index with some half-assed stratagems and generic dynasty traits.

I love 8th edition, I was literally a week away from selling all my stuff when I found out about 8th dropping. It plays fast, easy to learn/teach, and I have not had an unfun game yet when 1. both players are on the same page about WAAC type stuff in their lists, and 2. there is actually enough terrain on the table. Right now I think we need to see what it is like with all codex's released (which should be by the middle/end of this year) and then a bit of time.

I know people complain about the "smite spam" etc type lists, but there have always been broken 40k lists/armies. Always. I feel that 8th, between the codex armies, is much more balanced than previous editions with friendly games, and there were times when some codexes were not good even if your opponent brought a friendly list. Is it perfect? No, but I am still playing and that has to do with 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
Crunch-wise, they're much closer to steam clankers. 50% hit rate is pretty bad for a modern tank.

Speaking as a former 19k tank crewman, a lot of our tank crew hitting 50% would be a good day. We had gunneriies where we had scores in the 30s. Moving tanks coupled with moving targets coupled with being shot at coupled with chaotic battlefield equals challenging shots for tank gunners.

Speaking for 8th edition:

I like the more streamlined rules.
I hate the dry humping of alpha striking design philosophy.
I hate the direction of the rules by trying to end the game by turn 2 or 3.
I hate the smite spam garbage.
I dislike the removal of facings and things that made positioning matter.

I rate 8th higher than 7th only because 7th was age of formations and free crap. 8th is fun but only with people that aren't playing to bust the game. Otherwise, the game is abysmal and makes no sense.

 Crimson wrote:
I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

Pretty awesome fast land raiders to spin on a spot fast enough for that seeing one turn is very short time(like seconds). Oh and ability to flip 90 degree sideway so your gun is somehow where your TOP armour used to be is pretty neat trick!

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

Pretty awesome fast land raiders to spin on a spot fast enough for that seeing one turn is very short time(like seconds). Oh and ability to flip 90 degree sideway so your gun is somehow where your TOP armour used to be is pretty neat trick!

You should have seen a Tyranid Exocrine do it in 3rd-7th. They were damn near interpretive dancers!

8th is great and my gaming group loves it. We all didn't play as much around the holidays because we were all so busy but we are all back in the sing of things painting and playing. Several of our members just started second armies they are enjoying it so much and judging how the shelves at my local game store clear out every week the game is very popular in my area.

I prefer 7th, but am having fun with 8th. So... Call it a wash.

 Sim-Life wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
The Bad:
-Book bloat. While a result of the rapid explosion into 8th, it's a hell of a lot of books required - particularly for TO's etc., in a very short time span.

An average army uses three books now: BRB, Chapter Approved and the Codex or Index. Have you taken a look at what the first two actually contain and how many expansion rule books are basically included in those? If you're still using an Index you have about 15-20 books combined in those three books.

*edit* Just ask any Necron player how they see the release speed. The local Necron players here are crying for faster releases all the time since they're still waiting for theirs.

I'm a necron player. I'm just glad I won't be waiting more than a year. Next time they whine ask of they'd rather they'd been on of the first books that were basically just the Index with some half-assed stratagems and generic dynasty traits.

Y'know, that's funny - my primary army is Space Marines, and I'm quite happy - all I need is Vulkan showing up. So are the Death Guard players in my local group. But we're not playing tournament-level lists at all, I don't even own a Robby, and our Eldar players don't go with the -2 toHit shenanigans either.

I'm still enjoying it as much as when it first came out, maybe more. Still enjoying collecting, playing, and adding to my armies.

Pretty good, all things considered.

I don't like T1 reserves or the rules for deep strike. Deep Strike is way too powerful for cost.

The other thing I'm not a fan of are 1/army things, because I just think that's poor design.


The game has achieved a fairly good balance of power between shooting and close-quarters, so both have a distinct tactical role, and I do feel that overall the level of tactics has been improved dramatically by the greater control we have over our armies.

7th was a shitshow, especially with all the random tables of crap, so I'm fairly pleased with 8th. There are some changes I'd make, but otherwise i'm having a lot of fun.

Love it. It has its problems, and could be better, but compared to most of the game since about the 5th Ed GK release I feel like the game is in as good a place as it ever has been or better.

Other than the brand new player in our group who just started in 8th edition we seem to be pretty bored of it, rarely getting in more than 2-3 games a month. When the index's came out most of our games came down to the last turn, now, generally it's over by turn 2 or 3 and 90% most the time whoever went first won (need to introduce alternating turns like in Necromunda) we decided to use it as a place holder until necromunda came out when the dex's dropped... then Necromunda was released. and I realized I had to buy a box set with 2 ganngs I didnt care about THEN purchase another rulebook outside of that to use 3D terrain and I possibly download something to use all the legacy gangs? I said feth it and printed the community edition for free.

Maybe when GW introduces BFG I'll create a fun campaign for us to incorporate both but like it's been stated earlier. I'll be using 40k as a fun beer and pretzel fluff match and Necromunda CE as my fun balanced story driven missions.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

It could be your playgroup. I am a big Tyranid fluff player and I've been quite happy with my local scene. Out of 45 games I've played since August, I've won 19. Before 8th I had only won 2 games with my bugs in two years.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

Has the most dominating codex (only Tyranids are close) in 8th and still isn't happy.

Over all with well over 30 games in i'm having a great time still.

Tho honestly my Corsairs were the penitential of fun in 7th (troop heavy not the Formation spam crap) so i'll always love 7th for that. I'd still rather have 8th.

I can't stand how ineffective lascannons were in 7th. Bring on our new 8th ed overlords!

 supreme overlord wrote:
Other than the brand new player in our group who just started in 8th edition we seem to be pretty bored of it, rarely getting in more than 2-3 games a month. When the index's came out most of our games came down to the last turn, now, generally it's over by turn 2 or 3 and 90% most the time whoever went first won (need to introduce alternating turns like in Necromunda) we decided to use it as a place holder until necromunda came out when the dex's dropped... then Necromunda was released. and I realized I had to buy a box set with 2 ganngs I didnt care about THEN purchase another rulebook outside of that to use 3D terrain and I possibly download something to use all the legacy gangs? I said feth it and printed the community edition for free.

Maybe when GW introduces BFG I'll create a fun campaign for us to incorporate both but like it's been stated earlier. I'll be using 40k as a fun beer and pretzel fluff match and Necromunda CE as my fun balanced story driven missions.

I have to ask, though, in all honesty...has 40K ever been anything beyond beer and pretzels fluff matches? Even in its crunchiest mode...that's all I've ever seen it as. It's never been hugely deep or strategic, etc.

Compared to what?

I think it's a step in the right direction. There are still some big holes in the rules and True Line of Sight is still a disaster, but the game has improved enough that I finally invested in it after reading through the free rules.

In the Metas near me it's gutted the Warmachine and HH communities so I know I'm not alone. It's nice to be able to play a game that's so easy to pick up. I look forward to more 8th ed games and think things will get even better with 9th.

Martel732 wrote:
Compared to what?

Name any other tabletop mini game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why wouldn't it? Because even the explosive shells fired by the Accelerator Cannon have a good chance of penetrating a Land Raider's armour, and I doubt houses are built as durably. And yes, it could cause the ammo to veer off course - that's among the abstractions that the +1 armour value from cover is supposed to represent: intervening terrain interfering with a shot.

I play "fluffy" too and "fluffily" my superheavy company commanders would gladly fire through windows with their huge cannons, even if it risked bringing the building down, if they were truly firing at something that warranted such firepower.

That's the problem with playing "fluffy." I consider myself a fluffy player, and I'm absolutely fine with the way LOS works in 8th, because I understand that there's far, far more going on on the battlefield than the models represent.

And see, I'm just not keen on the 'shooting through walls' thing. Sorry, man, but I wouldn't enjoy your playstyle.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

Has the most dominating codex (only Tyranids are close) in 8th and still isn't happy.

You really believe it matters whether he wins or not if he isn't enjoying the game?

Is gunline guard somehow not fluffy?

That's what the best part of the Imperial Guard codex is, compared to some other codecies: what's good is also fluffy. And what's fluffy is also fairly decent.

Even an armored battlegroup with a moderate amount of supporting infantry is fairly decent enough to play.


There are a massive number of ways to build a viable Imperial Guard army.

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

Has the most dominating codex (only Tyranids are close) in 8th and still isn't happy.

You really believe it matters whether he wins or not if he isn't enjoying the game?

He is complaining about going blobguard and artillery, when IG is by a big margin the most flexible in army-building of all the factions. A full Leman Russ or Baneblade army will be be totally competitive and playable, maybe not at the level of the most OP IG builds, Chaos-soup builds, etc..., but leagues ahead most of the rest of the armies of the game.

guard can go blob infantry with supporting orders, elite infantry with plasma, Full tank companies. Mounted Infantry....Try coming to the Ork side where its Boyz with supporting characters or Boyz and a squiggoth

I love it as much as I did RT. but then again I hadn't played for like 25yrs so...

I do like how fast paced it feels, battlefield actions play out reasonably correct (for a game).

Everything can kill everything kicks ass.

Not a big fan of the smite phase though. Beta Rules might help this.

 Galas wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

Has the most dominating codex (only Tyranids are close) in 8th and still isn't happy.

You really believe it matters whether he wins or not if he isn't enjoying the game?

He is complaining about going blobguard and artillery, when IG is by a big margin the most flexible in army-building of all the factions. A full Leman Russ or Baneblade army will be be totally competitive and playable, maybe not at the level of the most OP IG builds, Chaos-soup builds, etc..., but leagues ahead most of the rest of the armies of the game.

What part of 'the rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated' did you not understand?

 amanita wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stopped playing. The rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated, and unless I invest in blobguard and artillery I might as well not turn up.
It sucks to be a fluff player :/

Has the most dominating codex (only Tyranids are close) in 8th and still isn't happy.

You really believe it matters whether he wins or not if he isn't enjoying the game?

He is complaining about going blobguard and artillery, when IG is by a big margin the most flexible in army-building of all the factions. A full Leman Russ or Baneblade army will be be totally competitive and playable, maybe not at the level of the most OP IG builds, Chaos-soup builds, etc..., but leagues ahead most of the rest of the armies of the game.

What part of 'the rules are daft and oversimplified whilst still managing to be bloated' did you not understand?

I was answering to the part where he complaints about being a "fluff" player and the neccesity to go blobguard or don't even play at all. And thats just nonsense for IG.

SemperMortis wrote:
guard can go blob infantry with supporting orders, elite infantry with plasma, Full tank companies. Mounted Infantry....Try coming to the Ork side where its Boyz with supporting characters or Boyz and a squiggoth

You are comparing a codex to an index. The codex will assuredly be better 99% of the time. Everyone knows Orks are in a bad spot right now but they are running their index and no codex, and GW is very aware of the issues with Orks right now. I really don't see them being bottom tier after the codex drops. The codex drops have been pretty good so far in terms of overall power. It's never going to be perfect but it's been quite good. Every army is able to compete to a degree. The worst codex so far is pretty decisively Grey Knights, BUT they are made primarily as an anti-daemon army. They do it quite well and I really feel they are an absolutely beast detachment army for your primary army.

8th edition killed my gaming group.

Or everyone lost interest at exactly the same time!

Hoodwink wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
guard can go blob infantry with supporting orders, elite infantry with plasma, Full tank companies. Mounted Infantry....Try coming to the Ork side where its Boyz with supporting characters or Boyz and a squiggoth

You are comparing a codex to an index. The codex will assuredly be better 99% of the time. Everyone knows Orks are in a bad spot right now but they are running their index and no codex, and GW is very aware of the issues with Orks right now. I really don't see them being bottom tier after the codex drops. The codex drops have been pretty good so far in terms of overall power. It's never going to be perfect but it's been quite good. Every army is able to compete to a degree. The worst codex so far is pretty decisively Grey Knights, BUT they are made primarily as an anti-daemon army. They do it quite well and I really feel they are an absolutely beast detachment army for your primary army.

I don't know about that. Having played against Sisters and Drukhari, I'd say they are both better than base space marines. Maybe Space Wolves, too. All three are better than GK.

I’ve not touched 40k since 8th was announced, it is not the game I wanted and does not appeal to me in any way, those that like 8th your entitled to enjoy what you like, same as those that don’t like it. I now exclusively play fantasy and Horus Heresy because those are the games I enjoy, I just wish games Workshop would support both systems, 7th and 8th, all they need is one guy in the office to make a 7th edition datasheet for all the new models, release them for free and those of us that want to play 7th and enjoy the lore can buy the new models and codexs and play the game we want without interfering with the “best edition of them all”. One guy is all it would take.

I've given 8th a fair shake but honestly I find the game boring and lacking in "depth". Using cover/terrain use to be one of the more interesting mechanics in 40k but now it can go entire games without a single cover save modifier or terrain rule coming into play which really removes some of the variety in how movement and combat play out. In general though most things feel too similar and it tends to just come down to just rolling a lot of dice and shuffling models around without a whole lot of concern about tactics or strategy. Also haven't played a game to a mission completion because it always ends with a tabling or surrender when tabling is a forgone conclusion.

Sad part is that most of the games I played of 8th where victories for me but instead of feeling rewarding it just felt bland to play. I honestly enjoy playing 7th edition Orks vs Eldar than playing a game of 8th.

I’m enjoying it. Played more games already than since I jumped back into 7th a couple of years prior. There are a few issues, but most of them are avoided by not playing with absolute melts, and the others don’t really affect my enjoyment of the game enough to lose sleep over. I’m interested to see how GW do at ironing things out given their new-found enthusiasm for community engagement.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
... all they need is one guy in the office to make a 7th edition datasheet for all the new models, release them for free and those of us that want to play 7th...

To be completely fair, if 7th edition had Datasheets it would help. I do NOT miss flipping through 3-4 books to play a game. I like being able to look at one page and see everything a squad or model can do.

But 7th had its busted elements, too.

There was no point at all in putting certain gear on units for melee combat. Going up against Eldar? Pfft. Don't bother.

A Leman Russ tank had 4 different weapon systems manned by 4 different crew members, and they all had to fire at the same target. Which meant nearly every vehicle in the game had to be mono-built for a purpose.

Deep Strike was a gamble and almost pointless sometimes. Basically a suicide harassment attack at best.

Pancakey wrote:
8th edition killed my gaming group.

Or everyone lost interest at exactly the same time!

Thats amazing.
Some have higher standards to a tabletop than others.
Most players in our group like the 8th ed. Their standards seem not to be rather high. Its just like throwing an army together, find an opponent, and then choose the mission.

8e is doing really well here in Lisbon. There are games every Friday, at least!

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
... all they need is one guy in the office to make a 7th edition datasheet for all the new models, release them for free and those of us that want to play 7th...

To be completely fair, if 7th edition had Datasheets it would help. I do NOT miss flipping through 3-4 books to play a game. I like being able to look at one page and see everything a squad or model can do.

But 7th had its busted elements, too.

There was no point at all in putting certain gear on units for melee combat. Going up against Eldar? Pfft. Don't bother.

A Leman Russ tank had 4 different weapon systems manned by 4 different crew members, and they all had to fire at the same target. Which meant nearly every vehicle in the game had to be mono-built for a purpose.

Deep Strike was a gamble and almost pointless sometimes. Basically a suicide harassment attack at best.

I hate to be “that guy” but the unit entries in 7th where called Datasheets, also I played against eldar “a lot” with orks and never once felt they were overpowered and won fairly often

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


Deep Strike was a gamble and almost pointless sometimes. Basically a suicide harassment attack at best.

In truth, I preferred the 7th ed deep strike mechanic. It was a high risk, high reward maneuver. Now everyone just loads up on plasma and gets guaranteed rapid firing overcharged plasma shots.

IDK, I just find the current version a little on the dull side, I guess because it is so reliable.

Having said that, I certainly don't miss drop pods breaking all the deep strike rules and giving guaranteed melta/flamer shots on any target you want.

But I suppose I didn't use deep strike much last edition (orks).

That was the problem, no one really used basic deepstrike. It was all drop pods and cenrtainty, no practical reward and all risk otherwise really.

To be fair, 7E Deep Strike was the least risky before 8E. Compared to 5E or especially 3E/4E mishaps, reserves, and terrain rules, 7E was practically guaranteed safe

Im loving 8th, i didnt like it when it first came out (or rather when the indexes leaked and i played my first 10 or so games) but the more games i played the better it got and now I really enjoy it. Its simple enough to play and i find a bit smoother and less clunky than 7th. Its by no means perfect but its good. Not to say I hate 7th and i hope heresy stays 7th maybe with a few more tweaks and as 7th ita a better ruleset for that game all in all. But 8th ed 40k? Big fan and looking forward to the rest of the codexes to bring the struggling index armies up to level. (tau and necrons specifically)

Considering I more or less quit for almost 10 years shortly after the launch of 5th edition and 8th was the edition that actually brought me back and got me to buy models again, I'm happy with it.

Vastly superior to really any previous edition as far as I'm concerned.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, 7E Deep Strike was the least risky before 8E. Compared to 5E or especially 3E/4E mishaps, reserves, and terrain rules, 7E was practically guaranteed safe

Tell me about it! You touched a twig? Sorry, the whole unit is dead. Haha.

I'm fine with 8th being very safe, because it's very safe for everyone, nearly everyone has a lot of access to it if they'd like, and the near-universal "start more than 9 inches away" bit makes it both good and risky at the same time.

Area buffs and no real terrain rules turned it into blob hammer with occasional assault counter-metas that fold the moment they meet proper bauble wrap. 90% armies are a migthy pack grouped around characters sitting statically in their deployment zone. And with how los and terrain works now, it has an even smaller impact on the game than it had before.

Pretty dull overall.
Listbuilding is still more interesting than actual playing.

I don't care for it. I play it here and there, but my enthusiasm and excitement quickly plummeted once I saw how easy it was to game the system and spam units. I'm much more interested in AOS. Sadly 40k remains king of the hill here so i am reluctant to drop it completely but I am focused on growing the AOS community here instead of really caring about 40k. Like for example my FLGS has its first 40k tournament in like 2 years and the first of 2018 tomorrow, and I'm not at all interested in it despite planning to attend.

Isn't aos also a blob-hammer game?

 koooaei wrote:
Isn't aos also a blob-hammer game?

I love that people are calling 40k Blobhammer because "blobs are op" and here I am considering taking a 3-model army to a 1500 point game tonight and the only reason I might not is it's too OP.

Blobs indeed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love that people are calling 40k Blobhammer because "blobs are op" and here I am considering taking a 3-model army to a 1500 point game tonight and the only reason I might not is it's too OP.

I love blobs.

I've got plenty of stuff in my army that shoots a lot of bullets.

Can't buff a pile of dead dudes.

Oh look I have snipers...

Dead dudes can't buff anyone.

Well, I'm going to have my first game this year (and a first in half a year) tomorrow and it'll be 7th ed game (though heavily, heavily modified 7th). 8th ed lasted just a dozen games for me and it really doesn't offer experience I seek in 40k without some heavy lifting, which I have already made for 7th. Maybe I'll "upgrade" somewhere around 9th or 10th ed, when they finally "bloat over" some oversimplifications.

 Elbows wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
Other than the brand new player in our group who just started in 8th edition we seem to be pretty bored of it, rarely getting in more than 2-3 games a month. When the index's came out most of our games came down to the last turn, now, generally it's over by turn 2 or 3 and 90% most the time whoever went first won (need to introduce alternating turns like in Necromunda) we decided to use it as a place holder until necromunda came out when the dex's dropped... then Necromunda was released. and I realized I had to buy a box set with 2 ganngs I didnt care about THEN purchase another rulebook outside of that to use 3D terrain and I possibly download something to use all the legacy gangs? I said feth it and printed the community edition for free.

Maybe when GW introduces BFG I'll create a fun campaign for us to incorporate both but like it's been stated earlier. I'll be using 40k as a fun beer and pretzel fluff match and Necromunda CE as my fun balanced story driven missions.

I have to ask, though, in all honesty...has 40K ever been anything beyond beer and pretzels fluff matches? Even in its crunchiest mode...that's all I've ever seen it as. It's never been hugely deep or strategic, etc.

in 6th and 7th army building and unit positioning were much more strategic although there were plenty of broken combos vehicles had to worry about position, units had to worry about spacing due to templates, a lot more thought had to go into turns vs. now when you might as well play rock papers scissors and add D6. I'm not saying 7th was a "better" edition by any means but I do believe it was more strategic. not just "expensive risk"

It sounds like moaning but I am becoming more hostile by the day to 8th edition.

Its less a war game and more a card game like MTG/Heathstone. It feels gimmicky rather than representing a "real" skirmish/battle.

In a card game that isn't too bad - if win/lose, just play another hand. They only take say 10-20 minutes.

Warmahordes 2nd edition (not played since 3rd dropped) felt a bit like this - and that can be quite quick to play because its a skirmish game. With short games its fine its all about list building.

In 40k though even the quickest game (including terrain, deployment etc) still takes around 90 minutes. So I don't feel you can't just stack the odds and roll the dice and then win or lose play again. Discrete games have to matter more. Which they don't when its all gimmicky stratagem shenanigans.

Tyel wrote:
It sounds like moaning but I am becoming more hostile by the day to 8th edition.

Its less a war game and more a card game like MTG/Heathstone. It feels gimmicky rather than representing a "real" skirmish/battle.

In a card game that isn't too bad - if win/lose, just play another hand. They only take say 10-20 minutes.

Warmahordes 2nd edition (not played since 3rd dropped) felt a bit like this - and that can be quite quick to play because its a skirmish game. With short games its fine its all about list building.

In 40k though even the quickest game (including terrain, deployment etc) still takes around 90 minutes. So I don't feel you can't just stack the odds and roll the dice and then win or lose play again. Discrete games have to matter more. Which they don't when its all gimmicky stratagem shenanigans.

Agreed!

Our last game was 650pl and after the first turn we really couldn't bear to keep playing. 40k was never super complex but 8th just feels so hollow!

Its less a war game and more a card game like MTG/Heathstone. It feels gimmicky rather than representing a "real" skirmish/battle.

Precisely. It is indeed one step removed from a board game and borrows a lot from collectible card games.

You could with a little effort make a ruleset that uses most of 40k now only replace the model with cards and get a very close experience to the game with models.

You could have cards that are your units. Roll for initiative. If you win, your cards shoot your opponents cards, then you pick a few cards to assault. Roll a bunch of dice. Use tokens to keep track of health. Remove cards as they are slain.

Terrain is equally not important, you don't have to paint models, maneuvering is rather simple and easy since you can move so fast or just teleport into combat on turn 1, facings don't matter, and you are getting close to the same experience. Most of the meat of the game comes in the card combination choices.

The thing is, this approach... this movement away from traditional wargames with miniatures and into the realm of FFG style gamey games that do not use intuitive rules but rather gamey rules, or deckbuilding style games is making them money hand over first.

I'm with the people who feels its too simple.

I get that vehicle arcs and templates slowed the game down and cover caused a lot of issues, but it made the board we played that I play on feel relevant.

The combination of poor cover rules, lack of firing/armor arcs, and incentive to blob make this game feel like it has no real reason to maneuver. Which (at least for me) was one of the reasons to play.

I feel conflicted as well because 8th ed brought a lot of good as well though. The introduction of Multi-Damage weapons, movement stats, and a lot of other small tweaks were really beneficial to the game and solved a lot of problems.

But it tilts me that a landraider can fire all of its weapons out of its adamantium tailpipe and ignores intervening cover when it does so.

This edition made positioning matter far less then 7th or 5th which is my gripe with it.

Perhaps I should clarify my above post:
My Guard army is, fluff wise, a crack veteran unit of mechanised infantry with an attached small armoured formation. I essence they are highly mobile shock troops, intended to be the first into the breach when it is created, widening it and forcing a proper corridor through which the rest of the army can flow. When deployed defensively they are held in reserve until needed, when they move in to plug a breach or bolster a weakened section. When sent behind enemy lines they form a mobile column and harass enemy forces, using their speed and manoeuvrability to strike quickly and then withdraw, leaving shattered remnants of their foes as a silent testament to their presence.
They are mobile, elite and well trained and experienced.

What this translates too in game is a bunch of overpriced 'Elite' infantry who can no longer take carapace armour, the armour that my infantry used, riding around in a bunch of extremely overpriced transports and being spearheaded by a unit of heavy tanks that only just manage to scramble at being competitive. I dont want to have to bring Celestine and my Sisters of Silence and my Baneblades, but if I want to compete then I have too.
You see, just because some Guard builds are able to compete, it does not mean that all are.

Personally, I was never in it for the games. However, I will say that 8th is a step in the right direction.
I am glad that they have given us road maps as to when to expect faqs and Chapter approved.
Models have continued to be top notch. The Fluff is relatively meh. Hoping we get more xenos stuff soon.

If they made real terrain rules and found some way to chill out with the turn 1 alpha striking it’d be 1000x better. We found the terrain rules easy to fix locally, but dang way too many games are over in the list building/top half of the 1st turn without them and sometimes with them.

I dunno. Long range shooting penalties, some defensive advantage for the 2nd player, something.

The simple playability of this edition is nice, but it’s rare for a game to get past turn 3 without us getting bored and either starting over or playing something else.

Been playing weekly since launch. Still haven't played a single matched play game. And we always talk about what sort of stuff we might take and what sort of scenario we might do. Or use Open War cards and then pick our stuff. And anytime we take vehicles or big monster we tell the opponent in advance so they can take one too or bring the right sort of weapons. We see it as the other side being able to scout out larger things like vehicles and behemoths so they get to know about them in advance.

Still absolutely love it. Best Open/Nar version of 40k yet.

I hate that 8-th provides even less possibilities to mixing up different types of units. Not that 5-th, 6-th or 7-th were great at it but i could always take a trukk or two full of tankbustas or meganobz and not feel like a liability. Now it's completely unacceptable cause trukks are too expensive cause they're "tough" vehicles that die emidiately vs any anti-tank and manz eat the rest and go down 1-st turn. And we're back to spamming one unit type all over again. Boyz, boyz, boyz...occasional stormboyz that are boyz with jump packs and kommandoes that are boyz with infiltrate. Buff characters and maybe kustom mega kannons. Can throw out the rest of the index - won't feel the difference.

I get that vehicle arcs and templates slowed the game down and cover caused a lot of issues, but it made the board we played that I play on feel relevant.

Indeed, the board is less relevant now when compared with previous editions.
The game feels like a board game since maneuverability is no issue now.

Orks got slammed hard with the new edition but other than that I love it. Just waiting on the ork codex and then I will be happy.

I am deeply saddened by the new edition. While I appreciate the effort, the new edition’s rules are far too streamlined for me to enjoy.

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but if I had a choice now between old WFB&40k and the new AoS and 8th, I would choose the older way of doing things.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Isn't aos also a blob-hammer game?

I love that people are calling 40k Blobhammer because "blobs are op" and here I am considering taking a 3-model army to a 1500 point game tonight and the only reason I might not is it's too OP.

Blobs indeed.

Only 4-5 armies out of the 20+ possible ones can actually field blobs and hordes. Some of them can also play decently without taking countless cheap bodies. Only because the most competitive lists are hordes it doesn't mean that the game is dominated by them, IMHO all the units/characters should be considered.

The thing with the board and cover is that you a) yes, the cover system isn't good, and b) you need to put much more terrain on the table, including actual line of sight blockers. The game gets a lot better in e.g. a city.

 koooaei wrote:
I hate that 8-th provides even less possibilities to mixing up different types of units. Not that 5-th, 6-th or 7-th were great at it but i could always take a trukk or two full of tankbustas or meganobz and not feel like a liability. Now it's completely unacceptable cause trukks are too expensive cause they're "tough" vehicles that die emidiately vs any anti-tank and manz eat the rest and go down 1-st turn. And we're back to spamming one unit type all over again. Boyz, boyz, boyz...occasional stormboyz that are boyz with jump packs and kommandoes that are boyz with infiltrate. Buff characters and maybe kustom mega kannons. Can throw out the rest of the index - won't feel the difference.

I'd say that's a specific Ork-problem right now. For CSM I can say we are in the situation that every unit is viable and you can basically play whatever units you like, even Mutilators can be brought to work or are at least cheap enough to be a distraction carnifex. This was unthinkable in 7th edition, even in casual play. Since in 8th actual tactics are involved and I as a player have decisions to make unlike in 7th. I can make even bad units have an impact. The shooting phase is still too one-sided, but at least with wound allocation I can influence it a bit.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Isn't aos also a blob-hammer game?

I love that people are calling 40k Blobhammer because "blobs are op" and here I am considering taking a 3-model army to a 1500 point game tonight and the only reason I might not is it's too OP.

Blobs indeed.

Only 4-5 armies out of the 20+ possible ones can actually field blobs and hordes. Some of them can also play decently without taking countless cheap bodies. Only because the most competitive lists are hordes it doesn't mean that the game is dominated by them, IMHO all the units/characters should be considered.

blobs =/= hordes.

Girlyman and a bunch of assbacks parked around him in a tight circle bauble wrapped by guards/scouts/tacticals are a blob.
Yarrikk and a bunch of leman russes parked around him in a tight circle bauble wrapped by guards are a blob.
150+ boyz spread across the field and a bunch of buff indeps in the middle are a horde.

Blobs are basically a gunline that's not a line but a blob because of how buff auras work and how irelevant terrain is. Gunblobs.

Ok but I can only count a few blobs and a few hordes. Just a few combinations considering the entire GW catalogue.

Even in semi-competitive friendly games armies that usually rely on hordes or blobs have alternative solutions. Yes, even orks.

I would call 40k more "herohammer" rather than blob-hammer. Auras are good IMHO, better than lettin characters join other units, but mandatory superheroes may ruin the game in the end.

I'm ok with hordes, gun lines and auras. I'm not ok with those mortarion, magnus, celestine, guilliman, cawl, etc that show up every single game.

I'm ok with hordes, gun lines and auras. I'm not ok with those mortarion, magnus, celestine, guilliman, cawl, etc that show up every single game.

I'm also concerned with all those blobs around. But you're right about the maximum buffing characters. Special characters in general have a bad taste for my liking.

Yeah. Things that show up in every game over and over again drive my interest away as well. I quit 5th edition because I was tired of having to play against a Draigo nearly every time.

I haven't played in a few months due to real life getting in the way, but I enjoyed playing lots of small to medium sized, not at all serious PL games. I don't think I could play it seriously and enjoy myself.

It's better than 7th, at least. I can take a non competitive list and have a chance of winning. However my problem with 8th comes down to 1 thing.

It is so god damn boring! It feels like all the flavour and little ins and outs of previous editions have just gone out the window. I enjoyed playing Crimson Fists because of their unique trait that follows their fluff, and Pedro did what you'd think he would. Now, I get a bland, generic Chapter Tactic which is just crap. The new Primaris stuff have little to no choice in variation, meaning GW are pushing for this direction of play. The worst part of all this is that SM have a CODEX. Index Marines were agonisingly bland, but at least they now have a Codex to add some flavour. Can't imagine what it is like for some Xenos armies.

All in all, it just feels like a watered down Age of Sigmar, which I think is actually a great game to be honest. I think I'll stick to just painting my 40k and only play AoS from now on. I don't hate 40k, I'd just rather play a more enjoyable gaming system (for me).

I’ve only managed to get a few games in, but overall I like it.

In particular, it is quicker and simpler to play, I like that everything can split fire, so you can sensibly take mixed weapon units (which is also fluffy) and I like that different weapons have more varied effects (heavy bolters hit a bunch of people a bit, lascannons hit one thing a lot, etc.). I like the added tactical depth of command points and stratagems. Pistols in combat is a nice touch, though hardly game changing. I was initially sceptical about characters and auras, I’ve been enjoying the way it works.

As others have said, the terrain rules have been over simplified, to the point that I barely see cover saves used, I mourn the loss of vehicle facings, as it removed a good tactical element (trying to manoeuvre for that shot on rear armour). The fire in all directions is ok for most things, but becomes mind bendingly stupid when it comes to things like fliers (my fixed-forward weapons are now going to strafe the unit 36” behind me?! WTF.)

Finally I hate, absolutely hate, smite, because there is no interaction. No roll to hit, no cover, no invulnerable saves, just a straight “my unit is going to wound/kill your unit and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.” It seems to go against all other areas of the design philosophy, where it seems to have been about giving everything a chance.

Help! Brimstones horrors are tempting me!

Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I heavily dislike this edition, and play competatively.
The way I chose to play this game has no effect on it being exceptionally badly written. One only need glance into You Make Da Call, to confirm the rules are as watertight as the Titanic.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

Thank you. This what I find interesting in this debate because, as you say, I'm the other way around. To me almost everything that made 40K competitive has gone. What is left is a far more fun and casual game. The fluff is still very much there in the codex and each army feels build to it's own fluff.

I know that GW had worked with TO's and the ITC to playtest 8th edition and the Index rules. I certainly didn't expect that to continue however.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

I heavily dislike this edition, and play competatively.
The way I chose to play this game has no effect on it being exceptionally badly written. One only need glance into You Make Da Call, to confirm the rules are as watertight as the Titanic.

There certainly are rules issues that need addressing but I wouldn't call it badly written. It just isn't as in depth (I want to say clunky) as previous editions. Yet.

I will agree that the rules are badly written from a technical standpoint...however the "intent" is incredibly obvious about 98% of the time with only a few rules completely bizarre - and most of those have been addressed by GW.

Easily 90% of the issues in the "You make Da Call" are from people trying their hardest to insert their internet-peen into the foray "Well, this comma actually means that grammatically that unit can't do..." etc. I'd imagine most are arguing just to argue and try to prove themselves right. Plenty of people enjoy that.

The other massive amount of the customers just play the game.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

Tank Shock was a useful rule, that was weird for players to grasp due to it working more as a jump and bodyslam. The fact that displacement was "closest legal distance" meant that you could use it to forcibly reposition your foes, especially if you could obtain a critical mass of mech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I will agree that the rules are badly written from a technical standpoint...however the "intent" is incredibly obvious about 98% of the time with only a few rules completely bizarre - and most of those have been addressed by GW.

Easily 90% of the issues in the "You make Da Call" are from people trying their hardest to insert their internet-peen into the foray "Well, this comma actually means that grammatically that unit can't do..." etc. I'd imagine most are arguing just to argue and try to prove themselves right. Plenty of people enjoy that.

The other massive amount of the customers just play the game.

I wrote "A Competitive Guide to Rule Lawyering" as a trollpost in /r/warhammercompetitive so I know what bad RAW can do. I played Orks in 5th and half my games that edition were trying to come to a consensus over whether I was allowed to Deffrolla enemy vehicles. I am skipping 8th but when I first glanced over the rules, I got tripped up by Daemonic Ritual due to a dangling participle. Nevermind the surrealism of a 1st-gen American with ESL immigrant parents calling out a British company for said company's improper usage of the English Language...

Daemonic Ritual: “Instead of moving in their Movement Phase, any CHAOS CHARACTER may, at the end of their Movement Phase, attempt to summon a DAEMON unit with this ability by performing a Daemonic Ritual.”

The key being "with this ability," by performing a Daemonic Ritual. This could either mean that the Character is using a Daemonic Ritual, or that a Character can only summon Daemons if those Daemons have Daemonic Ritual. Despite what "RAI" and "common sense" would imply, it's the second interpretation. A Daemon must have Daemonic Ritual (the rule, not the ability) not to summon but for any Character to perform a Daemonic Ritual (the ability, not the rule) to summon said Daemon that has Daemonic Ritual (the rule, not the ability). Why they didn't call the rule Summonable, reword it to state that "if a Daemon unit has Daemonic Ritual, then a CHAOS character may forfeit moving in the movement phase to summon a legal instance of that unit" or otherwise fix the rule to have unambiguous RAW and RAI eludes me. It's almost like they don't care if 40k players are at each others throats outside of the game...

Of course, I've mentioned that GW fell for the Scunthorpe Problem and they use character-matching for weapons, abilities and stratagems. Grey Knight Incinerators cannot use Fuel Relays but a Horror's Flickering Flames can, because Fuel Relays benefit weapons "that have 'flame' in their name." I await the return of the Plasma Syphon so I can witness Exocrines against the Inquisition. They don't shoot plasma, they shoot plasmic.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

Why do you say this? If anything this is the first edition in some time that acknowledges competitive/matched play and GW is even involved in several tournament circuits for the first time in ages.

That said, I play 40k real casual these days. Had I the same mindset back in 5/6/7 editions I probably would have enjoyed the game more. I think the rules are pretty gak, but I’ve learned to appreciate the game for the models, spectacle, and fluff and absolutely do not take my games very seriously. If I did, I’d probably stop playing.

Playing several different games has allowed me to have a more laid back attitude towards it all. I play 40k or x-wing when I just want some casual one-off games, Bolt action for narrative missions and campaigns, Runewars and Armada competitively. Never been more happy as a gamer and hobbyist.

I hate the new edition. They have made ZERO real attempts at balance, which inherently makes the game bad. I don't expect perfect balance, but they should have at least tried for balance. I do however like the simplified rules. Just wish a little more playtesting and polish went into everything, and that my Iron Hands would have finally seen some love instead of across the board nerfs for no good reason.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

As someone who pretty much exclusively does Open/Nar with 40k (occasionally play competitive AoS), I don't think the typical non-competitive player actually sees random tables and things like tank shock as the key place to find a connection between the story and game. 8th works better for Open/Nar gamers because the basic mechanics, especially at lower point levels, actually match better to the fiction than nearly any previous edition. In our last multiplayer game the Tau player was playing their first game and was pleasantly surprised with how a simple series of events played out.

Primaris marines in cover took a 15" rapid fire volley from a squad of firewarriors and very few died. And then they left cover, moved up, shot a bunch of bolter rounds and then charged and took a bunch of overwatch fire from the other nearby Tau units and then slaughtered the rest of the firewarriors between close combat and the morale phase. Then the tau shot them again. It was a back and forth that could have been right out of a novel.

The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game. You can move and shoot with heavy weapons, fall back out of close combat, split fire. Use stratagems to make things like orbital strikes happen. Or use the very cool scenario based stratagems in the Narrative scenarios. If you're into trying cool stuff and seeing what happens, it's definitely better than rolling on some random table or using some bolted on tank shock mechanic.

dosiere wrote:
Why do you say this? If anything this is the first edition in some time that acknowledges competitive/matched play and GW is even involved in several tournament circuits for the first time in ages.

Having been involved in AoS before 8th came out and saw how GW was handling involvement in tournament scenes there and the types of armies that consistently got to top tables in large AoS events, I just assumed it was marketing fluff. The most tournament tested version of 40k just needs to have some level of tournament playtesting greater than zero (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration but probably not by much).

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I am not a competitive player at all, and I found 8th to be the least fun game of any type I have ever played,. the rules are so streamlined and simplistic to bore the tears out of me and the whole new meta just pure garbage. This game to me managed to be worse than "Carnage", something I thought impossible.

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

To elaborate on what I think Chamberlain is talking about: 'artificial restrictions' refers to the degree you needed to remember what a unit did in previous phases to figure out what it's allowed to do now. WH40k in 3rd-7th had some fiddly little restrictions (shot with rapid fire weapons = no charges, shot at one target = no charging other targets, etc) that made it more difficult to figure out what a given unit was actually allowed to do in any given phase, whereas in 8th you're generally allowed to do things without regard to what you did earlier.

It isn't a massively difficult thing to do once you're used to it (and those of us who spent years getting used to that system do it pretty automatically), but it also makes the learning curve for the game more difficult without really adding much to the game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

Page 215 of the rulebook (where those things are found) is in the matched play section of the rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Guess what I did in my last game? Summoned daemons without paying points for them in advance!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To elaborate on what I think Chamberlain is talking about: 'artificial restrictions' refers to the degree you needed to remember what a unit did in previous phases to figure out what it's allowed to do now.

That's part of it. What I really think makes 8th great for Open/Nar is that there's greater mapping between how you might describe things in the fiction (or natural language) compared to the game rules. It's very easy to tell stories of space marines shooting at one group and then crashing into combat with another. In previous editions there have been rules where you can only charge what you shot that turn. Then you have the issue of the guy with the lascannon ignoring the tank because the guys beside him shoot at some grunt infantry. Or worse, in some previous editions if the guy on the other side of the squad moved at all, suddenly the heavy weapon couldn't shoot anymore. The gunner just keeps pulling the trigger and getting a "squad mate moved! cannot fire!" error message. 8th just works more like you'd expect if you were just describing things naturally.

I guess part of that is a barrier to entry issue. Things working in a way that makes sense in fictional terms is going to be easier to get a handle on. Keeping track of what you did in previous phases is one thing, but stuff that just goes against natural expectations can be even more of a barrier.

 Chamberlain wrote:


As someone who pretty much exclusively does Open/Nar with 40k (occasionally play competitive AoS), I don't think the typical non-competitive player actually sees random tables and things like tank shock as the key place to find a connection between the story and game. 8th works better for Open/Nar gamers because the basic mechanics, especially at lower point levels, actually match better to the fiction than nearly any previous edition. In our last multiplayer game the Tau player was playing their first game and was pleasantly surprised with how a simple series of events played out.

Primaris marines in cover took a 15" rapid fire volley from a squad of firewarriors and very few died. And then they left cover, moved up, shot a bunch of bolter rounds and then charged and took a bunch of overwatch fire from the other nearby Tau units and then slaughtered the rest of the firewarriors between close combat and the morale phase. Then the tau shot them again. It was a back and forth that could have been right out of a novel.

The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game. You can move and shoot with heavy weapons, fall back out of close combat, split fire. Use stratagems to make things like orbital strikes happen. Or use the very cool scenario based stratagems in the Narrative scenarios. If you're into trying cool stuff and seeing what happens, it's definitely better than rolling on some random table or using some bolted on tank shock mechanic.

This is what I am talking about. Every game I have had of 8th since release has felt far more cinematic and visualises far better in my head than what the more rules heavy prior editions ever felt like. The reason I think competitive players dislike 8th is because they play more more mechanically - at least in my experience. 8th doesn't require that. The more laid back and casual rules system lends itself perfectly to just being able to play without that mechanically driven mindset.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

Page 215 of the rulebook (where those things are found) is in the matched play section of the rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Guess what I did in my last game? Summoned daemons without paying points for them in advance!

My point more is that artificial caps like Rule of One are a bandaid over a bullethole of bad design, and the idea that there should be separate rules for both Narrative and Matched games creates a false dichotomy of how the game "should" be played and Balkanizes the playerbase more.

As for Anomander's examples, like Rapidfire, shooting the same target, etc, a lot of those are the result of a messy readjustment of the rules from 2nd to 3rd edition 40k. In 2nd, Charging was part of the Move Phase, so realistically you couldn't shoot one unit then melee another anyway, while Rapid Fire was an ability specific to Marines that let them forfeit movement to shoot twice. Of course, in 3rd 40k, you could only double-tap with Rapid-Fire if within 12" and only if you didn't move (so a small wonder that Rhino Rushing did better anyway), and each change onwards almost was the result of one group (Cavatore, Haines, and others) wanting a tighter more competitive system, the other half (Jervis, Gav, etc) wanting to stay "beer and pretzels" and call it a day. Ultimately, 40k ends up repeating itself a lot, which led to a game where Running, Zooming, Flat-Outing, and Turbo-Boosting were all slightly different permutations of "move instead of shooting during your shooting phase."

In fact, 40k sticking with Phases is very bizarre IMO, especially given the fun it leads to in YMDC when involving "out-of-phase" abilities. An ATB system is innately so much cleaner.

I myself would never play in a game at this point where summons were free. Open play and narrative basicay doesn't exist for me.

I do feel some sympathy though for those who bought into the claims about tournament playtesting and balance and all that. Especially those that are still running an Index army in a competitive event full of optimized codex lists.

I play to see what happens rather than to win, but for those for whom winning is a goal and who expect 40k to be an arena for fair competition, I can understand why they are disappointed.

I've been slowly convinced by some local historical gamers that balance systems like points are just imperfect tools and how good they work is inversely proportional to the number of variables. And 40k has tons of variables!

Take what you thought was cool enough that you just had to paint it. Talk about what you're fielding and doing in a given game. Play to find out what happens. Do this with like minded individuals. In my opinion, that's how you get the most out of 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I myself would never play in a game at this point where summons were free. Open play and narrative basicay doesn't exist for me.

I don't ever play a miniature game where I think the rules have to protect me from what the opponent might do.

When we set up a game we're like
"I'm bringing a sorcerer and have some daemon models to summon."
"Oh, did you want one of those games where the daemons just keep pouring in?"
"Nah, the daemons are just a supporting role, so I won't summon too many."
"Oh, maybe in a future game we can play with you having Sustained Assault and we'll combine our daemon collection and we'll see how long my Grey Knight terminators can last."

Given that I don't play matched play at all and you only play matched play, I'm not surprised if we have very different 40k experiences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
My point more is that artificial caps like Rule of One are a bandaid over a bullethole of bad design, and the idea that there should be separate rules for both Narrative and Matched games creates a false dichotomy of how the game "should" be played and Balkanizes the playerbase more.

In terms of bad design, all I can ask is "bad for what?" Cause it seems pretty good for what I do with it. Which brings things to the second point. The balkanization of the player base is definitely a thing. People just want different things out of their gaming experience.

It's right here in this thread. I would never play a matched play game and Martel would never play in a game with free summons. And it's at the local level. We invite new people to our weekly gaming night and it clicks with some but not with others.

I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I keep seeing people bring up "bloat" and I just don't get it. I just don't see how you can go from what 7th was, down to what 8th is, and then scream "BLOAT"! I get it if you don't like how the rules are organized - some people like havng the special rules on the unit cards, and others don't, etc. That's fine. But if you're seriously saying this edition suffers from "bloat", and you really do mean "bloat" - I just don't get it. If you want to accuse a game of bloat, look no further than the change-overs from 5th to 6th and even-more-so, 6th to 7th. 7th especially was the poster child for bloat.

Player A: "I dislike 8th. Way too streamlined. They over-simplified it. Now it's boring."
Player B: "I also dislike 8th. TOO MUCH RULES BLOAT!"

Those are mutually exclusive conditions. You literally can't have both. What game are you people playing?

As for how I'm liking the game - eh. I had stopped playing completely at some point in 7th. Wasn't even painting or modeling. 8th brought me back in and the first few months were pretty fun. The marine codex dropped and I really liked it. Yeah, playing that dex against a index army could be rough if you weren't careful, but it didn't bother me too much as I figured everything would balance out again once everyone got their full codex. Now that we have a few? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. They still can't write balanced army books to save their lives. I like a lot of the books individually, but they have fallen way short on the promise of "balance".

I'm finding that I actually have more fun (in most cases) if it's a game of index 40k. I feel like Index 40k delivers surprisingly well on the initial promises of 8th in that it's relatively well balanced, and allows fast, fun games. Once you introduce the codexes, the games seem to take a lot longer (too many stratagems and WAY too many re-rolls), and for me, generally aren't as fun. Which feels like an odd complaint because they did a great job making a lot of the books I run play in a very fluffy manner that really fits the army. I guess you can only have so many different versions of a re-roll mechanic before it gets stale.

Over-all I am playing again (which makes 8th 100% better for me than 7th), but I'm conflicted on how much I like it and how much longer I will be playing it. The one thing I've found that's really disapointing is that while 8th has made our local competitive games a lot better, the narrative campaigns aren't as fun. Cooperative narrative games is where 6th and 7th really shined IMO. Time will tell I suppose.

Tycho wrote:
I keep seeing people bring up "bloat" and I just don't get it. I just don't see how you can go from what 7th was, down to what 8th is, and then scream "BLOAT"! I get it if you don't like how the rules are organized - some people like havng the special rules on the unit cards, and others don't, etc. That's fine. But if you're seriously saying this edition suffers from "bloat", and you really do mean "bloat" - I just don't get it. If you want to accuse a game of bloat, look no further than the change-overs from 5th to 6th and even-more-so, 6th to 7th. 7th especially was the poster child for bloat.

Player A: "I dislike 8th. Way too streamlined. They over-simplified it. Now it's boring."
Player B: "I also dislike 8th. TOO MUCH RULES BLOAT!"

Those are mutually exclusive conditions. You literally can't have both. What game are you people playing?

As for how I'm liking the game - eh. I had stopped playing completely at some point in 7th. Wasn't even painting or modeling. 8th brought me back in and the first few months were pretty fun. The marine codex dropped and I really liked it. Yeah, playing that dex against a index army could be rough if you weren't careful, but it didn't bother me too much as I figured everything would balance out again once everyone got their full codex. Now that we have a few? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. They still can't write balanced army books to save their lives. I like a lot of the books individually, but they have fallen way short on the promise of "balance".

I'm finding that I actually have more fun (in most cases) if it's a game of index 40k. I feel like Index 40k delivers surprisingly well on the initial promises of 8th in that it's relatively well balanced, and allows fast, fun games. Once you introduce the codexes, the games seem to take a lot longer (too many stratagems and WAY too many re-rolls), and for me, generally aren't as fun. Which feels like an odd complaint because they did a great job making a lot of the books I run play in a very fluffy manner that really fits the army. I guess you can only have so many different versions of a re-roll mechanic before it gets stale.

Over-all I am playing again (which makes 8th 100% better for me than 7th), but I'm conflicted on how much I like it and how much longer I will be playing it. The one thing I've found that's really disapointing is that while 8th has made our local competitive games a lot better, the narrative campaigns aren't as fun. Cooperative narrative games is where 6th and 7th really shined IMO. Time will tell I suppose.

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I'm sure there are quite a few things most people can agree on.

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

Get rid of IGOUGO and eliminate downtime between players getting to make real decisions. Rolling armor saves or choosing to use your one "save vs shooting" stratagem on your most critical unit != choices. Infinite Overwatch likewise isn't a choice.

Reduce First Turn Advantage. "Half your units must start on the table" is not a disadvantage for armies that can make their on-table half artillery and bubblewrap. Cover is decorative, and alternate deployment eliminates a major drawback to choosing to go first.

Eliminate extreme copypaste, move away from the "no model no rules policy" and enable more Your Dudes. Clean up internal balance between weapons so you don't need to tear up or counts-as your weapons depending on the edition you're playing. "Melta in 5th, Grav in 7th, Plasma in 8th."

Rather than "Rule of One," balance out powers in the first place. "Gee, do I take Eadbutt or Da Jump" is only a choice if your name is Robin Cruddace.

This itself shouldn't be rocket science.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I'm sure there are quite a few things most people can agree on.

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

Get rid of IGOUGO and eliminate downtime between players getting to make real decisions. Rolling armor saves or choosing to use your one "save vs shooting" stratagem on your most critical unit != choices. Infinite Overwatch likewise isn't a choice.

Reduce First Turn Advantage. "Half your units must start on the table" is not a disadvantage for armies that can make their on-table half artillery and bubblewrap. Cover is decorative, and alternate deployment eliminates a major drawback to choosing to go first.

Eliminate extreme copypaste, move away from the "no model no rules policy" and enable more Your Dudes. Clean up internal balance between weapons so you don't need to tear up or counts-as your weapons depending on the edition you're playing. "Melta in 5th, Grav in 7th, Plasma in 8th."

Rather than "Rule of One," balance out powers in the first place. "Gee, do I take Eadbutt or Da Jump" is only a choice if your name is Robin Cruddace.

This itself shouldn't be rocket science.

Just some points:

"Write unambiguous RAW" is one of those 'easier said than done' things. My friends and I have argued about rule interpretations from Yahtzee, and there are people murdering each other about the interpretation of rules (ostensibly) given to us by God! If God can't write clear, unambiguous RAW, then I'm afraid you're asking a bit much from GW.

Getting rid of IGOUGO could work, but it has to be implemented properly. Chess has alternating activations and it's still like 54-46% imbalanced towards the person who goes first, which is better than 40k but still an undeniable advantage.

I agree with reducing first turn advantage. Have no idea why there's no 'default reserves' into which valuable units can be placed to protect them from first turn volleys but that only allows them to move on from the board edge.

I don't really know what you're on about with the weapons thing and "extreme copypaste." If you mean that editions shouldn't affect what weapons are good, meh, not sure I agree. Editions should adjust the meta, and that adjustment might include making you swap all your meltaguns for grenade launchers or whatever.

This is actually bad for fluff players, as you end up flanderizing psychic powers. With ~16 (?) psychic factions and ~6 powers per faction, you end up with needing 96 different psychic powers. Asking all of them to be exactly balanced with one another with 96 possible choices is probably asking too much. Now, if you mean balanced within a faction - sure, I could get behind that. But I'm not sure that would help anything, what with how armies could just bodge together factions.

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

So give me an example of something you consider "extraneous". Because I still find it difficult to wrap my head around "bloat" being the primary issue in a ruleset that went from over 100 pages to ... 12.

Tycho wrote:

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

So give me an example of something you consider "extraneous". Because I still find it difficult to wrap my head around "bloat" being the primary issue in a ruleset that went from over 100 pages to ... 12.

Well, the 12 pages that are the "main" rules are utter crap, so there's that.

In addition, while the NUMBER of rules isn't something I necessarily hold issue with, the fact that every single one needs its own name I find excessive and detrimental to the game. It should be, for, say, Terminators:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

And then for the Culexus, Eversor, and Vindicare Assassins:

Deep Strike (9")-Infiltrate
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

So that way everyone can share the same naming conventions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I'm sure there are quite a few things most people can agree on.

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

Get rid of IGOUGO and eliminate downtime between players getting to make real decisions. Rolling armor saves or choosing to use your one "save vs shooting" stratagem on your most critical unit != choices. Infinite Overwatch likewise isn't a choice.

Reduce First Turn Advantage. "Half your units must start on the table" is not a disadvantage for armies that can make their on-table half artillery and bubblewrap. Cover is decorative, and alternate deployment eliminates a major drawback to choosing to go first.

Eliminate extreme copypaste, move away from the "no model no rules policy" and enable more Your Dudes. Clean up internal balance between weapons so you don't need to tear up or counts-as your weapons depending on the edition you're playing. "Melta in 5th, Grav in 7th, Plasma in 8th."

Rather than "Rule of One," balance out powers in the first place. "Gee, do I take Eadbutt or Da Jump" is only a choice if your name is Robin Cruddace.

This itself shouldn't be rocket science.

Just some points:

"Write unambiguous RAW" is one of those 'easier said than done' things. My friends and I have argued about rule interpretations from Yahtzee, and there are people murdering each other about the interpretation of rules (ostensibly) given to us by God! If God can't write clear, unambiguous RAW, then I'm afraid you're asking a bit much from GW.

Getting rid of IGOUGO could work, but it has to be implemented properly. Chess has alternating activations and it's still like 54-46% imbalanced towards the person who goes first, which is better than 40k but still an undeniable advantage.

I agree with reducing first turn advantage. Have no idea why there's no 'default reserves' into which valuable units can be placed to protect them from first turn volleys but that only allows them to move on from the board edge.

I don't really know what you're on about with the weapons thing and "extreme copypaste." If you mean that editions shouldn't affect what weapons are good, meh, not sure I agree. Editions should adjust the meta, and that adjustment might include making you swap all your meltaguns for grenade launchers or whatever.

This is actually bad for fluff players, as you end up flanderizing psychic powers. With ~16 (?) psychic factions and ~6 powers per faction, you end up with needing 96 different psychic powers. Asking all of them to be exactly balanced with one another with 96 possible choices is probably asking too much. Now, if you mean balanced within a faction - sure, I could get behind that. But I'm not sure that would help anything, what with how armies could just bodge together factions.

Standardized terminology is one way to reduce ambiguity. In 7th, there was ambiguous RAW over whether Siphon Magic let you store dice between turns, because it didn't grant bonus Warp Charge (which disappear at the end of a Psychic Phase), but they generated extra tokens which could be spent as Warp Charge by the Psyker that gained them via Siphon Magic. 40k has no standardized rules for how to keep or discard Tokens from turn to turn, and further compounding the dilemma were abilities that generated actual additional Warp Charge that could only be used by specific models/units (via Spirit Leech or Yvraine's Gyrinx). Was the fact that Siphon Magic didn't generate extra Warp Charge but generated tokens that could be spent like Warp Charge intentional or just sloppy rule-writing? Similarly, the lack of distinction between death versus removal from play, when a model is considered alive, or whether "before deployment" is considered "before the battle" has led to my favorite YMDC, Shroëdinger's Ultramarine. (See the bottom).

Copypaste is related to this. In 5th edition, there was a debate over whether Njal could ride in a Rhino while wearing Runic Terminator Armor, because RAW, rather than Runic Terminator Armor counting as Terminator Armor with a 4++, Runic Terminator Armor copypasted all the rules for Terminator Armor except it granted a 4++ instead of a 5++. (By contrast, Calgar's Armor of Antilochus counted as Terminator Armor with a built-in Teleport Homer).

I mean internal balance. Whether it's "Take Nullzone instead of Smite, Telepathy instead of Pyromancy, Da Jump instead of Eadbutt you dumbdumb," in many cases the choice is fairly pointless.

PS: What is life anyway?

Well, the 12 pages that are the "main" rules are utter crap, so there's that.

If you don't like them, that's fine. Not everyone does. That's very different from bloat.

In addition, while the NUMBER of rules isn't something I necessarily hold issue with, the fact that every single one needs its own name I find excessive and detrimental to the game. It should be, for, say, Terminators:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

And then for the Culexus, Eversor, and Vindicare Assassins:

Deep Strike (9")-Infiltrate
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

So that way everyone can share the same naming conventions.

None of this is bloat either. It actually makes the game easier to FAQ. This has been rehashed ad nauseum at this point, but they actually eliminated a lot of USRs. Did they change the names of some? Yes, but now the game is (theoretically) easier to balance. Without rehashing the last ten threads, if 10 units have an ability, and that ability is fine on 8 of them, but OP on the last two, they can now quickly and easily FAQ the specific keywords for those final two units and effect ONLY those two units. They have actually ELIMINATED bloat with this system. Under the old system, they would have modified the ability across the board while causing unintended consequences on the units that were fine before the FAQ. This would have lead to another, similar FAQ that, itself, would likely have needed an adendum. While I haven't agreed with every FAQ they've released, the new system does lead to an easier to "fix" game. Since the USRs are all now on the unit entries anyway, it's all right there in front of you, so I still understand the "bloat" argument. It's just not a criticism you level at this edition.

Part of me wishes that Chapter Tactics didn’t exist. Customization is great and all. But if you get a less than stellar tactic and stratagem, it is actually a penalty. At times I wonder if an undefined Sucessor Chapter would have been a better choice. It would have saved me a lot of money on not buying Chapter specific upgrade options.

 Crimson wrote:
I like the lack of strict weapon LOS. I can glue the guns on my models however I like without accidentally modelling for advantage (or for disadvantage.) Furthermore, it reduces measuring and micromanaging. It's an abstraction, the tank is not actually immobile, it can turn or 'peek' around the corner and fire. Sure, it doesn't make perfect sense in every situation, but such is the case with all abstractions.

This is btw common misconception. 8th ed actually encourages MORE modelling for advantage. Want to maximize survivability? Glue everything as closed and tight as possible. Want to maximize your shootyness? Open up all cupolas, glue guns as wide as possible, even glue antenna if you want(gives you very notable effect boost. Without affecting how much foot print your tank takes you gain notable LOS boost as you have this tall spot from where to measure LOS). Sure you'll be seen more often but for some vehicles it's more important you can fire at will.

8th ed=modelling to advantage better than ever.

Measuring from an antenna? Is that really how things work in matched play land? Do tournament organizers actually allow and encourage this?

Encourage? No. But it's usually permitted.

 Chamberlain wrote:
Measuring from an antenna? Is that really how things work in matched play land? Do tournament organizers actually allow and encourage this?

You measure from any part of model. Of course if tournament organizer creates it's own house rules then that's up to them but then we aren't talking about 8th ed but someone else's custom rulesets.

GW thinks it's too complex to measure from vehicles. End result is that for example this terrain I had on yesterday's HH game is 100% useless for vehicles. Even behind biggest building(flanked by russ and predator) no matter where predator would be deployed and regardless of where I looked sliver of red would be visible so predator would be shot at and shooting at full effect. No effect whatsoever. For LOS&cover everything on that board might just as well not exist. Now while it's about half of terrain I would like(though at least some of sparsiness are on edges where models werent' going to be in any case) so still parse one would expect SOME effect from this amount of terrain but ah well.

For the love of the Emperor base coat your board and terrain at least.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For the love of the Emperor base coat your board and terrain at least.

It's in process. You DO know things don't build and paint on their own? And that some people have this thing called "real life" that involves stuff like "work" and "relatives" that means you can't do painting 24/7 so it might mean that _shock horror_ you either don't play at all or have to accept stage of non-completion for a while.

Sure in dream land all is perfect and everything is painted to stunning level but for some people realities kick in. I have ~1 hour at most for hobby in a day and not rich enough to hire somebody to do the build&paint.

(not to mention I need to buy some stuff to even work and hobby budget for this month is spent)

LOL wow you got very defensive didnt you. Calm down there man dont bust a blood vessel lol.

I didnt say spend large amounts of time or money on it, i said base coat... you know something that takes maybe 1 hour and 2$ to do.... not saying i know your situation, you are making it sound like its going to takes 100's of dollars and hours to put a coat of acrylic paint on them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Measuring from an antenna? Is that really how things work in matched play land? Do tournament organizers actually allow and encourage this?

You measure from any part of model. Of course if tournament organizer creates it's own house rules then that's up to them but then we aren't talking about 8th ed but someone else's custom rulesets.

More and more, I'm coming to believe that many warhammer players are the architects of their own misery.

 Chamberlain wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Measuring from an antenna? Is that really how things work in matched play land? Do tournament organizers actually allow and encourage this?

You measure from any part of model. Of course if tournament organizer creates it's own house rules then that's up to them but then we aren't talking about 8th ed but someone else's custom rulesets.

More and more, I'm coming to believe that many warhammer players are the architects of their own misery.

Totally. If you go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible, you’re not going to have a fun game.

Problem is that the rules are the rules and when the rules say you can measure from any part of the vehicle, putting restrictions on that is house ruling, which is a giant no-no to a lot of people.

What I have learned from Dakk Dakka is a lot of people clearly use 40k as something other then a tool to kick back, roll dice and spend some time with friends.

A lot of people on here take this toy solider game super serious.

Thats true but also been a thing since the internet first came online. Super serious wargaming has always been around, not just on Dakka!

 AaronWilson wrote:
What I have learned from Dakk Dakka is a lot of people clearly use 40k as something other then a tool to kick back, roll dice and spend some time with friends.

A lot of people on here take this toy solider game super serious.

You will notice the ''super seriosity'' also when you attend or watch a tournament.
The hobby is quite expensive and if you want to make some milage out of it, you need to be serious to some extent.

You don’t have to take something seriously to the point of *not actually enjoying it* in order to get something out of it, though. I spend money on little toy moon men in order to have fun. If I didn’t have fun, it wouldn’t feel worthwhile to me. Different strokes for different folks and all, but a lot of people seem to be involved in a hobby which just perpetually bums them out; I can’t see how that’s any good for your mental wellbeing, like.

I am finding that yet again GW loves its SpessMehreens and doesn't give a feth about my Ork army. The astronomical difference in shooting and special rules aside the game was clearly not playtested for my Faction nearly as well as it was for Spess Mehreens. Do space Marines have a unit that is so ridiculously over priced that to even field it is almost like conceding the game to your opponent? Orkz have one.

The only units I have out that I play with in competitive games right now are: Boyz, Stormboyz, Kommandos, Weirdboy, Warboss, Big Mek. I sometimes take out my Painboy and Ghaz, Mek Gunz and even my Banner nob but that is about it.

I have shelved (As in will not be using until the codex comes out) Warbikes, Nob Bikers, Nobz, Deff Koptas, Deff Dreadz, Kanz, Morkanaut, Big Gunz, Trukkz, Battlewagonz, Lootas, Burnas, Flash Gitz, Meganobz, Tankbustas, Dakkajet, Burna Bommer, Blitz Bommer, and my non KMK Mek Gunz.

So overall I feel like GW rushed 8th edition out without properly playtesting most factions and while I realize they did this to speed the release because 7th was a dumpster fire, it doesn't change the fact that it was so unbalanced that a lot of local players either stopped playing until their codex came out or switched to their secondary armies of Space Marines because the Glory boyz definitely got tested and gifted a lot of buffs.

Yeah.

40k players for sure are hellbent on breaking the game and having as little fun as possible.

An example of this in video-gaming is Age of Empires II, where if there is a corner between a wall and a gate the game only registers it as solid in a few instances, rather than always like it is supposed to. So a builder can build through the corner of the walls, and if he builds a tower or something else with garrison ability (like a castle) he can garrison through the wall and disembark into the enemy base without ever having attacked him and alerting him that this is the case.

This could cripple the Arena ('everyone has walls') competitive play scene for AOE2 but it doesn't because people recognize it's stupid and generally don't do it.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
What I have learned from Dakk Dakka is a lot of people clearly use 40k as something other then a tool to kick back, roll dice and spend some time with friends.

A lot of people on here take this toy solider game super serious.

You will notice the ''super seriosity'' also when you attend or watch a tournament.
The hobby is quite expensive and if you want to make some milage out of it, you need to be serious to some extent.

Got to disagree with you here matey, but I'll throw some context in.

I run a local games club, we're up to about 200 active members on FB and around 15-20 per tuesday night (The night we meet) in total we probably have... 20-30 40k players most of them play regularly. None of them take it seriously, we all play armies because we like the story / look of them and are often happy to let cool things go in a game because it looks cool it makes a good story. Most players in the club have played 40k for 5+ years and we've all enjoyed every game as well as painting, building and sharing our progress with the armies.

As a flipside, I also play Guildball and I'm ranked 30th in the world. I'd go as far to say I take this game seriously. I've attended events in Spain & Germany and I'm from the U.K and it looks like I'll be playing for Team England at the Guildball & Warmahordes World Team Championship this year. Even then, at the of the day when the game is said and done it's just toy soldiers. I try damn hard in games, I play a lot and I practice hard but it won't change my life. I won't win any life points when my life ends and I won't lose any if I lost a million games.

I don't mind taking something seriously but I think a lot of people could do with taking a step back at looking at what really matters. The only thing different from when a game starts to finish is the time on the clock. 99.9% of games played just don't matter, you're not playing for a new hourse, for a million dollars /pounds or for a life changing event. The only thing that ultimately matters is the time spend inside that game, so just enjoy it.

Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

Can't be bothered with debating the semantics of one player wants to do and another play doesn't, that sounds like a amazing waste of time. Measure from whatever you and your opponent agree on and move on, it's plastic models shooting imaginary guns at each.

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

Can't be bothered with debating the semantics of one player wants to do and another play doesn't, that sounds like a amazing waste of time. Measure from whatever you and your opponent agree on and move on, it's plastic models shooting imaginary guns at each.

(I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the super serious crowd).

Though depending on how the tank moved the turn before, etc, I actually don't mind the 'firing from aerials' thing as it also means I can fire back, and they may not even get a cover save. That's really all I ask for: be consistent. If your antenna can shoot me, I can shoot you. Since I can see a part of the model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

Can't be bothered with debating the semantics of one player wants to do and another play doesn't, that sounds like a amazing waste of time. Measure from whatever you and your opponent agree on and move on, it's plastic models shooting imaginary guns at each.

(I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the super serious crowd).

Though depending on how the tank moved the turn before, etc, I actually don't mind the 'firing from aerials' thing as it also means I can fire back, and they may not even get a cover save. That's really all I ask for: be consistent. If your antenna can shoot me, I can shoot you. Since I can see a part of the model.

It's 8th, if you can fire from the front corner armor plating why not fire from the aerial? It's any point on the vehicle so go ahead.

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

Can't be bothered with debating the semantics of one player wants to do and another play doesn't, that sounds like a amazing waste of time. Measure from whatever you and your opponent agree on and move on, it's plastic models shooting imaginary guns at each.

(I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the super serious crowd).

Though depending on how the tank moved the turn before, etc, I actually don't mind the 'firing from aerials' thing as it also means I can fire back, and they may not even get a cover save. That's really all I ask for: be consistent. If your antenna can shoot me, I can shoot you. Since I can see a part of the model.

It's 8th, if you can fire from the front corner armor plating why not fire from the aerial? It's any point on the vehicle so go ahead.

Right, that was kind of my point. It's like a Riptide firing from it's tiny sensor-pod "head" or a guardsman shooting out of his knee. As long as there's not some kind of double-standard at work that prevents me from firing back, then it's not a problem.

Blobhammer has been around since 2nd edition.

Cards have been around since 2nd edition (Surprise Assault anyone?). Psychic power cards.

Herohammer has been around since 2nd edition.

Multi-wound weapons is just a return to a 2nd edition mechanic.

AP is again, just a return to a 2nd edition mechanic.

The "new" vehicle rules is a return to first edition, minus the firing arcs, which were annoying anyways (opinion, not fact!).

Almost everything that's being complained about in this thread existed in some form in a previous edition.

It all cycles folks, we'll probably get stupid vehicle rules back next edition I'm sure.

Also, if you don't expect to go first, don't put everything on the table, judicious application and use of deep strike can dramatically reduce your vulnerability to alpha strikes.

The tools are available to mitigate the effects of virtually everything being complained about in this thread.

I actually do have a problem with the "don't put everything on the table" argument, TPT, because (for some inconceivable reason) a unit has to have a rule allowing it to be in reserve before it can be placed in reserve.

This means that if your valuable unit is e.g. a Baneblade, you either have to bend over backwards to put it in reserve (your entire regiment is now Tallarn, and you have to spend 3CP, and it has to drive on sideways, and god help you if you brought a model with oversize sponsons like a Lucius pattern baneblade!) or you just don't get to and it can be alpha'd.

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah aaron but not measuring from radio aerials is a house rule, you know.

Can't be bothered with debating the semantics of one player wants to do and another play doesn't, that sounds like a amazing waste of time. Measure from whatever you and your opponent agree on and move on, it's plastic models shooting imaginary guns at each.

(I was being sarcastic and poking fun at the super serious crowd).

Though depending on how the tank moved the turn before, etc, I actually don't mind the 'firing from aerials' thing as it also means I can fire back, and they may not even get a cover save. That's really all I ask for: be consistent. If your antenna can shoot me, I can shoot you. Since I can see a part of the model.

It's 8th, if you can fire from the front corner armor plating why not fire from the aerial? It's any point on the vehicle so go ahead.

I thought that FAQ from the designers commentary meant that we are actually back to what counts as part of the model from older editions. But probably that's a case of houseruling being that reasonable that I forgot what the actual rulebook-ruling says.

Q: When a model does not have a base,
as is the case with many vehicles, what
exactly is the ‘hull’ of the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to
the main body of the model. It does not
include things such as turrets, sponsons,
aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is still
doubt, we recommend both players agree
about what constitutes the hull of such
models before the battle begins.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually do have a problem with the "don't put everything on the table" argument, TPT, because (for some inconceivable reason) a unit has to have a rule allowing it to be in reserve before it can be placed in reserve.

This means that if your valuable unit is e.g. a Baneblade, you either have to bend over backwards to put it in reserve (your entire regiment is now Tallarn, and you have to spend 3CP, and it has to drive on sideways, and god help you if you brought a model with oversize sponsons like a Lucius pattern baneblade!) or you just don't get to and it can be alpha'd.

I would argue that if you're fielding a Baneblade, you can probably arrange the rest of your army in such a way as to get your drop count down to the point where you'd probably get the bonus to go first.

However, I understand where you're coming from, obviously your mileage may vary as they say.

Most Codex armies at least at this point have ways to put their most important units out of harm's way for the first turn if they're really concerned about it, otherwise, you're taking your chances. If I build an army that's going to make use of Super-Heavies I usually build to limit my drop count and give myself an advantage on the roll, if not, I build enough redundancy or deep strike potential into the list that not going first isn't going to ruin the game for me, yeah, I might lose, but proper use of deep strike can insure that even in a loss you still get to stomp around and enjoy a few glorious moments.

^ there's that too, though that's even weirder because it prevents tanks from going hull down. Like, if the tank is dug in so that the turret is the only thing visible... then it can't see anything and can't fire at all.

GW pls! (in reference to the turrets not counting for line of sight)

As for TPT's comment - you missed my point. It's not that one cannot build a reserve army. It's that locking people into specific units or playstyles or builds is bad. And a +1 to the roll to go first is unhelpful; it's not even a 20% increase. You'll still go second in quite a few games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for TPT's comment - you missed my point. It's not that one cannot build a reserve army. It's that locking people into specific units or playstyles or builds is bad. And a +1 to the roll to go first is unhelpful; it's not even a 20% increase. You'll still go second in quite a few games.

No I got your point, and to be fair, you're not locked into anything. You can build an army that puts everything on the table in turn 1, doesn't plan for the +1 bonus (which I have found to be immensely useful, again YMMV) and still mitigates alpha strike. Minimum squad sizes, liberal distribution of weapons, etc. I just feel sometimes people build lists according to what they want to see on the table without thinking ahead to the mechanical consequences of how they built their lists, then they get pissed off and think they've been pigeon-holed by the rules, when in reality they simply failed to consider the consequences of their choices. This is not meant to be a dig at anyone, but simply to point out that nothing's being hidden from you here, the mechanics are out there, you can build lists with them in mind or you can build lists and ignore them and see how it goes.

I often build my lists to try to go first, I don't always get the roll, but honestly, I go first a lot more than I go second. It can be pretty rough when I don't get the first turn, but I've always enjoyed win-big/lose-big lists because the game is over one way or another quickly and I can get on to another game, also, I hate hordes, so much, my back hates them, my feet hate them, so I accept the consequences of how my lists are built with regards to the rules.

The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

Like, I don't understand players who get upset that they didn't bring enough anti-tank weapons; that's a real problem armies face in the fluff. But going first is just a mechanical, purely irrelevant thing, that has little basis in the fluff and only exists because someone "has to" go first. So building an army around that feels equally gamey and mechanical and not-at-all related to how armies function in the fluff.

Tell me how well Gaunt's Ghosts would endure if at Necropolis they had to hold their firepower until the enemy was done moving, getting into position, firing, setting up, and charging, and then they could shoot but only hit 1/3rd as many times as normal, and then they weren't allowed to hurt anyone until the enemy had swung first, because chargers always go first...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

I get it, but I also think GW is legitimately trying to mitigate the problem. Alternating activations has proven to be difficult to implement at best (drags the game out way too long, creates problems with sequencing and powers, etc.), and they've decided that instead of completely re-working the game for something like that, they put rules in place to allow players to mitigate the downside of going second.

To a certain extent, yes, it's a bit of 'adapt or die', but the game rules are always going to create exigencies in army construction or strategy, but I think that's unavoidable outside of turning the game into a tactical RPG like they tried to do in 1st edition.

Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

Agreed, not sure why this went away this edition, I suspect some of the fast moving armies use of this mechanic was causing some issues, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this change.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

I get it, but I also think GW is legitimately trying to mitigate the problem. Alternating activations has proven to be difficult to implement at best (drags the game out way too long, creates problems with sequencing and powers, etc.), and they've decided that instead of completely re-working the game for something like that, they put rules in place to allow players to mitigate the downside of going second.

Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

Honestly, I suspect you've probably hit on the primary issue right there. As for dragging it out, I think that's almost unavoidable, as the activation decision becomes much more nuanced in that situation and has to be considered more carefully.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

Honestly, I suspect you've probably hit on the primary issue right there. As for dragging it out, I think that's almost unavoidable, as the activation decision becomes much more nuanced in that situation and has to be considered more carefully.

Honestly, given the choice between a game taking longer because I am having to make careful play decisions, versus fiddling with unit auras, stratagem lookup, rerolling buckets of rerolls...there are plenty of other areas that could easily be simplified/abstracted down.

*Incoming block of text*

In order for me to grade 8th ed, I have three criteria...

1. Lore. To me, the lore started off pretty decent with Gathering Storm. Now, I'm not blind to how fast they pumped out the birth of a god or the resurrection of Gulliman, but I'm willing to let that slide. However, the Imperium right now hasn't changed much. The whole thing about chaos being the big baddy this edition hasn't really shown. If anything, it's the Imperium that's creating all the talks. I feel like the lore is a bit underwhelming. They really need to give chaos and the Xenos something that the Imperium doesn't. What made the Great Crusade so amazing is that it was the Imperium's counter-attack and it felt grand. The imperium in the lore today don't have anything big that's threatening them. I mean, the Eldar don't pose much a threat, chaos got slapped around and the Xenos are....well...Xenos. Then we have Gulliman... I think he really needs more character. The problem with him and the primaris don't understand the concept of sacrifice. In the Horus Heresy, Calth and Ultramar got ruined and Gulliman had to make some tough choices when he made imperium secundus. In 40k, he just wins battles and that's it. They don't make the good guys relatable. The hardest choice Guilliman had to make in the lore was the plague wars. The 500 worlds were subjugated by Nurgle's plague and it required Gulliman to fix it, however, he needed to return to Terra and help the rest of the Imperium out, so he sacrificed his precious worlds for the greater good. But even then, it was 2 lines in the codex and not much after that. If they made the imperium lose a lot of battles then it would make them more appealing fluff-wise. The Xenos and chaos need some love. We get that the Imperium is stagnant and they are in the gutter but we don't have any proof of that factually. We don't know how bad it causes the lore keeps telling us that Gulliman is winning battles. Then there are other things... DA accepting Primaris should not be a thing. The Baal thing shouldn't have ended in such an abrupt way. What about Cypher? He just fell off at the end of gathering storm. There still are glaring plot holes and they would rather hint at the return of the next primarch than fix them.

2. Rules. I like it. I like that it's simple and easy to understand, it got my friends into the game. I am starting to get a bit bored with the game, however. I feel like there aren't enough factions to make the game have more variety. The Xenos should really have been one the first ones to get a codex, and this is a marine player talking. I also don't like the idea of the soup armies. The biggest reason why 7th flopped for me was that you could play multiple armies at once, it kills the game for me. I also feel that the psychic phase got watered down to the point to where it could be included in the shooting phase since its so significant IMO. Smite is a bit too much for me, and I'm tired of the game is reliant on HQs and Elites that buff your army, I understand that it creates synergy but I don't want my army to crumble because I didn't put enough points into my heroes.

3. Models. To me, this is the big one. The old daemon prince model is what got me into the game. Chaos used to look scary and menacing, something out of a horror movie, LOOK AT THE DAEMON PRINCE...it was amazing. Now, Chaos looks like a cartoon. The Nurgle stuff especially... I thought death guard was supposed to be self-loathing and bland, now they are bright and happy. The colors are bright something I expected for Tzeentch or Slaanesh, not Nurgle. The new GUO model just makes me sad a little, especially the one with the bell. The primaris marines have grown on me but the repulsor, redpemptor and the inceptors are still ugly to me and the super heavy is an abomination. I also don't understand why imperium is getting all the bells and whistles while the ork and Eldar haven't had a large update in a while... I don't like the route GW is going with models and their price point is...well GW

Thats my 2 cents on things right now....

I like 8th edition. I like the models, the incredible release schedule, the community website. etc. I do find myself visiting forums less as I find the constant entitled, complaining and crying from smelly neck-beards to be too much.

GW always had problems with the kind of person it appeals to. 8th edition has seen an increase in the volume of a small minority of the worst kind of players. Thankfully they are easily avoided, know very little, aren't worth paying attention to and are not reflective of anything other than their own jaded, points of view.

Nazrak wrote:You don’t have to take something seriously to the point of *not actually enjoying it* in order to get something out of it, though. I spend money on little toy moon men in order to have fun. If I didn’t have fun, it wouldn’t feel worthwhile to me. Different strokes for different folks and all, but a lot of people seem to be involved in a hobby which just perpetually bums them out; I can’t see how that’s any good for your mental wellbeing, like.

Little toy moon men! I once played a wargame where the Free World Coalition was fighting off a invasion of Moon Base Copernicus from the Soviet Space Force. The little toy moon men had nuclear mortars. It was just a bunch of random sci-fi miniatures, but it was hilarious.

auticus wrote:Problem is that the rules are the rules and when the rules say you can measure from any part of the vehicle, putting restrictions on that is house ruling, which is a giant no-no to a lot of people.

Hence my comment that many players are the architects of their own misery. I've always seen any wargame rules, just like any roleplaying game rules, as something you adapt to the group you are playing with. If that means I'm not playing "real 8th edition" but some other game, I'm proud that I'm choosing enjoyment over strict adherence to a written code.

And if someone actually feels like they've made some grand point that you have to fix 8th edition in order to enjoy it, I'd say sure. If by fix you mean not "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible," to quote Nazrak.

I get the appeal of having a common approach where you just show up and play a game with a stranger and you both have the same rules in mind going in, but we've found when a new person comes to our weekly club night that the approach isn't hard for them to puzzle out.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

Page 191 of the rulebook:

"If a mission uses Reserves, it will detail which units in your army start the game in Reserve – these units are not deployed with the rest of your army. [...] The mission will explain how and where to set up units when they arrive from Reserve – typically within a short distance of a specified edge of the battlefield."

Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

I get tired of facing the same units spammed ad nauseam.

Oh you brought a ton of dark reapers? Cool, I guess.
Oh you have a ton of mortars? Cool, I guess.
Oh you've got chaos Super Friends? Cool, I guess.

The meta is like 3-4 dominant lists. Sometimes other lists can do okay but that's going to be based on the draw.

I was skeptical of the force organization rules at first, and now i'm ready to throw them out. The detachments were a good idea, but they make it far too easy to spam.

Fact is, each detachment should have a required troop count, and it should be higher. Of course the problem is that Imperial Guard will just laugh at any force org changes, because everything is so effective and so cheap.

Still can't get enough of people complaining about IG mortars...who'd have ever thought...


That said, there's a reason IG had the platoon structure before, because their units were numerous and cheap and didnt quite fit the old FOC paradigm. Between GW abandoning that feature and splitting characters off from command squads to buy alone, it does make IG much more easily able to manipulate the current force org system.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Cool?

The reasons why people restrict themselves to only matched play doesn't change the fact that narrative play has a solution for the particular problem one gamer was having with reserve rules. The fact that people have reasons they choose not to solve the problem doesn't mean it doesn't have a solution.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Not shoot from the antenna of a tank and suddenly you're defined out of the game itself.

Hows this for an alternate interpretation of the situation:

Actually we are following the rules verbatim. We are simply electing not to shoot at that particular target. The rules don't say you have to use a certain decision making criteria when choosing your units and targets and if we want to not take shots because the only line of site involves an antenna, that's our choice.

Person 1: 8th has been great and we play every week and love it.
Person 2: The game has serious problems and I don't enjoy it!
Person 1: There may be differences in our approach that are causing your lack of enjoyment
Person 3: Your different approach means you don't even count as playing 8th! Get out of here!

And yet I'm going to go play my weekly game and have a great time while many hear are dissatisfied with their 8th edition experience. And the complaints seem to have an easily identifiable common denominator. A Nazrak put it: "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible, you’re not going to have a fun game."

 Marmatag wrote:
I get tired of facing the same units spammed ad nauseam.

Oh you brought a ton of dark reapers? Cool, I guess.
Oh you have a ton of mortars? Cool, I guess.
Oh you've got chaos Super Friends? Cool, I guess.

The meta is like 3-4 dominant lists. Sometimes other lists can do okay but that's going to be based on the draw.

I was skeptical of the force organization rules at first, and now i'm ready to throw them out. The detachments were a good idea, but they make it far too easy to spam.

Fact is, each detachment should have a required troop count, and it should be higher. Of course the problem is that Imperial Guard will just laugh at any force org changes, because everything is so effective and so cheap.

I think each faction should have a unique detachment within their own codex, and have less detachments in the core rulebook.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

You would probably actually hate tournament chess. Rule 14H is a hilarious chess rule that requires the interpretation of a judge at the table just to be used, for example, and is essentially entirely subjective, with the point being for the two players to talk it out with the judge given possible moves and textbook chess draw-states and try to convince the judge to rule in their favor.

Because pure RAW is bad, and most games (yes, even chess!) recognize that having a watertight RAW is essentially impossible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

You would probably actually hate tournament chess. Rule 14H is a hilarious chess rule that requires the interpretation of a judge at the table just to be used, for example, and is essentially entirely subjective, with the point being for the two players to talk it out with the judge given possible moves and textbook chess draw-states and try to convince the judge to rule in their favor.

Because pure RAW is bad, and most games (yes, even chess!) recognize that having a watertight RAW is essentially impossible.

You're thinking of 10.2 in FIDE. 14H in USCF states that the "insufficient losing chances" clause does not apply if both players have increment-capable chess clocks. Likewise, 14E specifies scenarios that would otherwise be "insufficient material to win on time" would be viewed as a draw (FIDE chess clarifies certain material draws as wins/losses based on the ability to helpmate with remaining piece, given theoretically infinite playtime).

Either way, the RAW there deals not with chess itself, but the actual tournament logistics. I don't need a FAQ to define what exactly is an En Passant, whether I can Castle with a Pawn promoted to a Rook, etc. I can write a chess game batrep in algebraic notation, and chess problems are a cornerstone of developing smarter computers.

But it's still written into the rules of tournament chess.

Think of it this way: There's Narrative and Matched 40k, just like there's casual and tournament chess.

Following the matched play rules even in non-matched-play situations is like following the tournament rules of chess even if you're playing with a magnet-board on the airplane with your dad.

So sorry, dad, I invoke 10.2 on our flight to New Hampshire. So let's call the judge over, because RAW says it needs interpretation.

 Stormonu wrote:
I've had only a couple games of it, but prefer it to prior editions. It has its issues, though.

My son and I have only been playing with the Indexes (I have no desire to buy another round after having bought the 5E and 6E/7E codexes in the past), and only 1,000 points games - the idea was to ramp up to 2,000 but after our experiences I don't expect to be be playing more than 1,250 at most.

Certainly won't be migrating to 9E when it comes out. Like their models, but I feel I can write better rules than they can.

If you only play with your son, I would say do so. Me and my son lost interest in 40K, and when I made up new rules he liked playing 40K again with me. As he grew older he lost interest in it, Magic became his thing. So change the rules to what you and your son will enjoy. You and your son will really have a great time. It helped me and my son till he grew out of it sadly.

 Chamberlain wrote:
And the complaints seem to have an easily identifiable common denominator. A Nazrak put it: "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible, you’re not going to have a fun game."

Yes, well, jackholes are often the common denominator to a terrible experience, I think that applies to any version of the game, or life, or driving, or ordering at a restaurant.

I'm just saying that if you've abandoned 8th edition rules, then this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience.

At the same time, if you value tournament play, then matched play is the paradigm that will govern the majority of your experience in the game.

That being said, I should probably try some narrative play, if I can find the time to do so.

I don't believe I have abandoned 8th edition rules. I think it's silly to claim so.

There's nothing "not 8th edition" about
- talking with your opponent about the game beforehand
- doing open and narrative play
- doing custom scenarios
- electing not to shoot at a target vehicle when only an antenna is visible or at a target infantry if only a sword tip held aloft is visible.

There's nothing inherently 8th edition 40k about always choosing the most advantageous option like shooting to and from antennae because you technically can. It is totally within 8th editions ruleset to shoot at targets or not for whatever reasons you choose (including narrative ones).

I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

 Crimson wrote:
I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

Well, I guess you've "abandoned 8th edition rules" then and "this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience."

 Crimson wrote:
I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

No its like: ''The chain of my tank can see the chain of your tank. So I shoot you''. Very smart rule.

8th is great, for a GW game. Elbows sums it up nicely:

Elbows wrote:I'll preface my answer with the following: What are you looking for in a tabletop wargame?

If you're looking for a tightly designed, balanced wargame which is suitable for tournaments and competitive random-play against strangers...Warhammer 40K is not a good game. It's never been suited to that. Ever.

Alternatively...

If you're looking for a good, fun ruleset to play with likeminded buddies to have a good time pushing some models around and enjoying making "pew pew" sounds and rolling some dice? Warhammer 40K, 8th edition is the best version in a long time.

8th is far better and the actual practical playing is much easier. It's still 40k though; feels like playing 40k in comparison to other wargames and still has all the issues GW games have. I find that this edition is amazing for those who liked 7th despite the rules and not what those who are weary of GW were hoping for.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

"Write unambiguous RAW" is one of those 'easier said than done' things. My friends and I have argued about rule interpretations from Yahtzee, and there are people murdering each other about the interpretation of rules (ostensibly) given to us by God! If God can't write clear, unambiguous RAW, then I'm afraid you're asking a bit much from GW.

Not getting into religion. On good writing though: It's not easy; I'm busy entering a career where writing is a big part of what we do and it has to be precise (scientist); it's expected of all of us though. We can't afford to be ambiguous or confusing, we define all our terms and we are judged on the exact words we write. I wouldn't expect that standard in a text, on a forum or even in many professional contexts.
In a profession that involves accurately conveying meaning though; damn right I do. GW rules writers are supposed to be fething professionals; if I got gak like this from a student they would get a red line through it..

Hoodwink wrote:You are comparing a codex to an index. The codex will assuredly be better 99% of the time. Everyone knows Orks are in a bad spot right now but they are running their index and no codex, and GW is very aware of the issues with Orks right now. I really don't see them being bottom tier after the codex drops. The codex drops have been pretty good so far in terms of overall power. It's never going to be perfect but it's been quite good. Every army is able to compete to a degree. The worst codex so far is pretty decisively Grey Knights, BUT they are made primarily as an anti-daemon army. They do it quite well and I really feel they are an absolutely beast detachment army for your primary army.

This is why I've seen many people walk away after dusting off old armies for 8th. Why should there be a difference? Why is it that 40k is always broken, but the next edition or FAQ will fix the game; the codex or supplement will fix your army? We've come to realise that this is what GW games are like and the direction they are going. It's fun if you don't take it too seriously, but if it's not your thing then you are better off moving on to games that fit you; complaining at GW will not make it the game you want if you don't love it already and the next edition or codex will not either.

 Chamberlain wrote:


Well, I guess you've "abandoned 8th edition rules" then and "this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience."

That's a slightly disingenuous interpretation of what I was saying, but in reviewing the exchange, perhaps not entirely unfair.

To clarify, if you're making up your own rules for your group then you've effectively demonstrated, by your actions, that you do not like the rules and choose to play by your own, at which point, this conversation doesn't really relate to your experience anymore. That was the gist of what I took from your post, but in review, perhaps that's not what you explicitly stated, regardless, it was the impression I was left with.

But interpret as you will.

I opened the BRB and immediately thought, where the Hell are the rest of the rules?

Got to get out of 7th mentality.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
I opened the BRB and immediately thought, where the Hell are the rest of the rules?

Got to get out of 7th mentality.

Speaking of which I love the rulebook, but why oh why are the rules almost but not quite n the center? They really need to put them at the end or the beginning since that's the only part of the book I'll need during gameplay.

I gave this topic some thought last night and realized I forgot to touch on the positives of 8th. One of my favorite things in this edition is the limits set on army creation... there is none! It allows me to create a super fluffy inquisition list by cherry picking units from other codex's (some ad mech, some scions, some flagellants, etc.) I can see how this would/could be abused but I love it. I also love not having to scour the BRB for USR's anymore. Everything is in the unit profile, it's so easy! and lastly and possibly most of all I like how tough vehicles are now. No more blowing up my landraider with one lucky lascannon.

Toughness of vehicles is a very difficult topic. My ork trukks went down in toughness and overall usefullness while costing 2.5 times more. 10-10-10 open-topped 3 HP with working cover saves is somewhat tougher than t6 w10 4+ without cover saves (and you never get them now) that we get now. Especially since it's so easy to chew through with lots and lots of medium antitank.

And the worst thing is that trukks are more expensive than boyz they bring. Yet they don't offer much in terms of mobility - still 2-d turn charge at best - and protection - any balanced shooty list kills any trukk it wants and you can do nothing about it.

 koooaei wrote:
Toughness of vehicles is a very difficult topic. My ork trukks went down in toughness and overall usefullness while costing 2.5 times more. 10-10-10 open-topped 3 HP with working cover saves is somewhat tougher than t6 w10 4+ without cover saves (and you never get them now) that we get now. Especially since it's so easy to chew through with lots and lots of medium antitank.

And the worst thing is that trukks are more expensive than boyz they bring. Yet they don't offer much in terms of mobility - still 2-d turn charge at best - and protection - any balanced shooty list kills any trukk it wants and you can do nothing about it.

I cant relate, My Dark Eldar transports went up in cost but now have 5-10 wounds and can take more than a disappointing glance. I can get units where they need to be by round 2-3 without suffering casualties. I imagine if you brought a few trucks you would expirience similar success, and to piggy back on my point earlier, in 7th, one lascannon could blow up that truk, in 8th, that's impossible.

Right, but it took, on average...

(5/6)*(1/6)=13.89% chance of blowing up per Lascannon shot.

Assuming no explosions, it takes...

4.5 Lascannon shots hitting on 3s to kill a Trukk. Accounting for explosions, the average is probably around 4, as an estimate.

In 8th, it takes (3.5)*(2/3)*(2/3)*(X)>10, for X=6.4 Lascannons on average to kill it. That's about a 60% increase in durability, but I believe they approximately tripled in points?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but it took, on average...

(5/6)*(1/6)=13.89% chance of blowing up per Lascannon shot.

Assuming no explosions, it takes...

4.5 Lascannon shots hitting on 3s to kill a Trukk. Accounting for explosions, the average is probably around 4, as an estimate.

In 8th, it takes (3.5)*(2/3)*(2/3)*(X)>10, for X=6.4 Lascannons on average to kill it. That's about a 60% increase in durability, but I believe they approximately tripled in points?

Don't forget they can fight in close combat now (and couldn't before) and probably only took 3 lascannon shots to die before, not just 4.5. Because of Hull points.

A lascannon cannot fail to hurt at truck, so it died after 3 hits, period, regardless of whether it exploded or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ADDENDUM:
Also your math is off, because Trukks are Open Topped and Lascannons are AP2, meaning they explode on a 5+, not a 6.

Ah, my bad!

And it takes 4.5 shots on average (down to 4 or so, form Explosions) because you have to HIT.

It is only 3 Lascannon HITS to kill a Trukk, 7th, but more shots.

Why measure based on Lascannon shots for a kill instead of Scatter Laser shots? I saw a lot more Trukks in 7th die to Scatter Lasers than Lascannons.

And Lasscannons are like... the "to-go" anti tank weapon in the game.
The increment in durability from 7th to 8th is not well perceived comparing the durability of the vehicle vs Lasscannons.

You need to compare the difference with mid-strenght HROF weapons, that where the ones used in 7th to actually kill vehicles. And vs those vehicles are MUCH tougther now.

did you count in cover? It was pretty easy to get at least 5+ in earlier editions.

Many transport vehicles are painfully overpriced on the whole in 8E, Wave Serpents of course being the primary perennial exception.

Devilfish, Chimeras, Trukks, Raiders, etc are all really difficult to justify using in many if not most instances, they all could use some liberal discounting because as of right now im just not seeing them on the table much. I can't imagine where I'd use a Chimera with the current IG book, despite its other strengths.

Vehicle resiliency in 8E is...odd. GW flattened a lot of resiliency differences. A Russ, Predator and Rhino are all roughly about as resilient, particularly againsr really big or high RoF weapons in 8E, whereas in 3E-7E there was a much greater disparity in their respective resiliency across weapon types. Overall GW has increased vehicle reailiency against weapons like Scatterlasers, but vehicles are now much more vulnerable to small arms and big guns cut through medium and heavy armor much easier than they used to (in terms of average number of shots to score a kill).