A year has passed since 8th edition. Is this is the best edition released so far for tabletop gamers? Here are my reasons to think so:

+ There is a better balance between armies. Aside from the Primarchs which are a bit OP at the moment, as well as AM and Daemons, the game is not going to be decided the moment you see your opponent's list. No more ridiculous formations. Armies must be more diverse now to win instead of playing 6 Flyrants or 5 Riptides. The removal of fixed cover saves was a good idea to prevent using Shroud on units that can Jink.

+ Wiping out entire opponent's army is more difficult. Games tend to last until the end rather than one side getting tabled completely. This means taking objectives is more important now.

+ Armies are more diverse now with different sub-factions within each army, unlike in 7th where sub-factions mainly exist within the Space Marine umbrella.

+ Plastic Sisters of Battle are coming.

Unfortunately, the lore has been butchered a lot. Primaris Marines look good on the table but are a stain in the fluff. I hope GW will ultimately get their gak together on this.

Have you been enjoying 8th edition so far?

No, it's not 4th edition.

However, it's vastly superior to anything 6th and 7th could have dreamed of.

Yeah, Primaris Marines are a blight upon the fluff when things like Space Wolves doing whatever they want exist, huh?

8th is alright but it can be better. So basically just like every other edition.

I consider it the worst edition by far, and one of the worst games produced currently.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I consider it the worst edition by far, and one of the worst games produced currently.

Then you never played 7th. Anyone who thinks 7th is better than 8th is wrong.

To paraphrase Yahtzee, I'd have thought GW would want us to forget about 7th Edition 40k. Nobody likes 7th Edition 40k. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong.

Yep. Best edition.
I liked 3rd and 5th but the codexes finally broke them both.

To prevent that, we are playing 500-1000 pt games only and you can play with index or even the dark imperium booklet-dex if you want.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Yep. Best edition.
I liked 3rd and 5th but the codexes finally broke them both.

To prevent that, we are playing 500-1000 pt games only and you can play with index or even the dark imperium booklet-dex if you want.

That is just a silly thing to do. Why not go back to 3rd edition back of the rulebook lists then? Codexes are fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Yep. Best edition.
I liked 3rd and 5th but the codexes finally broke them both.

To prevent that, we are playing 500-1000 pt games only and you can play with index or even the dark imperium booklet-dex if you want.

That is just a silly thing to do. Why not go back to 3rd edition back of the rulebook lists then? Codexes are fine.

MOST codexes are fine. there are as always the odd outlier. but even then 90% of the time they're only broken when someone goes out of their way to break it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I consider it the worst edition by far, and one of the worst games produced currently.

Then you never played 7th. Anyone who thinks 7th is better than 8th is wrong.

To paraphrase Yahtzee, I'd have thought GW would want us to forget about 7th Edition 40k. Nobody likes 7th Edition 40k. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong.

nope, actually enjoy 7th edition, its not objectively wrong. Don't have to agree if you dont want to.

3rd with the back of the book codexs was awesome and that's what the 8th ed. rulebook should have been instead of the expensive 'get you by until the codex' books. But whatever. I like some things, but I wish they'd just stayed with points instead of the multiple list making styles. But it is better then 7th. It's not a perfect game by far it's like D&D 4th ed. in a lot of ways with the changes, but like D&D 4th ed. It's still not as fun as 3rd edition.

And let's face it 9th will be out in what 2019- early 2020? So not really sure I want to plunge 100% into this again. Made that mistake with 7th and I'm stuck with stuff I can't even move off my shelves.

Did you honestly think 7th edition was going to exist forever? I've got books from 3rd I can't use, woe is me. The 6th-7th cycle of replacing the ruleset was not typical. 3rd and 4th had 6 years between them, 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th had 4 years apeace.

I highly doubt 9th ed will come in 2019, since GW is willing to change rules and points via errata and chapter approved now. Once all the codexes come out there will probably be mini-dexes, or a re-release of the Space Marine codex.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I consider it the worst edition by far, and one of the worst games produced currently.

Then you never played 7th. Anyone who thinks 7th is better than 8th is wrong.

To paraphrase Yahtzee, I'd have thought GW would want us to forget about 7th Edition 40k. Nobody likes 7th Edition 40k. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong.

nope, actually enjoy 7th edition, its not objectively wrong. Don't have to agree if you dont want to.

Do you have any points in favor of 7th edition being good beyond just "its fun"? I enjoy eating dirt for breakfast but that doesnt mean dirt is a nutritious and healthy meal just because my feelings say so.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I consider it the worst edition by far, and one of the worst games produced currently.

Then you never played 7th. Anyone who thinks 7th is better than 8th is wrong.

To paraphrase Yahtzee, I'd have thought GW would want us to forget about 7th Edition 40k. Nobody likes 7th Edition 40k. If you think you did, you're wrong! It's like saying you enjoy listening to someone singing completely out of tune or reading a book whose pages are covered in brownsauce; I know it's your opinion, but your opinion is just wrong.

nope, actually enjoy 7th edition, its not objectively wrong. Don't have to agree if you dont want to.

Do you have any points in favor of 7th edition being good beyond just "its fun"? I enjoy eating dirt for breakfast but that doesnt mean dirt is a nutritious and healthy meal just because my feelings say so.

Its not going to matter to you what I enjoy about it, but without going into long detail, I like the terrain rules, I vastly prefer how the vehicles worked.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not going to matter to you what I enjoy about it, but without going into long detail, I like the terrain rules, I vastly prefer how the vehicles worked.

Yes, it was far superior when I came across an army of 3 knights that 99% of my army could not wound. Or having my Land Raider be blown up by a single Lascannon shot when I was going second. I see now that 7th was the superior game system!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did you honestly think 7th edition was going to exist forever? I've got books from 3rd I can't use, woe is me. The 6th-7th cycle of replacing the ruleset was not typical. 3rd and 4th had 6 years between them, 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th had 4 years apeace.

Yes, it was far superior when I came across an army of 3 knights that 99% of my army could not wound. I see now that 7th was the superior game system!

Not what I'm getting at, And nostalgia/collectors/etc, will eat up 3rd ed. codexs if you sell them. I have a bunch of 7th material for sell or trade and it doesn't even get a sniff. It's a hated system.

Also 1-2 was 6 years
2-3 5 years
3-4 6 years
4-5 4 years
5-6 4 years
6-7 2 years
7-8 3 years

There's hic ups sure, but don't tell me with a straight face 8-9 will make it past even 4. Mark my words 9th will be here by 2020 and if not 2019.

Also knights, and superheavies should have never been allowed into the main game. And kept sectioned off with a points ceiling, a la what X-wing does with Epic. You shouldn't have to even face ONE knight until 3000+ points games.

And flyers should just be skimmers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not going to matter to you what I enjoy about it, but without going into long detail, I like the terrain rules, I vastly prefer how the vehicles worked.

Yes, it was far superior when I came across an army of 3 knights that 99% of my army could not wound. I see now that 7th was the superior game system!

compared to the show half game you have now, yep.

I prefer 7th, so to the thread title? No.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did you honestly think 7th edition was going to exist forever? I've got books from 3rd I can't use, woe is me. The 6th-7th cycle of replacing the ruleset was not typical. 3rd and 4th had 6 years between them, 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th had 4 years apeace.

Yes, it was far superior when I came across an army of 3 knights that 99% of my army could not wound. I see now that 7th was the superior game system!

Not what I'm getting at, And nostalgia/collectors/etc, will eat up 3rd ed. codexs if you sell them. I have a bunch of 7th material for sell or trade and it doesn't even get a sniff. It's a hated system.
.

3rd edition was also what , 15 years ago? thats long eneugh for people to lose books, come in later and realize they wanna see em etc. 7th meanwhile wasn't that long ago so there is a glut on the market.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I prefer 7th, so to the thread title? No.

Care to explain why you liked the dumpster fire that was 7th?

I think 8th is way better than 7th. You don't have the giant unkillable deathstar units or crazy OP superheavies, and you don't have lists based entirely around Flying Monstrous Creatures that are nearly impossible to deal with for a balanced list. Yes, there are still some broken army builds and spam is still a thing (looking at you Eldar...), but unlike in 7th GW is actively trying to curtail the broken stuff. Everyone knows Dark Reapers are OP right now and are expecting a nerf. I've also heard that Chaos Cultists and Poxwalkers are getting a nerf, or rather the stratagems that make them crazy are getting said nerf. GW is trying to keep the game balanced and fun in a way that they never have before, and that is a good thing, even if it is tough to keep up with the meta changes. GW is also knocking it out of the park on the modeling side, with nice new models and even whole new armies being released and looking great! We've had a great new range added for Death Guard and Adeptus Custodes, those new mini-Knights and the new Necron Cryptek from the Forgebane box, and we now know that plastic Sisters of Battle are coming next year. It really is a great time to be a 40k player!

I never understood the claim that 7th had OP Super-Heavies. Only the Wraithknight stood out as severely undercosted. The rest weren't dominating tournaments for a reason.

I did like 7th quite a bit. I like 8th a lot too though so it's a tough call for me. At the moment, I'd lean towards 8th. I did like every faction having unique formations and the allies mechanics of 7th more though.

I really enjoyed 8th in the beginning, it brought me back to playing 40k... However with each cycle of Codexes it becomes a little less fun. So, I don't dislike 8th, prefer it to 7th though.

But, if 40k wasn't the only game played in the town I moved to, I probably would have shelved my armies to play something else like Malifaux or even *gasp* Warmachine.

7th had more depth to it. There were facings, on vehicles at least, and vehicles operated differently from monstrous creatures. (To a detriment, at points, it's true, but still.) Movement had actual penalties, instead of a paltry -1 to-hit that it is now, and just overall, I felt I was making more choices in-game than I was in 8th.

Nah. 2nd was better and 7th had potential to be better. Just needed new way to build armies and few tweaks like hh did

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I prefer 7th, so to the thread title? No.

Care to explain why you liked the dumpster fire that was 7th?

It at least attempted to have tactical depth.

5th prior to Newcrons and fliers was best. Based on the Codexes released for it during that period, it was also the most balanced.

5th had some serious problems, but it was overall the best and cleanest version of the game. 8th has been a clear improvement over the trash that was 6th and 7th, but it also has a lot of its own glaring flaws.

8-th has it's ups and downs. The ups are that it's top tier armies are not as far away from high mid tier as it used to be. The downs are that it's the least tactically diverse edition so far. As for me, 7-th on a non-tournament level was more fun to play than 8-th on a non-tournament level. And on a tournament level they both are quite boring, though, 7th had more potential for some unexpected combos due to simply having much more tactical options.

bibotot wrote:
A year has passed since 8th edition. Is this is the best edition released so far for tabletop gamers? Here are my reasons to think so:

+ There is a better balance between armies. Aside from the Primarchs which are a bit OP at the moment, as well as AM and Daemons, the game is not going to be decided the moment you see your opponent's list. No more ridiculous formations. Armies must be more diverse now to win instead of playing 6 Flyrants or 5 Riptides. The removal of fixed cover saves was a good idea to prevent using Shroud on units that can Jink.

+ Wiping out entire opponent's army is more difficult. Games tend to last until the end rather than one side getting tabled completely. This means taking objectives is more important now.

+ Armies are more diverse now with different sub-factions within each army, unlike in 7th where sub-factions mainly exist within the Space Marine umbrella.

+ Plastic Sisters of Battle are coming.

Unfortunately, the lore has been butchered a lot. Primaris Marines look good on the table but are a stain in the fluff. I hope GW will ultimately get their gak together on this.

Have you been enjoying 8th edition so far?

At the moment I'm not fond of this edition. I haven't a codex yet, and this is a big deal, I can change my mind after a while, but playing with the index is indeed the worst edition ever.

I also strongly dislike the look of the new releases, primaris and deathguard are IMHO among the ugliest models since decades. And I halso hate the trend of promoting huge miniatures and centerpiece models, although it started before. Soups are still a thing, maybe even stronger now, that's another downside.

I like the core rules, but hate the fact that we need 300 FAQs to balance them.

I prefer 8th to 6/7th Edition. There are finally tactical decisions, movement and vehicle rules have much improved and unlike formations Stratagems make for fluffy but balanced additions. Chaos has a Chance against other factions without heavy list-tailoring and my Death Guard has a codex for the first time.

I like and play 7th (my opinion), unlike 8th it feels like every edition that came before it, it has the right amount of complexity and depth that I enjoy and allows me to play the narrative games I want with a bit of story behind everything that happens in the table. As an ORK player I never had any of these issues that people (sites like bols and front line gaming) suddenly started to experience one day after the game had been out a while, also during 5-6th edition people ASKED for formations (from apocalypse) to be in the main game, after the heresy betrayal book came out (the first time lords of war were introduced) people ASKED for that in standard 40k games.

Question, if something like chapter approved had come out for 7th edition would people have thought it was so bad? Looking back at all the old reviews for 7th everyone loved it, aos everyone hated and then those sites I mentioned suddenly all at once hated 7th and loved aos and the Internet followed like blind sheep.

Let those of us that like 7th or previous editions enjoy them, our opinions are not Wrong as some of you keep saying just as yours are not.

For me if 7th was a dumpster fire 8th is a sewage plant that’s ablaze.

I for one still hate AoS it can burn in a fire.

AoS is great. It's in a much better place than 40k right now.

 Fafnir wrote:
AoS is great. It's in a much better place than 40k right now.

Some nice models held back by a bland and boring ruleset ?

I’d say it’s in exactly the same place as 40k right now.

 Fafnir wrote:
AoS is great. It's in a much better place than 40k right now.

The fires of Hell are a good place for AoS, it is true.

#oldworld4life

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did you honestly think 7th edition was going to exist forever? I've got books from 3rd I can't use, woe is me. The 6th-7th cycle of replacing the ruleset was not typical. 3rd and 4th had 6 years between them, 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th had 4 years apeace.

I highly doubt 9th ed will come in 2019, since GW is willing to change rules and points via errata and chapter approved now. Once all the codexes come out there will probably be mini-dexes, or a re-release of the Space Marine codex.

They sell a lot of books.
Books are cheap to produce on demand,
especially when done poorly.
Books make money.
I bet they will do what it takes to make more books.
I bet that we will see an updated official rulebook
that people like us will call 9th edition,
and we will see it soon.

So much salt! 8th is pretty great: the relative balance and constant updates/recosting of units is on another level from previous incarnations, armies are finally getting rules that reflect their fluff (regiments, cults, dynasties, etc.) and CPs and strategems are a great addition to the game.

 Formosa wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
AoS is great. It's in a much better place than 40k right now.

Some nice models held back by a bland and boring ruleset ?

I’d say it’s in exactly the same place as 40k right now.

It's considerably less homogeneous than 40k, and the ruleset is far better for the scope and range of firepower it brings to the table. It's far better than it was at launch. In fact, it's far better than it was even a year ago.

No, its not.
Its a bloated board game.
No need to maneuver a tank since facing is no issue anymore.
Its too simplistic for my liking. It is lacking depth.
Just place your (bubble-wrapped) LRBTs as central as possible and shoot the enemy into peaces.
The worst edition since 3rd ed for my liking.
The 7th ed was the other extreme but it was much more challenging.

Best editon by far.

Finally a challenging Psy phase, a more developed fight phase, better cover system , better AP system, meaningful HQs, no deathstars, excellent missions in CA...

Yeah, if it had just a little more in the vehicle facing department, it would be hard to think of a better edition.

The biggest problem of this edition is AoS, it's such a good game that i'm always torn between playing one or the other.

Some hate and some love 8th edition and some hate and some love 7th edition - there are of course those in-between who don't have strong feelings for either, but are the editions so far from each other, that they could merit two different editions for two different types of people released at the same time? It didn't had to be the exact rules of 7th and 8th edition, just rules which are significantly different...
Or would it not raise the satisfaction and purchasing power of the consumers?

AoS is possibly the worst game ever created. I could eat alphabet soup and gak out a more in depth and coherent rules set. The worst part is that they destroyed their best game for it, and they’re somehow proud of it.

Old World for life!

8th ed 40 is “better” in some aspects and worse in others than it’s predecessors. I will say that I am having more fun with it, but I find some things to be frustrating.

Pros:
-movement value is back
-split fire on everything
-degenerating monsters/vehicles
-AP system
-stratagems

Cons:
-terrible terrain rules
-cover seems to largely make no sense
-still stuck with an antiquated alternating turns system
-psychic phase that requires no thought at all to use. No dice/spell management system, so it’s just basically spam smite. But also nerf smite for some armies because we couldn’t figure out how to make a good psychic system.
-a morale phase that is basically useless. Why even have this in the game if you are just going to remove psychology as a whole?
-Ridiculous targeting restrictions on characters because they removed the ability for characters to join units. All they had to do was keep characters in units. There’s no point of removing that.
-The unnecessary and overly complex change to dice modifiers where sometimes your plasma weapons overheat at night because reasons. They should have just kept the old way or rolling dice. A 1 is a 1, a 6 is a 6. It doesn’t change based on modifiers. It’s way more intuitive.

It’s all very frustrating. Whoever decided to go in this direction with AoS and 40k should honestly be fired.

8th is as good or bad as every other edition was in the middle of its life
We have a good chance to end up equal to the better or worst editions we had depending on what comes after the last old Codex

Main trade off from the past editions, replace Deathstars with Soup, and Monsters/Tanks with Mass Infantry


So for me its the worst Edition so far as 40k started as Squad sized game and is now a Bataillone/Division sized game that still uses rules made for a squad based game.

Increasing the size of the game and at the same time scaling the rules down to 1 model by 1 model was just a very bad idea

No. But it's early days yet and it's better than 7th.

It's also carrying a lot more baggage than earlier editions with the introduction of superheavies, flyers, and faction overload

5e had issues with objectives and gradually went down the pan with codex creep and parking lots but it gets my vote. Though it's also the edition where GW turned from light and went full Cruddace/Ward.

It is very good. The rules are pretty clean and the games go fast and it is mostly satisfying. Most things work logically and coherently until you get to the upper echelons of competitive play.

There are a few issues;
- terrain rules are just strange
- an abundance of long range heavy weaponry in certain armies
- I think the faction/detachment rules should be much tighter. You should only be able to get one faction per deployed army. I don't mind allies - it is often very fluffy - but you shouldn't get the benefits of a Custodes army and an Ultramarines one, for example.

I've never quit an edition as fast as I quit 8th, once codexes came out it was clear they lied about play testing and what we got wasn't a full game but a beta test.

8th is significantly better than 7th, but It is really hard to be 5th for me. It has it's pros and cons for sure.

I would say 8th has some excellent ground work, that they can take away the good and work on the bad for 7th. I much prefer a simpler ruleset, compared to the bloat that was 7th.

Troll thread.

While the game continues to resemble a board game with CCG core tenants injected into it, I cannot agree.

It's certainly the most playable edition I can remember for 40K, but GW seems hell bent on making it as complicated as possible with every codex release. It's somehow "streamlined" but still clunky. I'm not even sure how to describe it at this point. Playable but messy I guess.

I'd give it a big two thumbs up comparatively except it's frankly just boring as any game I've played in recent memory. As long as it's just another game on the shelf and I keep it about the models, terrain, etc... it's fine. Just don't think too much and you can have fun pushing your models around and rolling dice.

It is a great edition.

But I still think that the psychic is lacking some flavor, changing every damage power into a Dx mortal wound upon an enemy unit feels kinda bland. 7th did this slightly better in the variations spells had, I especially miss the beam spells. Really loved playing around with sorcerers on disks flying around shooting beams for days.

Best change for me is the removal of facings on vehicles, sure it was a great tactical part of 7th. But the inconsistency they had with it made vehicles absurdly bad and monstrous creatures absurdly good. Stuff like dreadknights and riptides being treated as monsters while clearly being walkers was not something to like.
8th does this a lot better with giving everything the same stat line but adding a degrading table to models with 10+ wounds.

Weapon profiles are a lot better now. Really like that they ported (an slightly altered version of) damage over from AoS. One of the better mechanics in that game.
Rend and the way cover works now are also great additions to the game. I do however agree that the terrain rules are a bit botched, but I can say the same about 7th.

Stratagems and the basic detachments are a great addition to the game and a good alternative on the formation system that in the end ruined 7th for me.

So while I'm not a old timer in 40k, only started at the end of 6th, 8th is a clear improvement of those two editions.

hobojebus wrote:
I've never quit an edition as fast as I quit 8th, once codexes came out it was clear they lied about play testing and what we got wasn't a full game but a beta test.

Grey Knight player?

I kid, I kid.

7th was a great edition, too. And then the codexes started rolling out and it just got more and more obscene. It was more codex leap-frog instead of creep. I, personally, hated the psychic phase in 7th, I preferred the old leadership test... so when they changed it to flat warp charge, I was pretty happy about it. Now it is faster, easier, and even the opponent has a say in the process... and it is still faster.

I was down for the start of 7th, and came back periodically, but every time the game was either some poor guy getting rolled by some untouchable deathstar or two people arguing about rules interaction. I've seen a lot less of both of those since 8th, and both of those things made the game quite a disappointing experience. I'll take it

Nope.

The character rules are stupid. Being able to hurt a titan with a swift left boot is stupid. Rolling vehicles into the same rules as everyone else was good... but removing facings from vehicles rather than adding them to everyone else is stupid. Arbitrary limitations on psychic powers (Hey, Phil, I was gonna cast that one! Now I gotta think of something else to do!) are stupid. Primaris Marines are stupid.

I really, really wanted to like 8th edition after the mess of 6th/7th, and the early indications prior to release were largely promising... but what we got just has too many wrong turns and too many arbitrary restrictions in place of actual structure, and I just can't see the appeal in that.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
AoS is great. It's in a much better place than 40k right now.

Some nice models held back by a bland and boring ruleset ?

I’d say it’s in exactly the same place as 40k right now.

It's considerably less homogeneous than 40k, and the ruleset is far better for the scope and range of firepower it brings to the table. It's far better than it was at launch. In fact, it's far better than it was even a year ago.

I know, I still play it, but its a game held back by its lack of depth and I would much prefer a more complicated AOS game, but thats probably just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and come on people, 7th rules were not that bad, it was the CODEXS !!! that caused most of the issues, the main ruleset had a few problems but they could have been easily fixed.

I personally love 8th edition more than all the other editions(well, I can't speak for Rogue Trader as I never played that one), warts and all. Mostly because 8th edition tends to have less gak going on and more focus on just having an enjoyable experience.

Hell, I even enjoy Age of Sigmar a lot after initially having reservations about it.

There is one thing I think 8th and AoS have over many other games: Green Fields. By having the core ruleset simple they have a chance to build on top of it and make it more interesting instead of throwing together an overtly cumbersome and complex ruleset for the sake of complexity.

I am already seeing this happen in AoS. The ruleset is dead simple, but they are slowly learning how they can flex and modify it with the new stuff, and in turn they are making the game complex in an organic way.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I personally love 8th edition more than all the other editions(well, I can't speak for Rogue Trader as I never played that one), warts and all. Mostly because 8th edition tends to have less gak going on and more focus on just having an enjoyable experience.

Hell, I even enjoy Age of Sigmar a lot after initially having reservations about it.

There is one thing I think 8th and AoS have over many other games: Green Fields. By having the core ruleset simple they have a chance to build on top of it and make it more interesting instead of throwing together an overtly cumbersome and complex ruleset for the sake of complexity.

I am already seeing this happen in AoS. The ruleset is dead simple, but they are slowly learning how they can flex and modify it with the new stuff, and in turn they are making the game complex in an organic way.

100% agree with this. However I think with AOS a lot more thought has gone into how each new book works. Not every book is a hit but they are firing on all cylinders with it. In 40k the codices feel rushed and a little messy(although the spirit of getting everything released ASAP is to be respected). The layers of complexity being added feel a bit cumbersome in certain spots, particularly surrounding army composition.

For AoS, GW learned that minis alone do not make people playing it and they need to bring good rules to stop the game from dying

40k is selling good enough and just the announcement of "new style GW" brought people back, so no one really cares about the rules as long as sales are going well

 Formosa wrote:

Oh and come on people, 7th rules were not that bad, it was the CODEXS !!! that caused most of the issues, the main ruleset had a few problems but they could have been easily fixed.

same as 8th edition core rules are not that bad
and using 8th core rules with Index Power Points on small scale (50 PP) is still a good game

the advanced and codex rules that are killing it

7th edi core rules are fine, that is why HorusHeresy is still a very good game

100% agree with this. However I think with AOS a lot more thought has gone into how each new book works. Not every book is a hit but they are firing on all cylinders with it. In 40k the codices feel rushed and a little messy(although the spirit of getting everything released ASAP is to be respected). The layers of complexity being added feel a bit cumbersome in certain spots, particularly surrounding army composition.

Yep, 40k is encumbered by the problem of having to give us updated codexes in a hurry, but AoS does have the reverse problem where existing armies still don't have representation yet. I think a problem with AoS is that there are ton of people who have fantasy models, but aren't really being supported by a proper battletome. I at least feel it with my Dark Elves. Can't really use any of them until now where I can use a portion for Daughter's of Khaine.

I find 8th to be okay. It's less of a cluster than 7th was in some ways, but the "depth" is extremely shallow, terrain might as well not exist, and it's quickly becoming an unbalanced mess just like all its predecessors.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I've never quit an edition as fast as I quit 8th, once codexes came out it was clear they lied about play testing and what we got wasn't a full game but a beta test.

Grey Knight player?

I kid, I kid.

7th was a great edition, too. And then the codexes started rolling out and it just got more and more obscene. It was more codex leap-frog instead of creep. I, personally, hated the psychic phase in 7th, I preferred the old leadership test... so when they changed it to flat warp charge, I was pretty happy about it. Now it is faster, easier, and even the opponent has a say in the process... and it is still faster.

I was down for the start of 7th, and came back periodically, but every time the game was either some poor guy getting rolled by some untouchable deathstar or two people arguing about rules interaction. I've seen a lot less of both of those since 8th, and both of those things made the game quite a disappointing experience. I'll take it

Nah vlka frenryka!

I won't get my codex till October if gossip proves true, not that I have any faith they'll deliver a codex that'll bring me back.

In terms of advancement of story and miniatures? Yes.
Yes the Primarus Marines are horrible fluff wise, but the miniatures are fantastic. We are past 999 M41, the custodies are out and about, we have a Primarch back and things are still nice and grim dark with just a pin prick of light.
Also, Plastic Sisters of Battle. Thank the Emperor.

In terms of game mechanics?
IMO No. 8th just feels like Warmachine mixed with a pseudo CCG with the command points, stratagems, and that fact that so many thing no longer impact gameplay. Looking at you terrain. Its a very different game from earlier editions and just does not feel like 40k to me.

That said, more power to the people who enjoy it because end of the day its supporting the IP we all love.

7th edition was a burning tire fire due to power creep and terrible codex writing. The base rule set is fine imo. 30k works just fine and is a fun game system.

Each edition had its flaws for sure, i think the best outta all of them was 5th, minus vehicles rules. 7th was good, aside from formations costing no points, an the psyker phase.

8th is a good foundation to build a better game ontop of. I think 8th for the most part should remain but with some key changes
- bring back vehicle faces and give a bonus to hitting the rear of a vehicle.
- bring back old moral system
- Put a cap on modifiers
- get rid of the fact that EVERYTHING has an invuln save.
- get rid of being able to pile into enemy units that you did not charge.
- get rid of all the randomized damage tables on a lot of weapons, and random shots, make weapons more stable to use.
- put a cap on CP that can be generated via traits or relics
- put in an allies system like sigmar, so at various point levels you have your main army and are allotted x amount of points for allies that are not part of your main army.

overall 8th is ok, but has a lot of issues, most to do with ambiguity in rules as well. From a lore stand point, primaras were a horrible idea.

The only good part about 8-th rules is psy phase. If you take 7-th edition, mix it with 8-th psy phase and studio's effort to balance stuff and get faqs off, you'll end with a much better game. But as is, it's too shallow to be really interesting which is a damn shame. Their own swa is much-much more interesting and tactically deep. And a thinned down necromunda reboot is all that swa is. Yet still.

 koooaei wrote:
The only good part about 8-th rules is psy phase. If you take 7-th edition, mix it with 8-th psy phase and studio's effort to balance stuff and get faqs off, you'll end with a much better game. But as is, it's too shallow to be really interesting which is a damn shame. Their own swa is much-much more interesting and tactically deep. And a thinned down necromunda reboot is all that swa is. Yet still.

This is pretty spot on. If i could get 7th back with 8th psyker phase, i would be happy.

4th was my favorite edition. I left during 6-7th 8th was like Anakin for me, so much potential, ruined by the dark side.

Nope.

I play it solely because it's the game in town. 30K is starting to pick back up though, and I have zero compunctions against jumping ship back to that.

I only started playing in 7th so not much of a comparison to make for me- I prefer 8th by far, the only thing I’m not as keen on is the flattening of the strength/toughness chart. +1 to either used to feel like a big deal whereas it’s a bit lacklustre now.

wict01 wrote:
I only started playing in 7th so not much of a comparison to make for me- I prefer 8th by far, the only thing I’m not as keen on is the flattening of the strength/toughness chart. +1 to either used to feel like a big deal whereas it’s a bit lacklustre now.

I really miss the old wounding chart

8th edtion is the reason why my 10+ player gaming group have all dropped 40k.

AOS is the reason my other 10+ player gaming group stopped supporting GW "fantasy".

I see tons of models and terrain gathering dust as they sit unused on the shelf. It's sad.

hobojebus wrote:

Nah vlka frenryka!

I won't get my codex till October if gossip proves true, not that I have any faith they'll deliver a codex that'll bring me back.

The codex writing in 8th has been far better for the game than it was in 7th. For all of the issues that 8th edition suffers from, Codex writing is not the biggest. Sure, Grey Knights are a dumpster fire, but I think they are currently the biggest outlier. The big environment deforming things are specific models, not entire factions. The game is not revolving around having access to 1 or 2 psychic powers. There's enough flexibility with the detachments to have some fun, but not completely off the rails like formations were. The competitive spacing between the factions is not that great of a chasm, though certain factions lingering on indexes is getting quite bothersome. Like why are we getting Imperial Knights before Orcs? Why are orcs, one of the flagship armies of the game, still lingering on as an index almost a year after the game launch, and especially after a bunch of sub-sub-faction codexes were released?

8th is definitely not perfect, but for all of its flaws... it is not nearly as bad off as 7th was this many releases into its life.

What do I miss about 7th? Knowing that I'd automatically win a tournament if I brought out my Eldar. That's about it.

I wish 8th had more interactions with terrain and that Fortifications were useful. The deployment system is also tedious and takes too long. Overall I really like it though. There is a lot more variety in what units are viable, and I have used many models for the first time in over a decade. When I brought a Defiler in 7th, people stopped and asked if we were playing Oldhammer

As a CSM/"IG"(Renegades) player it's a great time. Now I'm just waiting for FW to release proper rules for my Renegades..

This thread gave me an ulcer. Good grief.

GrafWattenburg wrote:
What do I miss about 7th? Knowing that I'd automatically win a tournament if I brought out my Eldar. That's about it.

I wish 8th had more interactions with terrain and that Fortifications were useful. The deployment system is also tedious and takes too long. Overall I really like it though. There is a lot more variety in what units are viable, and I have used many models for the first time in over a decade. When I brought a Defiler in 7th, people stopped and asked if we were playing Oldhammer

As a CSM/"IG"(Renegades) player it's a great time. Now I'm just waiting for FW to release proper rules for my Renegades..

Off topic a bit, but do you mind if I PM you about renegades? I've got questions...

GrafWattenburg wrote:
What do I miss about 7th? Knowing that I'd automatically win a tournament if I brought out my Eldar. That's about it.

I wish 8th had more interactions with terrain and that Fortifications were useful. The deployment system is also tedious and takes too long. Overall I really like it though. There is a lot more variety in what units are viable, and I have used many models for the first time in over a decade. When I brought a Defiler in 7th, people stopped and asked if we were playing Oldhammer

As a CSM/"IG"(Renegades) player it's a great time. Now I'm just waiting for FW to release proper rules for my Renegades..

Don't worry, they'll get to removing your HQ options soon enough. RIP corsairs

My friend plays renegades, too. They're in a bad place right now :(

But still fun to play against!

 kodos wrote:
For AoS, GW learned that minis alone do not make people playing it and they need to bring good rules to stop the game from dying

40k is selling good enough and just the announcement of "new style GW" brought people back, so no one really cares about the rules as long as sales are going well

 Formosa wrote:

Oh and come on people, 7th rules were not that bad, it was the CODEXS !!! that caused most of the issues, the main ruleset had a few problems but they could have been easily fixed.

same as 8th edition core rules are not that bad
and using 8th core rules with Index Power Points on small scale (50 PP) is still a good game

the advanced and codex rules that are killing it

7th edi core rules are fine, that is why HorusHeresy is still a very good game

Yep, 8th has some good rules, some bad rules too, personally I was really hoping they made the psy phase like 8th fantasy, you know.... interactive, not every race needs a wizard to take part, some races got bonus (tau could have +1 to dispel and necrons +2, kinda like dwarfs)

Im not sure 40k has ever had a best edition. 5th is probably the closest overall (4th's issues with consoldiating into new combats, nonfunctional transport rules, and enormous skimmer vs nonskimmer gap really kill it for me) but had its own major problems as well (Kill Points which we sadly are still stuck with, No Retreat, vehicle secondary weapons being pointless, some really awful codex writing both fluff and rules).

8E is...better than anything we have had since 2012. 6E and 7E were unmitigated disasters in almost every conceivable way, and nothing of value was lost in their passing. They were the absolute low points of 40k history in terms of balance, rules cleanliness, cost, functionality, complexity (remember, complexity !=depth), and playability, not to mention GW's revenue and market share.

Does that make 8E the best ever? No, it has a host of major flaws, but its a definite improvement.

I've played since second edition, and yes, I's say 8th is the best edition. It is far from perfect, but it is still an improvement on all the preceding editions.

I like it much more than 6th and 7th.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I like it much more than 6th and 7th.

7th was rough but man, 6th was just memes the edition

Never forget that GW introduced flyers in 6th and provided no form of Anti air untill close to the end of 6th.

For me I have to strongly disagree with 8th being the best edition because I genuinely do not have fun playing 8th. All the "balance" and ease of entry aren't worth a whole lot if the core game isn't very compelling. I feel like 7th had a lot of problems with some very poor balance decisions but the meat of 7th was there and would of been a lot better if GW gave a damn about balance when they wrote the codexes and actually fixed some of the more broken stuff (invis and rerolling 2+ saves for example).

I'm having a lot of fun with 8th edition now that i have a codex.

But I play Tyranids. It's fun not being a total doormat for the first time ever.

I think there are only a few things I'd like to see changed in 8th, otherwise I am fine with it as is. Mind you, these are core rule changes, and not individual unit balancing that is still needed.

I'd like to see a bit more cover work. Although it would be interesting to see variable cover(-1, -2, and so on), I'd just like cover to just work more than not. That is, more dependent on LOS than if the model is on top of the terrain or not.

The second thing I'd like to see changed is the removal of all -1 to hit chapter/craftworld/faction trait. I feel like they favor people picking one faction above another, and are very unfair for armies that have gakky BS. These things should also not stack.

Otherwise I am fine with the rest, although I'd love to see stratagems visited and balanced. Would be interesting to see if some stratagems could be limited to once per game or something like that.

I don't know how people can say that the balance in 8th edition is bad.

Is, probably, the most balanced edition of any GW wargame ever that is not LOTR or Ravening Hordes for 6th edition of Warhammer: Fantasy.

And is the first time they are actually trying to balance the game with FAQ's, Chapter Approves, etc... instead of just putting a Codex out and let it be for 5-7 years.

In others edition we would still be here, facing Guilliman+Stormraven spam all day, or 150 Conscripts blobs. Yeah, now we have Dark Reaper Spam and Flyrants and Poxwalkers farms... but those lists wheren there 5 months ago! The meta is changing from one month to the next. How amazing is that.

I'm having a ton of fun playing this even in tournaments. With my crappy Dark Angel lists I have faced some of the most competitive lists, and some times I have been tabled without doing anything (Mostly by my own mistakes in placement and deployment), but other times even with a much inferior lists I have been able to fight back.

 Galas wrote:
I don't know how people can say that the balance in 8th edition is bad.

Is, probably, the most balanced edition of any GW wargame ever that is not LOTR or Ravening Hordes for 6th edition of Warhammer: Fantasy.

And is the first time they are actually trying to balance the game with FAQ's, Chapter Approves, etc... instead of just putting a Codex out and let it be for 5-7 years.

In others edition we would still be here, facing Guilliman+Stormraven spam all day, or 150 Conscripts blobs. Yeah, now we have Dark Reaper Spam and Flyrants and Poxwalkers farms... but those lists wheren there 5 months ago! The meta is changing from one month to the next. How amazing is that.

I'm having a ton of fun playing this even in tournaments. With my crappy Dark Angel lists I have faced some of the most competitive lists, and some times I have been tabled without doing anything (Mostly by my own mistakes in placement and deployment), but other times even with a much inferior lists I have been able to fight back.

Eeeeehhhhhhh not really, game had horrible balance issues at the start. All non codex armies are not really useable. Some faction and soup combos are just brutal to the point of stupidity. Eldar dark reapers for example. There is a massive amount of rule ambiguity causing problems. It's balanced but not that balanced.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not going to matter to you what I enjoy about it, but without going into long detail, I like the terrain rules, I vastly prefer how the vehicles worked.

Yes, it was far superior when I came across an army of 3 knights that 99% of my army could not wound. Or having my Land Raider be blown up by a single Lascannon shot when I was going second. I see now that 7th was the superior game system!

You forgot about anti infantry weapons being better at killing tanks than anti tank weapons. That was great.

Scatterbikes: the terror of the Imperial Knights because of side AV 12.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't know how people can say that the balance in 8th edition is bad.

Is, probably, the most balanced edition of any GW wargame ever that is not LOTR or Ravening Hordes for 6th edition of Warhammer: Fantasy.

And is the first time they are actually trying to balance the game with FAQ's, Chapter Approves, etc... instead of just putting a Codex out and let it be for 5-7 years.

In others edition we would still be here, facing Guilliman+Stormraven spam all day, or 150 Conscripts blobs. Yeah, now we have Dark Reaper Spam and Flyrants and Poxwalkers farms... but those lists wheren there 5 months ago! The meta is changing from one month to the next. How amazing is that.

I'm having a ton of fun playing this even in tournaments. With my crappy Dark Angel lists I have faced some of the most competitive lists, and some times I have been tabled without doing anything (Mostly by my own mistakes in placement and deployment), but other times even with a much inferior lists I have been able to fight back.

Eeeeehhhhhhh not really, game had horrible balance issues at the start. All non codex armies are not really useable. Some faction and soup combos are just brutal to the point of stupidity. Eldar dark reapers for example. There is a massive amount of rule ambiguity causing problems. It's balanced but not that balanced.

Thing is I don't fear those nasty lists as much. I have a good chance playing TAC in ITC style games.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't know how people can say that the balance in 8th edition is bad.

Is, probably, the most balanced edition of any GW wargame ever that is not LOTR or Ravening Hordes for 6th edition of Warhammer: Fantasy.

And is the first time they are actually trying to balance the game with FAQ's, Chapter Approves, etc... instead of just putting a Codex out and let it be for 5-7 years.

In others edition we would still be here, facing Guilliman+Stormraven spam all day, or 150 Conscripts blobs. Yeah, now we have Dark Reaper Spam and Flyrants and Poxwalkers farms... but those lists wheren there 5 months ago! The meta is changing from one month to the next. How amazing is that.

I'm having a ton of fun playing this even in tournaments. With my crappy Dark Angel lists I have faced some of the most competitive lists, and some times I have been tabled without doing anything (Mostly by my own mistakes in placement and deployment), but other times even with a much inferior lists I have been able to fight back.

Eeeeehhhhhhh not really, game had horrible balance issues at the start. All non codex armies are not really useable. Some faction and soup combos are just brutal to the point of stupidity. Eldar dark reapers for example. There is a massive amount of rule ambiguity causing problems. It's balanced but not that balanced.

We are still talking GW games here, so of course is not perfectly balanced. About non codex armies not being usable... well. Thats a given, Index are what they are, a stop-gap, it sucks to be a index army for a full year, but someone had to be last.
The balance between codex armies is much better than previous editions. All codex have weak and strong units, but really theres only one Codex that you can say "Yeah this is broken in the bad sense" and thats Grey Knights.

But the balance between Mid-Tier Codexes and High Tier Codexes is much, much better than ever. Even facing a mid of the road list vs a top-competitive lists.

Yeah it's better after getting lots of nerfs which I give GW credit for. Guard for example have been the most nerfed army of 8th and are still crazy strong.

8th edition is the reason my LGS (which sold GW stuff at 20% off) went from nearly fully stocked to empty shelves every visit.
I can no longer go to the LGS and make an impulse buy because their is nearly NOTHING on their entire wall, which used to have hundreds of boxes (which is probably good, but it does suck).

My area seems to love 8th and it is clearly drawing in new players

 Galef wrote:
8th edition is the reason my LGS (which sold GW stuff at 20% off) went from nearly fully stocked to empty shelves every visit.
I can no longer go to the LGS and make an impulse buy because their is nearly NOTHING on their entire wall, which used to have hundreds of boxes (which is probably good, but it does suck).

My area seems to love 8th and it is clearly drawing in new players

8th edition just plays well in my opinion. It may have issues and all, but damn it plays well. I am seeing more and more people locally joining in on 8th due to that. I think some of the reasons why it plays better is that they removed templates and vehicle facings. Means less debating and more playing.

I would say the proof is in the pudding. In my area, you can no longer impulse buy anything because the shelves at every store are sold out constantly and if you don't get to the store the same day they get a shipment in be ready to not buy anything for a week or two. For instance, I've still never see Custodes on the shelf despite several stores claiming they keep ordering them but they get snatched up before they can even put them out. Even the official GW store by me is missing tons of stuff because they cant keep up.

On top of this local "evidence", I'm noticing 40k events keep breaking their personal best attendance records and selling out of tickets same day just look at LVO, Adipticon, Long War Doubles ect.

Despite some of the very vocal online haters, I think it would be hard to argue that this isn't the best most successful edition of 40k ever.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Galef wrote:
8th edition is the reason my LGS (which sold GW stuff at 20% off) went from nearly fully stocked to empty shelves every visit.
I can no longer go to the LGS and make an impulse buy because their is nearly NOTHING on their entire wall, which used to have hundreds of boxes (which is probably good, but it does suck).

My area seems to love 8th and it is clearly drawing in new players

8th edition just plays well in my opinion. It may have issues and all, but damn it plays well. I am seeing more and more people locally joining in on 8th due to that. I think some of the reasons why it plays better is that they removed templates and vehicle facings. Means less debating and more playing.

I have gone to 6 tournaments since January, with 15-25 people per tournament, and I have yet to see a rule discussion, or people forgetting their own rules, or playing wrongly.

It's 50/50 right now with Rogue Trader. But every game I play in 8th tips the scale more and more for 8th. I really do miss some of the insanity from RT.

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's 50/50 right now with Rogue Trader. But every game I play in 8th tips the scale more and more for 8th. I really do miss some of the insanity from RT.

Back in the day when it was Warhammer fantasy, IN SPACE!!!!

Most successful? Arguably yes.

Best edition? Depends entirely on what you want to do with it.

Best tournament edition? Never been a good 40K edition for tournaments...so this is a circular argument which will never be settled, but generally speaking - no...tournament 40K is still a disaster.

I'd say it's the most enjoyable one for me, but I'm a rules tinkerer/game designer and I don't just huff and pout when something doesn't appeal to me. My fellow gamers are all about house-ruling cover, terrain, special scenario rules, narratives etc. We also don't build douche-bag lists. So, with that caveat it's an excellent game if you put some of your own effort in. To put this in perspective my friends and I went to work on what to fix the second 8th came out. We're not beholden to a rulebook, or GW written scenarios etc. It takes a few small changes to make the game 10x more playable than it's written.

It's not an amazing game, 40K has never been, really. But the people who say it's a disaster or the "worst" game in the world haven't played it (or will defend their opinion having played it twice).

Only problem I have with finding stuff for sale that I want is that both of my armies are in desperate need of new models: Sororitas and Craftworld. Which means 90% of my range is web store only.

Yeah, that's why I cannot get what I want from walking into a shop :(

I have lots of nostalgia about 2nd Edition, and I think that 3rd Edition was a mistake in terms of increasing the model count and brining in dice buckets. They tried to streamline some things with 3rd Ed to allow for more models on the table but ended up with holes in the rules that could be exploited. 4th and 5th were attempts to patch those holes - workable editions but each was derailed. I did not enjoy 6th Edition and I got off the ride in 7th. My stuff spent three years in boxes in the basement.

I am really enjoying 8th Edition - its fun and clean. I have had very few rules disputes in games (well, just one so far actually), and we rarely have a head-scratching moment poring over a rulebook during a game. Balance isn't perfect but its way better that 6th and 7th. Perhaps most importantly, the local 40K community is thriving whereas it had been struggling in 7th Ed. You have to reserve spaces in our tourneys early or be stuck spectating (we have a 40 player cap). This is purely anecdotal, but our last local tourney sold out the same weekend as another town a couple of hours away also sold out a 60 player tourney.

2nd ed was a pure dumpster fire, imo. No redeeming features as it was SO easy to exploit for Nids, Eldar, and CSM.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed was a pure dumpster fire, imo. No redeeming features as it was SO easy to exploit for Nids, Eldar, and CSM.

2nd Edition Eldar were, indeed, overpowered. That is a constant! I thought that 2nd Ed was workable with the "Tournament Rules" in use at Grand Tournaments. These placed caps on psychic powers and wargear. I note that at the 1997 Grand Tournament that I attended every game was played to completion. There were no games "timing out." I enjoyed the melee rules in 2nd Ed and the relative freedom with list construction. I also had hair then.

Overall I like 8th better just because it’s much easier to find someone to play with due to an increased player base. However, I preferred many of the rules from 7th better.

Pros
Larger player base
Better army balance
No stupid formation bonuses
Rules don’t contradict themselves *wrong*
No scatter on deep-strike and reserves on turn 1
Split fire
Strategems

Cons
No vehicle facings
Character targeting vs attaching to units
No templates
If one model is visible/in range then the whole unit can take wounds
Terrain and cover rules for vehicles.

Rules don't contradict themselves...

So Inescapable Accuracy and that one Ranger Stratagem that only lets them get hit on 6s is just nothing, then?

As much as I enjoy 8th edition, I liked 2nd edition more. Every game was an adventure, you never really knew what to expect.

8th is very sterile and balanced and easy to play by comparison. Once one side gets the lead, it's hard to find a way to lose. By contrast, I would play some 2nd edition games where all that was left was a Chaos Lord and an Aspiring Champion, and they would wreck some poor IG army by themselves.

Whether that represents poor game design or not is irrelevant. It was fun.

Yes, easily. Anyone who said they liked 6th or 7th better just played with a group of people who were really really bad at the game.

5th and parts of the other editions I could see arguments for, but disagree

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed was a pure dumpster fire, imo. No redeeming features as it was SO easy to exploit for Nids, Eldar, and CSM.

2nd Edition Eldar were, indeed, overpowered. That is a constant! I thought that 2nd Ed was workable with the "Tournament Rules" in use at Grand Tournaments. These placed caps on psychic powers and wargear. I note that at the 1997 Grand Tournament that I attended every game was played to completion. There were no games "timing out." I enjoyed the melee rules in 2nd Ed and the relative freedom with list construction. I also had hair then.

Play against 100 hormagaunts in 2nd and then talk to me.

I prefer 8th because most of the time, it's pretty intuitive. Less all or nothing interactions.
So my melee unit in CC with a drop pod automatically hits it. But now it's invisible, so the drop pod is invulterable.
Same situation with a rhino, and I hit on 6, but since the pod is immobile invisibility's wording says that it cannot be hit.
8th is a relief.

ERJAK wrote:
Yes, easily. Anyone who said they liked 6th or 7th better just played with a group of people who were really really bad at the game.

5th and parts of the other editions I could see arguments for, but disagree

People who really loved 6th/7th probably lucked into an army that was one of the prime offenders of the balancing issues and didn't have to invest a ton of cash in Riptides or Wraithknights or the such.

The rest of us had the wrong model composition to really abuse these combinations and probably didn't want to drop the hundreds of dollars needed to finish off the full block of cheese. Thus we saw 7th edition for what it was: roflstomping people who didn't want to play the bleeding edge of cheddar, or simply arguing about the rules interaction until the game became the background noise.

40k is what happens when Scale Creep, IGOUGO, and Turn 1 Threat Projection collide.

8th is the culmination of all of those, especially with the changes to Reserves, cover, and Alternating Deployment (instead of "go first, deploy-first" unless Seized) all making choosing to go second an extremely niche-case. Add in "Rule of One", Snowflake/contradictory FAQs, and assorted forms of Fake Balance and the game is still bloated, just in a different manner.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules don't contradict themselves...

So Inescapable Accuracy and that one Ranger Stratagem that only lets them get hit on 6s is just nothing, then?

I stand corrected. Haven’t heard of that one.

I imagine that there will be more as time goes on. So yeah... I’m gonna cross that off my list.

 Kellevil wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules don't contradict themselves...

So Inescapable Accuracy and that one Ranger Stratagem that only lets them get hit on 6s is just nothing, then?

I stand corrected. Haven’t heard of that one.

I imagine that there will be more as time goes on. So yeah... I’m gonna cross that off my list.

Yeah. And I guarantee you there's more. Just look at the YMDC thread.

Not ragging on you for liking 8th or anything-just pointing out that your assessment wasn't fully accurate.

Because, despite me preferring 7th, I do enjoy 8th.

Martel732 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed was a pure dumpster fire, imo. No redeeming features as it was SO easy to exploit for Nids, Eldar, and CSM.

2nd Edition Eldar were, indeed, overpowered. That is a constant! I thought that 2nd Ed was workable with the "Tournament Rules" in use at Grand Tournaments. These placed caps on psychic powers and wargear. I note that at the 1997 Grand Tournament that I attended every game was played to completion. There were no games "timing out." I enjoyed the melee rules in 2nd Ed and the relative freedom with list construction. I also had hair then.

Play against 100 hormagaunts in 2nd and then talk to me.

No need to be rude. Have you ever been happy with an edition? I played plenty of 2nd Ed including a national grand tourney. I played against Nid hordes (always a threat to my Dark Angels) but it was Eldar that was the clear top threat in my neck of the woods. By 1998, though, folks were finding loopholes in codexes (Space Wolves termies for one) as competitive play and the internet worked as an accelerator. They had to do something, but 3rd was a tough shift for me. I maintain my nostalgia for 2nd Ed, but I do think that 8th is the best since (or maybe even thus far).

Their willingness to make adjustments along the way with this edition is a strong point for me.

8th seems to be the best so far by a long shot. That's not saying its a perfect system, but its better than the others.

8th edition is an enormous improvement on that revolting and abominable manurefilled perversion that was 7th edition. But 8th is still not good enough. List building is still more important than in-game decisions, and too many games are decided before they even begin.

But at least we don't roll for invisibility on that stupid telepathy table anymore. I can't believe we actually used to do that.

Agreed.

List building be so important is not by accident fellas. Its hugely pushed by a lot of people and is a selling point.

 auticus wrote:
Its hugely pushed by a lot of people and is a selling point.

By whom and where?

Everywhere you look for over a decade. Just spark up a conversation about balance and discuss how you want listbuilding to not be so dominant, you'll get a train of people that will tell you a variation of that being boring if 2000 points were equal to 2000 points regardless of composition.

When AOS was first dropped one of the biggest complaints against the fan comps was that it was "too balanced" and that listbuilding was boring because everything was too even as well.

People want their liistbuilding and they want it to play a heavy role in the game. Even when Bottle was posting and now he's a gw dev he had talked about how he thought listbuilding should play a prominent role in the games. Face book groups produce the same data. Game dev seminars talk about how iimportant this facet of game design is today.

I only played the Dark Vengeance scenarios and Heralds of Ruin Kill Team of 7th Edition. And I will say that I think 7th worked pretty okay as a skirmish game reworked through Heralds of Ruin. If I found a group willing to play that, I totally would. I probably would prefer 7th edition over 8th edition Heralds of Ruin, but I don't know for sure as I haven't looked into their 8th edition.

I haven't played much 8th edition yet. Compared to other miniatures wargames most of which were written by GW alumni, I can say 8th edition is okay. 8th edition is much better for the size of games typical of most players play it at than 7th edition. I am not overly impressed with it, but it is good enough to get me to play games using it.

Reading through the comments here I can agree that while less so than 7th, 8th edition is still a rather simple game with needlessly complex parts to make it seem deeper that it is. It still feels like it takes three steps to accomplish something when two should be sufficient. Though, I am glad GW rolled a bunch of special rules into the stats. I can read that something has claws that rend metal like tissue paper in the unit description. I don't also need a special rule that states this unit has addition armor piercing because of that.

I get where players coming from with 8th still having an IGOUGO setup. It doesn't really bother me. One of my favorite wargames (Dust Warfare) had that. Of course 36" was the max range of pretty much everything which forced maneuver. Plus, Dust Warfare had a subphase and reactions that allowed the non-active player some options. If 40K ever abandoned this, it wouldn't bother me even if I know I am pretty terrible with pure alternating activation games (strangely I am good with random activation).

I am super happy about the dropping of templates. I stopped playing Bolt Action partly because its 2nd edition add them in. Every game that I have played that has had templates opened a can of argument worms for minimal tactical consideration. The inclusion of templates in a game is a sure fire way to keep me away. I don't like the extra time they add nor the extra accessories I have to bring.

I kinda don't care about the vehicle facing rules. Push come to shove, I think Dreadnoughts (this includes big monsters too) and bigger should have a blind spot that makes them easier to kill. I also tend to like rule sets that make turn issue if the game has wheeled/tracked stuff (restricted turns) and walkers (less/unrestricted turns). However, if my opponent has no issue adding 'scenario rules' neither do I. At the same time, any game that have vehicle facing rules rare they saw use in the actual game unless weapon ranges were very short (see Dust Warfare ranged above). More often than not, only certain units ever make use of this weakness and/or it turns the vehicle into more of a weapon emplacement. For 40K, I really only see rear arcs being an issue with transports which should probably have been engineered to have all around armor anyways.

I can also agree that terrain should be a little more involved that it is in 8th. Which given GW's normal penchant for overly complicating things, the don't here. One of my buddy and I's favorite joke playing through Dark Vengeance was the inclusion of using Citadel Brand Terrain or Something to enhance our games. Now, I don't need the frankly dizzying amount of terrain types found in Gates of Antares, but I don't think light/heavy cover, LoS blocking, difficult plus a few others is asking too much. I don't even care if the designers go True Line of Sight or want to use volume cylinders, or whatever.

I can also agree that I don't much care for the meta resource of Command Points. They are just one more thing going on and a bit of an immersion distraction. Although, I will admit, they are one the more 'tough' decision points that are usually few and far between in 40K which is loaded with false choices and other traps.

I also like that vehicles have wounds. I know some older players don't like their tanks to have hit points, but given how wild bouts of luck can be I think it makes for a more enjoyable game.

IV only played from 5th to now

id say 8th is the best edition so far.

7th was bad and it should feel bad.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's 50/50 right now with Rogue Trader. But every game I play in 8th tips the scale more and more for 8th. I really do miss some of the insanity from RT.

Back in the day when it was Warhammer fantasy, IN SPACE!!!!

fantasy w guns & tanks

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
It's 50/50 right now with Rogue Trader. But every game I play in 8th tips the scale more and more for 8th. I really do miss some of the insanity from RT.

Back in the day when it was Warhammer fantasy, IN SPACE!!!!

fantasy w guns & tanks

fantasy also has tanks and guns.

I still find templates weird, especially when it comes to being able to hit a model multiple times and certain weapons doing multiple wounds. The Hellhound and certain other flamers work better as anti-aircraft/anti-tank than they do as actual crowd control, and that's just off on multiple levels.

And I still see extreme peculiarity about spacing out models 2 inches apart for purposes of stretching out a buff congaline or maximizing DS denial. Ironically this may be more notable in 8th due to assorted changes making the game favor "horde" builds (such as Nanivati's build that came in 2nd at Adepticon) over the relatively compact "Biker/mech" lists of previous editions.

Call it conspiracy-mongering but WHFB got rid of templates when moving from 8th to AOS, despite being a game of "rank-and-file" maneuver that didn't really allow players to intentionally slow-play spacing out their models...my hypothesis is that GW axed them because you can only sell a set of templates to a gamer once, and if the LGS has a shared set, even that's a stretch.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Yes, easily. Anyone who said they liked 6th or 7th better just played with a group of people who were really really bad at the game.

5th and parts of the other editions I could see arguments for, but disagree

People who really loved 6th/7th probably lucked into an army that was one of the prime offenders of the balancing issues and didn't have to invest a ton of cash in Riptides or Wraithknights or the such.

The rest of us had the wrong model composition to really abuse these combinations and probably didn't want to drop the hundreds of dollars needed to finish off the full block of cheese. Thus we saw 7th edition for what it was: roflstomping people who didn't want to play the bleeding edge of cheddar, or simply arguing about the rules interaction until the game became the background noise.

I love 7th and my primary army is Orks. I love 7th for having a lot more depth and decision making in both its list building and gameplay. Sure balance was a dumpster fire (GW really played favorites with certain codexes) but the game was fun when you had lists matched up that operated on a similar power level. Liking 7th isn't about being a power gamer or a WAAC jerk who is looking to roflstomp somebody. Personally the best games for me where the ones where it was extremely close while the one sided blowouts tended to be the boring games.

I will say, despite how you feel about 8th, armor modifiers being back is a blessing. Too many weapons used to be useless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I will say, despite how you feel about 8th, armor modifiers being back is a blessing. Too many weapons used to be useless.

Damage is also huge, having that stat back adds a lot more depth to weaponry and allows for weapons profiles that are way more finely tuned without being overpowered.

Having ASM's and D back were great 8E ideas. The game is a lot better for it, especially given that the ASM's are more reserved than in 2E.

I think 8th is a step in the right direction, but it has a few problems.

- The to-hit modifier system is not good. The modifiers should be applied to the threshold required for success, not the roll itself because of the overheat mechanic on weapons. Have that trigger on natural 1s instead of end result of 1.
- Indirect artillery has no spotting requirement and no modifiers to affect accuracy when firing indirectly. This is one area that was way too streamlined and offers too little counterplay for the opponent.
- The complete removal of model facings reduces the value of maneuvering and flanking the opponent, which is bad because it doesn't reflect the very deadly effects of flanking in actual warfare. The really poor rules concerning how weapon arcs are handled is also just too permissive and further exacerbates the problem of the ease of concentrating firepower with little regard for proper positioning.
- The force organization system is way too permissive, especially for spamming effective combat HQs. If they maintained Brigade, Battalion, Patrol, Superheavy, Aux Superheavy, and a slightly more restrictive version of the Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider, I think the game would be improved.
- The removal of blast and template rules in the game makes infantry dispersion irrelevant, facilitating the horde style of gameplay. While I think the previous system was way too flawed to stay as it was, removing it altogether introduced another set of complications, and IMO all it needed was a refinement (specifically, to the way Warmachine/Hordes does it with the directions printed on the template itself).
- The prevalence of -1 to hit mods is quite insane considering that to hit modifiers can actually completely shut down an army's shooting phase if the BS is low enough. If a 6 always hit just like a 1 always misses, this might not be as much of an issue, but the use of this rule should be much more judiciously applied to specific elements of an army rather than a blanket rule for all models in an army (We all know which army we are talking about here).

Otherwise, I'm optimistic about the direction 40k is heading, which is why I'm here at all in the first place.

Mixed really.

I thought when the Indexes were dropped that 8th was the best thing in a long time. Then certain things started to emerge in the meta. GW has intervened (which is itself a miracle) but they can't seem to stop releasing overpowered stuff.

I mean I like DE having a powerful codex for the first time in a long time (ever?) but I can just do some maths and compare a vaguely coherent list vs a newish/non-competitive player's grab-bag bag of Marines and the result isn't pretty.

Stuff dies far too fast in 8th edition (or rather stuff does too much damage). Or at least it does if you have a vaguely optimised list. This is why I think people accuse it of being like a card game. You just play out your deck and hope it lands - typically you are hoping to kill 30-40% of their army in your first turn.

The thing is in a typical card game (there are exceptions) you play a game out over 10-15~ minutes...and if you get stomped you just play another. Or half or dozen.

40k doesn't really work that way. Playing out a 1.5-2 hour game which is palpably one-sided isn't all that fun. Or at least the novelty starts to wear off.

But 7th was a broken mess and 5th was arguably too boring because things tended to be harder to kill.

You will never get a balanced game - but for me the game would be better if "overpowered" abilities were pushing 25% points return (while weak options did say 15%), rather than 50%. In the former luck would have a greater role and the game would therefore appear to be in the balance until the end.

 auticus wrote:
Everywhere you look for over a decade. Just spark up a conversation about balance and discuss how you want listbuilding to not be so dominant, you'll get a train of people that will tell you a variation of that being boring if 2000 points were equal to 2000 points regardless of composition.

When AOS was first dropped one of the biggest complaints against the fan comps was that it was "too balanced" and that listbuilding was boring because everything was too even as well.

People want their liistbuilding and they want it to play a heavy role in the game. Even when Bottle was posting and now he's a gw dev he had talked about how he thought listbuilding should play a prominent role in the games. Face book groups produce the same data. Game dev seminars talk about how iimportant this facet of game design is today.

Judging by what you wrote here I think you actually misunderstood some peoples point about wanting list building to be important. Most people want a middle ground between original AOS (just bring whatever) and Chess (literally no difference in units and perfectly balanced). When someone is saying they want list building to matter what most are saying is they want the option to build a good anti-tank army and have it excel in that role. Not that no matter what unit you choose they all do the exact same thing. People want different styles and builds (not imbalance). Think hearstone for example if you could only play one deck with different visuals for the cards, the game would be incredibly boring very fast. Obviously, the more choice a player has the greater the chance for imbalance becomes. Most players want to be able to have lots of choices with relative balance vs. no choice with perfect balance.

I think some people definitely want that, but having fielded a few hundred emails when I was running Azyr Comp for AOS (one of the fan comps that used until official points came out) I can tell you that a lot of them wanted heavy handed listbuilding because the main criticism was saying its boring to have things too balanced and that I had effectively killed listbuilding and that was bad.

There needed to be over and under powered choices to make a lot of people happy.

 auticus wrote:
I think some people definitely want that, but having fielded a few hundred emails when I was running Azyr Comp for AOS (one of the fan comps that used until official points came out) I can tell you that a lot of them wanted heavy handed listbuilding because the main criticism was saying its boring to have things too balanced and that I had effectively killed listbuilding and that was bad.

There needed to be over and under powered choices to make a lot of people happy.

Really. is that what people want?

id be pretty disappointed with that. its not really list building if the over and under powered units is obvious

Mind you im talking about grossly obvious stuff and not things that are within a few % of "efficiency" or whatever.

 auticus wrote:
I think some people definitely want that, but having fielded a few hundred emails when I was running Azyr Comp for AOS (one of the fan comps that used until official points came out) I can tell you that a lot of them wanted heavy handed listbuilding because the main criticism was saying its boring to have things too balanced and that I had effectively killed listbuilding and that was bad.

There needed to be over and under powered choices to make a lot of people happy.

Never did that comp so can't comment on it really, But I played 9th age for quite a while though and the only major complaint people constantly had was the removal of special "fluffy" rules in the pursuit of balance. I understand that balancing act is difficult, but I've never heard some advocate blatantly for imbalance, simply that a goblin spearman plays differently than an elf spearman.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kellevil wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules don't contradict themselves...

So Inescapable Accuracy and that one Ranger Stratagem that only lets them get hit on 6s is just nothing, then?

I stand corrected. Haven’t heard of that one.

I imagine that there will be more as time goes on. So yeah... I’m gonna cross that off my list.

Yeah. And I guarantee you there's more. Just look at the YMDC thread.

Not ragging on you for liking 8th or anything-just pointing out that your assessment wasn't fully accurate.

Because, despite me preferring 7th, I do enjoy 8th.

That was already FAQ with the same interaction between Dark Reapers and Culexus assasins.

 Galas wrote:


That was already FAQ with the same interaction between Dark Reapers and Culexus assasins.

The Culexeus/Reaper FAQ doesn't apply to the Ranger/Reaper issue (two differently worded rules).

Hm. Ok. Maybe they will answer that one in the mar.... spring FAQ.

Asmodios wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I think some people definitely want that, but having fielded a few hundred emails when I was running Azyr Comp for AOS (one of the fan comps that used until official points came out) I can tell you that a lot of them wanted heavy handed listbuilding because the main criticism was saying its boring to have things too balanced and that I had effectively killed listbuilding and that was bad.

There needed to be over and under powered choices to make a lot of people happy.

Never did that comp so can't comment on it really, But I played 9th age for quite a while though and the only major complaint people constantly had was the removal of special "fluffy" rules in the pursuit of balance. I understand that balancing act is difficult, but I've never heard some advocate blatantly for imbalance, simply that a goblin spearman plays differently than an elf spearman.

They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is a big problem with AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is big problem in AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

^this is what i am assuming the people meant (once again cant say for sure because I didn't read the messages and I never played AOS after the first weekend of its release)

But if you make everything equally good against everything you remove choice from the game and make it blander. There should be repercussions in-game for taking a Las Cannon vs. a heavy bolter or a Cannon vs. a Bow

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is big problem in AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

^this is what i am assuming the people meant (once again cant say for sure because I didn't read the messages and I never played AOS after the first weekend of its release)

But if you make everything equally good against everything you remove choice from the game and make it blander. There should be repercussions in-game for taking a Las Cannon vs. a heavy bolter or a Cannon vs. a Bow

But If you make obvious good things and bad things you are removing choice by making auto takes auto takes and everything else min or leave home.

at least making things mostly balanced means you dont have to have the majority of your models sitting on a shelf.

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is a big problem with AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

Would I use it in 40k? No, due to the different nature of the game, with tanks and titans and things that should be harder to damage.

 Desubot wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is big problem in AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

^this is what i am assuming the people meant (once again cant say for sure because I didn't read the messages and I never played AOS after the first weekend of its release)

But if you make everything equally good against everything you remove choice from the game and make it blander. There should be repercussions in-game for taking a Las Cannon vs. a heavy bolter or a Cannon vs. a Bow

But If you make obvious good things and bad things you are removing choice by making auto takes auto takes and everything else min or leave home.

at least making things mostly balanced means you dont have to have the majority of your models sitting on a shelf.

I never said to make obviously good things.... Not really sure how that's what you got. What i want is different armies/units that have different strength/ weaknesses. For instance, it would be lame if a Tac marine, guardsman and Necron warrior all had the exact same stats and filled the exact same roll and the only difference was the model. Same thing if a flamer functioned identically to a melta and you were picking them for looks alone. What i want is a balanced game where you can play different forces that have different strengths/ weaknesses but are all viable because they have a correct cost attached to what they did. I understand this will make it impossible to achieve "perfect balance" but im not looking to play an expensive version of chess.

Asmodios wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is big problem in AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

^this is what i am assuming the people meant (once again cant say for sure because I didn't read the messages and I never played AOS after the first weekend of its release)

But if you make everything equally good against everything you remove choice from the game and make it blander. There should be repercussions in-game for taking a Las Cannon vs. a heavy bolter or a Cannon vs. a Bow

But If you make obvious good things and bad things you are removing choice by making auto takes auto takes and everything else min or leave home.

at least making things mostly balanced means you dont have to have the majority of your models sitting on a shelf.

I never said to make obviously good things.... Not really sure how that's what you got. What i want is different armies/units that have different strength/ weaknesses. For instance, it would be lame if a Tac marine, guardsman and Necron warrior all had the exact same stats and filled the exact same roll and the only difference was the model. Same thing if a flamer functioned identically to a melta and you were picking them for looks alone. What i want is a balanced game where you can play different forces that have different strengths/ weaknesses but are all viable because they have a correct cost attached to what they did. I understand this will make it impossible to achieve "perfect balance" but im not looking to play an expensive version of chess.

it was the the general premises that people want imbalance for the sake of choice. you know the second there is a skew people will abuse it.

yes the game shouldn't be 100% homogenized different armies should do different things and for the most part 40k is fine in that manner. AOS less so but its still there. its always going to be a hand full of specific units or options that seriously need help if gw could take care of that then personally id be happy.

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 auticus wrote:


They never argued for imbalance, per say... but... I don't know how else to interpret various versions of "you killed listbuilding by making things too balanced, and thats a huge flaw".

If 'balance' is achieved by everything being equally good versus everything, then it is bad, and that is big problem in AOS core rules. This is why I was super glad that the idiotic fixed wound chart and multi-damage spilling were not ported over to 40K.

^this is what i am assuming the people meant (once again cant say for sure because I didn't read the messages and I never played AOS after the first weekend of its release)

But if you make everything equally good against everything you remove choice from the game and make it blander. There should be repercussions in-game for taking a Las Cannon vs. a heavy bolter or a Cannon vs. a Bow

No no no. This is not what the discussion was. The discussion ws purely about the comp point system and how the points were too balanced and made listbuilding pointless, it was not about AOS core mechanics. It was actively argued against by a great many people that 2000 pts = 2000 pts is not what the community wanted at all, because that makes listbuilding pointless.

For me it was an eye opener because this was nothing I ever considered or wanted to consider, but it was where a lot of people sending in input were going.

 auticus wrote:

No no no. This is not what the discussion was. The discussion ws purely about the comp point system and how the points were too balanced and made listbuilding pointless, it was not about AOS core mechanics.

Ok, that's silly then.

Thats silly but combo-driven games are popular for a reason. People LOVE to "find" the most broken stuff and use it. They think they are very clever for doing it (When most of the people will just copy it from internet).

The only problem is when the balance is SO bad that you have 0 ways to compete. But as long as theres some kind of combo that you can do... oh man. Thats the point of it all.

Played it quite actively during first few months. Gave up later, it's just too silly, too streamlined, too unbound for my liking. Played a small updated HH game with templates, armor facings and a ton of USR's - such a refreshment <3

my hypothesis is that GW axed them because you can only sell a set of templates to a gamer once, and if the LGS has a shared set, even that's a stretch.

I think that if GW/FW ever released Legion specific templates - those would've sold like hot cakes

Well, i guess things differ for people. Some say there are a lot of new people and sales are high but what i see is that our gaming group went from 15-20 to 30 at first and than rapidly spired down to just a couple people playing much less regularly. Only around 5 people continue playing 40k. The bright side is that we're trying new great games.

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

It is almost like it was built with the intention of layering in those additional special rules...

I think GWs sales boost (which is hard to lie about) may also be due to the fact the models are typically very good now and have been for a couple of years.

I remeber about 5~ years ago thinking it was a bit of a toss up with say warmahordes. Now its no contest.

On balance I think there will always be meta determined good and bad choices. The issue is the range between them. Compare say a Flyrant to an Ork buggy.

I'm enjoying it to be honest, I preferred 1st edition but thats basically playing a totally different game with the same name.

I do think the core rules would benefit from being about twice as long though and more clearly and tightly written - with a terrain section that mattered.

I'm expecting the core to improve in the next edition though.

What GW have tried, and largely managed is what Battlefront tried and largely failed with the new edition of FoW, strip out what they thought was cruft and refocus the game on the bits that actually mattered.

I'm liking the way most of the ways for a player to shut their opponent down have gone or been more limited, with a focus on making your own force better more than the enemies worse (the "-1 to hit me so ner" excepted).

Downsides:

1. building an army is a royal pain with the points split from the data cards

2. movement is way too fast compared to weapon ranges, when you can move then charge further than you can shoot something is wrong - would be ok with a better overwatch mechanic (say -1 to hit, no indirect fire), or with longer ranges and the current systems (or better still reduced movement). It just feels wrong that an enemy in clear terrain piling forwards can get from one side of your kill range to close combat without you actually being able to stop them

Upsides

1. the data cards, the abandonment of the "lead out the codex to make photocopying it a pain" and the soup of USR most of which seemed to cross reference each other through three layers down to a "+/-1" on a stat or dice roll have made actually playing the game a lot faster

3. discovering in close combat that dice have sides other than 3,4 or 5, which frankly on a D6 system was rubbish anyway

2. there is no point #2

4. The expanded range of missions, yes I know previous editions had expansion books of missions, no one seemed to every play them, a bit like Warhammer was always "battle line" - now you need a more varied army because what it will be asked to do varies so much more.


I skipped 2nd, 3rd & 4th, returning in 5th which was ok, 6th was meh and 7th was pointless and an obvious stopgap

8th edition is without a shadow of a doubt a better system than 6th and 7th, however given how bad those two were it isn't that hard, nor is it a brilliant endorsement for 8th edition.

8th edition does get a lot of things right, but saying that it also gets a lot of things wrong.

If I am to be honest I think the best shape the 40k game has ever been in was the 3rd edition rulebook. What made that format work is that all forces had their rules in the back of the book. No force had to wait, and the system was free from power creep in the shape of Codex creep. Also the system didn't have flyers and superheavies, those while being nice models should be locked into apocalypse sized games, or Epic. In a lot of ways it is a combination of codex and scale creep that breaks the systems, each edition has been an attempt to patch the core rules to accommodate the editions made in the Codexes.

8th broke that trend and everything was reset, which was badly needed. What remains to be seen is whether GW can keep from repeating their too often trend for power creep. I imagine that a lot of the creep comes from getting used to the limits of an edition, hence why the level of power between the first and last codex produced for a system is so pronounced.

Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

stonehorse wrote:Also the system didn't have flyers and superheavies, those while being nice models should be locked into apocalypse sized games, or Epic. In a lot of ways it is a combination of codex and scale creep that breaks the systems, each edition has been an attempt to patch the core rules to accommodate the editions made in the Codexes.

leopard wrote:Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

I see quotes like this, and I wonder if we played the same game.

The Baneblade has had homebrew rules in 28mm since exactly 10 minutes after its introduction in epic, and the demand signal for such things was so strong that the 28mm Baneblade got a model and rules in 2nd edition (Inquisitor Magazine issue 16). Citadel Journal 11 also included rules for the Baneblade before it was moved from Armourcast (when the license was pulled) to Forge World, when it entered the Imperial Armour floppy book. It stayed with Forge World till Apocalypse, when it was ported out of 28mm 40k in late 4e, then in late 5e was ported back in to 40k with the Battle Missions book allowing you to field a company of 3 against a 1500 point 40k army.

So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st, which didn't have any vehicles at all except homebrew essentially, and were only not part of 40k for a portion of late 4th/early-mid 5th.

Just because you never saw them doesn't mean they weren't there. And I do concede that they've become easier to take (used to be 1 max 25%, like Forge World's Horus Heresy series), but also easier to kill, barring perhaps its 2nd edition iteration.

Ultimately 8th has been great for both me and my gaming group. The tournaments we host and travel to have had higher participation and we've got a pretty consistent influx of new players looking to learn the game as well.

8th isn't perfect by any means - terrain needs a lot of TLC, I'd like to see slightly more restrictions on list composition, pure armies need a boost as compared to soup, and I'd like to see a little more nuance to the psychic phase. Those things said I've been playing it consistently since launch and I've enjoyed it the entire time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

stonehorse wrote:Also the system didn't have flyers and superheavies, those while being nice models should be locked into apocalypse sized games, or Epic. In a lot of ways it is a combination of codex and scale creep that breaks the systems, each edition has been an attempt to patch the core rules to accommodate the editions made in the Codexes.

leopard wrote:Agree the creep to turn 40k in to Epic 28mm+ has caused a lot of problems, keep in mind this started out as a set of rules for a skirmish between a dozen or so models each side.

I gather the reboot to 3rd was required by the expanding scale, and would suggest 8th was as well - the previous rules simply didn't suit "Apoc" scale games as the norm.

While the current rules more or less work with the bigger stuff it still looks daft on the table, ditto fliers which could do with the "minimum" move range doubling so they are useful on big tables in big games, but more usually limited to hover mode or some sort of strafing run

I see quotes like this, and I wonder if we played the same game.

The Baneblade has had homebrew rules in 28mm since exactly 10 minutes after its introduction in epic, and the demand signal for such things was so strong that the 28mm Baneblade got a model and rules in 2nd edition (Inquisitor Magazine issue 16). Citadel Journal 11 also included rules for the Baneblade before it was moved from Armourcast (when the license was pulled) to Forge World, when it entered the Imperial Armour floppy book. It stayed with Forge World till Apocalypse, when it was ported out of 28mm 40k in late 4e, then in late 5e was ported back in to 40k with the Battle Missions book allowing you to field a company of 3 against a 1500 point 40k army.

So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st, which didn't have any vehicles at all except homebrew essentially, and were only not part of 40k for a portion of late 4th/early-mid 5th.

Just because you never saw them doesn't mean they weren't there. And I do concede that they've become easier to take (used to be 1 max 25%, like Forge World's Horus Heresy series), but also easier to kill, barring perhaps its 2nd edition iteration.

They may have been there, but they weren't part of the envisioned rules, but rather an addition bolted on later, and then only with opponents permission.

I remember seeing the armourcast stuff at Gamesday (95 I think), and that is as far as it got, at the time I lived in West Yorkshire, which has a large player base. I think one person made the Baneblade for 2nd edition, it was used a few times and then shelved. It wasn't fun, as the scope of the game couldn't handle superheavies, the same is true of 3rd edition, it was used a few times and then went back to collecting dust.

Yes, there were conversions and chapter approved rules for them, but remember a lot of the chapter approved stuff needed opponents permission, as they were trial rules and as such imbalanced the gameplay. At least now Superheavies can be handled due to the new wound chart, still comes as a shock seeing them on the battlefield for what is essentially a platoon/company level game.

 stonehorse wrote:
They may have been there, but they weren't part of the envisioned rules, but rather an addition bolted on later, and then only with opponents permission.

I remember seeing the armourcast stuff at Gamesday (95 I think), and that is as far as it got, at the time I lived in West Yorkshire, which has a large player base. I think one person made the Baneblade for 2nd edition, it was used a few times and then shelved. It wasn't fun, as the scope of the game couldn't handle superheavies, the same is true of 3rd edition, it was used a few times and then went back to collecting dust.

Yes, there were conversions and chapter approved rules for them, but remember a lot of the chapter approved stuff needed opponents permission, as they were trial rules and as such imbalanced the gameplay. At least now Superheavies can be handled due to the new wound chart, still comes as a shock seeing them on the battlefield for what is essentially a platoon/company level game.

Damn near everything in 40k beyond "basic dudes" was bolted on to the game before 3rd edition, and I don't think they were that good in 3rd edition. In fact, having played one most of the time, I can vouch they weren't. Forge World was incredibly conservative with the rules. If you'd like, we could arrange a 3rd edition game some time into the future to test it - I still have my floppy 3rd Edition Imperial Armour book with the Baneblade rules in it. The only remarkable thing was the structure points, so you had to "kill" it 3 times to finish it off. But weapon destroyed results worked just fine, so it could be swiftly disarmed, and it was 634 points if I remember correctly, which was four times the price of a single Leman Russ. It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

And the idea of "needing opponent's permission" is as true now as it ever was. Back in the day, special characters needed opponent's permission, as did myriad other things, from the entire assault phase (at least in the second half of 3rd Edition) to the differences between Space Marine Chapters from Index Astartes. Even today, you need "opponent's permission" to play the game, or bring certain units. I always ask my opponents if they don't mind fighting my superheavies, even today, which is the same question I asked them in 3rd.

As for your last point: 40k is a company scale game, and in the fluff, there are superheavy tank companies. I'm honestly not surprised at all. It's like being surprised to see an Abrams tank in a company scale game, or an IS-2.

I don't mean to sound rude, but I've played a Baneblade in my army since I was able to beg, borrow, and steal the money from my parents, and I find the idea that they were somehow "foreign" to the game, or "not designed at the scale" or something like that, to be bonkers. They've been playing in 28mm 40k longer than I have, and longer than most players have played.

8th edition is pretty darn fantastic. Is it the best? I don't know. I LOVED 4th edition. It might be a tie. But 8th COULD be the best if it just fixed a few things.

My biggest gripe with 8th is the terrain/LoS rules. Bring back 4th edition's area terrain line of sight rules and 8th would be the best edition easily.

I also prefer the scale of 3rd/4th era. I was actually happy when they increased the scale of the game at that time from the skirmishy level of 1st/2nd, but it's kind of gone off the rails at this point.

I'm incredibly happy to see the end of templates, facings, and vehicle armor values. One happy system for everything. I love that they brought back damage values, but I do wish they were a little less random. Replace every instance of D3 with a flat 2 and every instance of d6 with a flat 3 (or d3+1 or d3+2). I find all the d3 attacks that do d3 damage or d6 attacks that do d6 damage a little to swingy for my tastes.

But other than terrain/LoS they're just niggles. It's damn good version of 40k.

4th is still my favorite edition. 3rd, espesically 3.5, was really good too. As was 5th. I took a break from the hobby in 6th (break was not due to the game itself btw), it was still good, but I remember disliking many of the changes from 5th. I only played two-three games in 7th, and I hated how the FOC was gone and how they included a bunch of bloated gimmicks.

8th has removed the parts I really liked about 3rd-7th (armor values, templates), kept the soup I hated from 7th, and introduced a bunch of bloat like stratagems, tactical objectives and a psychic phase.
Some things are really nice though, like save modifiers and damage being brought back from 2nd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

I have that old IA floppy book too. "Warmachines" were their own detachment, and according to the 3rd ed rulebook you could only bring multiple detachments in games of more than 2k points. A "detachment" then was simply another FOC, but in the case of warmachines like Baneblades and other super heavy tanks, they were 1-3 per detachment.
You're right that they were incredibly underpowered - with the super heavy damage tables you could still one shot them by getting multiple chain reactions. It's main strength VS a normal tank was that it could fire all of it's guns, at different targets if needed, and on the move. A Leman Russ would have to stay stationary to fire its main gun (at least until TVR), and then couldn't fire any other weapons that turn.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It also had heavy restrictions (2000 pts plus games, iirc), and took up 3 heavy support slots.

I have that old IA floppy book too. "Warmachines" were their own detachment, and according to the 3rd ed rulebook you could only bring multiple detachments in games of more than 2k points. A "detachment" then was simply another FOC, but in the case of warmachines like Baneblades and other super heavy tanks, they were 1-3 per detachment.
You're right that they were incredibly underpowered - with the super heavy damage tables you could still one shot them by getting multiple chain reactions. It's main strength VS a normal tank was that it could fire all of it's guns, at different targets if needed, and on the move. A Leman Russ would have to stay stationary to fire its main gun (at least until TVR), and then couldn't fire any other weapons that turn.

Okay, awesome! I had it kinda correct, except the 3 heavy support slots. Not sure where that came from, but still 2k plus games (2001+ to clarify my meaning) and the fact that I remembered it being bad, generally. Was it actually 634 points? That's the one I'm the most excited to check if I remember but I have to look at the book, which isn't with me at the moment.

634, you were right on the money!
Also, for what it's worth, it could ignore "low walls and hedges" when moving.

Panzergraf wrote:
634, you were right on the money!
Also, for what it's worth, it could ignore "low walls and hedges" when moving.

BADASS! I remember things like the points costs but not how to bring them in an army, oh well. I'm old, and stuff, mmkay? And yes, I remember that. In fact, I fondly remember them destroying terrain they rolled over? That sounds like a houserule, if it's not an actual rule. My friends at the time found the thing kickass and would let it bulldoze over quite a few things that probably weren't "low walls" so much as "buildings"

This is my first edition, so I would say... yes?

It's been pretty easy for my wife and I to pick up and play, even without a ton of wargaming experience. It's been easy to start out small and frighteningly easy to incorporate more and more units into our games. There are a bunch of different army builds that we both want to try.

I can't speak much compared to previous editions, but I can say that this edition hits all the right notes for us, and we're really enjoying it.

Archebius wrote:
This is my first edition, so I would say... yes?

It's been pretty easy for my wife and I to pick up and play, even without a ton of wargaming experience. It's been easy to start out small and frighteningly easy to incorporate more and more units into our games. There are a bunch of different army builds that we both want to try.

I can't speak much compared to previous editions, but I can say that this edition hits all the right notes for us, and we're really enjoying it.

Makes sense. i think that was one of the primary focus of the new age of roundtree trying to make the games accessible to new players

the greybeards set in their ways are going to hate it or dislike it.

I think the 8th edition rules are great but I'm surprised at the sheer amount of FAQ, errata and Chapter Approved changes that have been made already during the first year.

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

Except the damage spill over outside of like 2 weapons and mortal wounds. but then its kinda the same thing in that big damage weapons are inefficient against chaff and chaff weapons are pretty inefficient against tanks.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Im not convinced you've actually played AOS in any meaningful way judging from your comments. The fixed to wound has never been an issue at all. Ive never heard it arise ever in competitive or casual games as an issue.

The AOS units have special rules that sometimes give them role and preferred targets, but the core rules don't do that. Choice between hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+, wounding on 4+ is meaningless, as is a choice between a weapon that attacks d6 times for one damage or one time for d6 damage (as the damage spills anyway.) It doesn't matter whether you attack a unit of small things or one big thing. The core rules are built so that most choices are meaningless. Only rend has some meaning,as it is more valuable against heavily armoured foes. The core rules are terrible, some units have special rules to mitigate this.

You do realize that that's exactly the same system that 40k runs on, right? Most things in the game hit on a 3+ or 4+, and most things wound on the same. If anything, 40k ends up being more homogeneous than AoS, especially since most weapon variety tends to come down to largly insignificant variances in arbitrary statlines that themselves feature very little differentiation than actual utility. At least in AoS, different units contain more varied abilities and combinations of attack profiles- to make them distinct.

Everything you said is wrong. In 40K the weapons actually have favourable targets. Strength & toughness mechanic ensures that weapons perform differently against different foes, and wounds not spilling ensures that you cannot use heavy hitting guns like lascannons to cleave hordes. None of this is case in AOS, where the damage output of an attacking unit is largely independent of the unit being targeted. It is like the designers intentionally tried to make a game where your choices do not matter.

I will always have a place in my heart for 2nd edition. It was great fun. Objectively... 8th is the best.

Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

Hordes in AoS tend to be poor targets for heavy hitters just by virtue of those hitters being generally less efficient point-for-wound outside of horde-specific measures. Wound spillage and a leadership phase that actually does something means that hordes have to be more careful and can't tie up big toys for free, but putting Archaon into a horde of Skaven Slaves is going to lose you a lot of games.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

 Fafnir wrote:
Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

This is just plain crazy. 40K statlines absolutely add more depth. The strength & toughness matter greatly and are a huge factor in determining target priority. AOS needs a ton of convoluted rules for extra rules for each unit to achieve a fraction of complexity 40K core rules provide.

Oh, and if you think AP beyond -2 doesn't matter, you have obviously never played marines... or fielded any vehicles for that matter.

Oh, and flamers kill more points worth of guardsmen than they kill Intercessors (that's our modern marine benchmark.)

And speaking of pointless stats, AOS separate wound and hit rolls are epitome of pointlessness. It serves no purpose to have two static rolls, you could easily combine them without affecting the odds.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Weapons in 40k are not too far different. Certain weapons might look like they're built with specific intent, but in many cases, they're rarely designed intelligently enough for that intent to translate into proper efficiency. Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes, and that continues to most tools. Plasma is the best weapon for all scenarios, and if your faction doesn't have access to it, then most armies shouldn't have difficulty finding a mathematically optimal solution for most loadouts for most targets. If AoS is just about the raw number of wounds, then 40k is just about the raw number of bodies.

It also doesn't help that invulnerable saves are passed around like candy in 40k, which helps to trivialize the value of AP on weapons beyond -2.

But at least in AoS, units are designed around more interesting rule interactions and informing army design based on command abilities, instead of pretending that some arbitrary and generally pointless statlines add more depth. Strength and Toughness really just don't do enough to matter as stats in 40k anymore beyond giving the illusion of depth.

This is just plain crazy. 40K statlines absolutely add more depth. The strength & toughness matter greatly and are a huge factor in determining target priority. AOS needs a ton of convoluted rules for extra rules for each unit to achieve a fraction of complexity 40K core rules provide.

Oh, and if you think AP beyond -2 doesn't matter, you have obviously never played marines... or fielded any vehicles for that matter.

Oh, and flamers kill more points worth of guardsmen than they kill Intercessors (that's our modern marine benchmark.)

And speaking of pointless stats, AOS separate wound and hit rolls are epitome of pointlessness. It serves no purpose to have two static rolls, you could easily combine them without affecting the odds.

Well AP3 being the most common, most elite models would of been taking a 5+ anyway (2+ terminator armor types or 3+ in cover) if anything it makes the ubiquitous 5+ invul less valuable.

eh AOS to hit and to wound matter in that some armies do gain different benefits synergies and effects that change depending on circumstances.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, it's not 4th edition.

However, it's vastly superior to anything 6th and 7th could have dreamed of.

Truth!

8th only seems "best" because 6th and 7th were steaming piles

 Fafnir wrote:
Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes,

You know, I've always wondered how flamers got to be anti-horde when their actual real life purpose is clearing bunkers. Machine guns are the true anti-horde. It's a shame flamers don't ignore cover. Frag grenades should ignore it too for that matter.

Dandelion wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Flamers are more efficient at killing marines than they are hordes,

You know, I've always wondered how flamers got to be anti-horde when their actual real life purpose is clearing bunkers. Machine guns are the true anti-horde. It's a shame flamers don't ignore cover. Frag grenades should ignore it too for that matter.

As far as I’m aware it’s not standard practice to “sweep” flame throwers into crowds of people, it would be devastatingly effective at clearing riots and large numbers of closely packed people.

I do agree they should ignore cover and drag grenades, or maybe some interactions with cover, extra D3 hits if enemy is in cover or something, it would cement them as weapons designed to clear that kind of area.

In the extended rules, Cities of Death, flamers and grenades apply the max number of hits (So always 6 hits) to enemies in cover.

Thats why we always play with the extended rules of Cities of Death (But not the stratagem). They add so much more to the game, and unlike the other extended rules, they fell like a natural adition to the basic rules, and not a "expansion" for an alternative experience.

No, it's not.

 Galas wrote:
In the extended rules, Cities of Death, flamers and grenades apply the max number of hits (So always 6 hits) to enemies in cover.

Thats why we always play with the extended rules of Cities of Death (But not the stratagem). They add so much more to the game, and unlike the other extended rules, they fell like a natural adition to the basic rules, and not a "expansion" for an alternative experience.

Cities of Death rules all day mate! But the auto 6 attacks only applies to grenades... (it should have been flamers too )
Fortunately, house ruling is always an option. If people can mod video games, then I can mod a tabletop game.

Which brings me back to the topic: 8th edition is just an ok game as a whole, but it is a very solid foundation for tweaking and adding rules. Terrain is very easy to do on your own, and the BRB even tells you to make your own up. (eg lava river being impassible despite not actually being a rule) So obscurement to hit modifiers are definitely an option.

Also, if I don't like how something works I can just change it. Take tanks for example: tanks should be able to effectively screen infantry, instead they are encouraged to park behind the infantry. So I'd give them the ability to shoot while still in combat, and withdraw and still shoot. Boom, the perfect screen. Now I can start playing a game with a semblance of real tactics.
The only difficulty is arriving at a consensus.

Agreed, 8th isnt the final draft but its a solid 8th draft. In my circle a lot of people think 8th will just be continually updated and will never be replaced by a 9th. A lot of people see the rules as a living document this time around, where i never got that impression during 7th.

Its mentalitiez like this that make games like skyrim sell forever

TBH I Would say 5th.
But my biggest gripe is unlike previous editions finding all your rules has become a living hell as previously your rules were BRB/Codex/FAQ and now in 8th's BRB/Index/Codex/FAQ/Designernotes/CA and more to follow
I would not mind GW making a 8.1 rulesbook (just rules no gak like CA pls) that would consolodate all the faq's and rules updates into the rulebook instead of just expanding and make it even more convoluted then 7th. Then 8th could become a contender

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So superheavy tanks have been a thing in 40k for every edition except 1st

The Baneblade was introduced into late 1st edition (the "targeting template" vehicle rules) in WD 129 in 1990. In addition, I'm pretty sure the original rules for vehicles in the core rulebook would be able to handle any vehicle currently made in plastic. It might have been nigh-undefeatable for a mob of scabby space pirates, but you could do it. Certainly White Dwarf used to have loads of pictures of vehicles that would be the size of "super-heavy" vehicles in later editions- Tony Cottrell's converted AT-STs, for example.

I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

 ArbitorIan wrote:
tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

IOW, the problem is the game. A good game doesn't get broken just because the players use optimal strategies.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists for stuff like that. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

There is also the penchant for tournaments to last only 3-4 turns instead of the full 5-7, meaning that building an army designed to endure alpha strikes and outlast the enemy, which really starts running on all cylinders after the enemy has shot his bolt, tend to get shoved aside in favor of "FRONTLOAD ALL THE DAMAGE".

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

hobojebus wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

I would love to see some of these tables... I'm sure they'd be a sight to behold.

hobojebus wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

I play mostly casual and iv seen games decided on turn one and games that go to 7.

nither happen soo much that its actually a problem. some times gak happens that no one can possibly have expected it.

The handful of games I've played of 8th edition so far have made me love it more than 6th and definitely more than 7th. The rules flow better, the balance is a lot better, everything can kill everything.

And, to top it all off, even with less overall special rules and such, there still seems to be plenty of flavor to each unit. Then, top it off with Stratagems that bring back old abilities or allow for neat things during the course of the battle, and the fact that you have sub-faction tactics (a big deal for a Necron player, let me tell ya).

I'm loving 8th so much, that this is the only time I've preordered a collectors edition codex. And I don't regret it.

odin wrote:
I would not mind GW making a 8.1 rulesbook (just rules no gak like CA pls) that would consolodate all the faq's and rules updates into the rulebook

That's almost exactly what GW did for 4E and 5E. 5E is literally 4E + FAQs

So far 8th is the best I've played since 5th edition

I just choose to ignore the butched Primarch / Primarus Marines fluff.

I joined in 5th edition, and I really enjoyed it, 6th and 7th were poor. 8th is better than 6th or 7th. I've yet to feel like I was in a game where I did not have a fighting chance, and I play marines and until this week, index necrons.

Joined in 5th. Enjoyed it then. 6th and 7th just got too bloated and mentally exhausting.

Thoroughly enjoy 8th. Only problems co.e when we start over thinking things because of carry over from 6th and 7th ed nonsense.
Great edition for the casual gamer who like to get with friends, have drinks, eat pizza and roll some dice.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

The problem is the people making the game not seeing how easily it can be broken. Seriously, most of the competitive builds come about after about 10 minutes of a competitive player reading a new codex. That's what makes the rock,paper,scissors aspect so dumb. Spam the best unit with the best buff HQ......Profit!!!!

Seriously, I'm all for having an enjoyable game over beer/pretzels but at least have some hardcore competitive minds look at the new rules to see how it can be abused.

Peregrine wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

IOW, the problem is the game. A good game doesn't get broken just because the players use optimal strategies.

I don't normally find myself in a position to agree with you, but this time it feels GOOD that I do...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

The problem is the people making the game not seeing how easily it can be broken. Seriously, most of the competitive builds come about after about 10 minutes of a competitive player reading a new codex. That's what makes the rock,paper,scissors aspect so dumb. Spam the best unit with the best buff HQ......Profit!!!!

Seriously, I'm all for having an enjoyable game over beer/pretzels but at least have some hardcore competitive minds look at the new rules to see how it can be abused.

I think that was a bit of the problem when the likes of Alessio Cavatiore (SP!?!?!?!?) and Andy Chambers left. They sort of lost the tourney minded games developers. Then you had Jervis left with his CAAC gaming outlook and Ward with..., well, being Ward. Not much else necessary there. Haines' books suffered from a lack of a logical mind reeling him in. In the newer editions, it's the entire GAME that suffers.


I'm seriously wondering if they playtest at all...

This is without a doubt the most successful edition GW has ever done. Even those that HATE it can't stop talking about it.

By that metric, Trump is the most successful president the US has ever had!
Let that sink in a bit...

I love 8th. I quit during 6th and a lot of the BS that came with it, especially in the beginning with allies and all that crap, and broken half-***ed rules. I wish I hadn't sold all my stuff during that time, I had a lot , and with the new Necrons and Dark Eldar it especially stings (I had full armies of both, plus Blood angels and Demons).

Ah well, live and learn. Even though Demons and Chaos aren't as fluffy and awesome as the newer codices, I'm noticing that as GW adjusts to this new edition, the armies just keep getting better, and players are happier with each release. Look at the noticable difference in tone from players starting with Codex: CSM and leading to Drukhari.

I just hope that GW now goes back and fixes all the gak they messed up with earlier codices, which I do feel they will.

I still prefer 5th over 8th, probably because that edition was when I started, rose tinted glasses and all that.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
By that metric, Trump is the most successful president the US has ever had!
Let that sink in a bit...

Bad logic. The contrapositive does not work.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I joined in 5th edition, and I really enjoyed it, 6th and 7th were poor. 8th is better than 6th or 7th. I've yet to feel like I was in a game where I did not have a fighting chance, and I play marines and until this week, index necrons.

The greatest thing about the early editions was that more often than not they went to the 6th turn and were decided by the last assault and saving throws. First strike wasn't a big deal, and any army with a little luck could still fare well against the latest power creep if you knew your army well.

Now people are just using batteries to power stratagems for super units and 9 out of 10 games are decided by turn 2. 8th is an improvement from 6th and 7th but 'living rules system' isn't fixing the correct problems IMO. increasing and decreasing points is a bandage over the problem and not a cure.

I started playing 40k 2nd edition, it was very much toward a skirmish game with big ideas.
3rd was when I really got into the game in-depth.
4th was pretty much getting all the changes and add-ons into it from 3rd.
5th was pretty much the same thing and power creep became a strong complaint (more-so than before).
6th... I really tried to like it. Rules were a bit of a mess. Positioning of models became so critical, it seemed to slow the game to a crawl. Was painful to try to keep up on the updates, I think I stopped buying White Dwarf then. Oh yes, and the unholy allies list.
7th... Similar to 6th, they seemed to try to clean it up a bit but the core 6th edition mechanics made it rather ponderous and the multitude sources of rules was almost impossible to legally own (first time I did not get all the codex's EVER).

Around 6th edition I got side-tracked by "Bolt-Action", I honestly thought this is what 40k should have been, then I saw who designed the game: some of the old GW rules writers.

8th edition: Borrowed a whole lot from Bolt-Action, I oddly do not miss the templates and deviation dice anymore.
I feel it is missing one key feature: some kind of alternating unit activation: I think this is the #1 glaring flaw in the game.
It is vastly better than what came before in my opinion.
It even has a hope of being able to play competitively again.
The simplistic cover rules and all weapons able to fire from any point on the model can get some "realism" folks upset but it sure kills a bunch of arguments.

It really is an opinion and it can typically boil down to what you are used to.
The acid test for me is playing with good friends and the game flowed, stuff was happening, lots of models died, buckets of dice were thrown, surprises were had and no huge arguments over rules: it simply worked.
This result is very much unlike prior editions, even my well liked 3rd-4th editions.