Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Its certainly an improvement IMO, but my biggest gripe about 7th was the rerolls after rerolls, with extra rerolls for certain armies. Playing against Eldar? Just skip all rolling, it didnt even matter at that point.

8th hasnt exactly changed that...

Imagine if the dice rolls were actually important the first time?

8th edition has been out for one week less than a year at this point, not "a few months". It has been more than long enough to see the obvious and major flaws in the rules, and GW doesn't get extra credit for trying really hard. The results of all their hard work are still trash, and the superficial changes they are making are nowhere near enough to address the problems.

 Peregrine wrote:
8th edition has been out for one week less than a year at this point, not "a few months". It has been more than long enough to see the obvious and major flaws in the rules, and GW doesn't get extra credit for trying really hard. The results of all their hard work are still trash, and the superficial changes they are making are nowhere near enough to address the problems.

Superficial changes, is better than no changes. It'll take lots of small changes to sort it out, they can't just constantly change the whole game system.

 Peregrine wrote:
8th edition has been out for one week less than a year at this point, not "a few months". It has been more than long enough to see the obvious and major flaws in the rules, and GW doesn't get extra credit for trying really hard. The results of all their hard work are still trash, and the superficial changes they are making are nowhere near enough to address the problems.

Rule of 3, boots on ground, and tactical reserves are superficial? Smite spam fix is superficial?

My partner always moans when we play 40k if you know what i mean! Ey ey ey? Nobody? Okay... I'll shut up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Its certainly an improvement IMO, but my biggest gripe about 7th was the rerolls after rerolls, with extra rerolls for certain armies. Playing against Eldar? Just skip all rolling, it didnt even matter at that point.

8th hasnt exactly changed that...

Imagine if the dice rolls were actually important the first time?

I play shooty Orks. We have almost no rerolls and almost every dice is a 1/3 chance of being a success. I know how important dice can be when i fight gullfaceman and he hits on 2s rerolling 1s.

GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

meleti wrote:
GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

Ah yes, the classic "UR NEVER HAPPY" attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism and pretend that we're all just negative for the sake of being unhappy.

meleti wrote:
GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

Yes, everyone who has issues with their practices is merely complaining to complain....

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Rule of 3, boots on ground, and tactical reserves are superficial? Smite spam fix is superficial?

Yep, they really are superficial.

Rule of 3 is a half-assed attempt at fixing the problem. It eliminates particular spam elements but does nothing to address the fundamental issue with list construction: abandoning the classic FOC in favor of "take what you want" nonsense. And it doesn't even do a complete job of imposing the limit because similar units exist. For example, as an IG player I can take 9 LRBTs (in three squadrons for FOC purposes), 3 tank commanders, and Pask, and that's without even getting into FW units with names that are just different enough to count as a different unit. It was a positive step, of course, but GW took the very smallest step instead of a comprehensive overhaul.

Boots on ground is just reverting to an old rule, undoing something that never should have happened in the first place. Again, it's a positive change, but it was a very low-effort one.

The tactical reserves changes are, again, just a partial reversion to a previous (and superior) rule but they don't go anywhere near far enough. The change mitigates turn-1 alpha strikes and makes it so that deploying in reserve is no longer the automatic correct choice 100% of the time, but it still leaves zero-risk perfect-accuracy deep strike as part of the game. Using reserve rules is still nearly automatic because the option is too powerful and has too few drawbacks. GW could have done a more comprehensive overhaul of a bad mechanic, but instead they made a small change to fix only the most obvious abuse.

Smite fixes one problem but doesn't address the broken state of pyschic powers in general. Again, it was a very small change to one specific thing instead of addressing the question of why people were taking smite spam. And it does so with an awkward special-case ruling to make one specific power work differently from everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Superficial changes, is better than no changes.

Sure, in the same way that being shot once is better than being shot twice. GW failing a little less badly than they could be is not something that really deserves much praise, just like we don't praise a small child when they smear their all over the wall and call it "art".

It'll take lots of small changes to sort it out, they can't just constantly change the whole game system.

Of course they can change the whole game system. They did it with 8th edition, they can do it again. And they should have done it right with 8th edition. All they have to do is admit that they failed and that their product is terrible instead of insisting that FORGE A NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS BEST MINIATURES EVER.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

Ah yes, the classic "UR NEVER HAPPY" attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism and pretend that we're all just negative for the sake of being unhappy.

I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

Ah yes, the classic "UR NEVER HAPPY" attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism and pretend that we're all just negative for the sake of being unhappy.

I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

Being kicked in the nads is better than being shot in the face with a navel battlecannon.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

No, 8th just has soup and spamming different lists. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that GW is getting it right. Just ignore whatever you have to ignore, and call it unwarranted because you don't want to see flaws.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
GW could put a $100 bill into their starter box and people would complain that it wasn't folded properly.

Ah yes, the classic "UR NEVER HAPPY" attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism and pretend that we're all just negative for the sake of being unhappy.

I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

Being kicked in the nads is better than being shot in the face with a navel battlecannon.

You all think you can just change a rule perfectly and that's that. Changing a single rule can have all sorts of repercussions and they can't find that out just testing it at GW with team of testers, they have to do the best they can, release the new rules and wait for the community which has a much vaster sample and can find these problems with the rules. They attempted to fix the rules and it didn't work, at least now they are listening to our feedback and we can wait to see if it does get fixed. They probably tried to fix these rules with as little impact so as not to feth everything up, which was probably the wrong move. Its easy being wise in retrospect after the fact.

Its definitely no longer too soon to moan about it. The key is that GW do everything towards a profit EXCEPT that you could argue the rule of 3. That is clearly a rule that doesn't directly feed their profit but indirectly maybe.

I think the rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to fixing a problem they encountered when they turned up to tournament play and should have been better but I respect them for doing it. I am genuinely happy that they are trying to do a better job. I am still unhappy that the job they are doing is not enough to meet my expectations.

All of our expectations however are probably different.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Its definitely no longer too soon to moan about it. The key is that GW do everything towards a profit EXCEPT that you could argue the rule of 3. That is clearly a rule that doesn't directly feed their profit but indirectly maybe.

I think the rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to fixing a problem they encountered when they turned up to tournament play and should have been better but I respect them for doing it. I am genuinely happy that they are trying to do a better job. I am still unhappy that the job they are doing is not enough to meet my expectations.

All of our expectations however are probably different.

We'll its unprecedented, we've always been stuck with the rules in previous editions, so maybe it is too soon or it isn't. None of us know what process' they take to write, test and publish rules. So I concede its maybe not too soon if you concede that maybe it is.

There's a difference between moaning and constructive feedback and opinions.

A lot of people moan in a very general way "this rule sucks" and they repeat that over and over. The problem is for some people that's as far as their thinking goes so there's no detail or context - you have to either agree or disagree based upon your own judgement. So it ends up a horrible mess of complainers and anti complainers all arguing from very different viewpoints which - generally - results in the argument being all about egos with a general very negative feel and atmosphere to the community.




Instead what's BETTER is "this rule isn't as good as it could be - here are my detailed reasons why". Followed up with either suggestions on how it could be fixed or an invitation for others to give their viewpoint.

The key is to approach things from a neutral to positive angle and build from there with detailed constructive posts. Those take time though and as time passes many a constructive thread gives birth to the "thus rule sucks (I'm not repeating myself for the 50th time and writing an essay)" threads.


The other point is getting the vibe or theme of the rules; there are lot of people who just flat out say the entire rules system is wrong; which honestly says more about the person than the rules. It's to say that (in most cases) the person simply wants a different style of game to what is being produced. Nothing wrong in that, but it doesn't mean that the rules system itself is flawed from the ground up - just that the rules and person don't get along. This is not to say that rules systems can't be flawed at key points of course; just that suggesting that GW has got it wrong and the entire system needs a change is a big ask that might not get the flavour of what's being aimed at anyway.








I would also say that detailed constructive informative and impartial feedback to rules has more chance of being positive received by GW with its current attitude toward the market. Ranting, arguing and putting down the writers won't (heck you'd hate it if someone said it about what you'd spend months/years working on).

Let’s be clear here.

7th core rules and 8th core rules are both as gak as each other, anyone that thinks otherwise is just buying into the PR crap GW spouts,

Where the problems mainly came from was..... codex creep and codexs in general, and guess what people.... the exact thing is happening again.

It won’t be too long before 8th starts getting special detachments for themed armies too, that grant a special rule and more CP... mark my words.

Long story short 8th is the polished turd to 7ths turd, both are still turds.

 Formosa wrote:

Long story short 8th is the polished turd to 7ths turd, both are still turds.

See the problem here is that the language you've chosen to use is not informative nor impartial but emotive and insulting. By the choice of words alone you've moved outside of critique and commentary on the rules into a more general attack. Thing is when someone who enjoys playing 8th edition reads this they instantly disagree and fight back. Even if they agre that there are flaws with the rules they disagree that "its a turd".

Plus any GW staffer who got a comment like that would, eh, ignore it and not pay any mind.

Your viewpoint expresses your emotional and personal view, but invites no means nor grounds to debate nor discuss the matter, but is more an open invitation for a fight about it.








Basically repeat posts like that are what creates the negative attitude that some, like the OP, is more posting about rather than inviting discussion and increasing the depth and detail of said discussions.

 Overread wrote:
There's a difference between moaning and constructive feedback and opinions.

A lot of people moan in a very general way "this rule sucks" and they repeat that over and over. The problem is for some people that's as far as their thinking goes so there's no detail or context - you have to either agree or disagree based upon your own judgement. So it ends up a horrible mess of complainers and anti complainers all arguing from very different viewpoints which - generally - results in the argument being all about egos with a general very negative feel and atmosphere to the community.




Instead what's BETTER is "this rule isn't as good as it could be - here are my detailed reasons why". Followed up with either suggestions on how it could be fixed or an invitation for others to give their viewpoint.

The key is to approach things from a neutral to positive angle and build from there with detailed constructive posts. Those take time though and as time passes many a constructive thread gives birth to the "thus rule sucks (I'm not repeating myself for the 50th time and writing an essay)" threads.


The other point is getting the vibe or theme of the rules; there are lot of people who just flat out say the entire rules system is wrong; which honestly says more about the person than the rules. It's to say that (in most cases) the person simply wants a different style of game to what is being produced. Nothing wrong in that, but it doesn't mean that the rules system itself is flawed from the ground up - just that the rules and person don't get along. This is not to say that rules systems can't be flawed at key points of course; just that suggesting that GW has got it wrong and the entire system needs a change is a big ask that might not get the flavour of what's being aimed at anyway.








I would also say that detailed constructive informative and impartial feedback to rules has more chance of being positive received by GW with its current attitude toward the market. Ranting, arguing and putting down the writers won't (heck you'd hate it if someone said it about what you'd spend months/years working on).

Well you can constructively complain, but my point is that they are at least doing something about it, they are trying to get every codex out, bringing out new models etc. I think once they release all the codex's we will see more positive changes, but still I don't think a year is a long time, look at chapter approved, its not like they spent a week on that and sent it out, then the FAQ, they are doing something about the rules people are just moaning because they aren't doing it fast enough and some armies are suffering at the moment. They don't have the resources to test the game as well as the community can. I would suggest that GW use the community to test rules, have them say 'see if this works, if it doesn't give us your feedback.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
Its definitely no longer too soon to moan about it. The key is that GW do everything towards a profit EXCEPT that you could argue the rule of 3. That is clearly a rule that doesn't directly feed their profit but indirectly maybe.

I think the rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to fixing a problem they encountered when they turned up to tournament play and should have been better but I respect them for doing it. I am genuinely happy that they are trying to do a better job. I am still unhappy that the job they are doing is not enough to meet my expectations.

All of our expectations however are probably different.

We'll its unprecedented, we've always been stuck with the rules in previous editions, so maybe it is too soon or it isn't. None of us know what process' they take to write, test and publish rules. So I concede its maybe not too soon if you concede that maybe it is.

Not quite, I’m sure you remember hearing about or encountered good old 3rd editions way of fixing rules, chapter approved, back then they would release FAQs and rules in white dwarf and eventually it would make its way into a chapter approved compendium, similar but not the same as now, it’s how terminators got thier famous 5+ invulnerable save, it’s how we ended up with codex dark angels 2nd edition etc.

The did the best they could with the format they had, if the internet had been what it is now back then, then we would have a very similar situation as now, but with a rules team that was better and without the interference of the marketing team that came later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Long story short 8th is the polished turd to 7ths turd, both are still turds.

See the problem here is that the language you've chosen to use is not informative nor impartial but emotive and insulting. By the choice of words alone you've moved outside of critique and commentary on the rules into a more general attack. Thing is when someone who enjoys playing 8th edition reads this they instantly disagree and fight back. Even if they agre that there are flaws with the rules they disagree that "its a turd".

Plus any GW staffer who got a comment like that would, eh, ignore it and not pay any mind.

Your viewpoint expresses your emotional and personal view, but invites no means nor grounds to debate nor discuss the matter, but is more an open invitation for a fight about it.








Basically repeat posts like that are what creates the negative attitude that some, like the OP, is more posting about rather than inviting discussion and increasing the depth and detail of said discussions.

I have been purposefully vague as I’m assuming everyone knows the faults of both systems without having to go into a point by point analysis, which would take much longer, it’s not emotive it’s dismissive and blasé.

 Formosa wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
Its definitely no longer too soon to moan about it. The key is that GW do everything towards a profit EXCEPT that you could argue the rule of 3. That is clearly a rule that doesn't directly feed their profit but indirectly maybe.

I think the rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to fixing a problem they encountered when they turned up to tournament play and should have been better but I respect them for doing it. I am genuinely happy that they are trying to do a better job. I am still unhappy that the job they are doing is not enough to meet my expectations.

All of our expectations however are probably different.

We'll its unprecedented, we've always been stuck with the rules in previous editions, so maybe it is too soon or it isn't. None of us know what process' they take to write, test and publish rules. So I concede its maybe not too soon if you concede that maybe it is.

Not quite, I’m sure you remember hearing about or encountered good old 3rd editions way of fixing rules, chapter approved, back then they would release FAQs and rules in white dwarf and eventually it would make its way into a chapter approved compendium, similar but not the same as now, it’s how terminators got thier famous 5+ invulnerable save, it’s how we ended up with codex dark angels 2nd edition etc.

The did the best they could with the format they had, if the internet had been what it is now back then, then we would have a very similar situation as now, but with a rules team that was better and without the interference of the marketing team that came later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Long story short 8th is the polished turd to 7ths turd, both are still turds.

See the problem here is that the language you've chosen to use is not informative nor impartial but emotive and insulting. By the choice of words alone you've moved outside of critique and commentary on the rules into a more general attack. Thing is when someone who enjoys playing 8th edition reads this they instantly disagree and fight back. Even if they agre that there are flaws with the rules they disagree that "its a turd".

Plus any GW staffer who got a comment like that would, eh, ignore it and not pay any mind.

Your viewpoint expresses your emotional and personal view, but invites no means nor grounds to debate nor discuss the matter, but is more an open invitation for a fight about it.








Basically repeat posts like that are what creates the negative attitude that some, like the OP, is more posting about rather than inviting discussion and increasing the depth and detail of said discussions.

I have been purposefully vague as I’m assuming everyone knows the faults of both systems without having to go into a point by point analysis, which would take much longer, it’s not emotive it’s dismissive and blasé.

I'll concede to that,

I think it's also worth remembering that this isn't some cheap game where you can download the rules for a tiny fee. This is a game where you're expected to fork out about £80 just for the rules. I think it's reasonable for people to expect high-quality rules for that sort of price.

Instead, I get a rulebook that looks like something I downloaded for free. In fact, it looks like a free version of a game - like I just downloaded the lite version of Kings of War.

I mean, this is the 8th edition of this game. GW isn't a rookie company, they've been going for at least 30 years now. This is the 8th iteration of this game and yet it still seems like a step backwards from 5th edition.

I mean, the Assault weapon rule is literally nonfunctional if played as written (this was true when the rules first came out and has never been corrected). When one is expected to pay ~£50 for a rulebook, I think one can reasonably expect the rules to work as written - without needing to try and work out what the designers meant.

But I guess it doesn't matter, since GW knows by know that half their fanbase will murder the other half if they point out all the mistakes and stupidity in their rules.

Every edition will have people complaining about this and that. If you're sick of seeing them doing it, I'd advise you to avoid entering their threads

Ignoring the issue of if the moaning is justified, and focusing on the “too soon”

40k editions have historically had about a 4 year lifespan. 8th has been out about a year. It has has a few rules clean-up passes, and the bulk of the codexes released. At this point I no longer think it’s in the honeymoon new edition phase. They have had a chance to patch it (and have in places) and also had a chance to show if they’ve changed their stripes with things like codex creep. I think if people want to complain they can. We’ve had time to wait and see what happens.

Personally I’ve got a lot of mixed feelings. I like 8th. It’s not perfect, but no edition has been. 40k has always been a horribly flawed mess of a game. If you want to break it, you can. Often badly and easily. But I think GW is making a lot of improvements, and generally headed in the right direction.

I still want to slap them sometimes, mostly for marketing-driven things.

The game is much improved in terms of playing in my opinion.

GW doesn't seem to be massively different though.

New model focus is still heavily skewed towards Imperium first, Chaos second and Xenos last by a large margin.

They are promoting themselves much better and reacting to rules problems/queries far better than they have in the past so I suppose that's different.

Until I see more support for the Xenos armies that need it though GW will be the same old as far as I'm concerned.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Every edition will have people complaining about this and that. If you're sick of seeing them doing it, I'd advise you to avoid entering their threads

You'd have to be aware of them in order to avoid them.

''The game has improved'' means in my terms ''the game is now more a board game''.
Less maneuvering than before.

Moreover, the character of the game has changed.
Now we see more deep strikers 9'' away from the enemy.
GW has mitigated deep striking shifting it to 2nd turn.
Nevertheless, the former game has lived from approaching the enemy.
Now you are more under pressure as the enemy might arrive early in the game.

Moaning for the sake of moaning is useless and damageful. But OP, your thread looks like "please folks shut your mouths you should never ever complain". Maybe it's just that you expressed your thoughts a but confusly, but that's how it feels.

I agree witht the idea that a rule change has extrem repercussions on all others because they then modify the interection with many others and can see some combos and exploits become outright cheesy. In a game with so many (to many to me) armies such as 40k, this makes it impossible to manage.

However, I'm sure people do not complain because of that. They re aware that it isn't a piece of cake. But they also feel like GW is mocking them because they never adress the two main problems: codex creep and cheesy spams. If you look any thread on 40k, from any period, it's all the same: 5th mecha was said overpowered... 6th was the realm of stupid flyers and the codex creep was said to be real. 7th got not inly units but entire formations that were overly pimped and unbalanced, and so were the armies. The difference in 7th is that the rule overbloat definitly broke the camel's back.

Now I firmly believe that when 8th was announced, claiming they would change the entire system and start from the very ground again with a thorough revamp, poeple believed they would finally get rid of what had been poisoning the game so far. And so far, it hasn't: the rules have been toned down, which has made the game lose a lot of it's gameplay and strategy but makes it more fluid and easy, so you could say that it's objectively a 50-50: rule bloat is limitated at the expense of depth.
Apart from that, the codex creep hasn't changed an inch, and ht egame is still as easy to break. A lot of moaners must be disapointed in an edition that from their point of view that I would tend to push forward, 8th is objectively a failure because it didn't patch the ongoing issues. The accusations are not lying in design itself, but on how uneffective it seems when tackling what we want to get rid of.

It is maybe what sir Peregrine calls partial measures: the look of the game has changed, but at the core, it's pretty much the same, and although they modifyed the rules, they only shifted, displaced the problems instead of fixing them, just as the caring around the game, for many, might evoke half measures more than an actual interest and actual efforts put in the gam's health.

What is sure however: it is not too soon to think about it. A year, with it's tournaments and patches, is enough to try and judge the game based on facts and observation.

There are certainly haters who complaine to troll, but I really want to make clear that even if some poeple will love the edition, poeple moaning most probably have reasons to and that there shouldn't be such thing as stop criticising. Whilst it is stupid when they just go for a "feth that gakky gak of a ruleset that sucks", most have at least one element to bring on.

People were declaring the game awful and dead like 3 months into the new edition and it will continue for the rest of 8th. When 9th comes out people will start declaring THAT the worst edition ever and holding up 8th as a great edition. And so the cycle will continue.

 Sim-Life wrote:
People were declaring the game awful and dead like 3 months into the new edition and it will continue for the rest of 8th. When 9th comes out people will start declaring THAT the worst edition ever and holding up 8th as a great edition. And so the cycle will continue.

It is only partially true. There is often rose tinted nostalgia about old edition, this is undeniable, however in that particular case, even poeple who dislike and go hard on critics tend to agree that 6/7th was trash.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

No, 8th just has soup and spamming different lists. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that GW is getting it right. Just ignore whatever you have to ignore, and call it unwarranted because you don't want to see flaws.

While I don't currently agree with much of what you say (or how you say it) I believe this statement is key to the health of the hobby.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

No, 8th just has soup and spamming different lists. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that GW is getting it right. Just ignore whatever you have to ignore, and call it unwarranted because you don't want to see flaws.

While I don't currently agree with much of what you say (or how you say it) I believe this statement is key to the health of the hobby.

You say that like Taudar and spam wasn't a thing in 7th.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Seems a bit much to say they're doing their best to make the game good considering 8th is a great example of why GW sucks at rules and balance.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yep, they really are superficial.

Rule of 3 is a half-assed attempt at fixing the problem. It eliminates particular spam elements but does nothing to address the fundamental issue with list construction: abandoning the classic FOC in favor of "take what you want" nonsense. And it doesn't even do a complete job of imposing the limit because similar units exist. For example, as an IG player I can take 9 LRBTs (in three squadrons for FOC purposes), 3 tank commanders, and Pask, and that's without even getting into FW units with names that are just different enough to count as a different unit. It was a positive step, of course, but GW took the very smallest step instead of a comprehensive overhaul.

They're taking incremental steps, which is the best scenario in my opinion. Dip your toe in the water and revisit in 6 months. That said I haven't seen a lot of tank spam broadly speaking.

The tactical reserves changes are, again, just a partial reversion to a previous (and superior) rule but they don't go anywhere near far enough. The change mitigates turn-1 alpha strikes and makes it so that deploying in reserve is no longer the automatic correct choice 100% of the time, but it still leaves zero-risk perfect-accuracy deep strike as part of the game. Using reserve rules is still nearly automatic because the option is too powerful and has too few drawbacks. GW could have done a more comprehensive overhaul of a bad mechanic, but instead they made a small change to fix only the most obvious abuse.

Yea, again, small changes are best. Revisiting old rules is irrelevant, because lots of other aspects of the game have changed. I don't agree that rando-deepstrike is an enjoyable or useful mechanic.

Smite fixes one problem but doesn't address the broken state of pyschic powers in general. Again, it was a very small change to one specific thing instead of addressing the question of why people were taking smite spam. And it does so with an awkward special-case ruling to make one specific power work differently from everything else.

I don't see how spells are broken in general. Smite got a special rule, because it's a special spell.

I like 8th edition. If they flesh out terrain rules more I'll be happy. Everything else I'd like to see are mostly minor aspects, like firepoints on vehicles or rules for some larger vehicles to fall back and shoot. Or points adjustments. But these things are obviousely dealt with in the chapter approved.

The one thing that sucks about 8th edition is that Fly is the only universal special rule (and a pretty good one at that). It wouldn't have been hard to call 30 ways of deep striking "deep strike".

Other than that, in a casual setting balance is very good, in a tournament setting it will never be perfect but it seems to be much better than 7th still. Yes, there's soup, but the ingredients of the soup seem to differ a lot aside from the obligatory Imperial guard battallion.

 wuestenfux wrote:
''The game has improved'' means in my terms ''the game is now more a board game''.
Less maneuvering than before.

Moreover, the character of the game has changed.
Now we see more deep strikers 9'' away from the enemy.
GW has mitigated deep striking shifting it to 2nd turn.
Nevertheless, the former game has lived from approaching the enemy.
Now you are more under pressure as the enemy might arrive early in the game.

Well shooting was way overpowered, its about time that CC was equalled. Shooting armies just have to suck it up.

8th edition is almost as bad as 7th edition was, just in the complete opposite direction.

They had some good ideas like armour modifiers, stats over 10, movement values. But for the most part there are gaping flaws in the 8th edition system simply because they were trying too hard to dumb it down.

Instead of just attempting to mash a couple half baked, ill proposed rules into 12 pages, why not just use the number of pages required to make the game work seamlessly?

Now we have FAQ's scattered everywhere which are basically just extra pages of rules that should have been part of the game to begin with, but now you have to actively search for them. I can't build a legal army without searching through pages and pages of FAQ's to find out what I can and cannot take. It's a giant disorganized mess.

There is no excuse for writing rules this sloppily. I guarantee there are people on this forum that could write a better system than the people who get payed to do it at GW.

AoS was the test bed for 8th ed 40K and is one of the most abysmally bad rules systems ever devised, even people who play it dislike a lot of the elements of the game, but they doubled down on that failure with 40K. I don't understand it at all.

You'll see complaints about 8th (both founded and unfounded) for the duration of its existence. I'm fine with that, I don't enjoy a game based on whether or not other people do. We also house-rule a lot here (in fact we're shifting over to mostly token-activation play which is much more enjoyable).

What makes me laugh though, genuinely, is people who believe 7th was a well designed game system. If you want to complain about 8th, go nuts...but don't for one second attempt to convince people that 7th edition was a good alternative.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
8th edition is almost as bad as 7th edition was, just in the complete opposite direction.

They had some good ideas like armour modifiers, stats over 10, movement values. But for the most part there are gaping flaws in the 8th edition system simply because they were trying too hard to dumb it down.

Instead of just attempting to mash a couple half baked, ill proposed rules into 12 pages, why not just use the number of pages required to make the game work seamlessly?

Now we have FAQ's scattered everywhere which are basically just extra pages of rules that should have been part of the game to begin with, but now you have to actively search for them. I can't build a legal army without searching through pages and pages of FAQ's to find out what I can and cannot take. It's a giant disorganized mess.

There is no excuse for writing rules this sloppily. I guarantee there are people on this forum that could write a better system than the people who get payed to do it at GW.

AoS was the test bed for 8th ed 40K and is one of the most abysmally bad rules systems ever devised, even people who play it dislike a lot of the elements of the game, but they doubled down on that failure with 40K. I don't understand it at all.

You said a lot without saying much at all. Could you elaborate on specifics?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

tneva82 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

This is pretty much where we are at.

Moaners gonna moan.

No matter what happens, no matter how subjectively good something can be to most people, it's going to happen.

And they have the right to complain. And you have the right to ignore them and not give a damn about their subjective analysis of why they're unhappy (probably because they aren't eating enough happy pills).

In the end, people whine all the time and try to find "logical", "justified" reasons for being unhappy, when in reality, being unhappy is a fact that needs no further justification.

If the unhappy people could just focus on the fact that they're unhappy rather than trying to tell us they're right to be unhappy, maybe they'd be happier. It's not like being right to be unhappy is going to feel so much better anyway.



I, for one, am really happy about 8th edition, it's simpler, it plays faster and is immensely more forgiving of people like me who don't play all the time.

I'd like to see some smarter costing and stat lines for my apoc units, mostly titans, but that's about it.

Other than that, I'm so fething stoked that GW has finally fixed their plastic production problems and is now vomitting obscene amounts of new kits regularly. I can smell the plastic aspect warriors from here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
You'll see complaints about 8th (both founded and unfounded) for the duration of its existence

I think it started before 8th edition was released, and I'm 100% sure it'll go on for years after it stops being current. Maybe that's what you meant by its existence though.

8th is better than 7th, but that doesn't mean its good. 7th was an out of control dumpster fire, 8th is a smaller, cleaner fire. I kind of started that analogy not knowing where I was going, so work with me.

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

The balance between codices is still off, less so than 7th, but more so than prior editions.

As fas as I'm concerned, for every step in the right direction, they took 3/4 of a step in the wrong direction.

 Blacksails wrote:

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

I can get behind random damage to an extend, but random shots just seems moronic to me.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

I can get behind random damage to an extend, but random shots just seems moronic to me.

I've seen some ideas tossed around, and I think it was Peregrine who suggested old blast weapons should be random shot, auto-hit, with the max amount capped at the model count in the target unit. Definitely a compromise I can get behind, especially if the spread of the roll is brought in a little, like changing D6s to 2D3s.

For those moaning that the moaning started to moan before 8th landed; to be fair, some problems were readily obvious. I mean, who didn't expect faction traits and stratagems to be another metric that would be very difficult for GW to balance?

I enjoy 8th edition and think there’s been a lot of improvement in general. GW could give away free minis and people would still complain.

Worst terrain rules? Check.
Shooting is still overpowered compared to CC? Check.
Imperium still gets the lion's share of attention, while Xenos get nothing? Check.

Nothing has changed about GW.

The fact that they need so many FAQ's and sweeping rules changes (rule of 3, new reserves rule, etc) to address core gameplay issues - it's an edition that was shoveled out the door.

I don't see how people can get upset at the fact that melee finally has a CHANCE (2d6, 9+) to have a good alpha-strike; where-as shooting ALWAYS has it's alpha-strikes.

Meanwhile, falling back out of CC and then just shooting the newly arrived unit is still a thing.

People who bought in on the "latest and greatest" edition are just trying to justify their purchases.

fe40k wrote:


People who bought in on the "latest and greatest" edition are just trying to justify their purchases.

Good to know. I'll stop playing the game I enjoy because apparently I don't know my own mind.

8th is not without it's flaws. It's very rare to hear someone say it's not an improvement over 7th, and I recognize that's not saying much.

But to call it a dumpster fire or trash is an overreaction. Sure, Codex creep is happening, but it's happening alongside a number of very positive developments in the game itself. Specifically:

1) GW is actively monitoring the state of the game and improving the rules as they go. We are no longer stuck with a static ruleset that we have to live with for years until the next edition comes out.

2) GW has committed to a schedule for improvements. Sure, they are not perfect on sticking to it, but at least it's there.

3) Overall, armies appear to be more balanced and competitive than before. I mean this in a very specific way. There are no longer any death stars, there are no longer any D weapons, and the game is no longer permeated with undercosted units (sure, some exist, but not on the scale they did before.)

4) Overall, there's more tactical depth with the introduction of Stratagems, and more options for building armies based on the rules around detachments. While I realize people don't universally look at this as a strength, detachments and keywords address serious downsides to the FOC system that are often overlooked. For the most part, you don't have to pay for units that are simply there to fill out a FOC slot, which makes armies more efficient as a whole.

I totally recognize there's a great deal of of homogeneity in competitive lists and it's irksome to see so many Marine lists that have to set aside a lot of points for a Guard detachment to have a chance. That's a real downside to 8th edition, but is it really a reason to trash it?

I think not. I try to categorize the complaints players have with the game, and find there's not as many issues with the mechanics as there are with the lore. Here's how I unpack the moaning that I hear:

1) Grey Knights Suck - yes, they do. They had the misfortune of being one of the first Codexes in this new edition. GW has stated their plans to return to them and find ways to improve them once all other Codexes are out, and FW is doing their part to provide some additional options. So this might be an issue, but GKs are in a better position than, say, CSMs were in 6th, where you were waiting until the end of 7th for incremental improvements. We will see where it ends up.

2) Soup - which is a really funny, nebulous complaint. Originally, I understood soup to mean detachments based on the Imperial, Chaos, or Xenos keyword, where someone was taking the best units from any army and sticking them in a single detachment. That definition has expanded to include armies that use detachments drawing from different Codexes. The original definition has been addressed by FAQ, which should dramatically cut down on the opportunity to exploit keywords to only run the best units. The second definition, I'm not sure that's a problem. Allies have always been a part of the game, the fact there's a streamlined way to use them should not really be considered a bad thing.

3) Power Armor versus Chaff - In general, 8th edition overvalues MEQ / TEQ armor and undervalues wounds. It's hard to make the case that 10x CSMs have the same tactical worth as 30 Cultists based on points, or that Terminators are worth what they cost compared to their offensive output. I fault GW for not seeing this in game design, but give them credit for implementing uniformly across most armies. Since it was done that way, it means improvements can be implemented across the board.

4) Shooting is Better than CC - This dynamic really came into play with 6th edition, where shooty armies had the edge over melee armies in ways they hadn't in previous editions. It's a legitimate complaint with no simple solution. I just wonder if it's worth moaning about. Everyone knows the way this works by now, good players adjust to the meta.

5) Soup is Better than Fluff - New rules for detachments mean players can build more efficient armies by drawing from multiple Codexes. Some people consider this a major drawback for 8th edition. I don't want to dismiss their complaints entirely, and understand the expectation a Codex should include everything you need to field an army. But... that's a dated expectation. Datasheets are what drive what you can include in your army, and the strongest competitive lists often draw from multiple Codexes. It's fine to be upset about it, but these complaints often sound like nostalgia for the past more than a legitimate criticism of the mechanics of 8th edition. If you really want to go back to the old single Codex, single FOC days - fine, that's great you feel that way. But you are overlooking all the problems that went along with it and I really doubt it would be more satisfying for people as a whole.

I realize there are other complaints about 8th edition, but these are the ones I hear about most. I could on about some others, but these seem to be the top 5 that come up most frequently. Taken together, all I have to say is: really? This is what the community of players has to complain about? Players are much better off than they were a year ago due to incremental updates, the removal of death stars / d weapons, the lack of Stratagems, static FOCs, complex rules for allies, etc.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. I'm looking forward to the game becoming good-enough-er over time.

Just got back from the Citadel opening here in Texas. Despite the construction delays and it being held in a hotel there had to have been at least 700 people in line. I had to get there at 630am just to guarantee I would get all the founder merchandise.

My point is for 3 hours in line people did nothing but talk about how excited they were for 8th and how its reinvigorated their groups. GW is releasing amazing codexes every other week, balance changes more frequently than ever and sales are through the roof (i saw one guy drop 3g on models alone I'm not sure if people in the back of the line will even have merchandise left to buy).

All of this makes me think the constant whiners about 8th are probably mad at how successful it is and really mad that they know that this type of success will keep them going in this direction for a long time

The best kind of 8th/GW edition critic is the one that thinks of himself as some superior intelectual being and believes everybody has fallen under their marketing, or worse, compares them with beaten up wives, with sthockolm syndrome, like arbitrator does.
Such a good way to convince people

Other people just still lives in 5th edition, as Peregrine, and everything that it is not like how it was, it is just trash.

Asmodios wrote:
Just got back from the Citadel opening here in Texas. Despite the construction delays and it being held in a hotel there had to have been at least 700 people in line. I had to get there at 630am just to guarantee I would get all the founder merchandise.

My point is for 3 hours in line people did nothing but talk about how excited they were for 8th and how its reinvigorated their groups. GW is releasing amazing codexes every other week, balance changes more frequently than ever and sales are through the roof (i saw one guy drop 3g on models alone I'm not sure if people in the back of the line will even have merchandise left to buy).

All of this makes me think the constant whiners about 8th are probably mad at how successful it is and really mad that they know that this type of success will keep them going in this direction for a long time

This is something that always bugs me.

Just because something is popular, doesn’t means it’s good, just because something is successful, doesn’t mean it’s good and of course... it doesn’t mean it’s bad either.

That must be very exciting to be at the grand opening - well worth the wait IMO.

 Blacksails wrote:

I've seen some ideas tossed around, and I think it was Peregrine who suggested old blast weapons should be random shot, auto-hit, with the max amount capped at the model count in the target unit. Definitely a compromise I can get behind, especially if the spread of the roll is brought in a little, like changing D6s to 2D3s.

I don't think auto-hit is the way to go for blast weapons. Maybe they should get more shots against larger units?

I think autohit works for flamers but for blasts I would go for differing shots depending on target size. Like 2 shots but 4 if the target unit has 20+ models for example.

 Galas wrote:
The best kind of 8th/GW edition critic is the one that thinks of himself as some superior intelectual being and believes everybody has fallen under their marketing, or worse, compares them with beaten up wives, with sthockolm syndrome, like arbitrator does.
Such a good way to convince people

Other people just still lives in 5th edition, as Peregrine, and everything that it is not like how it was, it is just trash.

The most ridiculous thing about that all moaning issue is actually that some people whine like little child against another group that whines that they whine and are stupid beczuse they MUST like it. Yes Kant stated that an aesthetic judgement implies we consider that all others should rightfully bow to our opinion but that's not an excuse to go about sending childish insults to one another like ye is a sheep who fall prey to marketin and you is naugthy grumpy gak blowing your own trumpets. They ARE people who do make constructive criticism. Stop debating the poeple and get to the subject - the edition, please.

pm713 wrote:
I think autohit works for flamers but for blasts I would go for differing shots depending on target size. Like 2 shots but 4 if the target unit has 20+ models for example.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe +1 shots for every 5 models in the target, up to a maximum of +4 or something like that.

tneva82 wrote:

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

Another substanceless post.

A quick fix for blast weapons might be 6+ rolls to hit generate an extra hit

Personally I am just enjoying all the people saying Melee isn't good so we should all just adjust to that. I haven't had a decent ranged unit in my codex since 4th edition

Also, I think 8th is taking a step in the right direction, but in true GW fashion they are rushing things and doing it halfway instead of dedicating the time and resources necessary.

Case in point are the recent codex releases. Within 1-3 weeks each one receives its own FAQ because they screwed up on some basic things or made things auto-includes by reducing the price too far or vice versa.

Another example would be the fact that they started to use Facebook to release rules without a FAQ or Errata to back it up. I am of course talking about the infamous Deep strike rules where Da Jump still works as well as a couple other tactics.

And for codex creep....yup this is very much still a thing and it is ruining the game in my opinion. Tau right now are all but unbeatable for my army, Chaos with their ability to bring an entire cultist unit back to life and deploy anywhere....the list is pretty extensive honestly.

8th is taking a step towards the promise land but they are rushing and hamfisting things and then using excuses to justify their actions

Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

I'd venture that most people who hate 8th play a wee-bit more on the competitive side than not, or are in an area that does so. 8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese. Despite the decreased defense rules (feel no pain, cover, etc.), games go on for a good bit longer and are more competitive than they were in 7th. Your experience may vary.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese.

IOW, 8th edition is a broken mess and only "works" if you follow self-imposed rules on army construction and voluntarily agree not to exploit any of its flaws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Other people just still lives in 5th edition, as Peregrine, and everything that it is not like how it was, it is just trash.

This is not true at all. 5th edition was a far better edition, and of course I'm going to point out where GW has made the game worse compared to 5th. But it's because the game is worse, not because it isn't 5th. If something diverges from 5th in a way that improves the game then that is a good thing, even though it isn't 5th anymore. For example, 5th edition's wound allocation system was a mess and 8th edition is an improvement there.

5th was the worst edition there were three competitive armies -

GK
IG
SW

It was also the parking lot edition. It was better than 6th and 7th but that’s not really saying anything.

 Primark G wrote:
5th was the worst edition
...
It was better than 6th and 7th

Yep, makes sense to me.

I think if 8th and it's changes / improvements had been modeled after the state of the game at the end of 5th rather than 7th we'd have a much stronger game.

5th was not perfect but any means but 6th was an abomination of randomness and ally insanity. 7th tempered that somewhat, but also expanded things in a chaotic way that led to somewhat incredible power creep in special rules and what was allowed in the game.

I feel like a lot of the ideas that are currently causing issues are remnants of the bad ideas of 6th and 7th that they don't feel like they can simply rewind the clock on since it would be too shocking to too many players of 7th, but makes it much harder to balance even with a mostly complete rewrite of the rules.

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

If we're talking about best edition, the answer is only ever 3rd.

Everything was viable there, and the rules were golden on all fronts.

fe40k wrote:
If we're talking about best edition, the answer is only ever 3rd.

Everything was viable there, and the rules were golden on all fronts.

LOTR and Warhammer Fantasy 6th edition during Ravening Hordes.

Everything else is just crap.

For all that 8th lacks compared to 7th, I can honestly say I don't mind it because I was sick of flipping through 3-4 books.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
For all that 8th lacks compared to 7th, I can honestly say I don't mind it because I was sick of flipping through 3-4 books.

I'm not really sure why you think this changed with 8th. You still need 3-4 books for your soup army, various FAQs, and chapter approved book or two for your correct point costs and rules errata. Add another book or two if you want to include any FW units.

I have a lot of issues with 8th which I don't really want to dive into too much but the really big issues for me is

1. Terrain and Cover rules are terrible and barely contribute to the game compared to before. Unless its huge LOS blockers or massive area terrain then its basically useless except for board decoration.

2. Some fairly terrible transitions from 7th to 8th in regard to weapons and their properties. No USR and a lot of copy+paste results in weird situations where certain weapons on a vehicle get -1 to hit when moving because 3-4 editions ago it was needed for it to be a heavy weapon but now its just an arbitrary carry over with no though out reasoning for it. The lack of a relentless USR with so much copy+paste is sloppy and idiotic.

3. To hit modifiers is the single most game balance breaking mechanic in 8th and GW has been really uneven with distributing them and offers little to no way around them. The game gets really wobbly when you have a lot of hit modifiers and it extremely punishing to certain armies.

Honorable Mention: The new fluff is garbage and its hard to look at 8th as a game (with its primaris poster boys) and not associate it with some absolutely terrible writing.

But ultimately all of the above would be forgivable if the game as a whole was fun but to me its not. I just do not find games of 8th edition to be enjoyable (win or lose). After a year of trying 8th and also playing some 7th, I always find myself having a blast with 7th (as long as the lists involved aren't extremely lopsided in balance) while I tend to find 8th just boring and often feel like I'm just going through the motions instead of having some exciting tactical battle.

I like 8th, but then I also liked the way AoS plays (not sure what's changed since I haven't since a bit after the release of Sylvaneth). It's good for quick pick up games and feels better than 7th did (although I haven't had the chance to play much yet), but like 7th it relies too heavily on needing like minded opponents which is fine but at the same time it's more like its leaning a bit too heavily on self imposed balancing by the players which I can see causing a fair few issues in more competitive settings. List building was annoying at first but is more of a throw back to before everything started getting streamlined around 4th-5th; missed the customisation not the complexity however and feel we only got the latter with the system but it's alright after a bit.

It's not the fun of 5th or 6th, but at least its not 7th.

You said a lot without saying much at all. Could you elaborate on specifics?

Certainly.

Let me preface this by saying that I think that 8th is subjectively more fun to play than 7th was.

But for all the good things they added, the probably added one or two bad things.

I guess I'll start with Cover. I feel like most people who enjoy 8th agree that the cover system is flawed and in need of a change. Basically, you can't get cover unless you're infantry, and you can't get cover hiding behind large tanks etc...Really the whole terrain thing needs to be covered more extensively.

The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

The random shots mechanic is too...random. Templates didn't slow the game down that much to be removed IMO.

The removal of the Independent Character rule. Why can't characters join units anymore? I assume they wanted to remove the super friends death star issues. But here's the thing, by creating auras and not allowing characters to join units they've exacerbated the issue. Now instead of one unit benefiting from the character, you have multiple units benefiting from it. So now you have multiple death star units instead of just one (see Guilliman for details). All they needed to do was just say "this character can only join units with this key word", and the problem would have been fixed. But now we have to deal with these ridiculous targeting restrictions on characters, that have been made even stranger through the faq. Not to mention small (but severely annoying) issues like not being able to teleport a necron lord out of a night sythe with his unit. I know theres a strategem for that now, but why does there even need to be? This shouldn't have even been a thing to begin with.

Flyers should have had their own rules in the main rulebook. Every single flyer in the game has the same rules tacked onto their data sheet. Why? Its a ubiquitous enough unit type to have it's own rules in the core book.

Which leads me to my next point. Why remove USR's? It makes no sense. USR's are a clean, organized way of making the game work. There is no need for giant paragraphs on the unit card with USR's.

I guess it's because whoever works at GW doesn't know how to organize a rulebook properly. Have you read this thing? It's borderline insane, the rules are scattered all over the place, I have to flip between 3 or 4 different sections (and now FAQ's) to simply find a rule that should have been in the main rules to begin with.

The way that modifiers are generated in 8th is crazy. It's so needlessly complicated. Why not just make it like it used to be? If I have a 3+ BS and theres a negative 1 modifier, now I need a 4. simple. easy. 1 always fails and 6 always succeeds. None of this, well you rolled a 3 which gets modified to a 4, but it's night fight and my guy has a stealth cloak and now your plasma gun over heated because its night time and you're dead. It's ridiculous. I thought they wanted to streamline the game, now I have to spend additional time calculating what I actually rolled. God forbid there's re-rolls and modifiers at the same time. Things like the suicide rhino as a tactic shouldn't exist.

Deep striking within 9" actually made some units viable again (especially for assault). Now with the FAQ, thats going to change because someone was upset that their gakky tau gunline can't win games. This issue was solved by taking infiltrators or chaff anyway, so why ruin deepstriking even more? It already had a hard counter.

We're still stuck in the past with the IGOUGO system. GW needs to get with the times and make alternating phases a thing. It would resolve a lot of balance issues.

8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

More popular than what? I'm sure it's more popular than the worst days of 7th, but is it more popular than a hypothetical version of 40k that doesn't have the flaws of 8th? This breaks your whole argument. You may prove that 8th is the least-bad recent edition, but that doesn't mean that any of them are good.

Popular equals fun.

Not necessarily. The most popular game can be more popular than more fun games because of things like marketing, availability in stores, etc. Seeing lots of people playing a game doesn't mean that they couldn't be having more fun playing a better game.

Fun equals good.

That's an incredibly low bar to set, assuming that if fun is had at all then the game must be good. By that standard virtually any game is good, including 7th edition 40k at its most unbalanced, because people did have fun with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

Taco Bell was voted the "most cherished Mexican Restaurant" in the US and Bud Light is the most popular in the US but would any beer drinker or fan of Mexican food consider bud light to be an actual good beer or Taco Bell to actually be proper Mexican Food? Sometimes the simple, easy, and available options are the most popular because it takes less effort to consume and enjoy them.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

I don’t see how pointing out that armies designed to lose if they get in melee don’t attempt to get into melee means melee itself is bad?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Certainly.

Let me preface this by saying that I think that 8th is subjectively more fun to play than 7th was.

But for all the good things they added, the probably added one or two bad things.

That's a given, you can't really make sweeping changes without making a few bad ones, as you have to compormise on choices. full depth and simplicity are mutually exclusive to a degree, helping one hurts the other.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I guess I'll start with Cover. I feel like most people who enjoy 8th agree that the cover system is flawed and in need of a change. Basically, you can't get cover unless you're infantry, and you can't get cover hiding behind large tanks etc...Really the whole terrain thing needs to be covered more extensively.

That's...not true. anyone can gain cover from a ruin given that they are 50% obscured.
You can't get cover behind large tanks because you either are visible or not.
Cover in 8th works on the premise of you actually taking cover, bracing yourself against a wall or hiding in a ditch-and as such more likely to avoid harm-rather than being harder to hit.
If anything, 7th and before cover made no sense being an alternate save. being in cover was meaningless if you had an invul? marines gain nothing from being behind a wall unless the enemy gun was strong enough to punch through their armor? (the faulty cover system was dragged down by the idiotic AP system, but still)
It aint perfect, but its still a large step up.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

As a TS player, its very much NOT point and click with no thought necessary.
You need to pick what spells you give who, you need to position properly (as quite a few spells are NON targetable, you automatically hit the nearest target), and you need to cast in the right order, because it matter a LOT. then you need to decide if the spell is even worth the peril risk-because sometimes its really not.
Sure, its mindless if you got a single psyker who knows one or two spells, but anyone who dedicates even a bit into it, it becomes deep enough. even with the "simplified" version, its by far my longest phase in a turn. adding power/dispel dice would only drag it futher (I remember 7th "fondly" where a single psyker phase for me could take half an hour...)
Its basically like saying the assault phase is mindless when you are tau (who I also am to be honest), or shooting phase is mindless when you play khorne.

The fix for smite was only janky in the sense they forgot about tzeentch daemons with the exceptions to the new norm. but the gradually harder smite rule works, it makes smite spamming an akward path and sticks psykers as tactical toolboxes they are meant to be.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The random shots mechanic is too...random. Templates didn't slow the game down that much to be removed IMO.

I see you never played against a pie spam list?
Sure a scatter takes about a half a minute, but when you got dozens-on top of other normal shooting-they just get the game stuck.
And they are so VERY flimsy and subjective. mistakes are common, and its an easy path for cheats to steal a minor nudge for great benefit unnoticed.
Flamer template didnt cause nearly as much issues as scatter, but keeping just it would be weird.
Again, the solution here too wasn't perfect, but what existed before wasn't very good either.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The removal of the Independent Character rule. Why can't characters join units anymore? I assume they wanted to remove the super friends death star issues. But here's the thing, by creating auras and not allowing characters to join units they've exacerbated the issue. Now instead of one unit benefiting from the character, you have multiple units benefiting from it. So now you have multiple death star units instead of just one (see Guilliman for details). All they needed to do was just say "this character can only join units with this key word", and the problem would have been fixed. But now we have to deal with these ridiculous targeting restrictions on characters, that have been made even stranger through the faq. Not to mention small (but severely annoying) issues like not being able to teleport a necron lord out of a night sythe with his unit. I know theres a strategem for that now, but why does there even need to be? This shouldn't have even been a thing to begin with.

Except it causes an odd case of unit jumping that makes no sense at all with the old rule.
all your chars jumping from one squad to the other, despite said squads being practically at the same place, and transferring the "command abilities" when they make the arbitrary change made no sense.
Guys that should be great leaders are now actually leading their army, rather than a random squad-and with wider effects the game allows less powerful buffs to still mean something.
Its far from perfect, but its better than 7th. and you dont get "multiple deathstars", you apperantly don't quite grasp the code identity of a deathstar-a unit that wrecks everything and can't be killed due to stacking absurd bonuses (and your precious USRs) who were "fair because it effects just one unit". these just dont happen in 8th.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Flyers should have had their own rules in the main rulebook. Every single flyer in the game has the same rules tacked onto their data sheet. Why? Its a ubiquitous enough unit type to have it's own rules in the core book.

Which leads me to my next point. Why remove USR's? It makes no sense. USR's are a clean, organized way of making the game work. There is no need for giant paragraphs on the unit card with USR's.

Not every flyer has the same rules, and its call future-proofing. they now CAN do flyers that are similar yet not identical.
Same goes for USRs. the fact each unit has their "own version" means they can (and at some point probably will) have units that have not-quite-identical rules, like how many units got different range "scout moves", or the possibility of different-range "infiltrate" etc.
It also removes the need for having a dictionary of rules around when everything you need is spelled out on the unit itself-its FAR better than USRs, because eventually you get to the same situation like 7th where you had dozens of them, some USRs giving OTHER USRs, some being real similar while others being an utter waste of time that nobody remembers how they work (soul blaze...) or being defined "USRs" despite appearing once or twice the entire game.
Sure, you may have a "giant paragraph" on the unit card-but so what? the point of the card is to tell you what that unit does, and it delivers. no need to EVER look at another page when you got the full rule stated on the unit card.
USRs are very much NOT a "clean, organized way of making the game work.", because of two major flaws-the need for page hopping, and the fact they stop you from having variations of the same rule without creating even more USRs and thus bloat (or an additional rule for the unit to modify the USR and thus messy)

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I guess it's because whoever works at GW doesn't know how to organize a rulebook properly. Have you read this thing? It's borderline insane, the rules are scattered all over the place, I have to flip between 3 or 4 different sections (and now FAQ's) to simply find a rule that should have been in the main rules to begin with.

That part is rather accurate. though I expect the next ruelbook to be done better.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The way that modifiers are generated in 8th is crazy. It's so needlessly complicated. Why not just make it like it used to be? If I have a 3+ BS and theres a negative 1 modifier, now I need a 4. simple. easy. 1 always fails and 6 always succeeds. None of this, well you rolled a 3 which gets modified to a 4, but it's night fight and my guy has a stealth cloak and now your plasma gun over heated because its night time and you're dead. It's ridiculous. I thought they wanted to streamline the game, now I have to spend additional time calculating what I actually rolled. God forbid there's re-rolls and modifiers at the same time. Things like the suicide rhino as a tactic shouldn't exist.

They are...really simple?
Roll a dice->reroll if needed->1 is a fail->apply modifiers. hardly rocket science.

Also, suicide rhino is related to it how?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Deep striking within 9" actually made some units viable again (especially for assault). Now with the FAQ, thats going to change because someone was upset that their gakky tau gunline can't win games. This issue was solved by taking infiltrators or chaff anyway, so why ruin deepstriking even more? It already had a hard counter.

What on earth does tau have to do with it?
Heck, tau are equally punished by it, they have some powerful DS options.
The DS rule changes prevents turn 1 game ending moves, no more, no less. its not "ruining DS", its just making it not a non-brainer, because before it there was practically no reason ever NOT to DS anything and everything that could.
And not every army even HAS that hard counter, or was the fact every single one was forced to take a chaff horde healthy for the game.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
We're still stuck in the past with the IGOUGO system. GW needs to get with the times and make alternating phases a thing. It would resolve a lot of balance issues.

That would require yet another major overhaul of the game, as doing IGOUGO on phases would mean player 2 would be overpowering (just move things out of range/sight after player 1 committed his moves) and doing it per unit doesn't really work when you have insane varaity of army compositions ranging from 5 or less units to 25 or more units as viable option in the same matchup.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

Taco Bell was voted the "most cherished Mexican Restaurant" in the US and Bud Light is the most popular in the US but would any beer drinker or fan of Mexican food consider bud light to be an actual good beer or Taco Bell to actually be proper Mexican Food? Sometimes the simple, easy, and available options are the most popular because it takes less effort to consume and enjoy them.

i think you hit the nail on the head there. 8th is more "fun" because it takes less effort to play. it's a strong trend in gaming right now, to make easy to play games to appeal to an audience accustomed to Twitter, Facebook and so forth, where things happen quickly and easily. But depth, decision making and the satisfaction of overcoming challenges- things that often are what make games truly great to play, are incompatible with this mindset.

I see no reason to shut down criticism of GW. The only way they are ever going to get better is if we tell them how. And the only way they'll actually listen is if we moan loud enough to wake the primordial demon of discord and greed they keep locked in the forbidden sublevels of their headquarters.

Index stage was good, but sadly some armies got a too hard swing with the nerfhammer, blast weps was over nerfed, and ofc there is the soup issue in matched.

Codex stage is a complete disaster, as the balance is completely all over the place and mono codex are allways weaker then soup.
Dosent help that the codex as printed only has a lifetime of a few months before they invalidated by FAQ and other sources.

The ONLY good thing 8th did was make the game easier to understand and play but the price to pay for that is way too high.
9th cant come soon enugh!

The soup issue was just as bad in index as it is in codex.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

*

This has to be the worst possible reasoning. Something that is popular is not necessarly because its good. Are you going to tell me that kebabs and Mc Donalds are healthy? Well, it's pretty damn popular in quite a few countries. Now if the game's drastically toned down it will get popular because the main issue with wargames is that it is hard to learn the rules. But that they are easier to play, it does not imply by itself that they are better, not in any possible imaginable way.

This reasonning is NOT a response to people moaning because they feel cheated by GW, disappointed by GW, or bored by GW's rules.

And by the way the use of syllogism is not adviced. Wrong+wrong= true, true+wrong=wrong, true+true=true. So now it's so substanceless and simplist that you cn say absolutly anything with that: Dogs breathe, humans breathe, therefore dogs are humans.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

*

This has to be the worst possible reasoning. Something that is popular is not necessarly because its good. Are you going to tell me that kebabs and Mc Donalds are healthy? Well, it's pretty damn popular in quite a few countries. Now if the game's drastically toned down it will get popular because the main issue with wargames is that it is hard to learn the rules. But that they are easier to play, it does not imply by itself that they are better, not in any possible imaginable way.

This reasonning is NOT a response to people moaning because they feel cheated by GW, disappointed by GW, or bored by GW's rules.

And by the way the use of syllogism is not adviced. Wrong+wrong= true, true+wrong=wrong, true+true=true. So now it's so substanceless and simplist that you cn say absolutly anything with that: Dogs breathe, humans breathe, therefore dogs are humans.

except I think it's safe to say if the game is selling well it proably is because folks are having fun with it. and 8th edition is selling well. "fun" "the best" "the worst" are all very subjective (horror flicks do nothing for me but I know some people who love em) right now the FACTS are that GW has posted a record profit for this year. apparently DOUBLING their profits from last year. thus we can conclude that lots of people are buying into 40k (and AOS) does that mean the game is perfect and flawless? no, but clearly the game is working for GW right now.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

*

This has to be the worst possible reasoning. Something that is popular is not necessarly because its good. Are you going to tell me that kebabs and Mc Donalds are healthy? Well, it's pretty damn popular in quite a few countries. Now if the game's drastically toned down it will get popular because the main issue with wargames is that it is hard to learn the rules. But that they are easier to play, it does not imply by itself that they are better, not in any possible imaginable way.

This reasonning is NOT a response to people moaning because they feel cheated by GW, disappointed by GW, or bored by GW's rules.

And by the way the use of syllogism is not adviced. Wrong+wrong= true, true+wrong=wrong, true+true=true. So now it's so substanceless and simplist that you cn say absolutly anything with that: Dogs breathe, humans breathe, therefore dogs are humans.

except I think it's safe to say if the game is selling well it proably is because folks are having fun with it. and 8th edition is selling well. "fun" "the best" "the worst" are all very subjective (horror flicks do nothing for me but I know some people who love em) right now the FACTS are that GW has posted a record profit for this year. apparently DOUBLING their profits from last year. thus we can conclude that lots of people are buying into 40k (and AOS) does that mean the game is perfect and flawless? no, but clearly the game is working for GW right now.

Yes the game woks better for them: that's mere fact and undeniable. But fun is basically any edition, since even small grups of people played it. As you point out yourself, the game is not necessarely flawless, and moreover, fun is not the best criteria because it is way to subjective. The above quoted reasonning on the contrary reduces it to the only criteria with once again the candid thought that since he deems it to be fun, everyone should do so and that he's reasonning is a 100% proof. It is not, and whereas the op moans about moaners, it could be as relevant to moan about that kind of as substanceless posts that are maybe positiv, but as useless as the attitude denounced by the OP. The only difference is they go on the way of the unquestionning support instead of unquestionning hate.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Index stage was good, but sadly some armies got a too hard swing with the nerfhammer, blast weps was over nerfed, and ofc there is the soup issue in matched.

Codex stage is a complete disaster, as the balance is completely all over the place and mono codex are allways weaker then soup.
Dosent help that the codex as printed only has a lifetime of a few months before they invalidated by FAQ and other sources.

The ONLY good thing 8th did was make the game easier to understand and play but the price to pay for that is way too high.
9th cant come soon enugh!

Index stage was incredibly boring and FAQs and presumably you're refering to Chapter Approved (an annual publication we've seen only released once this edition so far) don't invalidate anything. A few points changed, saying codexes are invalidated is incredibly hyperbolic.

Also I still don't understand why people are holding up Soup as an exclusively 8th problem. Everyone is so quick to forget Taudar?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Index stage was good, but sadly some armies got a too hard swing with the nerfhammer, blast weps was over nerfed, and ofc there is the soup issue in matched.

Codex stage is a complete disaster, as the balance is completely all over the place and mono codex are allways weaker then soup.
Dosent help that the codex as printed only has a lifetime of a few months before they invalidated by FAQ and other sources.

The ONLY good thing 8th did was make the game easier to understand and play but the price to pay for that is way too high.
9th cant come soon enugh!

Index stage was incredibly boring and FAQs and presumably you're refering to Chapter Approved (an annual publication we've seen only released once this edition so far) don't invalidate anything. A few points changed, saying codexes are invalidated is incredibly hyperbolic.

He's maybe thinking about the huge blow the grey knights are said to have suffered with several nerfs directly infringing on their playstyle (deep strike and magic if I remember well.)

You kind of have to remember that this 'codex creep' is only because of the rules evolving and becoming more fleshed out.

Grey knights is the worst codex, yeah, but most of it was written before 8th even came out. Same with CSM and SM. Then when Tyranids rolled around, the rules team had a large playtest audience and created a good and varied codex that is by no means 'broken' but actually mostly balanced(apart from flyrant spam)

Also, we should be damn glad about how quickly codex's and faq's have been coming out- in previous editions it could take years.

There are some issues with list building, but nothing like 7e formation cancer.

8th is a long shot better than 7th, IMO. If I were to go back to 7th it would be awful- playing TS, my psychic phase was horribly confusing.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also I still don't understand why people are holding up Soup as an exclusively 8th problem. Everyone is so quick to forget Taudar?

Of course we remember Taudar. Apparently GW doesn't though, because instead of learning from the Taudar mistake and going back to a single 5th edition FOC with no allies they made Imperial soup.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

As a TS player, its very much NOT point and click with no thought necessary.
You need to pick what spells you give who, you need to position properly (as quite a few spells are NON targetable, you automatically hit the nearest target), and you need to cast in the right order, because it matter a LOT. then you need to decide if the spell is even worth the peril risk-because sometimes its really not.
Sure, its mindless if you got a single psyker who knows one or two spells, but anyone who dedicates even a bit into it, it becomes deep enough. even with the "simplified" version, its by far my longest phase in a turn. adding power/dispel dice would only drag it futher (I remember 7th "fondly" where a single psyker phase for me could take half an hour...)
Its basically like saying the assault phase is mindless when you are tau (who I also am to be honest), or shooting phase is mindless when you play khorne.

I have to be honest, the 40k psychic phase really isn't overloaded with tactical depth. And I have to raise my eyebrow at the idea of 'perils risk', given that Perils is little more than a light tickle for most psykers, even before we get into all the ones with some means of protection from it.

That said, I think it's still one of the better iterations of the psychic phase and certainly infinitely preferable to the complete mess in 7th edition.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Except it causes an odd case of unit jumping that makes no sense at all with the old rule.
all your chars jumping from one squad to the other, despite said squads being practically at the same place, and transferring the "command abilities" when they make the arbitrary change made no sense.

That's debatable, to be fair. Leading a single squad is very different to trying to lead several different ones. In the first scenario, you can take full command and direct that particular squad much more accurately. In the second scenario, you're basically stuck just giving them strategic directions and leaving it up to the squad sergeant to interpret them. The former is more likely to grant a bonus to that specific squad, whilst the second is more useful in terms of overall strategy (but is unlikely to directly benefit any particular squad).

 BoomWolf wrote:

Guys that should be great leaders are now actually leading their army, rather than a random squad-and with wider effects the game allows less powerful buffs to still mean something.

I do like the idea - it's certainly nice to see non-psyker characters having a benefit beyond combat. However, I don't think it was very well implemented.

We have some very strange choices for aura abilities. For example, Dark Eldar characters have no mobility, and so are basically stuck riding in transports. But, even though their transports are open-topped, the auras don't even work on their passengers. What's more, they're so split into subfactions and subsubfactions that the auras barely affect anyone. Could the Archon, the overall army leader, not at least buff the 3 mercenary units?

Then you've got the Necron Destroyer Lord - a melee character who is only able to buff a medium-range shooting unit, which has no interest in closing with the enemy.

And the character targeting rules are just abysmal. I can get behind not being able to target a specific infantry model when he's surrounded by a mass of similar infantry. That's fine. However, you can be unable to target a character because you're unable to pick him out from the infantry unit behind you, in the opposite direction. Or because there's another unit that you can't see somewhere closer. And that's before we even get into the nonsense of Guilliman hiding behind guardsmen or space marines. Stormtroopers could pick that guy out. Or when we can freely target carnifexex behind gaunts... except for one specific carnifex. Or the fact that a Annihilation Barge can easily be picked out from behind Necron Warriors, yet the Catacomb Command Barge (virtually identical in size and profile) is easily able to hide behind the warriors it's hovering over.

Again, I can get behind the idea, but the execution is beyond abysmal and just makes it completely nonsensical.

 BoomWolf wrote:
That's...not true. anyone can gain cover from a ruin given that they are 50% obscured.

Nope. You can get cover from a ruin if you are inside the ruin. If you are merely standing behind the ruin, with only the tip of one finger visible to the shooter, you can be shot with zero penalty as if the ruin wasn't there. This makes terrain barely relevant because it only provides its bonus in a small fraction of the area that it used to cover.

but the gradually harder smite rule works, it makes smite spamming an akward path and sticks psykers as tactical toolboxes they are meant to be.

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

Not every flyer has the same rules, and its call future-proofing. they now CAN do flyers that are similar yet not identical.
Same goes for USRs. the fact each unit has their "own version" means they can (and at some point probably will) have units that have not-quite-identical rules, like how many units got different range "scout moves", or the possibility of different-range "infiltrate" etc.

This is exactly the problem! Having a bunch of rules that are all the same, except that one that isn't quite identical, is terrible design. The minor difference is unlikely to matter much, and it's likely that people will assume that the rule is the same as all other instances and be surprised by it mid-game when someone points it out. Having USRs eliminates the problem by standardizing everything into a single version of the rule, with any divergent rules being explicitly stated and obvious. You can now just memorize the USRs and immediately know what a unit with those USRs does, without having to carefully read every word of text to make sure that GW hasn't given the unit something very similar but not quite identical to what you would expect on first glance.

And you can still make similar-but-not-identical units. For example, you could give the new flyer the Flyer USR and then a unit-specific rule that it ignores the normal -1 penalty to hit models with the Flyer USR. This makes the change obvious and explicit and avoids the problem of people failing to notice the missing -1 penalty or seeing it but assuming that its absence is a typo by GW instead of a deliberate choice. And it also gives an elegant way to make a reference to all of those similar-but-not-identical units at once. For example, an AA weapon can have a rule that it ignores the -1 hit penalty against units with the Flyer USR. No worrying about missing a unit that calls its "flyer" rule something different, no trying to figure out a non-awkward way to refer to that category of units and their various "flyer" rules, you just reference the USR. The whole concept of similar-but-not-identical units just works better overall.

(Yes, the USR system does potentially need to be generalized more, doing things like Deep Strike (X") instead of Deep Strike with the 9" rule in the rules text. But that's an easy solution that doesn't require dumping the core mechanic.)

It also removes the need for having a dictionary of rules around when everything you need is spelled out on the unit itself

Uh, what? If you have rules printed on the unit you have more pages of text than before because of all of the duplicated material. You're still going to carry the same number of books, since you always bring the core rules, now you've just moved those pages of text into the codex and increased the total page count of all of your books.

USRs are very much NOT a "clean, organized way of making the game work.

And yet virtually every other game uses them for common rules. GW is the lone exception. Which do you think is more likely, that GW is leading a revolution in game design or that they're the one company getting this wrong while everyone else understands the obvious correct answer?

That would require yet another major overhaul of the game, as doing IGOUGO on phases would mean player 2 would be overpowering (just move things out of range/sight after player 1 committed his moves) and doing it per unit doesn't really work when you have insane varaity of army compositions ranging from 5 or less units to 25 or more units as viable option in the same matchup.

Per-unit activation works just fine in other games with a large difference in unit value. Plenty of games are able to cope with having both small cheap units and expensive powerful units, and lists that could have any combination of them. There is a natural tradeoff between powerful single activations and large numbers of weaker activations and the typical list will contain a mix of unit types.

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
You kind of have to remember that this 'codex creep' is only because of the rules evolving and becoming more fleshed out.

Grey knights is the worst codex, yeah, but most of it was written before 8th even came out. Same with CSM and SM. Then when Tyranids rolled around, the rules team had a large playtest audience and created a good and varied codex that is by no means 'broken' but actually mostly balanced(apart from flyrant spam)

Also, we should be damn glad about how quickly codex's and faq's have been coming out- in previous editions it could take years.

There are some issues with list building, but nothing like 7e formation cancer.

8th is a long shot better than 7th, IMO. If I were to go back to 7th it would be awful- playing TS, my psychic phase was horribly confusing.

Well, the solution regarding this is to not change edition and to re do the very first codices only. But this means no new edition, less new books, less sells, and I'm am suspicious that GW won't go that way, although we can't know for now. It worked with Bolt Action just making a v2 German Army book to upgrade them and give them new army rules, because it was the very first one out. Without modifying other nations, it works wonderfully.

However it's a set of rules that is already balanced, logic and effective by itself. Not all moaning is about codex creep - the core rules are controversial as well, and that won't change with only the codices even though a better balance, even around a core set that is less pleasant to someone, should let him have already way more fun and challenge.

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Yeah, all psychic powers with weapon profiles were useless in 7th. edition as they were simply worse shooting attacks with more dice rolling to go through.
I have to say I'm really confident with how psykers work in 8th. A simple system you can build a list around if you want to and if you don't it's just a little support option for your army. And trying to defend against powers is not as futile as it was in 7th. The only downside is that all powers are for free, which always creates problems. It's also not well thought out that all chapter tactics, relics and warlord traits are for free, as there'll always be that one power/relic/warlord trait that's better than others and if all cost the same becomes an auto-include.

But as I said earlier, these are all minor aspects, overall 8th edition is fine. It could be great with some kind of unit activation system or different turn structure, but if you stick to IGOUGO I'd say it's the best 40K edition so far.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

WTF? I quoted every single word of your post.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

WTF? I quoted every single word of your post.

Except for the parts I was replying to which provided context to why I said what I said.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except for the parts I was replying to which provided context to why I said what I said.

And what context is that? You claimed that not dealing mortal wounds makes psykers a bad lascannon, as if psykers are just a different gun with a whole separate phase for their shooting attacks. If the only value you see in a librarian is dealing D3 mortal wounds then GW has completely screwed up with psykers.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

I'm not following your logic. You seem to think that a versatile, force-multiplier should also be far better at being a weapon than an actual, dedicated weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

I'm not following your logic. You seem to think that a versatile, force-multiplier should also be far better at being a weapon than an actual, dedicated weapon.

Am I imagining vipoids post or something?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Am I imagining vipoids post or something?

What does the bolded section add to the context that isn't already covered? Using a weapon template doesn't make psykers useless. Aside from the fact that "weapon template" can include a whole range of stuff, including weapons that are far better than lascannons, being a lascannon is not the primary role of a librarian. A librarian isn't bad just because their shooting attack is weaker than a lascannon if the primary role of the librarian is to hand out buffs and the shooting attack is just a minor last-resort option for when all your buff targets are dead or you absolutely need to throw every possible shot into a key target. It's like complaining that assault marines are useless because their bolt pistols aren't as good as a titan's main gun.

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
I see no reason to shut down criticism of GW. The only way they are ever going to get better is if we tell them how. And the only way they'll actually listen is if we moan loud enough to wake the primordial demon of discord and greed they keep locked in the forbidden sublevels of their headquarters.

Agree in principal, but more than half the criticism is baseless. And almost always steeped in absolutes and nostalgia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Psykers don't just do buffs. Psykers aren't like bad lascannons. That's why they do mortal wounds, which was his point.

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

Clumsy attempt to bypass invulnerable saves, problem is not all armies are equal so some can invalidate th/ss termies and similar units easier than others.

hobojebus wrote:

Clumsy attempt to bypass invulnerable saves, problem is not all armies are equal so some can invalidate th/ss termies and similar units easier than others.

Shooting does just fine invalidating terminators. In fact when terminator discussion threads come up smite is almost never referenced as the issue.

They could do with some inherent negative to taking allies and points tweaks but otherwise I think this is the best edition of 40k for a very long time.

I like how psykers are now. I always use at least one (Unless i'm playing Tau or Necrons), and being able to pick 2 powers before the battle start is just beautifull.

It all changes based in the army I'm facing, and normally I don't even use smite with my librarian. Sometimes I do, because there just no other option, but the psychic phase is fast, interesting, and offer a ton of tactical options.
Just this saturday, I lowered the BS, WS of a Guilliman to 5+ with three Dark Angel spells, his leadership to 6, and them nuked him with a Trepanation for 7 mortal wounds before killing him without a problem with two Company Champions in the third round.

Without needing to spend 40 minutes rolling dice. At last, in 8th edition, both effect spell and direct damage spells are usefull.

Blastaar wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

Taco Bell was voted the "most cherished Mexican Restaurant" in the US and Bud Light is the most popular in the US but would any beer drinker or fan of Mexican food consider bud light to be an actual good beer or Taco Bell to actually be proper Mexican Food? Sometimes the simple, easy, and available options are the most popular because it takes less effort to consume and enjoy them.

i think you hit the nail on the head there. 8th is more "fun" because it takes less effort to play. it's a strong trend in gaming right now, to make easy to play games to appeal to an audience accustomed to Twitter, Facebook and so forth, where things happen quickly and easily. But depth, decision making and the satisfaction of overcoming challenges- things that often are what make games truly great to play, are incompatible with this mindset.

“People are too stupid to enjoy complexity and depth.”

-modern game designer

I’ve made a conscious effort not to nitpick GWs newer games. You will drive yourself and others crazy. GW has never to my knowledge even tried to make a game with a tight, balanced ruleset that didn’t include massive bloat. 8th is no exception; my experience is that the game actually plays slower than previous editions. Indeed, the bloat seems to be an intentional feature that many players enjoy.

The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

I only have 2 real criticisms of 8th that genuinely make it hard for me to enjoy the game despite good intentions otherwise:

1) the RAW terrain rules. Just, dang. Yeah, they’re generally easy to apply, but they just don’t make sense narratively and contribute negatively to some of the issues the game has.

2) the inane amount of dice rolling, re rolling, more re rolling, etc... it’s really out of control.

Things like IGOUGO are interesting to talk about, but really... if it’s a show stopper for you why are you even trying to play 40k? It’s obviously GWs preferred system and isn’t going away.

dosiere wrote:


The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

.

I don't know maybe it is my low expiriance with the game, but when I am looking at the rules they make no sense to me. GW is overcosting melee stuff like twice or three times over, as if opponents just let you get in to melee or melee unit just started the game in melee range, when neither is ever the case. At the same time they have some arbitary points costs where a unit of dark reapers that can shot twice per turn costs less then a unit of termintors or power armored dudes, and it is impossible to even compare those to each other.

Also their core mechanics by design seem strange. First they put clear focus on some stuff like re-rolls on top of re-rolls, MW spam, flying trait being important etc And then they give those crucial to play options are randomly given to armies. Some get all 3, while others get 0.

This then drips to army books, there are melee units that can't do melee or shoting units that suck at shoting. And GW says, here play with those.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

As a TS player, its very much NOT point and click with no thought necessary.
You need to pick what spells you give who, you need to position properly (as quite a few spells are NON targetable, you automatically hit the nearest target), and you need to cast in the right order, because it matter a LOT. then you need to decide if the spell is even worth the peril risk-because sometimes its really not.
Sure, its mindless if you got a single psyker who knows one or two spells, but anyone who dedicates even a bit into it, it becomes deep enough. even with the "simplified" version, its by far my longest phase in a turn. adding power/dispel dice would only drag it futher (I remember 7th "fondly" where a single psyker phase for me could take half an hour...)
Its basically like saying the assault phase is mindless when you are tau (who I also am to be honest), or shooting phase is mindless when you play khorne.

I have to be honest, the 40k psychic phase really isn't overloaded with tactical depth. And I have to raise my eyebrow at the idea of 'perils risk', given that Perils is little more than a light tickle for most psykers, even before we get into all the ones with some means of protection from it.

That said, I think it's still one of the better iterations of the psychic phase and certainly infinitely preferable to the complete mess in 7th edition.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Except it causes an odd case of unit jumping that makes no sense at all with the old rule.
all your chars jumping from one squad to the other, despite said squads being practically at the same place, and transferring the "command abilities" when they make the arbitrary change made no sense.

That's debatable, to be fair. Leading a single squad is very different to trying to lead several different ones. In the first scenario, you can take full command and direct that particular squad much more accurately. In the second scenario, you're basically stuck just giving them strategic directions and leaving it up to the squad sergeant to interpret them. The former is more likely to grant a bonus to that specific squad, whilst the second is more useful in terms of overall strategy (but is unlikely to directly benefit any particular squad).

 BoomWolf wrote:

Guys that should be great leaders are now actually leading their army, rather than a random squad-and with wider effects the game allows less powerful buffs to still mean something.

I do like the idea - it's certainly nice to see non-psyker characters having a benefit beyond combat. However, I don't think it was very well implemented.

We have some very strange choices for aura abilities. For example, Dark Eldar characters have no mobility, and so are basically stuck riding in transports. But, even though their transports are open-topped, the auras don't even work on their passengers. What's more, they're so split into subfactions and subsubfactions that the auras barely affect anyone. Could the Archon, the overall army leader, not at least buff the 3 mercenary units?

Then you've got the Necron Destroyer Lord - a melee character who is only able to buff a medium-range shooting unit, which has no interest in closing with the enemy.

And the character targeting rules are just abysmal. I can get behind not being able to target a specific infantry model when he's surrounded by a mass of similar infantry. That's fine. However, you can be unable to target a character because you're unable to pick him out from the infantry unit behind you, in the opposite direction. Or because there's another unit that you can't see somewhere closer. And that's before we even get into the nonsense of Guilliman hiding behind guardsmen or space marines. Stormtroopers could pick that guy out. Or when we can freely target carnifexex behind gaunts... except for one specific carnifex. Or the fact that a Annihilation Barge can easily be picked out from behind Necron Warriors, yet the Catacomb Command Barge (virtually identical in size and profile) is easily able to hide behind the warriors it's hovering over.

Again, I can get behind the idea, but the execution is beyond abysmal and just makes it completely nonsensical.

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

Karol wrote:

dosiere wrote:


The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

.

I don't know maybe it is my low expiriance with the game, but when I am looking at the rules they make no sense to me. GW is overcosting melee stuff like twice or three times over, as if opponents just let you get in to melee or melee unit just started the game in melee range, when neither is ever the case. At the same time they have some arbitary points costs where a unit of dark reapers that can shot twice per turn costs less then a unit of termintors or power armored dudes, and it is impossible to even compare those to each other.

Also their core mechanics by design seem strange. First they put clear focus on some stuff like re-rolls on top of re-rolls, MW spam, flying trait being important etc And then they give those crucial to play options are randomly given to armies. Some get all 3, while others get 0.

This then drips to army books, there are melee units that can't do melee or shoting units that suck at shoting. And GW says, here play with those.

I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

The core rules don't seem to be much better then the codex ones. Can anyone explain to me while a termintors that touchs a wall is harder to hit then one that is half a milimeter away from it, and have his whole unit anihilated because someone can draw LoS to the tip of his halabard. I mean technicly one should model his model crawling or turning in to armadilos.

Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team

What makes this pertinent is that model kits have a 2 year development cycle, while codexes seem to have 3-6 month cycle. This means that GW did not anticipate a negative push back on 8th despite AoS demonstrating what they should have expected. It also means the new kits were implemented during the height of 7th, and that the explosion of subfaction codexes we got at the end of 7th were implemented after 8th was already set to print.

In effect, GW knew they were going to alienate their customer base, pushed out a number of subfaction codexes to boost model sales pre-8th to pad any drop off at launch in the hopes that 8th would catch on in time for the new kits. But that’s not what happened. Instead, in response to the negative feedback, they reverted back codex creep and are currently trapped in a decision cycle outside of their production cycle, which gave us an FAQ boosting CP just before a new codex that actively denies CP.

So here we are.

In my opinion, 7th was the edition of Greed, where GW realize that they could feed us anything and we would buy it. And 8th is the edition of Disconnect, where we’ve confirmed GW has no clue how to run their business.

So yes, I am one of those that thinks 7th was a dumpster fire and 8th isn’t much better. I vote with my wallet, though, and only recently have started sending feedback mail to promote positive change (one for GK, another for IK). I do feel that 8th can be a good core to a much better 9th edition, but at the moment 8th is a mess of bad business decisions and poor implementation. It is unethical of GW to charge us money for corrections in Chapter Approved. And GW needs to divorce themselves from Frontline Gaming, Reese’s crew of playtesters have poisoned the tournament scene, and the tournament scene drives GW to implement changes. ITC was a great force of change in 7th, but their biases going into 8th damaged the game in my opinion. No competent game company lets their playtesters compete in sponsored tournaments, it’s a conflict of interest and an unethical business practice.

SJ

Karol wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

The core rules don't seem to be much better then the codex ones. Can anyone explain to me while a termintors that touchs a wall is harder to hit then one that is half a milimeter away from it, and have his whole unit anihilated because someone can draw LoS to the tip of his halabard. I mean technicly one should model his model crawling or turning in to armadilos.

Don't get mad at me dude! I was just pointing out!

I wasn't aware they were LoS issues.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

I'm not sure what you mean. As it stands, huge character models (Old One Eye, CCBs, Guilliman etc.) can't be picked out because they're behind infantry that barely reaches their knees.

 vipoid wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

I'm not sure what you mean. As it stands, huge character models (Old One Eye, CCBs, Guilliman etc.) can't be picked out because they're behind infantry that barely reaches their knees.

Hm get what you meant, nevermind dude.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
I see no reason to shut down criticism of GW. The only way they are ever going to get better is if we tell them how. And the only way they'll actually listen is if we moan loud enough to wake the primordial demon of discord and greed they keep locked in the forbidden sublevels of their headquarters.

Agree in principal, but more than half the criticism is baseless. And almost always steeped in absolutes and nostalgia.

That's the super-secret second function of moaning, it lets us, the community, figure out which criticisms are valid and which are bogus through the terrifying trial by fire that is an internet argument. So not only are we rousing the ageless monstrosity that lies dormant at the heart of GW, but we are also tempering our critique in the forge of the forum. Win-win if you ask me

I think that to a degree all voices are worth to hear, but on the flip side I do see the difference between saying that they wished they orc biker army would work, and a tzeench player saying that exalted flamers should cost less, because they can't fit them in to their army.

I saw this on another forums but we have now developed a theory that GW purposefully destroyed and wrecked their company and image so that they could start doing normal things we'd expect any other company to just normally do but we all clap and cheer for GW like it's a child learning to poop for the first time.

What else could explain many of their decisions and actions in the past that anyone could have told them was super mega stupid.

 lolman1c wrote:
I saw this on another forums but we have now developed a theory that GW purposefully destroyed and wrecked their company and image so that they could start doing normal things we'd expect any other company to just normally do but we all clap and cheer for GW like it's a child learning to poop for the first time.

What else could explain many of their decisions and actions in the past that anyone could have told them was super mega stupid.

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

 LunarSol wrote:

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

I don't think that saying stuff like we, we don't do market research is the norm in other companies. And the stuff like "they will buy our stuff anyway" policy was enforced by comic companies to drastic market shattering results.
Not saying companies don't do anything to save on production, lie if they don't get caught etc , but from what I have been told GW was doing stuff that was pro activlly lowering their sells.
With my little expiriance with the game, I see some of their stuff and I am mind blown. They have machines to print plastic crack, that is legal, and they still do stuff like GK codex. I look at it and ask myself, do they not want to sell GK models?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

Karol wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

I don't think that saying stuff like we, we don't do market research is the norm in other companies. And the stuff like "they will buy our stuff anyway" policy was enforced by comic companies to drastic market shattering results.
Not saying companies don't do anything to save on production, lie if they don't get caught etc , but from what I have been told GW was doing stuff that was pro activlly lowering their sells.
With my little expiriance with the game, I see some of their stuff and I am mind blown. They have machines to print plastic crack, that is legal, and they still do stuff like GK codex. I look at it and ask myself, do they not want to sell GK models?

Well the overpricing of the models is mostly sign of greed. The citadel range is a high quality one on the whole nowadays, although the style sometimes get ugly and goofy to my personal taste, but still, I wonder what on earth they could be paying for that would requie them to price them sky high: production, raw materials, design before hands, I mostly see that and other comanies that just have the very same things to pay will still sell you miniatures for half GW's price. Small companies can't always do that, but according to the size of GW, the book sells... I firmly believe that's pure greed.

Actually m post is more a question, since it hasn't been unoticed that the models are getting always more expensive, and I wonder how one could logically account for it- apart from said greed.

By the way what about those quick refenrences to Frontline gaming (if I remember well)? How are they involved?

It is not even the price, though am not going to say that a prospect of a 3000$ army that is top tier wouldn't mean people would play it en mass.

IMO before the rules, and high end tournament meta, people have to want to play an army. And some armies even when they aren't eldar tier, are still fun to play. And it is great, because not everyone is training to win a GT event or even wants to play at that level of game play. And then there is stuff like orcs or GK, where I have no idea what makes people play those armies, other then that they bought the models ages ago. A GK army doesn't feel anything like its fluff, I could imagine people playing it still if it was super good, but it isn't. Yet GW makes a GK codex, then makes gold GKs on bikes, then makes GK spec ops Primaris edition. I just can't explain myself why they left GK in 8th, they could have removed them from the game, and at least some people would be spared starting a bad army.

Karol wrote:
It is not even the price, though am not going to say that a prospect of a 3000$ army that is top tier wouldn't mean people would play it en mass.

IMO before the rules, and high end tournament meta, people have to want to play an army. And some armies even when they aren't eldar tier, are still fun to play. And it is great, because not everyone is training to win a GT event or even wants to play at that level of game play. And then there is stuff like orcs or GK, where I have no idea what makes people play those armies, other then that they bought the models ages ago. A GK army doesn't feel anything like its fluff, I could imagine people playing it still if it was super good, but it isn't. Yet GW makes a GK codex, then makes gold GKs on bikes, then makes GK spec ops Primaris edition. I just can't explain myself why they left GK in 8th, they could have removed them from the game, and at least some people would be spared starting a bad army.

Well, as you state, not everyone plays Gt's, and so you can pplay your knights softly, giving them a few bonus yo agreed with your opponents. I feel bad posting this, as this has to be the number one overposted thing right now, but it holds true and each time makes wonder what on earth they are doing. But as you say this,once again we refer to those who moan -sorry for OP- because they have probably the best reason to feel slightly infuriated: their army is unplayable. It's not the same if you play IG or CSM, especially if yo play say CSM who have been getting the short end of the stick for 3 editions by know, rumours claim.

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

Yeah like Galas I've not heard ANYTHING suggesting 8th was poorly received, just the oppisite in fact. yes you had some grognards who refused to accept the change but over all 8th has been a success.

does 8th have some large and obvious holes that need fixing in 8.5 or 9th edition? yes.

8th needs to address CP battery generation (hoards like guard etc are too valuable right now, likewise if Orks could be taken by any xenos army as allies you'd never see a Xenos army hit the table without a tiny battalion of Orks) needs to consider removing the supreme command detachment, maybe additional restrictions on detachments (like requiring you to fill detachment A before you may take detachment B. which would cut down on people playing accountant for CP gains. I think GW intended us to take 1 battalion with 3 troops, the 3 elites etc. rather then putting those elites into a vanguard detachment etc to maximize CP gain)

Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think GW intended us to take 1 battalion with 3 troops, the 3 elites etc. rather then putting those elites into a vanguard detachment etc to maximize CP gain)

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

You haven't seen it because its rubbish.
From the half year report published in January 2018:

6 months to November 2016 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £13.8 million. (I think the same period in 2015 was about £4.7 million.)
6 months to November 2017 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £38.8 million.

8th - and no doubt improvements to AoS, and other games, has been a license to print money.

GW's share price has been rising since mid 2016 - and with the release of 8th in mid 2017 went into overdrive. Principally because this year they are set to make 8~ times as much profit as they did in 2015.

Tyel wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

You haven't seen it because its rubbish.
From the half year report published in January 2018:

6 months to November 2016 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £13.8 million. (I think the same period in 2015 was about £4.7 million.)
6 months to November 2017 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £38.8 million.

8th - and no doubt improvements to AoS, and other games, has been a license to print money.

GW's share price has been rising since mid 2016 - and with the release of 8th in mid 2017 went into overdrive. Principally because this year they are set to make 8~ times as much profit as they did in 2015.

Yeah, thats why for somebody to claim that 8th edition was a failure at least initially was very shocking to me. Even the more hardcore haters of 8th edition all recognise it was an economically success for GW. This is the first time I have seen anybody claim otherwhise.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

Maybe am skewed at looking at it, but when I compare the GK codex to Custodes codex, the creep seems to be real. They are everything GK should be, only they move faster, have cool rules, good stratagems and people actually want to play with them. And yes I know that in some tournaments people soup them up to win. No one soups up GK to win. But other codex that came out after hte GK codex are worlds apart as power goes, the eldar books, the tyranids too. But even stuff like the blood angels seem to be at least fun to play with.
Not sure what a mini dex is, but armies seem to soup a lot. I think everyone told me that, If I have to play GK, I should take as few as them as possible and load up on IG.
Have no idea how problematic psychic powers in 8th are, so can't comment on that.

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

can you direct me where this was said, but it sure is not in the codex or the index.

It’s kind of hilarious to suggest that 8th edition was a financial disaster for GW. Same goes for AoS and Shadespire, really.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results/

Per the above link, on the last annual earnings statement, you can see the huge dip in earnings at the time of and just after 8th was launched, followed by a huge upswing to today’s numbers. Further breakdown shows that the upswing coincides with the release of new model kits and also correlates with new codex sales.

It’s not hard to read an earnings statement report.

SJ

Year on year income is up 50% following the release of 8th according to those figures.

Could you please point it out where, exactly, do you see that? I have trying to read them in detail but I can't find what you are saying.

Karol wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

Maybe am skewed at looking at it, but when I compare the GK codex to Custodes codex, the creep seems to be real. They are everything GK should be, only they move faster, have cool rules, good stratagems and people actually want to play with them. And yes I know that in some tournaments people soup them up to win. No one soups up GK to win. But other codex that came out after hte GK codex are worlds apart as power goes, the eldar books, the tyranids too. But even stuff like the blood angels seem to be at least fun to play with.
Not sure what a mini dex is, but armies seem to soup a lot. I think everyone told me that, If I have to play GK, I should take as few as them as possible and load up on IG.
Have no idea how problematic psychic powers in 8th are, so can't comment on that.

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

can you direct me where this was said, but it sure is not in the codex or the index.

But that's hardly the fault of creep, that's the fault of having some initial codecies not being as well made due to them not having any data to work with on what works, what doesnt and practically-no experience.

We are 19 codcies in with IK, lets look at the "creep" shall we?

1-4 are SM, CSM GK and DG are the initial 4, basically dropped on 8th release. they are not quite as well made as future ones, but most of them has something holding them semi-competitive yet.
5 is the first of the "really after realease" codex, he is more interesting than the first four, yet a bit weaker.
6-7 are guard and eldar-they WERE a large leap forward in both quality and in power level, but have both been tuned down in FAQs and CA.
8 is nids, excellently made codex, nothing unplayable, nothing too over the top-and a lot of interesting and verasitle ways to play.
9-10 are the BA and DA, basically variants of the SM codex (who were the first) and are similar in power level to him. not quite as inspiried as nids, but really more flavorful than SM-makes sense considering they are a more focused codex to begin with.
11 is demons-its not weak at all, but there is nothing overpowered there. each god has its own flavor and playstyle, and the codex is generally well made, except slannesh.
12 is the golden boys, who are more powerful the GK honestly, but they are not really stronger than the top dogs like guard and eldar-they are playable, workable and fun-but fair.
13 and 14 are the TS and Tau, both my armies and honestly both are flops. each for his own reasons-TS is too focused on the migrating goats from AoS and tau was just poorly designed overall. they both can pull some powerful lists though, go tow to tow with the best but are again-dont dominant.
15-18 brings a slide of necron, dark eldar, deathwatch and clowns. each is good, each brings power to the table, and not a single one is over the power curve, while each is interesting, flavorful and keeps to his unique flavor.
19, the IK is yet an unknown.


See, the issue of claiming a power creep, it demands that there is a constant increase in power level where every 2-3 codcies at worst you get a new top dog that dominates the field.
We don't have that. with each codex release after 6-7 we saw some new things being thrown into the mix of competitive, yet not a single time we had a new top dog dominating the field and forcing a major meta shift.
From codex to codex we see the same thing-a new army pops his head up, and all the old armies just refine a bit, but don't drop.

If we had a true creep, by now that we have over 10 codecies AFTER the "top dogs", they should have been long supressed into a niche, but they are really not. heck, gulliman ultra armies are STILL being played seriusly-that's the first codex, and we are nearly 20 in!


There is very little creep in 8th, if any at all.

Faction balance is the best it has always been, for armies with a Codex.

The worst ones in the high end competitive scene are space marines and space marines-like armies, but in middle of the road tournaments every army, even some index ones, can absolutely compete.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I'd venture that most people who hate 8th play a wee-bit more on the competitive side than not, or are in an area that does so. 8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese. Despite the decreased defense rules (feel no pain, cover, etc.), games go on for a good bit longer and are more competitive than they were in 7th. Your experience may vary.

I quite agree. 8th edition is not designed for competitive play, that is obvious. It works far better in a casual beer & pretzels style fun way. The problem is competitive players are trying to push a competitive play style where it doesn't fit properly and decrying that it doesn't work.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

This is the possibly paraphrased rule from the preview:



In 40K you could imagine this would be -1 to hit unless the model has 10 wounds or more, but I doubt it will become a thing in 40K with the prevalence of guns.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I'd venture that most people who hate 8th play a wee-bit more on the competitive side than not, or are in an area that does so. 8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese. Despite the decreased defense rules (feel no pain, cover, etc.), games go on for a good bit longer and are more competitive than they were in 7th. Your experience may vary.

I quite agree. 8th edition is not designed for competitive play, that is obvious. It works far better in a casual beer & pretzels style fun way. The problem is competitive players are trying to push a competitive play style where it doesn't fit properly and decrying that it doesn't work.

40k is not a beer-and-pretzels game. Catan is beer-and-pretzels. Forbidden Island is beer-and-pretzels. Warhammer 40,000 (and AOS) is too expensive and, more importantly, takes far too much time and effort in prep to be so.

40k doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. Is it a casual, have-some-laughs-with-friends kind of game? Fine, go to cheap pre-painted minis ala Heroclix, with rules included to allow you to pay with them right out of the box. Is it a hard-core tactical game that you can get deeply invested in that simulates battles played with nice models you assemble and paint yourself? Great, let the rules reflect and reward that by being focused on player agency and decision making, with intuitive rules that do their best to bring the feel of combat to the table top. Instead GW tries to have it both ways by asking top-dollar for model kits that take your time and effort to put together and (hopefully) paint before they hit the table, and then giving you shallow gameplay in reward for all of your hard work to get to that point.

A “new” mechanic? Look out sir should have been #5 on things people hated about 7th, lol.

40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

 Galas wrote:
Faction balance is the best it has always been, for armies with a Codex.

The worst ones in the high end competitive scene are space marines and space marines-like armies, but in middle of the road tournaments every army, even some index ones, can absolutely compete.

I have not seen a single Grey Knight army listed in any large tournament top 32, and I really looked hard, because I wanted to see how good lists were. I came to this forum, because I couldn't find any and 4chan called me a slavfag, and wasn't really helpful.

Karol wrote:
I came to this forum, because I couldn't find any and 4chan called me a slavfag, and wasn't really helpful.

4chan can honestly be a vile bog filled with odious creatures as often as not. Sorry you had the misfortune of wading into that swamp.

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is the possibly paraphrased rule from the preview:



In 40K you could imagine this would be -1 to hit unless the model has 10 wounds or more, but I doubt it will become a thing in 40K with the prevalence of guns.

Yeah, this would just be a death sentence for all the non-monstrous characters.

That said, I don't understand why you'd need to tie it to them having 10+ wounds in the first place. Why not instead tie it to the [Monster] and [Vehicle] keywords?

As in, if you're a [Monster] or a [Vehicle] you can't hide behind [Infantry]. So, for example, Old One Eye can hide amongst Carnifexes and other big monsters, but not amongst gaunts.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

3rd ed was basically the last big rules change of 40k, it attempted to remove a lot of the clutter of 2nd and t succeeded quite well at that, but lost some of its charm, this is also when they were in the “pamphlet” codex stage, the rules were simple, the armies small by comparison to now, it was well supported with regulatar updates and rules in white dwarf in addition to FAQs, it also suffered from the “must have multiple books to play” issue 8th does, but all in all the design team were free to work on things, it just took a very long time.

4th: very Similar to 3rd but this is where the cracks started to show, it was the best edition in terms of army customisation, fairly regular updates and FAQs and codexs that contained good amounts of fluff, it’s also the editin they really nailed the fluff down in terms of theme, with 5th perfecting it. All in All a very solid system that allowed so much freedom but not overdoing it like 8th.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

The 7th edition rulebook was crap compared to 8th. edition. It was better than 6th because it cleared up some bad parts from there. Though basically 7th. edition was practically the Chapter approved of 6th. edition, so very similar but some things corrected (vehicle damage table).
Ap system, vehicle/monster rules, psychic phase, CC-phase, wound allocation, movement - those were all improved a lot from 7th. to 8th. Stratagems brought in a mechanic were you can actually influence the game, something totally lacking in 7th, which was more like watching a movie with hardly any tactical decisions.

Terrain rules have suffered, but they weren't good before, too. In 8th. edition your Land Raider gets stuck in some Grots, in 7th. edition it got stuck in a fallen tree. Or a skull.
Morale rules are still pretty useless due to most factions having abilities to ignore them, but at least they are simple now.

Honestly I feel like my friends and I have had more fun with 8th than previous editions. Our escalation league has never had as many people in it than it does now.

Is it perfect? No. But right now, at least in my area, it speaks for itself with the influx of new players and the amount of people playing it in the stores I frequent.

 Formosa wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

3rd ed was basically the last big rules change of 40k, it attempted to remove a lot of the clutter of 2nd and t succeeded quite well at that, but lost some of its charm, this is also when they were in the “pamphlet” codex stage, the rules were simple, the armies small by comparison to now, it was well supported with regulatar updates and rules in white dwarf in addition to FAQs, it also suffered from the “must have multiple books to play” issue 8th does, but all in all the design team were free to work on things, it just took a very long time.

4th: very Similar to 3rd but this is where the cracks started to show, it was the best edition in terms of army customisation, fairly regular updates and FAQs and codexs that contained good amounts of fluff, it’s also the editin they really nailed the fluff down in terms of theme, with 5th perfecting it. All in All a very solid system that allowed so much freedom but not overdoing it like 8th.

Thanks man.

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Well, I disagree. 7th being better than 8th at any point is pretty funny to me. I'd bet you complained about it and 5th all the same at the time. It's the same people who never stop whinging

 ShredderShards wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Well, I disagree. 7th being better than 8th at any point is pretty funny to me. I'd bet you complained about it and 5th all the same at the time. It's the same people who never stop whinging

See the fistfight of whiner vs whiner-about-whiner go on again. Thanks for the showcase man.

My impression was that most of the Codex improved on the Index. Tyranids certainly have one of their best codex in a long while and there has been a clear effort to give armies more than one or two viable choices in the codex when it comes to army building.

They've also dropped the codex creep. Yes latter ones were improved over some of the earlier; but there was none of the more deliberate "this is the best army ever" attitude that has been almost a stable of previous codex for a long while.

It's closer to a drifting, which also has potential to be fixed through their far more regular updates.


Lets not forget 8th edition has ensured that everyone started with a viable index and in a few months every core army on the market will have a codex for them (barring Sisters of Battle who will appear next year). Ergo for the first time in a very very long time every faction will be up to date with the current rules. That in itself is a huge change for GW in how they approach the rules side of the game.

For a long while codex came every few months, often with a big miniature release too, but often as not armies could go years and even miss whole editions before they got a new codex.


It was kind of daft because it also meant that GW often had to basically re-launch armies because those that went so long without an update steadily became less and less popular and that meant less sales.


To my mind this is a massive step forward for GW and how they approach their game. Yes there are still issues but it seems that GW is far more walking along the right pathway.

 Overread wrote:
My impression was that most of the Codex improved on the Index. Tyranids certainly have one of their best codex in a long while and there has been a clear effort to give armies more than one or two viable choices in the codex when it comes to army building.

They've also dropped the codex creep. Yes latter ones were improved over some of the earlier; but there was none of the more deliberate "this is the best army ever" attitude that has been almost a stable of previous codex for a long while.

It's closer to a drifting, which also has potential to be fixed through their far more regular updates.


Lets not forget 8th edition has ensured that everyone started with a viable index and in a few months every core army on the market will have a codex for them (barring Sisters of Battle who will appear next year). Ergo for the first time in a very very long time every faction will be up to date with the current rules. That in itself is a huge change for GW in how they approach the rules side of the game.

For a long while codex came every few months, often with a big miniature release too, but often as not armies could go years and even miss whole editions before they got a new codex.


It was kind of daft because it also meant that GW often had to basically re-launch armies because those that went so long without an update steadily became less and less popular and that meant less sales.


To my mind this is a massive step forward for GW and how they approach their game. Yes there are still issues but it seems that GW is far more walking along the right pathway.

I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results/

Per the above link, on the last annual earnings statement, you can see the huge dip in earnings at the time of and just after 8th was launched, followed by a huge upswing to today’s numbers. Further breakdown shows that the upswing coincides with the release of new model kits and also correlates with new codex sales.

It’s not hard to read an earnings statement report.

SJ

There's a dip in shareholder return - there is zero evidence of a dip in sales because the figures are simply not provided in that level of detail.

I'm on the fence. Whilst some of 8th's changes are pretty good - and it feels nice to get a game under 4 hours for once - there are obvious holes where we could have done with better rules.

As for this:
"give GW a little time to get the game where it should be"

They've had over 30 years...

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

I think a big part of this is how GW moves forward from 8th edition and forward toward the 9th edition.

GW is built around editions of rules so we know a 9th edition release will come, the key is the format of that release. If its just a polishing of 8th edition coupled with releasing a new edition of the rules that reflect all the updates over the years, coupled with a Big Book that has updated lore and suchlike. Then we can well expect the codex to remain standing and end up acting like the Index with another flash release of more update codex reflecting a shifting change.

On the other hand GW could do a huge rules revision all over again. Personally I don't think they will, I think they will follow Sigmar and produce a new edition that continues to refine. Perhaps even teasing new game mechanics in through expansions (like hte magic for Sigmar); letting them be part of the main game, but if they fail they can be cut away without harming the core of the game mechanics themselves.



I do agree that GW hasn't dropped all their rules staff for a new system; however I think that with the change in attitude at their end and with more open discourse with players they might well be building solid foundations for the future.


Also I'd say that yes they've had 30years and lets be honest they've remained the biggest for most of those years. So even though the rules have never been perfect they've still be more than enough to build a powerful company. I think many of us saw GW abuse that aspect nearer the end of the Kirby era and I think the steady loss of sales and damage done then kicked GW somewhat in this new phase into respecting that, yes the rules are not everything but they are still a big part of the whole picture.

 Overread wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

I think a big part of this is how GW moves forward from 8th edition and forward toward the 9th edition.

GW is built around editions of rules so we know a 9th edition release will come, the key is the format of that release. If its just a polishing of 8th edition coupled with releasing a new edition of the rules that reflect all the updates over the years, coupled with a Big Book that has updated lore and suchlike. Then we can well expect the codex to remain standing and end up acting like the Index with another flash release of more update codex reflecting a shifting change.

On the other hand GW could do a huge rules revision all over again. Personally I don't think they will, I think they will follow Sigmar and produce a new edition that continues to refine. Perhaps even teasing new game mechanics in through expansions (like hte magic for Sigmar); letting them be part of the main game, but if they fail they can be cut away without harming the core of the game mechanics themselves.



I do agree that GW hasn't dropped all their rules staff for a new system; however I think that with the change in attitude at their end and with more open discourse with players they might well be building solid foundations for the future.


Also I'd say that yes they've had 30years and lets be honest they've remained the biggest for most of those years. So even though the rules have never been perfect they've still be more than enough to build a powerful company. I think many of us saw GW abuse that aspect nearer the end of the Kirby era and I think the steady loss of sales and damage done then kicked GW somewhat in this new phase into respecting that, yes the rules are not everything but they are still a big part of the whole picture.

I believe that if GW has hold up for so long despite being run like [insert french cursing] it's because of their universe and models all along. Poeple like their minis and their universes, and even though the game's been increasingly disappointing for many years, playing a game of Bolt Action is great - but hasn't the same feeling for lack of a narrative that is untertainting.

If they go on with the edition fomat, they will eventually end up overblaoting the game, as they will want not only to update but to "develop". They do need to develop don't get me wrong but for that you need a solid base. 8th, whhter you like it or not, ist undeniably flawed as of now. Whether they will just try to release a 9th edition that would be the updated version of 8th's, and that way shore it up, or whether they will go the same way they have been until now, I'm not able to foresee. But they need to at least brace it.

The issue will remain that the game has apperently been toned down and whilst it makes the game easier, and if it is true it will remain anyway and is dissapointing. Most games are easy and affordable while featuring tatical depth without arousing a sense of "just push the model to the center and throw a dice" that seems to not be universally recieved.

Also, as for the game being casual or competitve, as mentionned earlier by someone... IMO I think GW take themselves very seriously and they firmly believe their game is suited for tournament (after all, competitive players are the reference), but a game where lists are 90% of the strategy with such unbalanced armies, it can't be. So the game ends up becoming very casual at the same time to try and patch it up, which is hopefully allowed by the fact that it takes part in a "sandbox" universe.

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

Something remarkably common in expansion game design is a very timid first wave, followed by an aggressive second. A lot of this has to do with the first wave being very concerned with the appearance of power creep, and the second needing to feel like it adds something substantial to the experience. For ongoing games, it can be worse, because while you're adding a powerful new system to the game, doing it faction by faction means that you divide into haves and have nots pretty quickly. Warmachine saw something very similar in the rollout of theme forces, and really only started sailing smoothly when they bit the bullet and dumped them all out whether or not they were finished. Generally after those two early extremes the meta starts to show and the developers can build towards a real base powerline instead of a theoretical one. At this point we stand to gain way more from seeing GW go back and fix the GK codex than we do from watching them start a new edition with a blind sense of where the meta will wind up and make the same mistakes all over again.

Are we just talking about 8th Ed in terms of it's ruleset?

I always consider an edition in terms of it's releases, codexes and models.

As my earlier post the model releases for me have been really lacking this edition so far. All Imperium and Chaos Here's hoping my ladz get something new for me to spend my hard earned on.

Some things I luvery love about 8th edition:

1) No scatter (faster)
2) No armor facings (faster)
3) Simplified cover (faster)
4) No more rules bloat
5) No more death stars
6) WS2 !!!
7) Keywords
8) Datasheets

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

That is not what I said.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

zerosignal wrote:
I'm on the fence. Whilst some of 8th's changes are pretty good - and it feels nice to get a game under 4 hours for once - there are obvious holes where we could have done with better rules.

As for this:
"give GW a little time to get the game where it should be"

They've had over 30 years...

As I always say, we're closer to actually making a tech cult on mars than gw is to balancing 40k in the last 30 years.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

Why counter someone by saying that things are subjective then go on to say a bunch of completely subjective things?

 Primark G wrote:
Some things I luvery love about 8th edition:

1) No scatter (faster)
2) No armor facings (faster)
3) Simplified cover (faster)
4) No more rules bloat
5) No more death stars
6) WS2 !!!
7) Keywords
8) Datasheets

1) yes! I did have enough of watching people argue for 20 minutes.
2) meh, i liked this... kinda promoted flanking. Wish it was in 8th edition as +1 save if you're shooting deadon.
3) meh, to some extent. But also +1 save has turned out to be highly unbalanced.
4) damm... i remember I had a cheat sheet and every time i even looked at a unit i had to run down and entire encyclopedia of rules to find out i can move an extra inch or something stupid. In 8th i never even look at my codex because it's so simple.
5) haha, oh yes... i remember them. Glad they are gone.
6) meh, not much to say about that but o get yah.
7) i don't know if keywords have done good or bad. People focus om them a lot but never payed much attention to them.
8) everything on the sheet like a game of mtg does make everything easier on the eyes.

All i all what have we learnt? All gw had to do to kake 40k good was to kake a normal okay game like everyone else? Seriously, we clap at them for figuring out basic stuff 20 years too lait... if a new game came out not bssed on anything and not by GW in the same state as 8th (with all the exsact same rules, units, ect...) we wouldn't even touch it.

Well because I'm not trying to tell him that 8th is or is not good but to make him think about why could someone complain. And here there are reasons that someone could logically invoke to defend the "it's no good" side. See?

The subject at the beginning let me remind you Sir is not to determine whether 8th is good, but why poeple should or should not whine about it. Which is whay I tackle.

I honestly think that putting in abstract terrain rules would solve a hell of a lot of issues. If they just ported over 4th Edition's terrain rules it'd be perfect.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

You don’t know what your talking about if you think 3rd wasn’t a better ruleset that 8th, it had the most innovation, regular rules updates, great white dwarf articles, rules and FAQs, some of which are STILL in the game, the biggest downside of the ED was the slow codex delivery.

4th was arguably better, disagree? Argue why.

5th, was a damn site better than 8th, near the end of its life it got a little silly due to flyers, and would allocation was clunky, fix these two issues and you end up with a much better game than we have now.

6th, was utter crap

7th was ruined by codexs as you go on to whine about, the main rules we’re fine, they needed some tweaks in some areas and a re write in others but on the whole it was a better system than the mess 8th has turned into, 8th started well, but has ended up a hot mess, it lacks ENTIRE areas of rules that make it workable, a lot of the rules make no logical sense, it’s become too “samey” amongst units and armies, psychic phase is still pointless and boring.

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

At what point did he whine about someone whining? He literally just disagreed with points made and made no other input, while you had a bitch fit about it and contributed nothing of any higher substance yourself.

 Irbis wrote:


thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

.

Literally two in a row.

That being fixed, let's move back to the discussion.

BrianDavion wrote:


May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

My local meta is not assault heavy.

I wish my local pub wasn't assault heavy.

My observations of 8th edition boil down to this:

There seems to be less time in rule books and less time arguing over EVERYTHING (scatter dice, armor facings, signification portion of model sight, how two USRs interact with each other, etc. etc.).

For all of the failings of 8th edition... it has one shining point that people tend to ignore: players spend more time playing and less time referencing/arguing.

I don't think there will ever be a perfect system, one that is beyond criticism... thus this argument will always be populated by people who tend to favor nostalgia. But I think 8th is just fine for far more than it is an absolute "will not play". Sounds pretty successful to me.

 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?

For all of the failings of 8th edition... it has one shining point that people tend to ignore: players spend more time playing and less time referencing/arguing.

I am not sure if that is the true. My games do get on fast, mostly because I don't have many special rules for my army, but when other people play against each other they have a ton of arguments about rules interaction. For example today I saw two eldar player have a 20 min argument about how their stratagems works and when they trigger. Our shop owner had to tell them to speed up, because they were taking up table.

When I played against the local demon player, I got lost in his explanation which demon is from what codex about 5 min in to reading his list. If I wanted to understand it in full, I would probablly require a ton of time and reading of faq and 3 codexs he uses.

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?

I also run a vanguard detachment of Custodes... Dawneagles and Deep Strike.

I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.

Well said.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cTw8V1RMKo3Bu/giphy.gif

A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.

Archebius wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'll say this. I play a lot of games. At least a dozen systems, including most of the ones that get any competitive attention. While I've dabbled in 40k in the past, the local popularity of 8th was enough that I finally decided to give it a real try and honestly? It's not really that bad of a game at all.

What I do notice is that the community, particularly online, seems to react to the game differently than any other game I play. There's such an ingrained sense that there must be a problem that there's little in the way of just attacking and playing the game as it exists. I've followed the game enough tangentially to understand why that is, but ultimately it really feels like every community is playing with some kind of small variant to the point where its really hard to get a picture of the actual game.

That's kind of what happens when a company takes their hand off the wheel and when players start trying to fix things themselves. Certainly, the lack of a proper organized play document remains a major failing on the part of GW. These things are really where most games iron out the kinks and inform the community of a lot of expectations the game is built with.

GW is definitely more committed to controlling the game than they've ever been, and I'm actually really curious to see what 8th looks like if players start attacking it as it exists and lets GW worry about how it needs to be better. I think most things feel pretty workable. Even the terrain rules work if your terrain is built towards them (large LOS blockers on rubble bases) and there are way more playable Codexes than not. There's not a competitive game out there that doesn't require the community to give up on subpar options and 40k is never going to really work until the community stops treating every underpowered unit as a slight against it and starts seeing every faction bring their A game.

Well said.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cTw8V1RMKo3Bu/giphy.gif

Well said yes, not dumb, +1

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
My local meta is not assault heavy.

How do you get the guys in to melee then?

My local meta means my non-demonic marine heavy Death Guard sloggers are bashing it out with a bunch of guardsmen. We always have assaults. Even if the table teems with armour, I'll make it there to rip and tear. If you want to get close, the best mind set is to know you're going to lose parts of your force to buy time for the rest. Transports help as do fairly durable distraction carnifexes: mine are deepstriking Blightlord Terminators dropped right in front of their lines and a Contemptor Dreadnought that must be (and gets) shot down before it reaches melee. Combine that with enough terrain to hide at least some parts of your advance and you should make it just fine even without access to Disgusting Resilience.

I mean, playing with a board that isn't chock full of terrain is basically a crime anyway, so cover saves ought to be plentiful and full blocks should cover whole swathes of the field. Planet Bowling Ball XIV is not a good place to duke it out on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.

Ah, the bandwagon fallacy. Yes, if many people enjoy something, it is popular by definition. But enjoyment is subjective. Whether a thing is high or low quality is objective. People may like Bud Light, but by all measures it is a poor beer. Whether a person can enjoy a can or not is irrelevant.

Many people may enjoy playing 8th, but that does not mean that 8th is a well-crafted ruleset, or that it couldn't improve and be even more fun.

Not to mention different people find different things fun. Some are happy with the list-building dice-chucking simplicity of 8th. Others tend to enjoy more complex games with some depth, built around in-game decision making instead.

Blastaar wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.

Ah, the bandwagon fallacy. Yes, if many people enjoy something, it is popular by definition. But enjoyment is subjective. Whether a thing is high or low quality is objective. People may like Bud Light, but by all measures it is a poor beer. Whether a person can enjoy a can or not is irrelevant.

Many people may enjoy playing 8th, but that does not mean that 8th is a well-crafted ruleset, or that it couldn't improve and be even more fun.

Not to mention different people find different things fun. Some are happy with the list-building dice-chucking simplicity of 8th. Others tend to enjoy more complex games with some depth, built around in-game decision making instead.

Maybe but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one

BrianDavion wrote:
but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one

In response to the bolded portion, no we don't. We don't have to accept anything. If certain features of 40k are truly objectionable, people could simply stop purchasing GW products until the issues are fixed. Clearly, enough people are happy enough with 8th to keep buying kits, paint, brushes and rulebooks, but the point stands. The idea that the customer base at large doesn't have a say just isn't true. Without us there is no Games Workshop.

Blastaar wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
but on the other hand if 8th was as aweful as some say it'd not be popular at all, 8th edition does what it tries to do reasonably well, although it could certainly be better. Assuming GW takes whats needed and adds it to 9th edition, I think 9th edition'll be amazing. That said some things are here to stay and we need to just accept that. Allies being the biggest one

In response to the bolded portion, no we don't. We don't have to accept anything. If certain features of 40k are truly objectionable, people could simply stop purchasing GW products until the issues are fixed. Clearly, enough people are happy enough with 8th to keep buying kits, paint, brushes and rulebooks, but the point stands. The idea that the customer base at large doesn't have a say just isn't true. Without us there is no Games Workshop.

sure we could stop buying everything but it's eaither that or accept things. Allies for example, it's too useful for GW from a sales POV to ever see them gone.

The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).

Yeah people remember editions differently. Such as TLOS being a thing since 3rd ed.

Yet no one believes that...