Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Why not just say lets play 1 battlaion as a standard size.

What if a battallion is literally not big enough?

One can fill the entirety of an infantry-heavy Guard battallion for 750 points, easily.

This is why i preferred the percentage system over slots. It's too easy to game slots. Percentages guarantee a proportion of your army adhere to a certain specific, while scaling up and down without any need for additionally FOCs.

However, that also screws other lists entirely. For example, it's hard to argue a list based around large numbers of sentinels is overpowered, or one based on terminators for that matter like my BA termie list.

Sometimes, rather than a flat rule, you need to start making judgment calls.

Well that depends on army lists in general. I don't see a reason why BA can't have an all termie list - heck back when i first started playing that was their thing (space hulk).

But yeah, i agree on judgement calls.

Because percentage-based schemes generally require mandatory troops choices, a "troops tax" for certain specialist lists that basically forces players to take the cheapest troop options possible in order to play the list they really want to play.

The specialist detachments in 8th edition are a good compromise. You get more command points by having troops, and thus more tactical flexibility once you have a codex. But you're still allowed to take all specialists.

But you could still do that with percentages, which would scale proportionately to whatever size battle you were having. The troops 'tax' is that troops are generally bad compared to the other options. In my perfect, imaginary world, the 'troops' (or whatever the mandatory requirements were) would be worth taking on their own merits.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The troops 'tax' is that troops are generally bad compared to the other options.

Even if Troops are good, why should I be forced to take them in my Angelic Orbital Intervention Force?

 Melissia wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The troops 'tax' is that troops are generally bad compared to the other options.

Even if Troops are good, why should I be forced to take them in my Angelic Orbital Intervention Force?

That was a side-note/rant on the troops tax, sorry my bad. But basically, if you wanted to take a dark angels ironwing (which is tanks), okay - you must take a minimum of 25% heavy support (spearhead detachment). You want to take a blood angels terminator force? Okay, you must take a minimum of 25% elites (vanguard detachment). Having multiple FOC-types isn't a restriction (and i often thought it was wrong that certain armies had to pidgeon-hole themselves into what looks like a basically imperial marines FOC), a percentage system still works well with them at any level. If you want to take allies, sure it presents problems. But if you want to take a 'pure' force of X at any level, it doesn't require multiple FOCs.

edit: clarification

The Angelic Orbital Intervention Force is a Blood Angels set, not a Dark Angels one. It consists of a terminator captain, and three squads of terminators (one tactical, two assault) minimum, and generally is terminators only.

It sounds like something from 7th..... Yet fits into the vanguard FOC. You could create variant-specific FOCs for individual armies (which makes make sense to me) in that in this case it must be terminator only minimum 25%.... But it still wouldn't be hurt by the percentage system. It would scale up or down as appropriate to the points level.

It was, I think. From Angel's Blade according to the page. The box set is still for sale, and I see its box in each store I visit.

Yeah, I've been playing since 3rd. My comment comes from the fact that in the mere several months of play in this edition, I've seen way more shocking upsets mid-game than ever before. Vehicles blowing up at the perfect time and clearing multiple diminished squads and wounded characters off the table, a psyker managing to get in close to your warlord and rolling 11 on smite and 6 damage. A single twin lascannon dealing 12 wounds, a lot of "6 fishing" effects like sniper MW's, old blast and flamer weapons hitting one guy, but then sometimes hitting 6 or 12, even when there aren't that many to hit...

None of those things are truly random though. Not like a lot of the stuff we had in the last two editions, or even in older editions like 2nd. In 2nd, you could have a tank blow up with no units near it and still have casualties because you rolled the result that causes the turret to fly off in a random direction/distance and kill something. In this edition, you KNOW exactly what the blast radius is, as well as how long before your vehicle dies. If you still have units around it when it's that low on wounds, it's the exact opposite of "random". You made a bad decision. Same with the psyker example. I mean it's one thing if there's nothing you can do to prevent the psyker from just appearing in the right spot, but if he managed to get all the way to where he needed to be and his smite went off perfectly ... again, that's NOT random. That's on the other player knowing this was a possibility and not stopping it. Same with all your other examples. Those situations are completely preventable. Making them the opposite of random.

I haven't seen as many mid-game surprise upsets as you have, but I will say that I HAVE seen way more people pull off wins in the last turn or two than ever before WITHOUT resorting to cheese like deliberately holding back a fast unit and then zipping it onto an objective at the last second. I think that a lot of what you're seeing is less do to the game being "more random" and more due to players making mistakes due to getting used to a new edition.

"Roulette" effects without a normalized distribution are just shoddy design in general. Stomp removes your unit on a 6? Bad design. D removes your unit on a 6? For shame. Tesla inflicts extra hits on a 6? Not as bad, since you're rolling more dice to begin with, and the end result isn't as all-or-nothing.

A Helbrute getting a second turn on a 6? Or other "immutable" results like that? Or even "swing effects" like the Conscript nerf. ("FRFSRF only works on a 4+. Hope your opponent doesn't use a loaded die").

I enjoy 8th, but less than 7th.

Three things that bother me most in 8th:
- all weapons on vehicles firing with an 360 arc and LOS being drawn from hull which results in silly situations
- terrain/cover rules, too much simplefied and results again in silly situations
- no more templates, i really do miss the templates, not so important, but i still miss em

 Melissia wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Why not just say lets play 1 battlaion as a standard size.

What if a battallion is literally not big enough?

One can fill the entirety of an infantry-heavy Guard battallion for 750 points, easily.

take tanks instead of spamming chaff out the wazoo.

The limitation is designed to force different army lists instead of allowing people to spam or cherry pick.

2hq and 3 troops minimum. no LOW.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
The GW staff could collectively start smoking crack today and maintain the habit until 9th and 8th edition would remain a completely superior product to the utter shitshow that was the 7th edition moneygrab. Does that mean it's perfect? Nope, but in terms of quality it's night vs day.

I'm not entirely sure how i'd get it (the crack, that is), but if they released the 40k crack edition i'd certainly consider it. As long as it came with a sticker on it - you must be this high to play.

There's also the linguistic issue to consider. 'Crack' in NZ is not the same thing as 'crack' in NA.

I think this is by far the worst 40k edition ever, even worse than 2nd edition which in retrospect was really bad.

The streamlining went too far. Games are often very bland. Most of the warmovies 'clichés' are out of the game and replaced by nonsensical rules or not taken into account. The tactical options are really limited. You can't hide, you can't avoid unless you play in a shoebox city.

Cover and difficult ground which are the cornestones of every wargame simply disappeared which means in essence you seldom can outmanoeuver your opponent. The last shred of tactics lies with CC but shooting does dominate so it doesn't really matter ATM.

The core rules are falsely made simpler and all special rules have been scattered amongst the various codicies. The bloat we loathed under 7th will be there before spring.

The so vaunted new balance was a sham. Only SM, CSM, dG an GK and AM are out and balance went already out of the window.

The inner work of the rules is so bad that horde armies irrevocably dominate even in casual games.

Moral doesn't work. The system is awful.

7th was also spoiled by the amount of rules bypassing core rules leading to an arms race between factions. Mortal wounds do the exact same thing. Instead of being really rare, they are increasingly integrated in the combos available. Has GW removed dweapons? Nope, mortal wounds and smite achieve the same brokenness.

Therefore either you have incredibly lucky rolls or you win through gimmicks.

Skill is not rewarded, list builing is key, even more than before.

In fact, GW as usual did try to mitigate 7th failings by generating other problems and an even weaker ruleset.

Given that the core rules allow hordes to dominate, I can bet those gimmicks triggered by command points will be increased for futur elite armies. If not Eldars will be craptacular or if they try to compensate, they will have horribly OP combos as usual.

All in all, 8th reminds me of WFB 8th which pushed people to buy loads of minis to no avail and eventually killed the old world.

I'm terribly bitter. Imho GW has never been able to provide us a good ruleset but this one is really terrible.

This is not a wargame anymore.

vlad78 wrote:

(1) Cover and difficult ground which are the cornestones of every wargame simply disappeared which means in essence you seldom can outmanoeuver your opponent. The last shred of tactics lies with CC but shooting does dominate so it doesn't really matter ATM.

(2) The core rules are falsely made simpler and all special rules have been scattered amongst the various codicies. The bloat we loathed under 7th will be there before spring.

(3) The inner work of the rules is so bad that horde armies irrevocably dominate even in casual games.

(4) Moral doesn't work. The system is awful.

I think regardless what one thinks of the edition in general, these are very true.

(1) Everybody, I think, feels the terrain is lacking. At the beginning I was thinking at least about dividing the terrain between cover (+1 armor) and concealemnt (-1 to hit) but Alpha Legion, Raven Guard and Ryza convinced me that is better not.

(2) One could argue that this depends from personal tastes and do not care about bloat as long as there is coherence in the ruleset, but we are seeing that stuff like the keywords are not properly used. See the interaction with FW models.
Also, the application of some weapon is counter-intuitive even if is less than feared at the beginning. I think THERE IS something inherently broken because of the kind of fixes they had to add to make units viable, like the Russ shooting 2 times. This is like declaring " we completely botched the transition from 5" area to dice".

(3) This could be the codices and the morale mitigating mechanics. We all know we are thinking at this moment at the stern guy with the funny hat.

(4) Again this is true but it could be the codex, see above. Nonetheless, like in 7th artillery does not feel like artillery (it was good for sniping, arguably) in 8th stuff like Snipers, that could mitigate (3), do not work because of their rule and the Wound bloat in minor characters. I wish we had, instead of the focus NounNoun NounVerb from the designer team, a focus on what makes a wargame feel like a wargame.

I am torn. On the other side, I see a lot of units previously considered un-usable that have some use, albeit this could again change. As someone else stated, I would have preferred a good 3rd edition all over again.
I feel also the "WarmaHording" of the game. They did see players used combo, now playtesters and/or designers prepare pre-made "fake-smart" combos to sell the Special Characters.
Is not all bad - I like as an example how in the DG this has been done wisely and the combinations are so many that you don't have a specific given combo with only specific models. You can make choices to find the specific synergy and that's great.

1) Terrain is definitely a case of "if it ain't broke." Although people may have complained about a Wraithknight getting cover because its toe is in shrubbery (which was FAQed), equally absurd is only being able to see only the edge of a tank's tread through three buildings, and said tank *not* getting cover because it isn't in shrubbery.
2) A Land Raider carries 2 models, but each Terminator counts as two. However, a Custodes Land Raider carries 5 models. The side effect is that a Malleus Inquisitor in Terminator Armor cannot ride in a Custodes Land Raider. Oops. Speaking of Forgeworld, one personal favorite example is Brayath Ashmantle, whom possesses a pistol called Burning Wrath. Fluffwise, it is obviously a Flame Pistol, but Flamecraft does not work with it because it does not have "Flame" in its name. Personally, I wish GW added keywords to weapons or wargear as well, especially as it could have helped in 7th too. Remember "Is a Plasma Culverin a Plasma Weapon" for purposes of the Haemotrope Reactor?
3) Morale in 40k has been binary, but generally meaningless in many situations. Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure what it should be replaced with. Although disruption tokens ala Epic would be neat, I doubt the system would scale upward. Maybe a "three-tiered" morale system that is "Pass, Shaken, Routed" ala Kings of War? Or maybe make it four tiers, so there's "Fleeing" vs "Routed". Maybe replace "sweeping advances" with a free round of melee attacks? On a side note, 6th removed the rule that a unit could not Rally if there was an enemy unit within 6" of it, meaning the old trick of attempting to escort routed units off-table was no longer an option.
4) Admittedly, that was an issue with 7th. Barrage weapons were better for sniper duty than actual sniper weapons. Being able to dictate the direction the attack came from for purposes of cover was admittedly rather cool.

Started in 3rd editon.

7th edition was the edition I hated most.

8th edition is fun with the right people. It is abysmal with the powergaming crowd simply because the game falls apart.

I wouldn't play 7th edition. I'll still play 8th edition. It needs work though.

We need some advanced rules. We need some terrain rules that matter. We need to start cutting down on mortal wounds. Its gotten nonsensical.

I really wish that they didn't have Command Points as something you spammed to maximize them; remember when they said that Command Points would be a reward for playing fluffy armies? And instead, it's just soup and spam lists to get as many CPs as possible because they are way too good.

Thats the approach I took in writing Grand Crusade. You get Campaign Points for making a narrative style army as opposed to how they do it now which is just... very gamey.

I enjoy 8th, but if I'm being honest, I am starting to like it less than 7th, despite the fact that the ork index is far and away better than the 7th ed codex.

There's just a lot of rules that seem unfair and unbalanced.

My biggest problem is falling back. I hate that it's free, guaranteed, unchallenged, and a large amount of units (and armies) can do it without penalty, or with a trifling penalty.

I honestly feel that it would be a fine mechanic, if there were just some kind of test for it to go off, and if the unit falling back took damage for trying, like a melee overwatch. I mean, when I charge, I have to brave overwatch and have a chance to fail. I feel that it's fair that if you wish to undo my charge, you need to take similar risks.

Aura abilities, and character rules in general, are also starting to get a bit under my skin. I think that if aura abilities were limited to affecting one unit per phase, characters like G-man would instantly become more balanced. But having a single model buffing an entire army doesn't seem reasonable.

Cover basically only works for small, elite armies, and is a massive boon for them. For horde armies, you may as well not play with cover unless it's a gigantic cardboard box with absolutely no LOS. And even if you do you get cover by some miracle, the benefit you gain is almost useless.

I'm probably in the minority in this, and I guess I am in general, but I actually liked the 7th ed psychic phase, though I do recognize it became pretty ungainly in psychic-heavy lists. But the current 'pass a test on 2d6' is a little dull in my opinion.

Lastly........I'm honestly not sure I'm a fan of command re-rolls. I feel the game becomes a bit more pure, for lack of a better word, once everyone is out of command points. I like the stratagem system on the whole, don't get me wrong, but I guess I don't like re-rolls.

7th wasn't perfect, but 8th certainly isn't shaping up to be the 'most playtested edition ever' it was sold to us as.

Then again, everybody's a critic.

I am also in that same minority that felt that the 7e Psyker system had potential if the numbers were adjusted to make Psykers scale in a sane manner. The largest issue was that the Warp Charge ratio meant that the system scaled logarithmically if you tried to use each individual Psyker, and worked better as battery-casting for one or two super-casters, and individual armies only amplified this issue. Even with the issues that 7e Psykers had, they were still *mostly* manegable (minus Invisibility) until Wrath of Magnus. Which was: "You know, Thousand Sons are the Psyker Traitors, so they need a really low ceiling for Warp Charge. Let's let Daemons get Heralds Anarchic and Blue Horrors." "But what about Magnus?" "Oh, we'll give him a Psyker power that lets him recycle Warp Charge."

Siphon Magic is arguably the worst-designed power of 7th, and arguably made Invisibility look sane.

That said, I did like that it allowed for move-cast-move, since this was something that *any* army with Psykers could do (and given that the three main "no Psyker" armies had at least one form of Jetpack movement, it was a wash afaik). For all the complaints that Eldar and Tau were "unfair" since they could move after shooting, I honestly haven't seen as much complaint about the matter from Guard Players now that Tallarn tanks get this option...

ANYWAY, it's not so much that I "like" 7th (I did enjoy the few games I got), so much as I feel it's easier to strip that system down rather than to build a game out of 8th.

I prefer 8th edition psychic by far. It remembers me more 3rd edition and has what I want from the phase: simple buffs you choose and you can even tailor you strategy on, with a simple resolution mechanic.

I can see people wanting more nuance in things like terrain or deepstrike/infiltration, and even more risk, but 7th psychic phase was an utter abomination.

Nevermore.

Morale immunity should never have been a thing.

8th psychic phase is OK.

Smite should be removed completely. Each discipline (for ex, Librarius) should get a Primaris power that can be cast multiple times per turn.

Any spammable power should be far weaker than what smite is.

Wayniac wrote:
I really wish that they didn't have Command Points as something you spammed to maximize them; remember when they said that Command Points would be a reward for playing fluffy armies? And instead, it's just soup and spam lists to get as many CPs as possible because they are way too good.

I think this is more of a problem of the "mix armies with a shared keyword".
Armies now DO have more structure compared to the old formation spam, IMHO, and the detachments that include troops give you more CP that can make a difference. I really appreciate that. I appreciate less soups, so yeah, people that stated that soup-less armies should get more CP in a way or another, have a point.

Synapse should be: "Use the Leadership of the synapse unit and halve morale casualties (rounding down)."

Summary Execution should be: "Halve morale casualties (rounding up)."

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I prefer 8th edition psychic by far. It remembers me more 3rd edition and has what I want from the phase: simple buffs you choose and you can even tailor you strategy on, with a simple resolution mechanic.

I can see people wanting more nuance in things like terrain or deepstrike/infiltration, and even more risk, but 7th psychic phase was an utter abomination.

Nevermore.

3rd Psyker Powers might as well have not existed if you weren't playing Eldar ("Guide Starcannons", or "Fortune my Seer Council of Infinite Warlocks"), or Pete Haines Chaos, where you got to experience the joys of fishing for Siren. ("Neener neener, you can't attack me."). Orks didn't even *have* Psykers, Tyranids were primarily a "take Warp Blast dummy, because its your only low AP gun", and Guard? Your Sanctioned Psyker rolled a random power, the most notable one being a D6 shot "move or fire" lasgun. Guard Psykers were so bad, even their signiature attack was a flashlight!

5e Psykers were flawed in that Marine Librarians got 2 Psyker Powers, period, and the internal balance was obviously lacking. ("Gee, do I take Smite, or do I take Null Zone?"). Tyranids became "Take Catalyst/Paroxysm, dummy!" And you also got to experience the comical nature of "when do I actually cast a power anyway?" since "game turn vs player turn" was ambiguously defined, some psychic powers could be cast in the enemy turn, the Eldar powers were cast "at the start of the turn," yet Eldritch Storm and Mind War were Psychic Shooting Attacks and thus cast in your Shooting Phase, leading to contradiction as to when either power could be actually cast! In retrospect, an actual phase for Psychic powers was the right choice, at least if GW was still sticking to phases.

7th is simple enough to fix, both on a power and a core mechanic system. Replace "all or nothing" casting with "degrees of success" both for casting and denial, and make individual powers not so roulette-worthy. Maybe make Denial a 5+ base instead of a 6 base (Incidentally, if one rolled 3 successes on a blessing, rolling 18 dice to deny would only have about a 60% chance of stopping it. 4 successes and it drops to about 36%).

8th has Psychic Focus, which exists as a "balance" against stuff like an Ork player Da Jumping an entire army, while similarly ensuring that powers like Eadbanger will never see play.

Yeah, there was a lot of good in 7th. The stuff AROUND the core might've been gak, but the core of the system was pretty solid. Not perfect, of course-it can definitely be improved. But better than 8th.

I'm liking 8th better than previous editions, but there is much room for improvement.