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.

I didn't vote because "excited" doesn't really describe how I felt before nor how I feel now.

Oh yeah. I finally might play my Tau vs friend's Dark Eldar and don't feel it's just me having fun!

It'd be nice if the minority vs majority and critical thinking vs groupthink/bandwagon argument could stop, especially since claiming someone in the majority of this poll is wrong because they're in the majority borders on a personal attack. Invalidating someone's argument because you assume they simply followed the crowd (implying simplicity of thought below that of the average person), when in actuality the vast majority of us read the Warhammer World articles and decided whether the changes were good or bad before discussing it online. So the couple users using that argument to stroke their egos (it's really, really obvious) need to stop. I do not think OP is guilty of this.

Back on topic, when I went to the re-opening of my FLGS yesterday after a management change, I saw almost everyone who plays 40k there at some point during the day. Of those that I discussed the coming edition, everybody seemed to be overall quite pleased with the changes, but we've agreed that we cannot be certain until we know that command points are actually worth organizing an army around, and that certain notable units get point cost changes.

LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.

^This is the only reason I mentioned anything about majority/minority thought to begin with.

You wanna talk about borderline personal attack?

It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?

 insaniak wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

But detachments they've shown really disappoint me. What's wrong with variety by faction?

I would be very surprised if there aren't faction -specific detachments on the army books.

Faction specific supplements are absolutely necessary for money making.

 wuestenfux wrote:


Faction specific supplements are absolutely necessary for money making.

Yep, I've said it before but I'd be willing to bet money that nearly every currently available formation will be represented in some way. The initial 14 will cover most basic archetypes and they'll release faction specific ones in new codices. They just won't be called "formations", and you'll get command points for fielding them as opposed to special rules. Same amount of variety and freedom in army building (if not more), same fluffy and/or sheisty cheesemonger armies, but with a standardized game resource that is easier to tweak and balance as necessary.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because those tanks with Small Blasts and the Hellhound were really effective to begin with.

Local meta involved a lot of nids, so HH was actually effective. Not as effective as Banewolf, but effective.

Vaktathi wrote:I mean, the weapons still exist, we just dont know how they'll be translated. If a Battlecannon is S8 ASM-3, D6+2 hits that do D3 wounds each for 150pts that can fire other weapons at no penalty, well, Russ tanks will probably be pretty stronk. If it's ASM -2 with D3 single damage hits for 200pts with the same Ordnance restrictions, then we'll have issues.

Reading through the proposed statlines they've released I can see where you have a point, and vehicles could be really good or really bad, pretty much at the whim of whoever does the 'degradation' rules.

Otto von Bludd wrote:
It's actually quite an improvement for things like Battle Cannons. Not to mention how much better our vehicles in general will be compared to now.

As i said above, we'll see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Well when you guys make such informative and well-reasoned arguments as these, it IS a wonder not everyone sees things your way

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.

^This is the only reason I mentioned anything about majority/minority thought to begin with.

You wanna talk about borderline personal attack?

It's clear that having a negative opinion on certain aspects of 8th edition is now completely frowned upon. I am now a hater or whiny because I think some of the rules are poorly written? Maybe I just want a good game?

As I said to him, he was being a sore winner, which isn't okay; however, this is one of almost a dozen borderline flamebait polls that have gone up in the past 2 weeks and it's getting rather tiresome. Having reservations is fine, disliking mechanics that have been fully confirmed (flat to hit in melee, vehicles having wounds, the 8 specific stat profiles, and honestly not very much else) is fine. The problems come in in the language that's being used. The individuals that are unhappy with the general picture we've been given are prone to speaking in absolutes that are absolutely unknowable at this point.

You can't KNOW that guardsman will melt to morale, you can only guess based on the bits and pieces of the system we're privy to. You can't KNOW landraiders are going to melt to guardsman, you can't KNOW that space marines are going to be better than everyone, you can't KNOW that XYZ thing is going to suck because we don't know how everything worls together.

Even when the new edition drops we won't have a real solid base in what's good/bad for MONTHS. It takes a long time for the meta to shake out.

My opinion is yes.

I'm excited for the possibility of playing with all the units I've collected over the last 15 years that have gone in and out of the meta. Not having to read and learn 300+ pages of rules and special rules. Not taking 3-4 hours to play a game with plastic toy soldiers.

I have 15 different armies and keeping up with the codices, FAQs, supplements, and BRB changes is expensive and tiring.

I quit when flyers, LoWs, and other crazy nonsense turned the game into 3-4 hour long affairs.

I quit Fantasy for the same reason 10 years ago and started playing AoS when it came out due to the streamlined/free rules. I can teach someone to play AoS in 30-45 minutes. I barely knew all the rules to Warhammer Fantasy after playing it for five years.

 Vryce wrote:
As much as I was disappointed to see the random charge distance and overwatch stay, I am still very much excited about 8th edition. As much for the rules, as for the community engagement and communication with us as players. It's nice to see GW moving in a more positive direction for once.

Same here. It's not that long ago that GW were in full self-destruct mode and 40K was a ludicrous parody of what I knew it as, but now they're acting like an actual wargames company rather than....whatever the heck they were trying to be. I'll wait to see how the new edition shakes out before getting back into the game, but it feels like there are good intentions here beyond "How can we tack on more random pay-to-win junk to extract as much short-term cash as possible?" And regardless of the specifics of the rules (any of which could be well or poorly executed), that is interesting.

I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termites were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.

I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!

I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.

Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!

Sounds far better than 3rd-7th...but not a home-run.

 Elbows wrote:
Sounds far better than 3rd-7th...but not a home-run.

Fair enough.

Not excited. Optimistic maybe. I haven't even thought about playing 40k in nearly a year honestly. The complexity is too much to bother tracking. The power level has been cranked so high all but the best can't see play.

Bottom line this is GW. I hope they finally give CSM some love, orks too and all the other step childs of the game. I'm tired of eldar and marines getting the better gak for fanboy reasons.

If they can't balance it this time after 5 editions I'm finally out for good. Theres plenty of fan made rules that crush all over theirs atm..


Edit- fwiw I did vote excited since I'm actually rather pleased by most of what I've read although I'm really not a fan of Age of Calgar.

The new infantry rules are up, and man, they sound fantastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

 jreilly89 wrote:
The new infantry rules are up, and man, they sound fantastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
Not excited. Optimistic maybe. I haven't even thought about playing 40k in nearly a year honestly. The complexity is too much to bother tracking. The power level has been cranked so high all but the best can't see play.

Bottom line this is GW. I hope they finally give CSM some love, orks too and all the other step childs of the game. I'm tired of eldar and marines getting the better gak for fanboy reasons.

If they can't balance it this time after 5 editions I'm finally out for good. Theres plenty of fan made rules that crush all over theirs atm..


Edit- fwiw I did vote excited since I'm actually rather pleased by most of what I've read although I'm really not a fan of Age of Calgar.

Yeah I know the feeling but I am getting too old to quit. Rather hang in, keep the brush wet and contribute to the discourse. The more things change I guess... Totally with you on the orks and chaos being two of the armies I had been investing in these past couple years even given their relative neglect. Do you mean Age of Girlyman?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Sounds far better than 3rd-7th...but not a home-run.

Yeah... I was seeing rainbows and unicorns for a minute there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Garrlor wrote:
I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termites were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.

I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!

I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.

Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!

Moving is never easy. Best wishes man. Good point on the control over formatachments and power creep. I am interested in if they use the narrative itself to justify rules changes when moderating capacities to tune imbalance issues going forward for example wave serpents have been over used and after seeing such unceasing service are worn and often damaged leaving them with a diminished shield capacity, something that would have made sense in the last edition but I use the example here just to clarify...

 jeff white wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The new infantry rules are up, and man, they sound fantastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.

Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.

It's looking like progress but not perfection. Looks like a lot of worthwhile changes that will improve the game overall. Once the dust settles there will invariably be a demand for further changes, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests 8th edition won't be hugely preferable to 7th.

I will of course judge it properly after seeing the whole ruleset but so far I still like it.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's looking like progress but not perfection. Looks like a lot of worthwhile changes that will improve the game overall. Once the dust settles there will invariably be a demand for further changes,

-Community feedback
-Dreads and Vehicles now more survivable/finally get an armorsave
-Units all have Splitfire
-Formations are gone.

but I'm not seeing anything that suggests 8th edition won't be hugely preferable to 7th.

Yeah, okay. Dude, these changes are massive.

 jeff white wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Garrlor wrote:
I am old enough to remember the old overwatch rules, and how hard termies were to kill. Good times! Though saving a hit from a lascannon was 9+ on 2d6 if I remember rightly, hard but not Impossible.

I can safely say I am looking forward to this edition, streamlined rules and easy to control power creep means they have so much more control over their formations... I mean detachments!

I can't wait to get access to my space wolves once I have finished moving house, and building a nice themed army not a thunderwolves cheese list fills me with joy.

Same as jjohnson11 above, I also picked up a box of fantasy out here in Cyprus reminiscing about how good it was back in the day... And was turned off by the rules. So much bloat and complication!

Moving is never easy. Best wishes man. Good point on the control over formatachments and power creep. I am interested in if they use the narrative itself to justify rules changes when moderating capacities to tune imbalance issues going forward for example wave serpents have been over used and after seeing such unceasing service are worn and often damaged leaving them with a diminished shield capacity, something that would have made sense in the last edition but I use the example here just to clarify...

Not just moving house, moving country! All of my toy soldiers and painting gear on a boat heading back to the UK as we speak.

As for your suggestion, it makes sense that they can tilt the rules with quick rewrites and fluff twists like that. I think the core rules are looking really interesting now, and its going to be the fluff special rules that fill everything out. Like space marines have a chance to shrug off wounds due to thier constitution, eldar dodging close combat attacks etc.

And we still have a lot to learn about command points and how they are used. If a detachment is proving op due to the number/type of command points it provides, it's so simple to faq/errata the detachment without unbalancing a whole army. Thank the lord!

Liking the new to wound table, and the everything can be hurt by anything line.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
LOL at the poll numbers. Yet another whiny OP who doesn't realize he's in the minority.

Questioning the majority makes you a critical thinker.

No, it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The new infantry rules are up, and man, they sound fantastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.

Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.

I wouldn't get too hasty. So far it looks like the average flamer will still be garbage. I would say it's even worse now than it was before.

Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.

And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.

I'm not a fan of this Split Fire, or whatever you want to call it, if only because it opens up to a lot of lengthy noodling over who is going to shoot what. Not a big deal at all, though.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.

How amazing would it be for the exorcist to be D6 shots with D6 damage? And then imagine if you could squadron them! You'd have a potential damage range(assuming 100% hit and wound) 9-324 in a standard CAD setup

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
Considering how many people are disgruntled with 7th edition, and GW itself, I am surprised there is only 20% of people who pressed no.

LESS THAN 20%!

And yes, that's surprising.

This is still a poll of less than 650 people. So I am taking it for what it is,. There is a a vocal support for AoS here as well. I have played AoS and I find it to be a very bad product, good on you all for liking it, I do not. I DO like 40k as it is now. I do not play in tournaments, I play at home with a circle of friends who have armies we enjoy. That being said, I am not looking for a new edition, if it turns out to be really good then maybe, if not, then no. I certainly am not going to be excited to lose a system a do like and replace it for one that is too close to a game I think is bad. I generally do not like minimalist games, and AoS fits that description for me.
I dont think quicker or more streamlined is automatically better. nor do I believe "newer" is always better. You can always point to 4th edition D&D for a good example of that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
The closer to AoS it gets the less I like it. I want to play 40k not AoS in space.

... except for the fact that AoS is actually 40k with Fantasy models.

It's really not.

I'm as happy to bash AoS as the next guy, but the only similarity between AoS and current 40K is the shape of the bases.

There's connective tissue there, even in 7th. The systems are very different but the feel is similar enough that you can bounce from one to the other relatively smoothly.

The biggest issue is that one game has a ton of tactical depth and interesting combos that take a lot of time and effort to master and that really emphasizes the skill of the player at all points of play...the other is 40k.

That could easily be said the other way around. AoS is not this mythical in depth system, its 2 pages of actual rules. And those are pretty skimpy, not a lot of detail. I have no doubt there are some skilled AoS players out there, I have seen them in action. But I dont believe the rules have anything to do with that,. just like AoS is no more narrative than any other game out there. Tactics, narrative..those are the effects of players not systems.


A big difference between 7th and 8th of 40k is that its mostly a mechanics change, with AoS it was a complete rewrite with factions lingering as they are slowly replaced/phased out in favor of the new setting. Generally the complaints I see about 7th is not the core rules themselves its the additional codex creep and add ons. this is something that 8th does not fix by being 8th, it will take discipline on GW's part.

Charistoph wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

I keep seeing people call this Split Fire. It is not Split Fire. Split Fire is inferior to this setup. It is more that everyone has a Target Lock or is a Super-Heavy.

And I think that this part is vastly superior to the current system in fluff and sense. It has never made sense the Boltguns had to fire at a Tank the Lascannon carrier shot at, or vice versa. Of course, the ones that have been hurt the most by this were the Imperium, though some Eldar and Tau units could have been affected by it as well.

It's silly to have a gun battery that has a antiaircraft gun, an antitank gun, and a machine gun. Guns go in batteries of a kind.

ERJAK wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Marginally less so now, because I don't like Split Fire and the half-up-half-down part of the new to-wound chart.

But still mostly excited. I'm still waiting to know how many dice of damage Meltas, Battle Cannons, and the Exorcist Launcher will do per shot. I will be sad if it is 1, and am hoping for D3 for the Battle Cannon and D6 for the Meltagun and Exorcist.

How amazing would it be for the exorcist to be D6 shots with D6 damage? And then imagine if you could squadron them! You'd have a potential damage range(assuming 100% hit and wound) 9-324 in a standard CAD setup

It would be nice. I just hope the organ pipes keep being amazingly good at killing tanks, heavy infantry, and monsters. Not giving them multiple wounds per shot would make it fairly terrible.

 Marmatag wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The new infantry rules are up, and man, they sound fantastic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/08/17794gw-homepage-post-4/

The split fire for infantry is going to add time but should be worth it. So many changes are hard to track in a mental simulation. I am certainly looking forward to repointing my collection with new rules and watching some battle reports done by better players than I.

Definitely. I can now run the traditional Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher squad and not have it be garbage.

I wouldn't get too hasty. So far it looks like the average flamer will still be garbage. I would say it's even worse now than it was before.

My excitement isn't so much at the flamer, it's I can now run a mixed squad, instead of Melta squad, Plasma squad, etc.