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.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Actually, that is another thing that has really bugged me about 40K this year.
We have seen nothing but a solid year of Marine releases for 40K. New 'better' marines, 'better' marines sneaky guys, 'better' marines jumppack guys, 'better' marines bastardised hybrid skimmer tank, etc. Of course, we have also had Chaos releases, but they have also been marines, so that doesnt really count...
In the meantime, as Marines are getting their billionth undeserved (loyalist anyway) update and new line (and then you wonder why they sell well?) SoB players are still stuck with £5.50 - a - model 23 year old monopose models, Guard are still using 16 - 18 year old infantry and vehicles and several xenos races are also showing their age.
It would be nice to see something other than marines and bolterporn being shoved in my face every once in a while.

Agreed - its so disappointing.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
This is pretty much the answer I was predicting from you, on all accounts. Please, reread my previous post carefully and try for once LEARN something new about the world... Just to clear two things for you:

I've learned plenty. I've simply learned your opinion, then discarded it as wrong.

1.) Strategic depth as you described is pure mathematical depth in context of game theory. Rulesets of all sorts are pretty much camouflaging basic game theory concepts into more or less obscure artificial decision making setup. As long as you cannot invent new actions mid-game, all games are games theory subjects and even if you can invent new actions mid-game you can approach such anvironment from a game theory standpoint, especially if you have any estimation of how likely it is to encounter such non-catalogued actions.

That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't match reality. People aren't doing game theory calculations when they're making decisions mid-game, and there's a definite difference between the strategy vs. counter-strategy decisions I mentioned and the pure mathematical analysis of things like average damage output per point. Pointing out that technically game theory is considered to be in the overall field of math from an academic point of view is not really relevant to this discussion.

2.) Game design in context of this thread is NOT what you wish it to be - "a POV stripped to just core rules". You try hard to make it so and in the process you fail miserably at seeing the big picture. Game design in context of any-scale commercial enterprise is about all those factors I mentioned. It would be probably less confusing for you if I were to use term "40K experience" instead of "40K game" in my posts. Actual ruleset is only a portion of entire picture that "40K experience" is and even in that portion there are many different "attractors" game designer can choose as a basis for it's foundation, which you repeatedly neglect or call "bad design". And overall, broad picture factors heavily influence or even determine what choices can be made to output most succesfull "end result experience from a game". Football (soccer for those from US) is a terrible set of rules yet it is the most popular sports game on earth, making it a good game design from "total football experience" POV.

Context matters. The context here is a discussion of the 8th edition rules, not how much you enjoy the aesthetics of the new space marine kit and how that improves your enjoyment of the game experience as a whole. Please don't move the goalposts and try to turn this into a discussion of GW's successes in the plastic model kit business, as if making an aesthetically pleasing model has anything to do with the quality of the 8th edition rules.

We both may not be such persons, there may be a large-but-still-insignificant number of people who loose their interest in this game after codices started coming out, but you simply cannot deny observable fact, that 8th ed is a major success and days of doomsayers have ended.

Not only can I deny it, I will deny it. 8th edition has not been a success. Why? Because it has fallen well short of its potential. It has only managed to bring back in the people that pretty much any new edition would have recovered, assuming even an absolute minimum of competence in fixing the obvious flaws of 7th edition. Deleting invisibility and formations and re-rollable saves, in a one-page errata document for 7th, would probably have had almost the same effect. But look at this thread: even on a heavily pro-GW forum about 40% of the votes are some version of "not happy with 8th edition", and a lot of people are commenting with specific complaints about where the rules are poorly designed. A major success would have been a game that convinced even the doubters that it's a good game, a game where only the bitterest of GW haters can find anything bad to say about it. This is not that game.

But really, it's a reflection of GW's overall business philosophy. They're content to be a small player in a niche market, and consider it a "success" as long as they make a modest profit every year. They have zero interest in growing the company beyond their niche and achieving any kind of mainstream success or matching the profit numbers of larger companies. 8th edition is just that on a smaller scale: adequate to keep a net profit for the year, not enough to really change the game.

From my perspective this is 3rd ed all over again - a reshuffle in playerbase with more incoming new players stream than quitting old players stream. A couple of years from now there won't be anything left from 3rd-7th "core engine" and post-8th new editions will recreate the cycle of growing complexity, to keep new generation of players hooked. As was with WHFB and AOS, as is with all perpetually updated games undergoing a major shift in paradigm.

That makes no sense at all. Why would GW want to hit the reset button like that and dump their existing customers, when a well-designed new edition could bring in new customers AND keep the existing ones? That's suicide from a business point of view. And it doesn't match what we know of GW's business model, where the core of the business is high-turnover sales to kids. A 14 year old buying a space marine starter set doesn't know about 6th edition or the history of the rules over the past few years, and probably won't be playing when 9th edition arrives. The only people who are going to be drawn into the game specifically because of an edition change are lapsed customers who are persuaded to reinvest in the hobby by something positive about the new edition. And you know what's better than trying to chase returning customers with a new edition? Not letting those customers go in the first place.

nou I hate to burst your bubble but Peregrine has actually argued his points a lot better than you have, and is ultimately much more convincing. There is no denying that a tighter ruleset is better for everyone, not just competitive players.

Anyway, in response to the actual thread, my group is still shaking down 8th edition. We really miss templates, and everyone hates the disengage rule, but we're still having fun with it. I still really miss 5th edition, but I probably always will so that's not a slight on the game as it is now.

I think a tighter ruleset isn't just about competitive play. Its about having a wargame play intuitively like you'd expect a battle to play out. It impacts narrative players just as much looking for a wargame that plays out how a battle would be expected to where things like cover and terrain are part of managing any battlefield in reality or fictitious literature.

The state of the rules for AOS and 40k right now alienate a very large chunk of the community (not the gw community, the overall wargaming community) in favor of a very gamey ruleset.

Its also not even about extremes. It doesn't NEED to be ultra complex, but a few bones thrown in to help immersion and intuitiveness would go a long way into bringing others back as well as not going too overboard with it to kill what has been built now.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
nou I hate to burst your bubble but Peregrine has actually argued his points a lot better than you have, and is ultimately much more convincing. There is no denying that a tighter ruleset is better for everyone, not just competitive players.

This. Peregrine comes off as incredibly rude and condescending most of the time, but his points are still often very sound and accurate. A well written game benefits everybody, a poorly written one only benefits people who know how to abuse it. For instance, 40k's imbalances and poor rules hurt the casual/narrative players more than the competitive ones, because the competitive players don't care enough about the background or story to not just switch to whatever the FOTM army/list is. It's the person who really likes Orks or Necrons or Deathwatch that gets screwed because they have an emotional investment in their army, will build the army in certain ways that match the story/feel they want, and then find out that their choices, in the context of the game itself, are just bad and they have no hope of winning (or very little hope) with what they selected. How is that a good thing? Meanwhile, the competitive person doesn't care because they're just going to build the army using the best choices available, even if they are supposed to be rare or whatnot, so the poor rules benefit them more because they are exploiting it since they lack the emotional attachment to their choices, it's merely "optimal" or "not optimal".

40k as a game thrives DESPITE its poor quality rules and abysmal balance, not as a result of it. Now just why it thrives despite that has been debated for decades, but it does. The game lacks any serious merit to be considered a good game. The models sure are high quality (although perhaps not for the price, but that's another debate) but the game itself has no legs to stand on without them. Solid rules sets often can stand on their own merit if you took away the models (whether or not people would, the game itself would still be a solid set of rules regardless). Warmahordes, for example, if you took away the models and used appropriately sized counters (a common joke/retort to naysayers of the game, but valid for this comparison), the game itself could still stand on its own merit (assuming you had people who didn't mind using counters, let's assume that for purposes of discussion). Kings of War too (I've often seen people say the best way to test out factions in KoW is to use bases since the game is based on the size of a regiment's base, not individual models). Likely a lot of historical games (which, it's common to actually USE counters or just empty bases to test things out for these games, despite figures being cheaply available). But Warhammer? Take away the models, and you basically have nothing. I doubt anybody would touch Warhammer with a 10 foot pole if they replaced the models with counters of the correct size, while other games could stand alone on their rules and balance regardless of what's used in them.

nou wrote:


"Good ol' Peregrine, steady as a mountain"... All I can say is read my posts again and again untill you actually understand what I wrote as your responses CLEARLY show, that you understood nearly nothing (and your game theory response is really quite ridiculous example of having no clue at all about what I wrote means exactly). As usual I may add... All my possible responses are already written above, so best luck to you, I'm out of this thread. You "won" the debate again and can cherish your feel of mental superiority.

From my perspective, it certainly seems like not only did Perry understand what you wrote, Perry actually argued the points better than you.

Wayniac wrote:

This. Peregrine comes off as incredibly rude and condescending most of the time, but his points are still often very sound and accurate. A well written game benefits everybody, a poorly written one only benefits people who know how to abuse it. For instance, 40k's imbalances and poor rules hurt the casual/narrative players more than the competitive ones, because the competitive players don't care enough about the background or story to not just switch to whatever the FOTM army/list is. It's the person who really likes Orks or Necrons or Deathwatch that gets screwed because they have an emotional investment in their army, will build the army in certain ways that match the story/feel they want, and then find out that their choices, in the context of the game itself, are just bad and they have no hope of winning (or very little hope) with what they selected. How is that a good thing? Meanwhile, the competitive person doesn't care because they're just going to build the army using the best choices available, even if they are supposed to be rare or whatnot, so the poor rules benefit them more because they are exploiting it since they lack the emotional attachment to their choices, it's merely "optimal" or "not optimal".

This is absolutely true. I just want to be able to build a nice looking thematic army and not to be completely gimped game-wise due my unit choices. Though I feel 8th is better in this regard than many previous editions, albeit far (far!) from perfect.

Good enough to play on nearby leagues/tournaments occasionally, not nearly good enough to surplant 30k.

ahyh, the good old dakka error in conflation of 'the game has problems' with 'you're a fupwit for playing it', whilst folks on Dakka can be a smidge brusque its usually a result of how miserably benign rational discussion tends to go down with folks wilfully misunderstanding and then calling foul when they 'lose'

Whilst I've got a copy of 8th and my Eldar codex don't have much urge to play. I think its partly due questionable design choices and partly due to opportunity cost as due to RL commitments I only get to game once a week and I'd rather use the time for a 'good' game than Mc40k.

I'm sue I'll have a junk game blow out of Aeldari shenanigans at some point as mixing up what games you play tends to stop things going stale, part of my grumps with X-Wing stems from playing it into the ground.

Part of the issue with narrative play vs balanced is some themed armies just won't be able to be balanced.

Take the example of the Baneblade company; most people agree that it's fairly unbalanced one way or another (either it gets creamed or it does the creaming) which is unfun gameplay wise.

But it's a thematic list present in at least three 40k novels and various books and codices, and has been available in some iteration of the game's rules since 4th edition (though in 4th and 6th the Baneblade coy was apoc only - you could only take 1 in a regular army).

But it's very difficult to balance, as it's so skew. In fact, I think truly themed lists in 40k have to be skewed these days because factions have become caricatures of themselves. "Oh, you play blood angels? Well, if not every model has a jump pack you're DOING IT WRONG!"

I saw it in 30k too - questions like "is it fluffy for World Eaters to have a superheavy tank?" Well, of course it is; they are a legion just like everyone else. The idea that a faction is "<Unit Specialty> x 1000 and nothing else" causes the theme to skew a bit.

The blame for this rests solely on the shoulders of GW, who instead of saying "the Raven Guard are specialists at fluid warfare" says instead "the raven guard are the sneakiest and are so sneaky that they can't bring tanks with their superhuman power-armoured jetpack-wearing ninjas."

To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.

Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.

It's a poor game that only seems better because 7th was just -THAT- bad and people were desperate for anything else that it seems amazing by comparison.

Of course, because 90% of people haven't played anything but a GW game (and 40k at that), their only really comparison to what makes it 'so good' are other poorly thought out, imbalanced GW games and editions.

It's not awful, but it's not very good either and the cracks are already seriously showing. Chapter Approved shows GW still have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Templates needs to come back and fast, vehicle facings too. Hell, anything that adds a splash of depth to positioning instead of turning the game into 'run your guys up the board, mosh pit in the middle and hope you brought the more powerful units'.

The GW community - "Nothing could be worse than the dumpster fire that was 7th ed!"

GW - "Oh yeah?"

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.

Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.

Just look at the word count. It's not Starfleet Battles levels of complexity, but the complete game (not just the basic tutorial missions) is a complicated mess. Just being able to understand the rules, including the unit-specific rules and how they interact with each other, and play without making mistakes takes a lot of work. Just reading the entire rulebook and codices for two armies is going to take longer than learning the rules for a genuinely simple game.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.

Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.

Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.

The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best

 Formosa wrote:
Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.

The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best

I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.

Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?

Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.

Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.

Just look at the word count. It's not Starfleet Battles levels of complexity, but the complete game (not just the basic tutorial missions) is a complicated mess. Just being able to understand the rules, including the unit-specific rules and how they interact with each other, and play without making mistakes takes a lot of work. Just reading the entire rulebook and codices for two armies is going to take longer than learning the rules for a genuinely simple game.

You are right, if you have no idea about this game and you take the books and start reading them, it will be much more complex to learn how to play than if you have someone that knows how to play and explains it to you avoiding all the confusion normal GW rulebooks have. Probably thats why they understood it with ease, but I can see how giving them the rulebooks and saying "There you have it, read this and learn how to play" could be totally different.

 Galas wrote:
You are right, if you have no idea about this game and you take the books and start reading them, it will be much more complex to learn how to play than if you have someone that knows how to play and explains it to you avoiding all the confusion normal GW rulebooks have. Probably thats why they understood it with ease, but I can see how giving them the rulebooks and saying "There you have it, read this and learn how to play" could be totally different.

Yeah, having help makes a big difference. And TBH the issue is not complexity in isolation, it's complexity relative to depth (or, in 40k's case, lack thereof). 40k has a very high word count for its rules, but very little strategic depth. I keep using this example, but consider the situation with power weapons: you have to care about whether your model is armed with an axe or a sword, despite the fact that you're playing a game where a titan can kill the whole unit in one shot. You have to try to figure out how to best approximate the effects of all the random weapon stats when you're incorporating them into your strategy, even though having random shot count adds little or nothing to the depth of the game. Etc. The end result is that you could have a much simpler game that is easier to learn, even without help, without sacrificing any meaningful strategic depth.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Take the example of the Baneblade company

Unit, you've been told to quit it. So quit it. Do not apologize in response. Just quit it. It's not funny anymore. It used to be funny, and now it's not. This is not one of those things that's funny, then not funny, but if you keep going it gets funny again. It just stays not funny any more.


8th edition is better than 7th, because 7th was gaudoffal. 8th isn't a good game, for me, as I just don't find it that much fun. Again, a lot of the points made above resound as accurate. Games with simple mechanics can be complex, and games with complicated mechanics can be simple. Chess, hell, Checkers has simple mechanics, but has complexity. 40k has a simple base, but each unit is a snowflake. It has complicated mechanics, in practice, without giving a complicated, meaningful choice filled game.

Tight balance helps all players. It helps casuals most, because a "casual" player can take what they want, with a fairly broad scope, and still compete with a min/max list. Imagine that min/maxing could only achieve a 5% effectiveness boost vs a list of random units and upgrades. I'm not saying it should be that way, I like having unit choices matter in a game like 40k, but not to the degree that choosing a list can give you a 50% effectiveness boost. That's still a problem.

The risk/reward systems are skewed, there's basically no reason to not infiltrate, not deep strike, not outflank. There's just no meaningful decisions to be made as a player there. Just observe the obvious and go for it. Infiltration at least put you in a position where you could be assaulted 1st turn, where now that can happen in your deployment zone.

The game is not able to scratch my competitive game itch, currently. There's no real sense of accomplishment to "outwitting" my opponent at 40k, especially with Guard as my main army. It was challenging, if ultimately futile, to play my Guard into my friend's Eldar in 7th. I enjoyed that more than the utter stomping I give now, unless I take a points handicap.

I was excited for 8th, and I like it better than 7th, but not nearly so much as 5th / 6th pre-Knight codex. If early 6th had an even playing field for all allies, I think it was my favourite edition, and I happened to like 5th a lot.

 greatbigtree wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Take the example of the Baneblade company

Unit, you've been told to quit it. So quit it. Do not apologize in response. Just quit it. It's not funny anymore. It used to be funny, and now it's not. This is not one of those things that's funny, then not funny, but if you keep going it gets funny again. It just stays not funny any more.

I can edit Knights in if you want.

Seriously, though, this is a real problem in the game. I use my own personal experience as an example of it, but don't pretend that the problem of Lords of War existing is something only I have, and that telling me to be quiet about it is somehow going to make it go away.

In the future, I'll type "knight house" instead of "baneblade company" if that makes people feel better. The problem still exists and won't go away just because you have a specific problem with the words I've chosen to convey it.

EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?

Pancakey wrote:
The GW community - "Nothing could be worse than the dumpster fire that was 7th ed!"

GW - "Oh yeah?"

Naa they just built the new field next to the dumpster fire and you get the occasional whiff and spill over from across the fence.

the problem is if the fire starts spreading over.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Take the example of the Baneblade company

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?

The specific problem is that, like certain Blood Angels aficionados, repeating the same post over and over again gets tiresome. It grates on the nerves. Yes, it would be nice to see the word "Super Heavy" detachments without the whining about how your precious big-tanks are fluffy but no one... will keep listening to me whine anymore.

If you want your posts taken seriously, quit complaining about your personal problems, and phrase the concerns in a way that keeps your personal whine out of it. You don't want to be "That Guy" on the internet, that has nothing to do with your gaming and everything to do with how you present your opinion. Your voice will carry more weight when you quit crying over your very niche example.

Also, I think it's unfortunate that the game can't keep Super Heavies in their own, EPIC game, where they would have a better rules fit. *shrug* My 2 cents on Super-Heavies in 40k, is that it deforms the shape of the game, unless you increase the rng range beyond a d6. Issue with core rules, not with models or the people that play them.

 greatbigtree wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Take the example of the Baneblade company

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

EDIT: So do you have any specific problem with the post I actually made and the points it has for the thread? Or are you just telling me to shut up?

The specific problem is that, like certain Blood Angels aficionados, repeating the same post over and over again gets tiresome. It grates on the nerves. Yes, it would be nice to see the word "Super Heavy" detachments without the whining about how your precious big-tanks are fluffy but no one... will keep listening to me whine anymore.

If you want your posts taken seriously, quit complaining about your personal problems, and phrase the concerns in a way that keeps your personal whine out of it. You don't want to be "That Guy" on the internet, that has nothing to do with your gaming and everything to do with how you present your opinion. Your voice will carry more weight when you quit crying over your very niche example.

Also, I think it's unfortunate that the game can't keep Super Heavies in their own, EPIC game, where they would have a better rules fit. *shrug* My 2 cents on Super-Heavies in 40k, is that it deforms the shape of the game, unless you increase the rng range beyond a d6. Issue with core rules, not with models or the people that play them.

I don't think I whined anywhere in the post; if I did, could you point it out to me? I was trying to illustrate a problem with 40k's balance from a personal standpoint, but in the future I'll just use some generic term instead of the specific one I'm familiar with.

And you and I agree fundamentally on the problem, but I think we disagree about how to fix it. But yes, the problem is with GW.

Tyel wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.

The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best

I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.

Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?

Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.

They removed a couple of charts, and added lots more, they removed bs and ws charts and replaced it with a fixed dice role, then applied modifiers, then applied exceptions to modifiers, shooting and assault got streamlined and had a lot more complexity added after, weapons got streamlined and lots of randumb added to them, they created the indices, then released the codexs then chapter approved and all are required to use all your models/options/points cost etc.

Basically for every fix, they seemed to create another problem or exception, you are required to own 3/4 books just to play properly, that compared to actual simple games is shocking, hence why I say it's a side shift and not a dumpster fire.

Tyel wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Compared to a lot of other games I've played it's still pretty complicated in terms of word count, not as complicated as infinity or something but still up there.

The thing that boggles me though is people saying it's simpler that 7th, it's not, it's a side shift at best

I don't see it.
8th has very basic initial rules and you then follow your own units special rules. There are occasionally some vaguely complicated interactions but not many.

Compare that with 7th where almost every unit type operated differently to other types.
You had 36 pages covering standard special rules (which, as in every edition, they stuck to early on then started throwing on faction-specific rules like confetti).
I mean what does Zealot do to a Jump Monstrous Creature?

Its not exactly rocket science - but having to carry this rule encyclopedia was far more difficult for new players to grasp than 8th.

For better or for worse having your BRB with the rules for how a bike worked or what the melta rule does makes it universal across all armies and gives a standardization for the game. In 7th if a trukk explodes its going to act the same as a Hammerhead, Ghost Ark, Rhino, Leman Russ Tank (the Primarch explodes in a different way ), Wave Serpent, Raider, Land Speeder, etc. I don't have to look up every single vehicle to see what you need to roll for it to explode and how much damage that explosion does because in 7th it was standardized. Same thing for rules like melta, fearless, relentless, etc where in 7th if you just say the special rule then the vast majority of players instantly know what that does. With 8th you cannot have proper rules complexity because they have to spell out how each rule works on each datasheet entry. Granted some of the old special rules where just bloat like Soulfire but trimming it down and having a few core special rules makes way more sense than what GW did.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I agree with many of the 8th edition critizism here, but I can't understand one.

Why is people saying that 8th edition is complicated? My 10 year old niece learned to play just with the basic missions of "First Strike", and my 14 year-old small brother was capable of playing a full game agaisn't him just because he learned the rules of the game watching us play two games.
They did some mistakes, of course, but the game was pretty smooth.

Its the layout of the rules, couple with the fact that they use a lot of words to convey very little. More to the point, the keywords nonsense and the sheer level of "not!" special rules. The game in essence also has glaring issues like a general lack of tactical depth and somehow managing to confuse people still.

I saw some people compare 40K with Infinity earlier. Infinity is by far the superior game, it has tighter rules, is better written and is very simple to play. At the core of it you have orders, with each model generating an order. You spend an order on your chosen model and do either 2 small actions or 1 big action. If an enemy model sees you perform an action then they can try to shoot you, dodge away, pop smoke or twiddle their thumbs.Yellow orders can only be spent on the models that generate them and green orders can be spent on any model. Its at the special rules that things get a bit complicated, but once you read it it makes sense, and all the special rules are in the rulebooks anyway, so everyone knows what they do.

In 40K 8th edition you have units. Each unit can walk, then it can shoot but it can also run but to find out how far it can run you roll a d6, then if you ran you now have penalties to how you shoot, but they only apply to certain weapons and other weapons give penalties for moving as well, then you roll a d6 to find how many d6's you roll to see how many d6's you roll to see how many d6's your opponent rolls to see if you do anything, then you can also assault which is actually really simple for a change until you get to the special rules, and every model has them listed under its own sheet and they often do the same thing, but have a different name...... And this is before stratagems.

And yet somehow, despite being more complicated to play 8th edition manages to have none of the complexity or depth that Infinity has, with your average 8th ed game devolving too pushing models into the middle and making pewpew noises as you roll your bucket of d6's to find how many buckets of d6's you have to roll to find out how many.......

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think I whined anywhere in the post; if I did, could you point it out to me? I was trying to illustrate a problem with 40k's balance from a personal standpoint, but in the future I'll just use some generic term instead of the specific one I'm familiar with.

"Part of the issue with narrative play vs balanced is some themed armies just won't be able to be balanced.

Take the example of the Baneblade company; most people agree that it's fairly unbalanced one way or another (either it gets creamed or it does the creaming) which is unfun gameplay wise.

But it's a thematic list present in at least three 40k novels and various books and codices, and has been available in some iteration of the game's rules since 4th edition (though in 4th and 6th the Baneblade coy was apoc only - you could only take 1 in a regular army)."

Comes across as...

I read these books, and I liked the idea of them, and now I want to do that, but it turns out it's not fun on the tabletop and that's not fair to me because I want to play the game my way and I should be allowed to do that. Basically, other people should be cool with what I want to do.

Which is a mild form of a forming habit, and I'm trying, dickishly, to inform you that you're becoming a cariacature. We have plenty of posters that will reply with something so predictable, it just... you start to stop taking them seriously. Someone's going to be a crunch-meister, and dickpunch anyone that thinks otherwise. Someone's a fluffbunny and anyone that considers gameplay before fluff is responsible for utterly destroying the fun in the game. Someone thinks Riptides are the Devil. Someone thinks that even if Blood Angels somehow get the bestest best codex ever, that they'll suck and melee sucks, and red paint sucks, and everything about Blood Angels sucks, and because of that 40k is sucks. You know, like that. And you read it often enough you can just look at the name on the left and know what they said, without having to look at their post.

Point is, that in the "State of 40k" thread, you've got to see beyond. Like how it's a miracle that "Someone" hasn't started complaining about how Forgeworld still isn't everyone's thing. I've never seen FW pieces in my 20 years of gaming, on a tabletop. I've seen exactly one Baneblade be used, ever. I've played against SoB once, I think. I expect that's probably a majority status, for the players of 40k on the whole. So the State of 40k includes the potential to face Multi-Super-Heavy forces, as well as Multi-Detachments of a Million Guardsmen, but it's uncommon.

By extending the bubble to "Super Heavy Lists" you're speaking to the issues of Knights, Wraithknights, Baneblades, Stompas [Or the mini-gargants, whatever they're called] and that's more inclusive to the state of the game. Not just, "I can't play the army I want to" but instead, "Here's an issue with Super Heavies, here's how it could be better".

For example, 7th edition Guardsmen were worthless because their weapon did not allow them to interact, meaningfully, with T7 + or vehicles. They didn't have the mobility to gain sight on JSJ troops. A low strength weapon was pointless in the game of invisible, rerolling saves targets. A concession to that, in 8th, is that everything can now wound on a 6, to offset somewhat the concept of scale.

If you want Super-Heavy armies to exist, they can't roflstomp armies that don't have access to plentiful AT at the expense of all other weapons. So you have to allow them to be wounded on 6's, or something, and that's a lame way to deal with it. Anyhow, that's what I'm getting at.

I put unbalanced but fun for occasional games because I have yet to win a single game of 8th, the new edition's changes to damage make gunlines much more oppressive to play against with a combat orientated army, my list which I have run several variations of was previously a very good allcomers list in 7th as it has a bit of everything albeit with a focus to combat (being space wolves and all) now gets utterly destroyed by the end of the 1st or 2nd turn which is before I can usually make any impact on the game as my guys are footslogging up the board what with rhinos being completely useless now. In terms of rules, the game has become way too homogenized and simple, removal of universal special rules was idiotic as now I have to ask my opponent and get them to show me why unit X can reroll X dice rather than him saying that they have zealot, master crafted etc. and me instantly knowing the rule. removal of initiative steps and turn taking to activate units is stupid as it makes the game less cinematic and takes even longer to complete the combat phase not to mention how easy it is to forget which units have attacked or not. I would also argue it makes the game less strategic as you can charge your units in guaranteeing they attack first, removing the need for thought about whether it's actually a good idea or not to charge half the time.
I'll be closely sticking to 30k as FW clearly realize that they've created a good ruleset from 7th and want to stick with it.
Despite all this I am in the process of starting a tyranid army as I've wanted some of the mini's for ages.

The current state has killed my gaming group.

With the game containing practically no depth of play, there really is no reason to go through the hassle of bringing out all the gear and setting everything up for a two turn game. Most modern board games provide a richer more rewarding experience than 8th edition 40k.

Pancakey wrote:
The current state has killed my gaming group.

With the game containing practically no depth of play, there really is no reason to go through the hassle of bringing out all the gear and setting everything up for a two turn game. Most modern board games provide a richer more rewarding experience than 8th edition 40k.

That's a pity. It went the other way round in our gaming group. We had a local tourney with 10 players at the 1500 pt level, recently. Players were really satisfied how it went. Mostly.
But I must admit that the 8th is lacking depth. GW made a shallow rule set which is not what players find challenging. I'm thinking of playing less 40k in the future.