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.

Ok but I can only count a few blobs and a few hordes. Just a few combinations considering the entire GW catalogue.

Even in semi-competitive friendly games armies that usually rely on hordes or blobs have alternative solutions. Yes, even orks.

I would call 40k more "herohammer" rather than blob-hammer. Auras are good IMHO, better than lettin characters join other units, but mandatory superheroes may ruin the game in the end.

I'm ok with hordes, gun lines and auras. I'm not ok with those mortarion, magnus, celestine, guilliman, cawl, etc that show up every single game.

I'm ok with hordes, gun lines and auras. I'm not ok with those mortarion, magnus, celestine, guilliman, cawl, etc that show up every single game.

I'm also concerned with all those blobs around. But you're right about the maximum buffing characters. Special characters in general have a bad taste for my liking.

Yeah. Things that show up in every game over and over again drive my interest away as well. I quit 5th edition because I was tired of having to play against a Draigo nearly every time.

I haven't played in a few months due to real life getting in the way, but I enjoyed playing lots of small to medium sized, not at all serious PL games. I don't think I could play it seriously and enjoy myself.

It's better than 7th, at least. I can take a non competitive list and have a chance of winning. However my problem with 8th comes down to 1 thing.

It is so god damn boring! It feels like all the flavour and little ins and outs of previous editions have just gone out the window. I enjoyed playing Crimson Fists because of their unique trait that follows their fluff, and Pedro did what you'd think he would. Now, I get a bland, generic Chapter Tactic which is just crap. The new Primaris stuff have little to no choice in variation, meaning GW are pushing for this direction of play. The worst part of all this is that SM have a CODEX. Index Marines were agonisingly bland, but at least they now have a Codex to add some flavour. Can't imagine what it is like for some Xenos armies.

All in all, it just feels like a watered down Age of Sigmar, which I think is actually a great game to be honest. I think I'll stick to just painting my 40k and only play AoS from now on. I don't hate 40k, I'd just rather play a more enjoyable gaming system (for me).

I’ve only managed to get a few games in, but overall I like it.

In particular, it is quicker and simpler to play, I like that everything can split fire, so you can sensibly take mixed weapon units (which is also fluffy) and I like that different weapons have more varied effects (heavy bolters hit a bunch of people a bit, lascannons hit one thing a lot, etc.). I like the added tactical depth of command points and stratagems. Pistols in combat is a nice touch, though hardly game changing. I was initially sceptical about characters and auras, I’ve been enjoying the way it works.

As others have said, the terrain rules have been over simplified, to the point that I barely see cover saves used, I mourn the loss of vehicle facings, as it removed a good tactical element (trying to manoeuvre for that shot on rear armour). The fire in all directions is ok for most things, but becomes mind bendingly stupid when it comes to things like fliers (my fixed-forward weapons are now going to strafe the unit 36” behind me?! WTF.)

Finally I hate, absolutely hate, smite, because there is no interaction. No roll to hit, no cover, no invulnerable saves, just a straight “my unit is going to wound/kill your unit and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.” It seems to go against all other areas of the design philosophy, where it seems to have been about giving everything a chance.

Help! Brimstones horrors are tempting me!

Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I heavily dislike this edition, and play competatively.
The way I chose to play this game has no effect on it being exceptionally badly written. One only need glance into You Make Da Call, to confirm the rules are as watertight as the Titanic.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

Thank you. This what I find interesting in this debate because, as you say, I'm the other way around. To me almost everything that made 40K competitive has gone. What is left is a far more fun and casual game. The fluff is still very much there in the codex and each army feels build to it's own fluff.

I know that GW had worked with TO's and the ITC to playtest 8th edition and the Index rules. I certainly didn't expect that to continue however.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

I heavily dislike this edition, and play competatively.
The way I chose to play this game has no effect on it being exceptionally badly written. One only need glance into You Make Da Call, to confirm the rules are as watertight as the Titanic.

There certainly are rules issues that need addressing but I wouldn't call it badly written. It just isn't as in depth (I want to say clunky) as previous editions. Yet.

I will agree that the rules are badly written from a technical standpoint...however the "intent" is incredibly obvious about 98% of the time with only a few rules completely bizarre - and most of those have been addressed by GW.

Easily 90% of the issues in the "You make Da Call" are from people trying their hardest to insert their internet-peen into the foray "Well, this comma actually means that grammatically that unit can't do..." etc. I'd imagine most are arguing just to argue and try to prove themselves right. Plenty of people enjoy that.

The other massive amount of the customers just play the game.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

Tank Shock was a useful rule, that was weird for players to grasp due to it working more as a jump and bodyslam. The fact that displacement was "closest legal distance" meant that you could use it to forcibly reposition your foes, especially if you could obtain a critical mass of mech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I will agree that the rules are badly written from a technical standpoint...however the "intent" is incredibly obvious about 98% of the time with only a few rules completely bizarre - and most of those have been addressed by GW.

Easily 90% of the issues in the "You make Da Call" are from people trying their hardest to insert their internet-peen into the foray "Well, this comma actually means that grammatically that unit can't do..." etc. I'd imagine most are arguing just to argue and try to prove themselves right. Plenty of people enjoy that.

The other massive amount of the customers just play the game.

I wrote "A Competitive Guide to Rule Lawyering" as a trollpost in /r/warhammercompetitive so I know what bad RAW can do. I played Orks in 5th and half my games that edition were trying to come to a consensus over whether I was allowed to Deffrolla enemy vehicles. I am skipping 8th but when I first glanced over the rules, I got tripped up by Daemonic Ritual due to a dangling participle. Nevermind the surrealism of a 1st-gen American with ESL immigrant parents calling out a British company for said company's improper usage of the English Language...

Daemonic Ritual: “Instead of moving in their Movement Phase, any CHAOS CHARACTER may, at the end of their Movement Phase, attempt to summon a DAEMON unit with this ability by performing a Daemonic Ritual.”

The key being "with this ability," by performing a Daemonic Ritual. This could either mean that the Character is using a Daemonic Ritual, or that a Character can only summon Daemons if those Daemons have Daemonic Ritual. Despite what "RAI" and "common sense" would imply, it's the second interpretation. A Daemon must have Daemonic Ritual (the rule, not the ability) not to summon but for any Character to perform a Daemonic Ritual (the ability, not the rule) to summon said Daemon that has Daemonic Ritual (the rule, not the ability). Why they didn't call the rule Summonable, reword it to state that "if a Daemon unit has Daemonic Ritual, then a CHAOS character may forfeit moving in the movement phase to summon a legal instance of that unit" or otherwise fix the rule to have unambiguous RAW and RAI eludes me. It's almost like they don't care if 40k players are at each others throats outside of the game...

Of course, I've mentioned that GW fell for the Scunthorpe Problem and they use character-matching for weapons, abilities and stratagems. Grey Knight Incinerators cannot use Fuel Relays but a Horror's Flickering Flames can, because Fuel Relays benefit weapons "that have 'flame' in their name." I await the return of the Plasma Syphon so I can witness Exocrines against the Inquisition. They don't shoot plasma, they shoot plasmic.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

Why do you say this? If anything this is the first edition in some time that acknowledges competitive/matched play and GW is even involved in several tournament circuits for the first time in ages.

That said, I play 40k real casual these days. Had I the same mindset back in 5/6/7 editions I probably would have enjoyed the game more. I think the rules are pretty gak, but I’ve learned to appreciate the game for the models, spectacle, and fluff and absolutely do not take my games very seriously. If I did, I’d probably stop playing.

Playing several different games has allowed me to have a more laid back attitude towards it all. I play 40k or x-wing when I just want some casual one-off games, Bolt action for narrative missions and campaigns, Runewars and Armada competitively. Never been more happy as a gamer and hobbyist.

I hate the new edition. They have made ZERO real attempts at balance, which inherently makes the game bad. I don't expect perfect balance, but they should have at least tried for balance. I do however like the simplified rules. Just wish a little more playtesting and polish went into everything, and that my Iron Hands would have finally seen some love instead of across the board nerfs for no good reason.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm not a competitive player but from what I've read many players say it's the other way around: 40K was stripped of many fluffy but useless rules like tank shock or random tables and replaced it with streamlined rules and tactics to allow for a more competitive play. Even GW themselves claimed that 8th edition is the first one with competition in mind or at least the first that cooperates directly with tournament organizers.

As someone who pretty much exclusively does Open/Nar with 40k (occasionally play competitive AoS), I don't think the typical non-competitive player actually sees random tables and things like tank shock as the key place to find a connection between the story and game. 8th works better for Open/Nar gamers because the basic mechanics, especially at lower point levels, actually match better to the fiction than nearly any previous edition. In our last multiplayer game the Tau player was playing their first game and was pleasantly surprised with how a simple series of events played out.

Primaris marines in cover took a 15" rapid fire volley from a squad of firewarriors and very few died. And then they left cover, moved up, shot a bunch of bolter rounds and then charged and took a bunch of overwatch fire from the other nearby Tau units and then slaughtered the rest of the firewarriors between close combat and the morale phase. Then the tau shot them again. It was a back and forth that could have been right out of a novel.

The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game. You can move and shoot with heavy weapons, fall back out of close combat, split fire. Use stratagems to make things like orbital strikes happen. Or use the very cool scenario based stratagems in the Narrative scenarios. If you're into trying cool stuff and seeing what happens, it's definitely better than rolling on some random table or using some bolted on tank shock mechanic.

dosiere wrote:
Why do you say this? If anything this is the first edition in some time that acknowledges competitive/matched play and GW is even involved in several tournament circuits for the first time in ages.

Having been involved in AoS before 8th came out and saw how GW was handling involvement in tournament scenes there and the types of armies that consistently got to top tables in large AoS events, I just assumed it was marketing fluff. The most tournament tested version of 40k just needs to have some level of tournament playtesting greater than zero (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration but probably not by much).

 BlackLobster wrote:
Here is a question. How many of you who dislike this edition because of the rules, would consider yourselves competitive players? As I have mentioned before I don't think 8th edition is designed with competitive play in mind. 7th and previous were obviously very competitive systems that had a lot of minutia that could be used to play the system. Is it simply that that is the problem?

I am not a competitive player at all, and I found 8th to be the least fun game of any type I have ever played,. the rules are so streamlined and simplistic to bore the tears out of me and the whole new meta just pure garbage. This game to me managed to be worse than "Carnage", something I thought impossible.

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

To elaborate on what I think Chamberlain is talking about: 'artificial restrictions' refers to the degree you needed to remember what a unit did in previous phases to figure out what it's allowed to do now. WH40k in 3rd-7th had some fiddly little restrictions (shot with rapid fire weapons = no charges, shot at one target = no charging other targets, etc) that made it more difficult to figure out what a given unit was actually allowed to do in any given phase, whereas in 8th you're generally allowed to do things without regard to what you did earlier.

It isn't a massively difficult thing to do once you're used to it (and those of us who spent years getting used to that system do it pretty automatically), but it also makes the learning curve for the game more difficult without really adding much to the game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

Page 215 of the rulebook (where those things are found) is in the matched play section of the rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Guess what I did in my last game? Summoned daemons without paying points for them in advance!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To elaborate on what I think Chamberlain is talking about: 'artificial restrictions' refers to the degree you needed to remember what a unit did in previous phases to figure out what it's allowed to do now.

That's part of it. What I really think makes 8th great for Open/Nar is that there's greater mapping between how you might describe things in the fiction (or natural language) compared to the game rules. It's very easy to tell stories of space marines shooting at one group and then crashing into combat with another. In previous editions there have been rules where you can only charge what you shot that turn. Then you have the issue of the guy with the lascannon ignoring the tank because the guys beside him shoot at some grunt infantry. Or worse, in some previous editions if the guy on the other side of the squad moved at all, suddenly the heavy weapon couldn't shoot anymore. The gunner just keeps pulling the trigger and getting a "squad mate moved! cannot fire!" error message. 8th just works more like you'd expect if you were just describing things naturally.

I guess part of that is a barrier to entry issue. Things working in a way that makes sense in fictional terms is going to be easier to get a handle on. Keeping track of what you did in previous phases is one thing, but stuff that just goes against natural expectations can be even more of a barrier.

 Chamberlain wrote:


As someone who pretty much exclusively does Open/Nar with 40k (occasionally play competitive AoS), I don't think the typical non-competitive player actually sees random tables and things like tank shock as the key place to find a connection between the story and game. 8th works better for Open/Nar gamers because the basic mechanics, especially at lower point levels, actually match better to the fiction than nearly any previous edition. In our last multiplayer game the Tau player was playing their first game and was pleasantly surprised with how a simple series of events played out.

Primaris marines in cover took a 15" rapid fire volley from a squad of firewarriors and very few died. And then they left cover, moved up, shot a bunch of bolter rounds and then charged and took a bunch of overwatch fire from the other nearby Tau units and then slaughtered the rest of the firewarriors between close combat and the morale phase. Then the tau shot them again. It was a back and forth that could have been right out of a novel.

The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game. You can move and shoot with heavy weapons, fall back out of close combat, split fire. Use stratagems to make things like orbital strikes happen. Or use the very cool scenario based stratagems in the Narrative scenarios. If you're into trying cool stuff and seeing what happens, it's definitely better than rolling on some random table or using some bolted on tank shock mechanic.

This is what I am talking about. Every game I have had of 8th since release has felt far more cinematic and visualises far better in my head than what the more rules heavy prior editions ever felt like. The reason I think competitive players dislike 8th is because they play more more mechanically - at least in my experience. 8th doesn't require that. The more laid back and casual rules system lends itself perfectly to just being able to play without that mechanically driven mindset.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
The most Open/Nar friendly thing about 8th is probably the lack of artificial restrictions on what you actually do during a game.

Psychic Focus, Strategic Discipline, and other Rule of One restrictions are the very definition of artificial restrictions, and Fake Balance.

Page 215 of the rulebook (where those things are found) is in the matched play section of the rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Guess what I did in my last game? Summoned daemons without paying points for them in advance!

My point more is that artificial caps like Rule of One are a bandaid over a bullethole of bad design, and the idea that there should be separate rules for both Narrative and Matched games creates a false dichotomy of how the game "should" be played and Balkanizes the playerbase more.

As for Anomander's examples, like Rapidfire, shooting the same target, etc, a lot of those are the result of a messy readjustment of the rules from 2nd to 3rd edition 40k. In 2nd, Charging was part of the Move Phase, so realistically you couldn't shoot one unit then melee another anyway, while Rapid Fire was an ability specific to Marines that let them forfeit movement to shoot twice. Of course, in 3rd 40k, you could only double-tap with Rapid-Fire if within 12" and only if you didn't move (so a small wonder that Rhino Rushing did better anyway), and each change onwards almost was the result of one group (Cavatore, Haines, and others) wanting a tighter more competitive system, the other half (Jervis, Gav, etc) wanting to stay "beer and pretzels" and call it a day. Ultimately, 40k ends up repeating itself a lot, which led to a game where Running, Zooming, Flat-Outing, and Turbo-Boosting were all slightly different permutations of "move instead of shooting during your shooting phase."

In fact, 40k sticking with Phases is very bizarre IMO, especially given the fun it leads to in YMDC when involving "out-of-phase" abilities. An ATB system is innately so much cleaner.

I myself would never play in a game at this point where summons were free. Open play and narrative basicay doesn't exist for me.

I do feel some sympathy though for those who bought into the claims about tournament playtesting and balance and all that. Especially those that are still running an Index army in a competitive event full of optimized codex lists.

I play to see what happens rather than to win, but for those for whom winning is a goal and who expect 40k to be an arena for fair competition, I can understand why they are disappointed.

I've been slowly convinced by some local historical gamers that balance systems like points are just imperfect tools and how good they work is inversely proportional to the number of variables. And 40k has tons of variables!

Take what you thought was cool enough that you just had to paint it. Talk about what you're fielding and doing in a given game. Play to find out what happens. Do this with like minded individuals. In my opinion, that's how you get the most out of 8th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I myself would never play in a game at this point where summons were free. Open play and narrative basicay doesn't exist for me.

I don't ever play a miniature game where I think the rules have to protect me from what the opponent might do.

When we set up a game we're like
"I'm bringing a sorcerer and have some daemon models to summon."
"Oh, did you want one of those games where the daemons just keep pouring in?"
"Nah, the daemons are just a supporting role, so I won't summon too many."
"Oh, maybe in a future game we can play with you having Sustained Assault and we'll combine our daemon collection and we'll see how long my Grey Knight terminators can last."

Given that I don't play matched play at all and you only play matched play, I'm not surprised if we have very different 40k experiences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
My point more is that artificial caps like Rule of One are a bandaid over a bullethole of bad design, and the idea that there should be separate rules for both Narrative and Matched games creates a false dichotomy of how the game "should" be played and Balkanizes the playerbase more.

In terms of bad design, all I can ask is "bad for what?" Cause it seems pretty good for what I do with it. Which brings things to the second point. The balkanization of the player base is definitely a thing. People just want different things out of their gaming experience.

It's right here in this thread. I would never play a matched play game and Martel would never play in a game with free summons. And it's at the local level. We invite new people to our weekly gaming night and it clicks with some but not with others.

I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I keep seeing people bring up "bloat" and I just don't get it. I just don't see how you can go from what 7th was, down to what 8th is, and then scream "BLOAT"! I get it if you don't like how the rules are organized - some people like havng the special rules on the unit cards, and others don't, etc. That's fine. But if you're seriously saying this edition suffers from "bloat", and you really do mean "bloat" - I just don't get it. If you want to accuse a game of bloat, look no further than the change-overs from 5th to 6th and even-more-so, 6th to 7th. 7th especially was the poster child for bloat.

Player A: "I dislike 8th. Way too streamlined. They over-simplified it. Now it's boring."
Player B: "I also dislike 8th. TOO MUCH RULES BLOAT!"

Those are mutually exclusive conditions. You literally can't have both. What game are you people playing?

As for how I'm liking the game - eh. I had stopped playing completely at some point in 7th. Wasn't even painting or modeling. 8th brought me back in and the first few months were pretty fun. The marine codex dropped and I really liked it. Yeah, playing that dex against a index army could be rough if you weren't careful, but it didn't bother me too much as I figured everything would balance out again once everyone got their full codex. Now that we have a few? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. They still can't write balanced army books to save their lives. I like a lot of the books individually, but they have fallen way short on the promise of "balance".

I'm finding that I actually have more fun (in most cases) if it's a game of index 40k. I feel like Index 40k delivers surprisingly well on the initial promises of 8th in that it's relatively well balanced, and allows fast, fun games. Once you introduce the codexes, the games seem to take a lot longer (too many stratagems and WAY too many re-rolls), and for me, generally aren't as fun. Which feels like an odd complaint because they did a great job making a lot of the books I run play in a very fluffy manner that really fits the army. I guess you can only have so many different versions of a re-roll mechanic before it gets stale.

Over-all I am playing again (which makes 8th 100% better for me than 7th), but I'm conflicted on how much I like it and how much longer I will be playing it. The one thing I've found that's really disapointing is that while 8th has made our local competitive games a lot better, the narrative campaigns aren't as fun. Cooperative narrative games is where 6th and 7th really shined IMO. Time will tell I suppose.

Tycho wrote:
I keep seeing people bring up "bloat" and I just don't get it. I just don't see how you can go from what 7th was, down to what 8th is, and then scream "BLOAT"! I get it if you don't like how the rules are organized - some people like havng the special rules on the unit cards, and others don't, etc. That's fine. But if you're seriously saying this edition suffers from "bloat", and you really do mean "bloat" - I just don't get it. If you want to accuse a game of bloat, look no further than the change-overs from 5th to 6th and even-more-so, 6th to 7th. 7th especially was the poster child for bloat.

Player A: "I dislike 8th. Way too streamlined. They over-simplified it. Now it's boring."
Player B: "I also dislike 8th. TOO MUCH RULES BLOAT!"

Those are mutually exclusive conditions. You literally can't have both. What game are you people playing?

As for how I'm liking the game - eh. I had stopped playing completely at some point in 7th. Wasn't even painting or modeling. 8th brought me back in and the first few months were pretty fun. The marine codex dropped and I really liked it. Yeah, playing that dex against a index army could be rough if you weren't careful, but it didn't bother me too much as I figured everything would balance out again once everyone got their full codex. Now that we have a few? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. They still can't write balanced army books to save their lives. I like a lot of the books individually, but they have fallen way short on the promise of "balance".

I'm finding that I actually have more fun (in most cases) if it's a game of index 40k. I feel like Index 40k delivers surprisingly well on the initial promises of 8th in that it's relatively well balanced, and allows fast, fun games. Once you introduce the codexes, the games seem to take a lot longer (too many stratagems and WAY too many re-rolls), and for me, generally aren't as fun. Which feels like an odd complaint because they did a great job making a lot of the books I run play in a very fluffy manner that really fits the army. I guess you can only have so many different versions of a re-roll mechanic before it gets stale.

Over-all I am playing again (which makes 8th 100% better for me than 7th), but I'm conflicted on how much I like it and how much longer I will be playing it. The one thing I've found that's really disapointing is that while 8th has made our local competitive games a lot better, the narrative campaigns aren't as fun. Cooperative narrative games is where 6th and 7th really shined IMO. Time will tell I suppose.

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I'm sure there are quite a few things most people can agree on.

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

Get rid of IGOUGO and eliminate downtime between players getting to make real decisions. Rolling armor saves or choosing to use your one "save vs shooting" stratagem on your most critical unit != choices. Infinite Overwatch likewise isn't a choice.

Reduce First Turn Advantage. "Half your units must start on the table" is not a disadvantage for armies that can make their on-table half artillery and bubblewrap. Cover is decorative, and alternate deployment eliminates a major drawback to choosing to go first.

Eliminate extreme copypaste, move away from the "no model no rules policy" and enable more Your Dudes. Clean up internal balance between weapons so you don't need to tear up or counts-as your weapons depending on the edition you're playing. "Melta in 5th, Grav in 7th, Plasma in 8th."

Rather than "Rule of One," balance out powers in the first place. "Gee, do I take Eadbutt or Da Jump" is only a choice if your name is Robin Cruddace.

This itself shouldn't be rocket science.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm really not sure how GW could design a rules system that gives us both what we want given that they are likely mutually exclusive. Modes of play seem to be the only way to do it. Maybe balkanization of the player base isn't a bad thing as long as everyone can be a bit more understanding about how different people want different things from their hobby.

I'm sure there are quite a few things most people can agree on.

Write unambiguous RAW. You don't need to be fluffy versus competitive or whatever other label in order to demand rules that are correct the first time around. If I am paying premium for a Guard codex, I don't want to subsequently have to print and glue an addendum stating that Ogryn Hyperloops are not a thing.

Get rid of IGOUGO and eliminate downtime between players getting to make real decisions. Rolling armor saves or choosing to use your one "save vs shooting" stratagem on your most critical unit != choices. Infinite Overwatch likewise isn't a choice.

Reduce First Turn Advantage. "Half your units must start on the table" is not a disadvantage for armies that can make their on-table half artillery and bubblewrap. Cover is decorative, and alternate deployment eliminates a major drawback to choosing to go first.

Eliminate extreme copypaste, move away from the "no model no rules policy" and enable more Your Dudes. Clean up internal balance between weapons so you don't need to tear up or counts-as your weapons depending on the edition you're playing. "Melta in 5th, Grav in 7th, Plasma in 8th."

Rather than "Rule of One," balance out powers in the first place. "Gee, do I take Eadbutt or Da Jump" is only a choice if your name is Robin Cruddace.

This itself shouldn't be rocket science.

Just some points:

"Write unambiguous RAW" is one of those 'easier said than done' things. My friends and I have argued about rule interpretations from Yahtzee, and there are people murdering each other about the interpretation of rules (ostensibly) given to us by God! If God can't write clear, unambiguous RAW, then I'm afraid you're asking a bit much from GW.

Getting rid of IGOUGO could work, but it has to be implemented properly. Chess has alternating activations and it's still like 54-46% imbalanced towards the person who goes first, which is better than 40k but still an undeniable advantage.

I agree with reducing first turn advantage. Have no idea why there's no 'default reserves' into which valuable units can be placed to protect them from first turn volleys but that only allows them to move on from the board edge.

I don't really know what you're on about with the weapons thing and "extreme copypaste." If you mean that editions shouldn't affect what weapons are good, meh, not sure I agree. Editions should adjust the meta, and that adjustment might include making you swap all your meltaguns for grenade launchers or whatever.

This is actually bad for fluff players, as you end up flanderizing psychic powers. With ~16 (?) psychic factions and ~6 powers per faction, you end up with needing 96 different psychic powers. Asking all of them to be exactly balanced with one another with 96 possible choices is probably asking too much. Now, if you mean balanced within a faction - sure, I could get behind that. But I'm not sure that would help anything, what with how armies could just bodge together factions.

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

So give me an example of something you consider "extraneous". Because I still find it difficult to wrap my head around "bloat" being the primary issue in a ruleset that went from over 100 pages to ... 12.

Tycho wrote:

The core mechanics are too simple, and they have too many extraneous rules. Not contradictory statements.

So give me an example of something you consider "extraneous". Because I still find it difficult to wrap my head around "bloat" being the primary issue in a ruleset that went from over 100 pages to ... 12.

Well, the 12 pages that are the "main" rules are utter crap, so there's that.

In addition, while the NUMBER of rules isn't something I necessarily hold issue with, the fact that every single one needs its own name I find excessive and detrimental to the game. It should be, for, say, Terminators:

Deep Strike (9")-Teleport Strike
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

And then for the Culexus, Eversor, and Vindicare Assassins:

Deep Strike (9")-Infiltrate
[Insert actual rules text here]. [Insert fluff here.]

So that way everyone can share the same naming conventions.