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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW is selling better than ever thanks to how much the game has improved over 7th edition as well as AoS becoming a decent ruleset in its own right.

Good Marketing doesn't make a game better.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW is selling better than ever thanks to how much the game has improved over 7th edition as well as AoS becoming a decent ruleset in its own right.

Good Marketing doesn't make a game better.

It's seen marked improvements all around from the last edition and despite the grumblins on this site the general community seems more positive about the game than it did last edition. So yeah, it's better. Not perfect, just better.

The health of the game is demonstably better than 7E, and the broad game balance is much better. That doesn't mean 8E is perfect, it's not, it's a grossly overabstracted ruleset trying to cover too many things, and still has its own host of balance issues. However, it is unquestionably better than the previous two editions in terms of balance and playability, though I'm not sure that's a particularly high bar given how poor 6E/7E functioned

We should also remember that complexity does not equal depth, and a lot of the former is mistaken for the latter when reminiscing about previous editions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The health of the game is demonstably better than 7E, and the broad game balance is much better. That doesn't mean 8E is perfect, it's not, it's a grossly overabstracted ruleset trying to cover too many things, and still has its own host of balance issues. However, it is unquestionably better than the previous two editions in terms of balance and playability, though I'm not sure that's a particularly high bar given how poor 6E/7E functioned

We should also remember that complexity does not equal depth, and a lot of the former is mistaken for the latter when reminiscing about previous editions.

8e is being written by the same people as 6e/7e and has a lot of the same problems. USR bloat has been replaced by stratagem/relic bloat, their answer to all problems is still "buff the next Codex", old models still don't deserve working rules, they still don't fix anything if it'd require to admit they made an error in earlier releases, and their insistence on perfect models/rules correspondence still leaves us with about twice as many datasheets and 4-5x as many weapons as the game actually needs.

It may not have gotten as far as 6e/7e yet, but it's made a lot of progress towards that kludgy bloated mess in a fairly short time.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's because the Cultists are being used to fuel things that are good or too good, and not being bought on their own merit. So why do you nerf the Cultists? You completely avoided the subject.

That's a good point Slayer-Fan, it's more of a symptom nerf than a core issue nerf. Chaos Stratagems are too effective -> people need CP to fuel their Stratagems -> Cultists are the cheapest fuel for the CP pyre. If VotLW was only worked for non-Cultists and only against Infantry, if Endless Cacophony and Tide of Traits were another CP then I could totally see 4 pt Cultists. GW seems uninterested in balancing Stratagems since everything is perfectly balanced.

The issue is the straight cost of the Strats, not who they affected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The health of the game is demonstably better than 7E, and the broad game balance is much better. That doesn't mean 8E is perfect, it's not, it's a grossly overabstracted ruleset trying to cover too many things, and still has its own host of balance issues. However, it is unquestionably better than the previous two editions in terms of balance and playability, though I'm not sure that's a particularly high bar given how poor 6E/7E functioned

We should also remember that complexity does not equal depth, and a lot of the former is mistaken for the latter when reminiscing about previous editions.

8e is being written by the same people as 6e/7e and has a lot of the same problems. USR bloat has been replaced by stratagem/relic bloat, their answer to all problems is still "buff the next Codex", old models still don't deserve working rules, they still don't fix anything if it'd require to admit they made an error in earlier releases, and their insistence on perfect models/rules correspondence still leaves us with about twice as many datasheets and 4-5x as many weapons as the game actually needs.

It may not have gotten as far as 6e/7e yet, but it's made a lot of progress towards that kludgy bloated mess in a fairly short time.

I said it once and I'll say it again: the Marine supplements were a bad idea and the bloat is proving it

I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Karol wrote:
Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Space Wolves have the most, second most would be Blood Angels while Dark Angels have the least varience in unit types. BA and DA would be the easiest to mix and match, while Space Wolves would be the hardest, though that will likely change a bit as the game eventually starts dropping the old line.

Deathwatch is all unique units but they're just made of mixed model units so most of what makes them special is how they deploy models rather than the models themselves.

Anyone saying 8E is as bad or close to 7E either never played 7th or played Marines/Eldar.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The health of the game is demonstably better than 7E, and the broad game balance is much better. That doesn't mean 8E is perfect, it's not, it's a grossly overabstracted ruleset trying to cover too many things, and still has its own host of balance issues. However, it is unquestionably better than the previous two editions in terms of balance and playability, though I'm not sure that's a particularly high bar given how poor 6E/7E functioned

We should also remember that complexity does not equal depth, and a lot of the former is mistaken for the latter when reminiscing about previous editions.

8e is being written by the same people as 6e/7e and has a lot of the same problems. USR bloat has been replaced by stratagem/relic bloat, their answer to all problems is still "buff the next Codex", old models still don't deserve working rules, they still don't fix anything if it'd require to admit they made an error in earlier releases, and their insistence on perfect models/rules correspondence still leaves us with about twice as many datasheets and 4-5x as many weapons as the game actually needs.

It may not have gotten as far as 6e/7e yet, but it's made a lot of progress towards that kludgy bloated mess in a fairly short time.

That's all fair, I won't really disagree, and 8E is definitely not perfect, it really needs to be broken into different scales (which it appears to be trying to do now).

Karol wrote:
Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Most of them are pretend unique and could be done with option/rules you select. A few actually are different to any base unit - but very few.

Lots of people who were driven away by 6th/7th ed now play 8th ed - I think that speaks for itself - although 8th ed is not great - its light years ahead of the cluster feth of 7th

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Most of them are pretend unique and could be done with option/rules you select. A few actually are different to any base unit - but very few.

Lots of people who were driven away by 6th/7th ed now play 8th ed - I think that speaks for itself - although 8th ed is not great - its light years ahead of the cluster feth of 7th

When you leave a dog chained up in the yard and throw rocks at him, he will be glad when you start throwing whiffle-balls. "8th is better than 7th" is meaningless because literally anything would have been better than 7th. GW could have literally just re-released 3rd edition and people would have been happy.

 Sentineil wrote:
Anyone saying 8E is as bad or close to 7E either never played 7th or played Marines/Eldar.

I played marines in 6th and 7th. I find 8th similar in quality and enjoyment to them, but in different ways.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

It's unnecessary though. At maximum you needed:
. 3-4 unique units for each Chapter
. 3 Relics for each Chapter
. 3 Unique Strats for each Chapter
. However many Special Characters, some of which have no point. Nobody would miss Asmodai and Corbulo, sorry.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

It's unnecessary though. At maximum you needed:
. 3-4 unique units for each Chapter
. 3 Relics for each Chapter
. 3 Unique Strats for each Chapter
. However many Special Characters, some of which have no point. Nobody would miss Asmodai and Corbulo, sorry.

Having an in depth lore section along with model images can be pretty important to a lot of players too. It's not for everyone but at least some of us eat that stuff up and use it to inspure the armies we build.

but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Most of them are pretend unique and could be done with option/rules you select. A few actually are different to any base unit - but very few.

Lots of people who were driven away by 6th/7th ed now play 8th ed - I think that speaks for itself - although 8th ed is not great - its light years ahead of the cluster feth of 7th

When you leave a dog chained up in the yard and throw rocks at him, he will be glad when you start throwing whiffle-balls. "8th is better than 7th" is meaningless because literally anything would have been better than 7th. GW could have literally just re-released 3rd edition and people would have been happy.

If 8th was better but not good enough the people that left during 6/7th (like myself) would not have come back and stayed away instead.

Your just plain and simply wrong.

I wouldn't pay more than 10€ for a Codex if it were for rules alone. The important part is the fluff, rules come and go, fluff you can reread every now and then. It's also the reason I didn't buy CSM 8th Edition codex, as I assume it's a copy&Paste Job like the Daemons Codex, so not really worth it if you have the 6th Edition Version already.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I wouldn't pay more than 10€ for a Codex if it were for rules alone. The important part is the fluff, rules come and go, fluff you can reread every now and then. It's also the reason I didn't buy CSM 8th Edition codex, as I assume it's a copy&Paste Job like the Daemons Codex, so not really worth it if you have the 6th Edition Version already.

8th ed has different rules so it's not a copy paste job of 6th. Plus 8th has been adding more new lore as well.

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

It's unnecessary though. At maximum you needed:
. 3-4 unique units for each Chapter
. 3 Relics for each Chapter
. 3 Unique Strats for each Chapter
. However many Special Characters, some of which have no point. Nobody would miss Asmodai and Corbulo, sorry.

What is it with you and absolute statements? Just because you wouldn't miss Asmodai, or Corbulo, or Crowe, or whoever, does not mean that nobody would.

 Ordana wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not counting the special characters do any of the armies, outside of DW of course, have that many non codex units? And gear options like the plasma cannon on termintors, could be covered an errata or CA.

Most of them are pretend unique and could be done with option/rules you select. A few actually are different to any base unit - but very few.

Lots of people who were driven away by 6th/7th ed now play 8th ed - I think that speaks for itself - although 8th ed is not great - its light years ahead of the cluster feth of 7th

When you leave a dog chained up in the yard and throw rocks at him, he will be glad when you start throwing whiffle-balls. "8th is better than 7th" is meaningless because literally anything would have been better than 7th. GW could have literally just re-released 3rd edition and people would have been happy.

If 8th was better but not good enough the people that left during 6/7th (like myself) would not have come back and stayed away instead.

Your just plain and simply wrong.

GW is well on their way to making 8th like 7th though.
It started off as simple, but now you have all of these stratagems that give broken effects to the army that uses them, and there's so many unit-specific rules that its hard to keep up.
Removing USR was a mistake, and there should only be like 6 strats a book. Not 20+.

We'll probably be getting 9th after Psychic Awakening. To "streamline and improve the experience for the players" rinse repeat.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

Actually, I'd prefer having the exact same lore that's now in my codices put on a webpage. What's the point of bringing your lore to a game?

 Eldarain wrote:
We'll probably be getting 9th after Psychic Awakening. To "streamline and improve the experience for the players" rinse repeat.

If they bring back old moral moves, change character targeting to something that's less stupid, remove 80% of the strats, change formerly blast weapons and flamers to actually be effective, and modify some of them to be unit abilities and bring back USR I'll be happy.
Blast Templates and old vehicle rules would be nice as well, but I do understand how those can affect gameplay flow.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

Actually, I'd prefer having the exact same lore that's now in my codices put on a webpage. What's the point of bringing your lore to a game?

What's the point of hiding lore on a website where you can't see.it when you're shopping in a store or browsing a friend's codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
We'll probably be getting 9th after Psychic Awakening. To "streamline and improve the experience for the players" rinse repeat.

If they bring back old moral moves, change character targeting to something that's less stupid, remove 80% of the strats, change formerly blast weapons and flamers to actually be effective, and modify some of them to be unit abilities and bring back USR I'll be happy.
Blast Templates and old vehicle rules would be nice as well, but I do understand how those can affect gameplay flow.

So basically ruin every improvement the game has then.

Blasts and flamers should stay dead just like guess ranges. If anything I'd prefer they switch to a D3/2D3/3D3 sort of system and drop the D6.

Moral needs improvement but the old system wasn't exactly better with the spamming of rules that gave out fearless, stubborn and the pld ATSKNF.

USRs meant you had to keep two books open all the time: your codex and the core rules. They should stay dead and instead the 40k team should work on standardizing language betree.

Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

Blast/Template weapons have a simple fix:

Blast i: Roll one dice to hit for every model in the target unit, up to a maximum of i dice.

Conflagration j: Roll one dice to hit for every model in the target unit within range of this weapon, up to a maximum of j hits.

As always, a weapons abilities can allow it to automatically hit, so a flamer would be Assault 6, Automatically hit, but only be able to hit 6 models if there is a hoard with 6 models within range of the flamer, while only allowing single hits against characters. Same for blasts. Anti-Tank blast weapons could have an ability that allows you to generate 2 hits instead of 1 against VEHICLES and MONSTERS, or cause double damage against VEHICLES and MONSTERS.

You are trying to fix an issue that isn't there.
Blasts being converted to random hits is perfectly functional for the game.
For a time we had a problem with not enough anti horde weapon, but that has been solved by generally decreasing the cost of elite infantry and now hordes are no longer considered a big issue.