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.

It's 2D6 +1" now, chargers strike first, you can fire pistols in cc, things are easier to wound...

honestly what more do you want.

All these rules changes are superb for the game and fix a boatload of problems that 7th edn had.

If you're still butthurt about 2D6 charge ranges (I hated them to start with... then played... then actually grew to like the rule), I don't know how GW are ever going to make you happy.

After yesterday's announcement I'm triple excited. Game wide split fire was a big ask of mine and I got it!

zerosignal wrote:

If you're still butthurt about 2D6 charge ranges (I hated them to start with... then played... then actually grew to like the rule), I don't know how GW are ever going to make you happy.

By not having 2D6 charges...?

ERJAK wrote:


Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.

That's an excellent and succinct point. That alone shows that the new system is simply, mathematically easier to scale and balance from a development standpoint.

So far, everything seems like a vast improvement. I was a little bummed about morale wounds, but at the expense of no more fall backs, even my Orks might have a Lil more fight in them.

Our FLGS is having an end of 7th Tournament and at this point, I might just skip it completely. 7th competitive has no been fun.

I've been calling it re-roll hammer 40k for the last 2 years.

 Luciferian wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


Also the old AP system was arse for balancing and using rerolls instead of modifiers creates a game that scales quadratically rather than linearly.

That's an excellent and succinct point. That alone shows that the new system is simply, mathematically easier to scale and balance from a development standpoint.

Mostly, it is more tools in the shed. 3rd Edition basically threw out all the screw drivers with the thought "nails are simple, we just need nails!"

But then then stuff cropped up where a screw would be a better fit... but GW figured nails AND duct tape would do in a pinch. And they just kept finding ways to avoid screws where screws were the simple solution.

2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play). So it was obvious 3rd would be a simplification to allow for larger games, but the actual consequences of what they chose to simplify are what set it down this path.

Instead of, for example, saying "we lean on modifiers way too much and need to scale this all back!" they just killed the whole concept for nearly two decades. It was a great example of unintended consequences, where in trying to streamline things they ended up making the system hard to work with and modify from a design standpoint, thus requiring more complex solutions when a cleaned up version of the first method would have been simpler and more succinct.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play).

Slight pedantic correction there... 2000 points was the 'standard' game for 2nd edition. It dropped to 1500 for 3rd.

But the point is spot on - we were regularly playing 3000-5000 point games, and occasionally playing 10000 point games by the end of 2nd edition (Courtesy of not actually attending Uni classes... ) and they took some serious time investment. 3rd edition was welcome there for speeding up those larger games, even if some of the stuff that was chopped was a little disappointing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

Instead of, for example, saying "we lean on modifiers way too much and need to scale this all back!" they just killed the whole concept for nearly two decades..

Sadly, this has been standard procedure for GW ever since. They seem unable to moderate an idea... if something is broken, the answer is to change it completely, rather than fixing it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

2nd Edition went way overboard on a lot of stuff, modifiers, clunky CC, and way too many upkeep effects to track every turn, and the fan pressure to allow for bigger games didn't help either (people started playing more 2000-3000 point games instead of the usual 1500 and games at that level took an absolute age to play).

Slight pedantic correction there... 2000 points was the 'standard' game for 2nd edition. It dropped to 1500 for 3rd.

Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.

I don't think it was quite that extreme... I don't recall there being that much size difference between my usual 2000-point 2nd ed Marine army and their 1500-point 3rd ed equivalent. Although it was somewhat influenced by just how nuts you had gone with Wargear in 2nd ed, as options were greatly reduced in 3rd.

Actually, If I remember correctly, in one interview, Rick Prestley (I don't remember if it was him), said that just before launching 3rd edition, the Marketing team said them that the battles need to have twice the models, to push sales up (Tom Kirby orders), and they just cut all the point costs in half.

I'd have to dig, but it was pretty close to a halving of the points. Also a rough halving of playtime, all else being equal.

Going from 2E to 3E, the newly reduced points costs per unit, and vastly reduced ways to dump invisible points into models meant that you'd have needed to buy more models to play at the new 1500-pt standard game size.

 Galas wrote:
Actually, If I remember correctly, in one interview, Rick Prestley (I don't remember if it was him), said that just before launching 3rd edition, the Marketing team said them that the battles need to have twice the models, to push sales up (Tom Kirby orders), and they just cut all the point costs in half.

That does sound an awful lot like GW, especially from that era.

It's possible (even likely) that it was marketing driven... but it was also what the players actually wanted at the time.

People by and large weren't too keep on some of the detail being stripped out, but overall for its functionality for larger games the 3rd ed system was reasonably well received.

To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).

 Ronin_eX wrote:
To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).

Sounds kinda like 7th ed..

Are you suggesting that marines are still overcosted?

GodDamUser wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
To be fair, moving marines from 30PPM to ~15PPM was a necessary balance change. 2nd Edition marines were severely underpowered outside a couple of uber-beardy builds (Wolfguard Cyclone Spam and Ravenwing Speeder Spam).

Sounds kinda like 7th ed..

Are you suggesting that marines are still overcosted?

Could swing either way. It was easy to see in 2nd that the problem was marines that overcosted in most units, which is what made the couple of power builds seem so egregious. Worse, because tacs, devs, and assaults all came from the same pool, tacs were the worst of the bunch, having no advantages over the more specialized units. But in an edition where a Guardian with a shuriken catapult (when it was 24" range, sustained fire 1, with a -2 save mod) cost you 14 points it was easy to see that a 30 point marine was just completely off the mark. Hell guard could easily outnumber marines 3-to-1 with infantry and with basic lasguns having a -1 save mod, marines weren't really in a good place if forced to face down a horde with superior numbers. It was pretty glaring,

Now? It could be that the preponderance of S6-7, AP2 weapons devalues the basic marine. But it is just as likely that stacking of rules, free stuff, and various synergies have caused deathstars to become too effective for their relative cost. I'm personally leaning toward the latter, though basic marines do seem lackluster under the current system. Either way, if they are overcosted, it is not nearly so egregious as how undercosted the more powerful units are, and it doesn't approach the level it was in 2nd Edition.

Marine power lists in 2nd were more in spite of the basic list than because of it and they swam in a meta that had plenty of other contenders for "why would you design this?"

Like 8 pt hormagaunts moving fast through cover that you MUST shoot.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Note that 2000 pts in 2E was maybe 1000 pts in 3E, which has slowly dropped to something like 700 pts in 7E.

I don't think it was quite that extreme... I don't recall there being that much size difference between my usual 2000-point 2nd ed Marine army and their 1500-point 3rd ed equivalent. Although it was somewhat influenced by just how nuts you had gone with Wargear in 2nd ed, as options were greatly reduced in 3rd.

we have been playing 2nd edition a lot this year and teaching 3 completely new players and 1 7th ed hard core 'win with no friends' gamer (but he is a super cool guy and player...but 7th ed has made him choose that playstyle) . Most of our games have been 1500 or 1000 points. YOU CANNOT BUILD MANY BALANCED FORCES UNDER 2000 POINTS in 2nd ed. Before 3rd came out I really only enjoyed 3000 point games. When 3rd came out the standard 1500 point games had no HeroHammer characters so the actual model count went up by 20% when comparing 3000point 2nd ed vs 1500 point 3rd edition. My PDF 3rd edition tourney force had 102 models! Most 3000 point Marine forces would have about 40 models or so.

Hope that gives some perspective to those who were not there.

wes

I"'ll buy into the game depending on how gw handles three things; hovering initiative (alternate activation), melee combat, and the progressing lore.

Other than that, what is there to say? GW's inability to get away from making gimmicky new space marines: the turd that won't flush, just when you think it's gone, back up it comes.

Everything that I've seen so far checks the "Needs a Fix" boxes I had written out before we started getting info on 8th edition, except one last thing that has dissuaded me from really playing 7th much. That would be the Missions. I liked the Eternal War missions in 6th but that was because only Troops could score so when the Big Guns Never Tire mission was rolled up it was fun to have Heavy Support units get a chance to score. 7th ruined that dynamic. Then came Maelstrom. Cool in concept but I've had TOO MANY games where I or my opponent just got lucky with drawing cards that allowed them to score easy and often leaving the game lopsided and boring. Bad taste in my mouth for sure. I hope Warhammer Community has an article on Missions very soon. Making the missions better will go a long way toward me remaining excited about this edition. Checking that last box of "Needed Fixes" could make this the most fun edition I will have ever played!

v0iddrgn wrote:
Everything that I've seen so far checks the "Needs a Fix" boxes I had written out before we started getting info on 8th edition, except one last thing that has dissuaded me from really playing 7th much. That would be the Missions. I liked the Eternal War missions in 6th but that was because only Troops could score so when the Big Guns Never Tire mission was rolled up it was fun to have Heavy Support units get a chance to score. 7th ruined that dynamic. Then came Maelstrom. Cool in concept but I've had TOO MANY games where I or my opponent just got lucky with drawing cards that allowed them to score easy and often leaving the game lopsided and boring. Bad taste in my mouth for sure. I hope Warhammer Community has an article on Missions very soon. Making the missions better will go a long way toward me remaining excited about this edition. Checking that last box of "Needed Fixes" could make this the most fun edition I will have ever played!

Yeah no talk about missions just yet. Might be a good subject for a new thread if you wanted to start one.

Well you guys and GW did it. If I could change my vote I would. Definitely back to excited for 8th edition.