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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for TPT's comment - you missed my point. It's not that one cannot build a reserve army. It's that locking people into specific units or playstyles or builds is bad. And a +1 to the roll to go first is unhelpful; it's not even a 20% increase. You'll still go second in quite a few games.

No I got your point, and to be fair, you're not locked into anything. You can build an army that puts everything on the table in turn 1, doesn't plan for the +1 bonus (which I have found to be immensely useful, again YMMV) and still mitigates alpha strike. Minimum squad sizes, liberal distribution of weapons, etc. I just feel sometimes people build lists according to what they want to see on the table without thinking ahead to the mechanical consequences of how they built their lists, then they get pissed off and think they've been pigeon-holed by the rules, when in reality they simply failed to consider the consequences of their choices. This is not meant to be a dig at anyone, but simply to point out that nothing's being hidden from you here, the mechanics are out there, you can build lists with them in mind or you can build lists and ignore them and see how it goes.

I often build my lists to try to go first, I don't always get the roll, but honestly, I go first a lot more than I go second. It can be pretty rough when I don't get the first turn, but I've always enjoyed win-big/lose-big lists because the game is over one way or another quickly and I can get on to another game, also, I hate hordes, so much, my back hates them, my feet hate them, so I accept the consequences of how my lists are built with regards to the rules.

The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

Like, I don't understand players who get upset that they didn't bring enough anti-tank weapons; that's a real problem armies face in the fluff. But going first is just a mechanical, purely irrelevant thing, that has little basis in the fluff and only exists because someone "has to" go first. So building an army around that feels equally gamey and mechanical and not-at-all related to how armies function in the fluff.

Tell me how well Gaunt's Ghosts would endure if at Necropolis they had to hold their firepower until the enemy was done moving, getting into position, firing, setting up, and charging, and then they could shoot but only hit 1/3rd as many times as normal, and then they weren't allowed to hurt anyone until the enemy had swung first, because chargers always go first...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

I get it, but I also think GW is legitimately trying to mitigate the problem. Alternating activations has proven to be difficult to implement at best (drags the game out way too long, creates problems with sequencing and powers, etc.), and they've decided that instead of completely re-working the game for something like that, they put rules in place to allow players to mitigate the downside of going second.

To a certain extent, yes, it's a bit of 'adapt or die', but the game rules are always going to create exigencies in army construction or strategy, but I think that's unavoidable outside of turning the game into a tactical RPG like they tried to do in 1st edition.

Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

Agreed, not sure why this went away this edition, I suspect some of the fast moving armies use of this mechanic was causing some issues, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this change.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with "accepting consequences" is you're either saying "adapt or die."

The rules forcing players to play an army (or units) they wouldn't play for purely mechanical reasons is silly.

I get it, but I also think GW is legitimately trying to mitigate the problem. Alternating activations has proven to be difficult to implement at best (drags the game out way too long, creates problems with sequencing and powers, etc.), and they've decided that instead of completely re-working the game for something like that, they put rules in place to allow players to mitigate the downside of going second.

Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

Honestly, I suspect you've probably hit on the primary issue right there. As for dragging it out, I think that's almost unavoidable, as the activation decision becomes much more nuanced in that situation and has to be considered more carefully.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Is there any actual evidence proving that AA drags a game out? The primary issue with sequencing is how to handle games where players have a large discrepancy in overall activations (one player runs MSU, one runs blobs, one runs a few Superheavies and ultracheap "filler" activations), etc. Is it any worse than 40k sticking to phases?

Honestly, I suspect you've probably hit on the primary issue right there. As for dragging it out, I think that's almost unavoidable, as the activation decision becomes much more nuanced in that situation and has to be considered more carefully.

Honestly, given the choice between a game taking longer because I am having to make careful play decisions, versus fiddling with unit auras, stratagem lookup, rerolling buckets of rerolls...there are plenty of other areas that could easily be simplified/abstracted down.

*Incoming block of text*

In order for me to grade 8th ed, I have three criteria...

1. Lore. To me, the lore started off pretty decent with Gathering Storm. Now, I'm not blind to how fast they pumped out the birth of a god or the resurrection of Gulliman, but I'm willing to let that slide. However, the Imperium right now hasn't changed much. The whole thing about chaos being the big baddy this edition hasn't really shown. If anything, it's the Imperium that's creating all the talks. I feel like the lore is a bit underwhelming. They really need to give chaos and the Xenos something that the Imperium doesn't. What made the Great Crusade so amazing is that it was the Imperium's counter-attack and it felt grand. The imperium in the lore today don't have anything big that's threatening them. I mean, the Eldar don't pose much a threat, chaos got slapped around and the Xenos are....well...Xenos. Then we have Gulliman... I think he really needs more character. The problem with him and the primaris don't understand the concept of sacrifice. In the Horus Heresy, Calth and Ultramar got ruined and Gulliman had to make some tough choices when he made imperium secundus. In 40k, he just wins battles and that's it. They don't make the good guys relatable. The hardest choice Guilliman had to make in the lore was the plague wars. The 500 worlds were subjugated by Nurgle's plague and it required Gulliman to fix it, however, he needed to return to Terra and help the rest of the Imperium out, so he sacrificed his precious worlds for the greater good. But even then, it was 2 lines in the codex and not much after that. If they made the imperium lose a lot of battles then it would make them more appealing fluff-wise. The Xenos and chaos need some love. We get that the Imperium is stagnant and they are in the gutter but we don't have any proof of that factually. We don't know how bad it causes the lore keeps telling us that Gulliman is winning battles. Then there are other things... DA accepting Primaris should not be a thing. The Baal thing shouldn't have ended in such an abrupt way. What about Cypher? He just fell off at the end of gathering storm. There still are glaring plot holes and they would rather hint at the return of the next primarch than fix them.

2. Rules. I like it. I like that it's simple and easy to understand, it got my friends into the game. I am starting to get a bit bored with the game, however. I feel like there aren't enough factions to make the game have more variety. The Xenos should really have been one the first ones to get a codex, and this is a marine player talking. I also don't like the idea of the soup armies. The biggest reason why 7th flopped for me was that you could play multiple armies at once, it kills the game for me. I also feel that the psychic phase got watered down to the point to where it could be included in the shooting phase since its so significant IMO. Smite is a bit too much for me, and I'm tired of the game is reliant on HQs and Elites that buff your army, I understand that it creates synergy but I don't want my army to crumble because I didn't put enough points into my heroes.

3. Models. To me, this is the big one. The old daemon prince model is what got me into the game. Chaos used to look scary and menacing, something out of a horror movie, LOOK AT THE DAEMON PRINCE...it was amazing. Now, Chaos looks like a cartoon. The Nurgle stuff especially... I thought death guard was supposed to be self-loathing and bland, now they are bright and happy. The colors are bright something I expected for Tzeentch or Slaanesh, not Nurgle. The new GUO model just makes me sad a little, especially the one with the bell. The primaris marines have grown on me but the repulsor, redpemptor and the inceptors are still ugly to me and the super heavy is an abomination. I also don't understand why imperium is getting all the bells and whistles while the ork and Eldar haven't had a large update in a while... I don't like the route GW is going with models and their price point is...well GW

Thats my 2 cents on things right now....

I like 8th edition. I like the models, the incredible release schedule, the community website. etc. I do find myself visiting forums less as I find the constant entitled, complaining and crying from smelly neck-beards to be too much.

GW always had problems with the kind of person it appeals to. 8th edition has seen an increase in the volume of a small minority of the worst kind of players. Thankfully they are easily avoided, know very little, aren't worth paying attention to and are not reflective of anything other than their own jaded, points of view.

Nazrak wrote:You don’t have to take something seriously to the point of *not actually enjoying it* in order to get something out of it, though. I spend money on little toy moon men in order to have fun. If I didn’t have fun, it wouldn’t feel worthwhile to me. Different strokes for different folks and all, but a lot of people seem to be involved in a hobby which just perpetually bums them out; I can’t see how that’s any good for your mental wellbeing, like.

Little toy moon men! I once played a wargame where the Free World Coalition was fighting off a invasion of Moon Base Copernicus from the Soviet Space Force. The little toy moon men had nuclear mortars. It was just a bunch of random sci-fi miniatures, but it was hilarious.

auticus wrote:Problem is that the rules are the rules and when the rules say you can measure from any part of the vehicle, putting restrictions on that is house ruling, which is a giant no-no to a lot of people.

Hence my comment that many players are the architects of their own misery. I've always seen any wargame rules, just like any roleplaying game rules, as something you adapt to the group you are playing with. If that means I'm not playing "real 8th edition" but some other game, I'm proud that I'm choosing enjoyment over strict adherence to a written code.

And if someone actually feels like they've made some grand point that you have to fix 8th edition in order to enjoy it, I'd say sure. If by fix you mean not "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible," to quote Nazrak.

I get the appeal of having a common approach where you just show up and play a game with a stranger and you both have the same rules in mind going in, but we've found when a new person comes to our weekly club night that the approach isn't hard for them to puzzle out.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Except they could've just written a rule that said "50% of your army may be in reserve. If it has no special deployment rule, it comes on from your board edge at the end of a movement phase of your choice, counting as having moved its full distance. If the unit does not fully fit on afterwards, move it the rest of the way onto the board. It may act normally subsequently."

Page 191 of the rulebook:

"If a mission uses Reserves, it will detail which units in your army start the game in Reserve – these units are not deployed with the rest of your army. [...] The mission will explain how and where to set up units when they arrive from Reserve – typically within a short distance of a specified edge of the battlefield."

Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

I get tired of facing the same units spammed ad nauseam.

Oh you brought a ton of dark reapers? Cool, I guess.
Oh you have a ton of mortars? Cool, I guess.
Oh you've got chaos Super Friends? Cool, I guess.

The meta is like 3-4 dominant lists. Sometimes other lists can do okay but that's going to be based on the draw.

I was skeptical of the force organization rules at first, and now i'm ready to throw them out. The detachments were a good idea, but they make it far too easy to spam.

Fact is, each detachment should have a required troop count, and it should be higher. Of course the problem is that Imperial Guard will just laugh at any force org changes, because everything is so effective and so cheap.

Still can't get enough of people complaining about IG mortars...who'd have ever thought...


That said, there's a reason IG had the platoon structure before, because their units were numerous and cheap and didnt quite fit the old FOC paradigm. Between GW abandoning that feature and splitting characters off from command squads to buy alone, it does make IG much more easily able to manipulate the current force org system.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Cool?

The reasons why people restrict themselves to only matched play doesn't change the fact that narrative play has a solution for the particular problem one gamer was having with reserve rules. The fact that people have reasons they choose not to solve the problem doesn't mean it doesn't have a solution.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Not shoot from the antenna of a tank and suddenly you're defined out of the game itself.

Hows this for an alternate interpretation of the situation:

Actually we are following the rules verbatim. We are simply electing not to shoot at that particular target. The rules don't say you have to use a certain decision making criteria when choosing your units and targets and if we want to not take shots because the only line of site involves an antenna, that's our choice.

Person 1: 8th has been great and we play every week and love it.
Person 2: The game has serious problems and I don't enjoy it!
Person 1: There may be differences in our approach that are causing your lack of enjoyment
Person 3: Your different approach means you don't even count as playing 8th! Get out of here!

And yet I'm going to go play my weekly game and have a great time while many hear are dissatisfied with their 8th edition experience. And the complaints seem to have an easily identifiable common denominator. A Nazrak put it: "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible, you’re not going to have a fun game."

 Marmatag wrote:
I get tired of facing the same units spammed ad nauseam.

Oh you brought a ton of dark reapers? Cool, I guess.
Oh you have a ton of mortars? Cool, I guess.
Oh you've got chaos Super Friends? Cool, I guess.

The meta is like 3-4 dominant lists. Sometimes other lists can do okay but that's going to be based on the draw.

I was skeptical of the force organization rules at first, and now i'm ready to throw them out. The detachments were a good idea, but they make it far too easy to spam.

Fact is, each detachment should have a required troop count, and it should be higher. Of course the problem is that Imperial Guard will just laugh at any force org changes, because everything is so effective and so cheap.

I think each faction should have a unique detachment within their own codex, and have less detachments in the core rulebook.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

You would probably actually hate tournament chess. Rule 14H is a hilarious chess rule that requires the interpretation of a judge at the table just to be used, for example, and is essentially entirely subjective, with the point being for the two players to talk it out with the judge given possible moves and textbook chess draw-states and try to convince the judge to rule in their favor.

Because pure RAW is bad, and most games (yes, even chess!) recognize that having a watertight RAW is essentially impossible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Sticking with the theme of warhammer players being the architects of their own misery, this rule is found in the dirty narrative section. And for a lot of people it's got to be matched play or nothing, right?

Yes, but for those of us who play in tournaments regularly, narrative rules are only so useful. Most of the time, my friends and I are usually preparing for upcoming tournaments, so playing anything other than match play is generally a waste of time given the limited amount of time outside of work, family, etc we have to get together and play. Occasionally we'll do a group game, but even then we generally use match play rules to keep things consistent.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you're house ruling things to your own taste then this conversation is not for you, you have already decided you don't like 8th and have taken steps to remove yourselves from it in your local group. So ultimately, we're not really talking to you, go play whatever game it is you play and have fun, more power to you.

So yes, you can alter the rules to your tastes, but that really has no bearing on 8th edition, it's effectively the same as saying:

"My group doesn't like 8th edition, we made our own rules and play that, we're very happy, you should try it."

See? One sentence and done.

Furthermore, ambiguous rulings alongside individual tournament rulings easily change how 40k is actually played. Novahammer plays different from ITCHammer plays different from ATCHammer plays different from ETCHammer. Sometimes it's as simple as a Mission Pack being slightly off, to different tournaments interpreting an ambiguous rule differently (One of my favorites from before the 5e Necron Codex was "Can The Deceiver Pin Fearless units? It's not a Pinning Check, it's a Leadership Check to determine if an enemy unit gets Pinned." You know, non-standard terminology), sometimes it's comp (Win every battle but lose the tournament), etc.

If I play chess, I can play chess knowing the last notable RAW-vs-RAI ruling was back in 1971 or so.

You would probably actually hate tournament chess. Rule 14H is a hilarious chess rule that requires the interpretation of a judge at the table just to be used, for example, and is essentially entirely subjective, with the point being for the two players to talk it out with the judge given possible moves and textbook chess draw-states and try to convince the judge to rule in their favor.

Because pure RAW is bad, and most games (yes, even chess!) recognize that having a watertight RAW is essentially impossible.

You're thinking of 10.2 in FIDE. 14H in USCF states that the "insufficient losing chances" clause does not apply if both players have increment-capable chess clocks. Likewise, 14E specifies scenarios that would otherwise be "insufficient material to win on time" would be viewed as a draw (FIDE chess clarifies certain material draws as wins/losses based on the ability to helpmate with remaining piece, given theoretically infinite playtime).

Either way, the RAW there deals not with chess itself, but the actual tournament logistics. I don't need a FAQ to define what exactly is an En Passant, whether I can Castle with a Pawn promoted to a Rook, etc. I can write a chess game batrep in algebraic notation, and chess problems are a cornerstone of developing smarter computers.

But it's still written into the rules of tournament chess.

Think of it this way: There's Narrative and Matched 40k, just like there's casual and tournament chess.

Following the matched play rules even in non-matched-play situations is like following the tournament rules of chess even if you're playing with a magnet-board on the airplane with your dad.

So sorry, dad, I invoke 10.2 on our flight to New Hampshire. So let's call the judge over, because RAW says it needs interpretation.

 Stormonu wrote:
I've had only a couple games of it, but prefer it to prior editions. It has its issues, though.

My son and I have only been playing with the Indexes (I have no desire to buy another round after having bought the 5E and 6E/7E codexes in the past), and only 1,000 points games - the idea was to ramp up to 2,000 but after our experiences I don't expect to be be playing more than 1,250 at most.

Certainly won't be migrating to 9E when it comes out. Like their models, but I feel I can write better rules than they can.

If you only play with your son, I would say do so. Me and my son lost interest in 40K, and when I made up new rules he liked playing 40K again with me. As he grew older he lost interest in it, Magic became his thing. So change the rules to what you and your son will enjoy. You and your son will really have a great time. It helped me and my son till he grew out of it sadly.

 Chamberlain wrote:
And the complaints seem to have an easily identifiable common denominator. A Nazrak put it: "go out of your way to do everything in the least enjoyable way possible, you’re not going to have a fun game."

Yes, well, jackholes are often the common denominator to a terrible experience, I think that applies to any version of the game, or life, or driving, or ordering at a restaurant.

I'm just saying that if you've abandoned 8th edition rules, then this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience.

At the same time, if you value tournament play, then matched play is the paradigm that will govern the majority of your experience in the game.

That being said, I should probably try some narrative play, if I can find the time to do so.

I don't believe I have abandoned 8th edition rules. I think it's silly to claim so.

There's nothing "not 8th edition" about
- talking with your opponent about the game beforehand
- doing open and narrative play
- doing custom scenarios
- electing not to shoot at a target vehicle when only an antenna is visible or at a target infantry if only a sword tip held aloft is visible.

There's nothing inherently 8th edition 40k about always choosing the most advantageous option like shooting to and from antennae because you technically can. It is totally within 8th editions ruleset to shoot at targets or not for whatever reasons you choose (including narrative ones).

I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

 Crimson wrote:
I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

Well, I guess you've "abandoned 8th edition rules" then and "this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience."

 Crimson wrote:
I have to say it would never occur to me to measure a LOS either from or to an antenna, not even in a tournament.

No its like: ''The chain of my tank can see the chain of your tank. So I shoot you''. Very smart rule.

8th is great, for a GW game. Elbows sums it up nicely:

Elbows wrote:I'll preface my answer with the following: What are you looking for in a tabletop wargame?

If you're looking for a tightly designed, balanced wargame which is suitable for tournaments and competitive random-play against strangers...Warhammer 40K is not a good game. It's never been suited to that. Ever.

Alternatively...

If you're looking for a good, fun ruleset to play with likeminded buddies to have a good time pushing some models around and enjoying making "pew pew" sounds and rolling some dice? Warhammer 40K, 8th edition is the best version in a long time.

8th is far better and the actual practical playing is much easier. It's still 40k though; feels like playing 40k in comparison to other wargames and still has all the issues GW games have. I find that this edition is amazing for those who liked 7th despite the rules and not what those who are weary of GW were hoping for.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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.

"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.

Not getting into religion. On good writing though: It's not easy; I'm busy entering a career where writing is a big part of what we do and it has to be precise (scientist); it's expected of all of us though. We can't afford to be ambiguous or confusing, we define all our terms and we are judged on the exact words we write. I wouldn't expect that standard in a text, on a forum or even in many professional contexts.
In a profession that involves accurately conveying meaning though; damn right I do. GW rules writers are supposed to be fething professionals; if I got gak like this from a student they would get a red line through it..

Hoodwink wrote:You are comparing a codex to an index. The codex will assuredly be better 99% of the time. Everyone knows Orks are in a bad spot right now but they are running their index and no codex, and GW is very aware of the issues with Orks right now. I really don't see them being bottom tier after the codex drops. The codex drops have been pretty good so far in terms of overall power. It's never going to be perfect but it's been quite good. Every army is able to compete to a degree. The worst codex so far is pretty decisively Grey Knights, BUT they are made primarily as an anti-daemon army. They do it quite well and I really feel they are an absolutely beast detachment army for your primary army.

This is why I've seen many people walk away after dusting off old armies for 8th. Why should there be a difference? Why is it that 40k is always broken, but the next edition or FAQ will fix the game; the codex or supplement will fix your army? We've come to realise that this is what GW games are like and the direction they are going. It's fun if you don't take it too seriously, but if it's not your thing then you are better off moving on to games that fit you; complaining at GW will not make it the game you want if you don't love it already and the next edition or codex will not either.

 Chamberlain wrote:


Well, I guess you've "abandoned 8th edition rules" then and "this conversation simply doesn't relate to your experience."

That's a slightly disingenuous interpretation of what I was saying, but in reviewing the exchange, perhaps not entirely unfair.

To clarify, if you're making up your own rules for your group then you've effectively demonstrated, by your actions, that you do not like the rules and choose to play by your own, at which point, this conversation doesn't really relate to your experience anymore. That was the gist of what I took from your post, but in review, perhaps that's not what you explicitly stated, regardless, it was the impression I was left with.

But interpret as you will.

I opened the BRB and immediately thought, where the Hell are the rest of the rules?

Got to get out of 7th mentality.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
I opened the BRB and immediately thought, where the Hell are the rest of the rules?

Got to get out of 7th mentality.

Speaking of which I love the rulebook, but why oh why are the rules almost but not quite n the center? They really need to put them at the end or the beginning since that's the only part of the book I'll need during gameplay.