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.

Bolters no longer penetrate flak armor. I don't think they'd do jack to an abrams. However, its a mechanical thing im willing to overlook.

You don't know out MBT's with 25mm autocannon rounds or 40mm Grenades from automatic launcher, both weapons far more potent than the bolter.

 Bobthehero wrote:
You don't know out MBT's with 25mm autocannon rounds or 40mm Grenades from automatic launcher, both weapons far more potent than the bolter.

I feel like this is a good time for the daily reminder that you can lose your tank to a bush in this game.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
As a Word Bearers player, I'm...not in any particular hurry to switch editions for awhile, as very few of the announcements or articles assure me this is an edition I would enjoy playing.

Does anyone else here plan to wait it out for a bit, either sticking to 7th or even going back a few editions back (5e Oldhammer) while assorted things sort themselves out?

I'm a little bit late in that topic but I will never get back in old editions. I will embrase 8ed because for what I saw/read and my style of play, 8ed will be more fun for me.

Yeah, from what I have read 8th edition will be a lot more fun.

I remember getting the limited edition 6th edition rulebook. It cost more than the starter kit and the new Chaos codex.

So 8th has price going for it as well. As long as CSMs are playable I will be happy.

I'm looking forward to 8th because only bring able to play ONE game in a 6pm-9pm time frame was a bit stupid. I only get to play once a week, so I'd rather get a few games in than just one disjointed mess.

I grew up on Necromunda/2nd edition, so I get a little nostalgic looking at 8th edition unit stats. While I will miss the templates (as they were iconic) the utter bs and timesink they caused will NOT make me look back at them with Rose tinted glasses.

Hopefully, 8th will be quick, intuitive, balanced (to an extent!) And overall fun.

You won't wreck an intact battle tank with a bunch of lazguns or bolters. The most you'll ever achieve is a few wounds. You can consider it to be damage to an exterior.

If you finish off an allready heavilly damaged tank with a lazgun, you can consider it to have gained a weak point or a breach from the heavy fire of your meltas and lazcannos beforehand.

I'm going to at least try 8th, but honestly I've given up completely on 40K straightening itself out and have been furiously working on my own (two) version. Just got to get some folks to try it, but that requires getting my miniatures out of storage which requires the folks remodeling my game room to actually show up...

As evident from my post count, I quit 40k several years ago due to 7th Edition. The chaos player that i've been playing against since 2006 literally couldn't win against me (with depowered lists as well, not tau cheese) and it ruined all the fun of the game. Another factor is the complete and utter hatred of Tau since 6E launched. I went from having fun at LGS's to getting flak just for playing the same army I have for over a decade.

Hopefully 8th changes all this, or i'll finally sell off my 40k.

Luciferian wrote:I disagree. The core rules for 3-7th, with the AP system in place of 2nd's modifiers, were the reason they had to introduce so many special rules and exceptions in the first place. It was an inflexible system that was difficult to scale and while it may work OK when the game has fewer unit types to govern, it doesn't handle diversity or complexity well at all.

Whether or not they continue special rules bloat with 8th is yet to be seen, but from the start it will be a more efficient and scalable system mechanically.

But were those special rules and exceptions all needed. There was variance built into the AP system, but instead of using it GW applied special snokflake syndrome to every unit.

So Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was a different game than Warhammer 40k 3rd edition? Is totally reasonable to you to not like 8th edition. But this isn't in no way the scale of change that WHFB receive becoming AOS or Rogue Trader to Warhammer 40k 3rd edition.
The "IS NOT THE SAME GAME BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!" is a silly argument to made here, I think. It was a correct thing to say with the change from WHFB to AoS, but not here.

And people have already been in the band wagon of hating 7th for the past two years

But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name. 2nd edition, or Warhammer 40,000 as it was called was a different game. 3rd edition onwards is a different game. 3rd - 7th are different iterations of the same basic game. I played through the change from 2nd to 3rd, not many game mechanics carried across.
The same is true for age of darkness, not many game mechanics are carrying across - it IS a different game.

I think 7th is hated so much because people wanted a streamlined balanced version of 6th, instead GW added to the bloat and randomness, and things like the pyshic phase caused games to take longer to resolve without really adding much to the game.

So.. you are just going to call it age of darkness just because?

7th is just a long string of patches since the dark days of 3rd edition.
Yes, the core mechanics are familiar and "worked" but it was designed for a more skirmish game.
We were long overdue for a redesign in order for both GW and us to have a game that can scale appropriately.
Ever since the advent of Armageddon both us and GW had a real want to dip into the occasional big huge epic games.
BUT skirmish games with some detail is very satisfying as well.
It all boils down to the game managing to have the "feel" of 40k, so that characters reflect the power levels read in the Black Library books.

I find it easy to have an open mind since I played all the time from 2nd edition and then found myself grind to a halt in 6th edition, try 7th and with regret give up on it altogether.

Shadow War Armageddon made me happy since I have a horde of Necromunda stuff so I am happy/excited/curious how this new and possibly better GW will proceed with the 8th edition rewrite. It cannot get worse for me: if it is enough to get me playing again it is a huge success. I love the 40k universe but I am a gamer, like to be a competitive one and the 7th edition rules are to put impolitely "garbage" as they stand.

I will wait and see and would just LOVE to dust off my CSM (my first army) and see them stick-it to the imperium again.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I still don't understand the complaints that vehicles can be hurt by Lasguns..

The complaints are largely that it's immersion breaking, (because regardless of whether or not you could technicaly damage an armoured vehicle by chipping away at it for a thousand years with a raw egg, this actually having an in-game effect just feels wrong) and because if it's statistically extremely unlikely for it to actually have a practical impact on the game then it doesn't fix the problem that it is assumed it was supposed to fix - ie: some units being useless against certain enemies... they're still effectively just as useless, unless you get really lucky - and is ultimately pretty pointless for it to be included.

Rules that serve no practical purpose shouldn't exist. That goes double for rules that serve no practical purpose and potentially create silly, immersion-breaking situations.

Except we aren't pelting away at a tank with eggs. We're using miniature Rocket Launchers and laser guns that are firing at dozens at a time.

Which, in reality, wouldn't do much to a proper MBT. Take an M2 heavy machinegun and dump as much ammo into the front of an Abrams or Leo2, or hell even a Panzer IV/M4 Sherman, as you want, at worst you'll damage some equipment like smoke launchers or a gunners sight or a hatch or the like (stuff that would have been portrayed by the old "Crew Shaken/Stunned"), maybe hurt something on a tread, but you're not going to ever actually destroy that tank with a weapon like that.


That said, personally, I'll deal with it if it means vehicles as a whole are more functional even if it has realism weirdness, though that remains to be seen.

How can you even say in reality? Have you ever shot 20+ Bolters at the same time at a modern day Abrams?

Bolters are roughly analagous to heavy stubbers, always have been, which are heavy machineguns. We can look at other modern weapons of dramatically greater power than a Bolter has ever been portrayed as being capable of, such as 20mm autocannons, and they won't do squat really either.

The only gun I won't buy it for is the Autogun, and even then if you've got like 30 of them in Rapid Fire range you can consider that a wound done for sure.

Probably not against a proper tank, at least not anything anyone would ever notice or care about.

 Tamereth wrote:

But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name.

No one called it "Rogue Trader" at the time. It was "Warhammer 40,000" to pretty much everyone who played it when it was the new hotness. That's what was printed in huge lettering in the ads and that's what it said on the blister packs and boxes at the time. It may be anecdotal but no one I know ever called it "Rogue Trader" until several editions down the road when we needed a term to describe the first gen miniatures and rules.

If you need some kind of independent confirmation look at the White Dwarfs from those years. The articles talk about "Warhammer 40,000" - just like they do today.


Every game goes thru multiple editions if it lasts more than a few years - Miniatures games, board wargames, RPG's. It nearly always means rules changes. It's nothing unique to 40k.

 Tamereth wrote:


But it isn't the same game. First edition is referred to as rouge trader for a reason, that was it's name. 2nd edition, or Warhammer 40,000 as it was called was a different game. 3rd edition onwards is a different game. 3rd - 7th are different iterations of the same basic game. I played through the change from 2nd to 3rd, not many game mechanics carried across.
The same is true for age of darkness, not many game mechanics are carrying across - it IS a different game.

I think 7th is hated so much because people wanted a streamlined balanced version of 6th, instead GW added to the bloat and randomness, and things like the pyshic phase caused games to take longer to resolve without really adding much to the game.

Getting your daily exercise from them mental gymnastics I see...

In summary...

NOT A FETHING CHANCE!!!!!

I will not be sticking with 7th Edition outside of keeping the books for my collection.

I am greatly looking forward to 8th Edition 40K. While I don't care for how GW handled the change of Warhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar, I am now greatly enjoying Age of Sigmar thanks to the release of the General's Handbook and its 3 Ways to Play mindset, which to me is that game's greatest strength.

I have played 40K since mid-5th Edition, back when the Leafblower Guard list was a new thing. I played like crazy through 6th Edition, and basically quit in 7th Edition - partly due to time and budget constraints (family will do that to you), but mostly because of the local 40K players have an unhealthy WAAC "Play like you got a pair!" attitude, treating every game as if it were practice for the ITC or LVO.

7th Edition was not fun, it was a chore. Lugging around books upon books just to play cool combos and new Formations/Detachments became cumbersome, and losing constantly to the same players being WAAC jerks was the final straw; the only games of 7th I enjoyed were the Narrative scenarios and the one campaign I participated in, each with self-imposed restrictions on what we would bring and how we would play.

As for 8th Edition, I am super-excited and eager to try it out and read the books. Not only are they getting rid of the Detachment/Formation creep, but they literally made changes to the rules that are exactly what I would have done (AP not outright ignoring Saves, Damage values on weapons, Damage charts for big models, Psykers redone, 3 Ways to Play).

The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

 Hollow wrote:
The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

That's certainly possible.

Alternately, they might just be people with an opinion different to yours. That's going to happen from time to time.

 Hollow wrote:
The people who object to lasguns being able to harm Land Raiders are people who like to complain for complaining sake and have little-to no imagination. The only good that has come from the debate, is that it has highlighted who amongst us are sad neck-beards who should be avoided at all costs. Also they smell.

Maybe so, but the alternative looks even more revolting.

I've already got more friends/family interested in starting to play 40k with me then I had in the entirety of 7th and 8th isn't even out yet. I'm keeping my books on the shelf because the fluff is awesome and the pics are always handy to have on hand. I will say I loved the campaigns that were released during 7th so I'm planning on adapting things like The Red Waaagh!/Hour of The Wolf, Mont'ka/Kau'yon etc for 8th play, because the stories were a lot of fun to play through on the board.

Edit: format error

After seeing today's faction Focus Orks. I'll be dropping 7th.

So with the poll results coming in at approximately 95% in favour [+/- 5%, 19 times out of 20] of leaving the dumpster fire of a game that was 7th to burn itself out... there should have been a poll at the start of this for a more scientific approach.

Lol no 7th edition has been the worst version of any game ever. Sooner its gone the better

IMO, 7th ruleset was great. Sadly, it was turned into a barely playable mess by formations nonsense and the total lack of balance. I don't like most of the changes that 8th edition brings, which is not too surprising considering it's pretty close to AoS and that I find this game unplayable. I especially hate that Templates are removed, that the rules for vehicles were dropped, the new ''Moral'' test and the boring psychic phase being brought back. Dropping universal special rules in favor of each unit becoming a special snowflake seems silly to me too (imo it's far easier to learn USR than each units having a tons of practically identical special rules with different names) At least, it could bring a semblance of balance since they are starting from scratch though I won't hold my breath considering that ''New'' GW brought us the utterly ridiculous pink horrors profile recently.

So, to answer the question, I'm in wait and see mode but if I can find a community of players still playing 7th ed., i'll definitively still play it (and maybe only play it if I don't like this new ed.)