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.

I gave this topic some thought last night and realized I forgot to touch on the positives of 8th. One of my favorite things in this edition is the limits set on army creation... there is none! It allows me to create a super fluffy inquisition list by cherry picking units from other codex's (some ad mech, some scions, some flagellants, etc.) I can see how this would/could be abused but I love it. I also love not having to scour the BRB for USR's anymore. Everything is in the unit profile, it's so easy! and lastly and possibly most of all I like how tough vehicles are now. No more blowing up my landraider with one lucky lascannon.

Toughness of vehicles is a very difficult topic. My ork trukks went down in toughness and overall usefullness while costing 2.5 times more. 10-10-10 open-topped 3 HP with working cover saves is somewhat tougher than t6 w10 4+ without cover saves (and you never get them now) that we get now. Especially since it's so easy to chew through with lots and lots of medium antitank.

And the worst thing is that trukks are more expensive than boyz they bring. Yet they don't offer much in terms of mobility - still 2-d turn charge at best - and protection - any balanced shooty list kills any trukk it wants and you can do nothing about it.

 koooaei wrote:
Toughness of vehicles is a very difficult topic. My ork trukks went down in toughness and overall usefullness while costing 2.5 times more. 10-10-10 open-topped 3 HP with working cover saves is somewhat tougher than t6 w10 4+ without cover saves (and you never get them now) that we get now. Especially since it's so easy to chew through with lots and lots of medium antitank.

And the worst thing is that trukks are more expensive than boyz they bring. Yet they don't offer much in terms of mobility - still 2-d turn charge at best - and protection - any balanced shooty list kills any trukk it wants and you can do nothing about it.

I cant relate, My Dark Eldar transports went up in cost but now have 5-10 wounds and can take more than a disappointing glance. I can get units where they need to be by round 2-3 without suffering casualties. I imagine if you brought a few trucks you would expirience similar success, and to piggy back on my point earlier, in 7th, one lascannon could blow up that truk, in 8th, that's impossible.

Right, but it took, on average...

(5/6)*(1/6)=13.89% chance of blowing up per Lascannon shot.

Assuming no explosions, it takes...

4.5 Lascannon shots hitting on 3s to kill a Trukk. Accounting for explosions, the average is probably around 4, as an estimate.

In 8th, it takes (3.5)*(2/3)*(2/3)*(X)>10, for X=6.4 Lascannons on average to kill it. That's about a 60% increase in durability, but I believe they approximately tripled in points?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but it took, on average...

(5/6)*(1/6)=13.89% chance of blowing up per Lascannon shot.

Assuming no explosions, it takes...

4.5 Lascannon shots hitting on 3s to kill a Trukk. Accounting for explosions, the average is probably around 4, as an estimate.

In 8th, it takes (3.5)*(2/3)*(2/3)*(X)>10, for X=6.4 Lascannons on average to kill it. That's about a 60% increase in durability, but I believe they approximately tripled in points?

Don't forget they can fight in close combat now (and couldn't before) and probably only took 3 lascannon shots to die before, not just 4.5. Because of Hull points.

A lascannon cannot fail to hurt at truck, so it died after 3 hits, period, regardless of whether it exploded or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ADDENDUM:
Also your math is off, because Trukks are Open Topped and Lascannons are AP2, meaning they explode on a 5+, not a 6.

Ah, my bad!

And it takes 4.5 shots on average (down to 4 or so, form Explosions) because you have to HIT.

It is only 3 Lascannon HITS to kill a Trukk, 7th, but more shots.

Why measure based on Lascannon shots for a kill instead of Scatter Laser shots? I saw a lot more Trukks in 7th die to Scatter Lasers than Lascannons.

And Lasscannons are like... the "to-go" anti tank weapon in the game.
The increment in durability from 7th to 8th is not well perceived comparing the durability of the vehicle vs Lasscannons.

You need to compare the difference with mid-strenght HROF weapons, that where the ones used in 7th to actually kill vehicles. And vs those vehicles are MUCH tougther now.

did you count in cover? It was pretty easy to get at least 5+ in earlier editions.

Many transport vehicles are painfully overpriced on the whole in 8E, Wave Serpents of course being the primary perennial exception.

Devilfish, Chimeras, Trukks, Raiders, etc are all really difficult to justify using in many if not most instances, they all could use some liberal discounting because as of right now im just not seeing them on the table much. I can't imagine where I'd use a Chimera with the current IG book, despite its other strengths.

Vehicle resiliency in 8E is...odd. GW flattened a lot of resiliency differences. A Russ, Predator and Rhino are all roughly about as resilient, particularly againsr really big or high RoF weapons in 8E, whereas in 3E-7E there was a much greater disparity in their respective resiliency across weapon types. Overall GW has increased vehicle reailiency against weapons like Scatterlasers, but vehicles are now much more vulnerable to small arms and big guns cut through medium and heavy armor much easier than they used to (in terms of average number of shots to score a kill).

Agreed on the transports point.

The Armageddon Steel Legion stratagem and order would be very powerful, I think, if Chimeras were 55 points for the whole package and Tauroxes were like 30-35. But instead, Armageddon's stuff is generally bad, because it depends on either embarking into or disembarking from a transport.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 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.

This is one of my 8th ed. dislikes. It’s really annoying that you have to lug around 170-odd pages of extraneous crap in order to have access to a hard copy of the full rules.

Maybe this will help you.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


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

Let me be very clear then so you don't think I'm being disingenuous.

I find this notion that you can write someone out of a conversation about 8th because they do one thing differently with LOS to be totally completely absurd. As if being a little more selective about when you shoot and don't shoot suddenly nullifies everything else rules wise that's still going on. What about when we don't have a vehicle on the table? Are we now suddenly 8th edition players again?

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.

Or we like the rules very much and then have found a way to like our game experience even more. If I would rate the rules as is a 7 out of 10 but one small tweak (that is technically within the letter of the rules already in that shooting with a given unit at a given target is optional) and it's a 7.5 out of 10, that doesn't mean that I have "demonstrated, by your actions, that you do not like the rules" or that this conversation no longer relates to my experience.

I think you've engaged in an obvious and ridiculous rhetorical device.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maybe this will help you.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf

Ah cheers, I was already aware of that. It’s the other stuff I’m a bit disappointed isn’t separated off from the nonsense – missions, detachments, etc

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maybe this will help you.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf

Ah cheers, I was already aware of that. It’s the other stuff I’m a bit disappointed isn’t separated off from the nonsense – missions, detachments, etc

We've been making pages like this for our games:



It takes some time making them but once I have one for each unit in my army as well as a general overview page for my army as a total, I look at very little in actual books during a game (pretty much never actually). This is a non starter for events that require you to bring a printed copy of every rulebook, but given that GW sells ebooks, I'm sort of surprised that still happens. That's a requirement an event organizer should drop right away.

I get if if people are constantly changing armies or composition of units or whatever that they'd be making something like that a lot, but I tend to not change the weapons on my stuff too often. Every now and again I'll need to edit the file and replace a page (like when I want to use a different relic or whatever) but it seems to happen less than updating a charactersheet for a regular roleplaying game.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maybe this will help you.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf

Ah cheers, I was already aware of that. It’s the other stuff I’m a bit disappointed isn’t separated off from the nonsense – missions, detachments, etc

We've been making pages like this for our games:



It takes some time making them but once I have one for each unit in my army as well as a general overview page for my army as a total, I look at very little in actual books during a game (pretty much never actually). This is a non starter for events that require you to bring a printed copy of every rulebook, but given that GW sells ebooks, I'm sort of surprised that still happens. That's a requirement an event organizer should drop right away.

I get if if people are constantly changing armies or composition of units or whatever that they'd be making something like that a lot, but I tend to not change the weapons on my stuff too often. Every now and again I'll need to edit the file and replace a page (like when I want to use a different relic or whatever) but it seems to happen less than updating a charactersheet for a regular roleplaying game.

Ah, this is great stuff! I’ve been planning on doing similar, but keep not quite getting round to it. Maybe that’s a good project for my coming weekend.

 koooaei wrote:
did you count in cover? It was pretty easy to get at least 5+ in earlier editions.

Cover is a problem in 8th ed, especially for tanks.
The tank must be in cover and 50% must be concealed. Getting both is often impossible on std tables.

 supreme overlord wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Toughness of vehicles is a very difficult topic. My ork trukks went down in toughness and overall usefullness while costing 2.5 times more. 10-10-10 open-topped 3 HP with working cover saves is somewhat tougher than t6 w10 4+ without cover saves (and you never get them now) that we get now. Especially since it's so easy to chew through with lots and lots of medium antitank.

And the worst thing is that trukks are more expensive than boyz they bring. Yet they don't offer much in terms of mobility - still 2-d turn charge at best - and protection - any balanced shooty list kills any trukk it wants and you can do nothing about it.

I cant relate, My Dark Eldar transports went up in cost but now have 5-10 wounds and can take more than a disappointing glance. I can get units where they need to be by round 2-3 without suffering casualties. I imagine if you brought a few trucks you would expirience similar success, and to piggy back on my point earlier, in 7th, one lascannon could blow up that truk, in 8th, that's impossible.

I play both armies and I think both transports are now worse. Ok venoms and raiders have more wounds now but they cannot jink anymore and went up in cost, not to mention that splinter cannons have been nerfed. Trukks could work before because they were 35 points and they could carry something killy. Now min squads of orks (yes 12 man is min squad) don't do anything, they can strike first if they charge but with lesser attacks and, most importantly, with a nob that doesn't instant kill or wreck stuff anymore with his pk. Pks are not the tool they used to be and this combined to the current cost of orks vehicles make the concept of units embarked a waste of points at competitive levels. Only tankbustas and meganobz really benefit from a vehicle, everything else is better on foot so with tons of vehicles for high saturation you'll giving up lots of potential on your units but with just a few vehicles that carry the only units that can enjoy a ride you'll offering an easy target for the anti tank.

To have more resilient transports was one of my biggest hopes about 8th edition, but considering how vehicles work now I experienced that transports were way more effective in 7th. With the exception of a few ones, like rhinos for example.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I think you've engaged in an obvious and ridiculous rhetorical device.

I think we're talking past each other at this point, my misinterpretation of your original post was that you were writing your own rules for the game, which appears not to be the case.

I've acknowledged my mistake, if you want to continue to be pissy about it, feel free.

Maybe in the future don't try to define people out of a conversation (or the very game they are playing) and they won't be "pissy."

 wuestenfux wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
did you count in cover? It was pretty easy to get at least 5+ in earlier editions.

Cover is a problem in 8th ed, especially for tanks.
The tank must be in cover and 50% must be concealed. Getting both is often impossible on std tables.

This is one big reason I've been defaulting to "everything is a statue' from the "everything is a ruin" that I was doing in 7th.

Statues are "Model within 3", 25% obscured by the terrain piece, is in cover."

That change means that you no longer have the "all or nothing, the whole unit gets it or the whole unit doesnt get it" that you do with ruins, and it also means you can hide behind things and not have to be within them to gain it.

I use those rules now for everything that isn't either totally incapable of concealing a model (like a pond or a crater, which we use the Crater rules for) or a semi-abstract piece where I want to be albe to move elements of it around to allow models to fit in the area, like a Forest. For those we use the "if you're infantry and you're in it, you're in cover" rule.

The statue rule functions better than the Ruin or Barricade rules for simulating the effects of either a Ruin or a Barricade.

Could we just "house rule it"? sure. but people seem to have a whole lot more willingness to do something if it's in the rulebook, and the Statue rules are.

I'm not super enthused by the rules. It's in some ways more appealing than 4th, some ways less appealing. Net result doesn't compel me to seek out games. Some rules are real headbangers, I'll say.

Going by what the members here have been saying, it's better because it's simpler, and lets 10 year olds get the rules in a hurry. I don't know if that's true, but if it's a simple game you're looking for this is kind of one foot in, one foot out.

I got a little sold on the hype train I stumbled into at Reddit and picked up stuff before I'd really read much about 8e. I might pick up a few games but it isn't going to be something I actively seek out - and my local playerbase doesn't seem like a particularly happy bunch. There is some kind of Escalation League starting up in a few months, though, so if I decide to jump into that I will need to learn the Ways of WAAC and pick up a real army I can build on the fast.

A good chunk of that motivation was to do some modeling with my wife. She likes tanks and I used to play Guard so it was a logical place to pick it back up with an AM armored company.

(Speaking of which, my Manticore and Hellhound are finally in!)

I love it. I hated 7th, was ambivalent to 6th and liked 5th. This edition has made me actively want to play the armies I collect which have historically been crap in prior editions, so it's instantly better than the other recent editions.

Elite melee is a joke, its shootier than ever and CA is a pile of garbage with their FW points and weak rules.

 Brutallica wrote:
Elite melee is a joke, its shootier than ever and CA is a pile of garbage with their FW points and weak rules.

Withdrawal from cc without testing for the withdrawing unit is a problem for cc oriented army - being left in the open and exposed to enemy fire.