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.

dosiere wrote:
Eh, as someone who thinks 8th is definitely an improvement over 7th I could still understand someone who thinks 7th was better. Not sure how you can say that 8th is objectively a better game and anyone who says they think differently is simply wrong?

Where have I said that 8th was objetively better? I have talked about my opinion. For example, if for somebody, vehicle facings and firings arcs are like the most important thing of 40k, or the one they enjoy more, I can understand how for them 8th is worse than 7th.

I'm on a mobile, so quoting selectively is a big pain, but your post was that you can't take it seriously that 8th would be worse. Maybe I misunderstood.

 andysonic1 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.

Lists?

Yeah, also.. Tactics?

I mean, there's not much tactics in 40k, but playing like you did in 7e will get you massacred.

 Selym wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.

Lists?

Yeah, also.. Tactics?

I mean, there's not much tactics in 40k, but playing like you did in 7e will get you massacred.

Yeah, I mean trying to walk Marines up the board like you're playing 30k is going to be a bad time. Space Marine bois and Chaos Space Marine bois aren't going to live 5 seconds out of cover. If you really want your squads to live, buy some rhinos and drop pods.

dosiere wrote:
I'm on a mobile, so quoting selectively is a big pain, but your post was that you can't take it seriously that 8th would be worse. Maybe I misunderstood.

Yeah. I can't take it seriously , at least not without a proper explanation, because in my opinion 8th is so much better than 7th that I can't concive what makes people think the opposite

As a grognard player myself, I'll say that 8th is categorically more enjoyable than 7th (7th being possibly the worst wargame I've ever experienced...and that's not just limited to Warhammer, I mean all wargames over 20+ years - fething terrible). Comparing it to 2nd ed. etc. would take a hugely lengthy post that I'm too lazy to write.

I'll say this as a rule of Warhammer 40K though: people will ruin it, and your enjoyment will be based on who you play the game with - not what game you play.

He had Draigo, some other GK douchebag, 5 termies, storm raven, dread, LR Crusader. For IG I think 2 heavy weapon squads and 2 line squads and a Valkyrie which was dead weight with it hitting on 5+ on the move.

I had 30 CSM, missile havocs, 5 bikes, 5 raptors, 5 possessed, 5 melta chosen, heldrake, defiler, 2 sorcerers.

I even stole the initiative.

Burned a heavy weapon squad to a crisp, then tied up an infantry squad and the land raider with the heldrake, taking 6 wounds in return. Warptimed raptors into his lines, skorched an infantry squad and engaged a heavy weapon squad. Prescient Heavy weapon fire against Stormraven does 1 wound.

GK kill Heldrake with Smite, probably shoot 15 MEQ off the board with the Dread, LR and Stormraven alone, pull off both 9" teleport charges to wipe the bikes and raptors.

I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.

Dread, LR and Raven mow down another 15 MEQ, mass Smite takes out the Defiler (keep in mind GK Smite does straight up 3 MW to Daemons).

I call it a day and post some hyperbole because I actually still had 10 basic dudes left at the end of turn 2 and I'm sure they'd have had a great time against his whole army minus the 30 IG dudes that I killed.

This was with me winning deployment, stealing the initiative, getting two 1st turn charges, tying up the LR with a pile in move, hugging cover where I could, stacking Warptime and Prescience for max effect, etc. Outside that crap roll there's nothing better I could have done. My opponent hadn't even really read the rules beforehand, let alone tacticas. All of my nope.

Well. I think the problem was the GK smite against demons.

A dread+LR+Stormraven killing 30 CSM in 2 turns isn't really that impresive.
But can just only Draigo, other GK hero and 5 termies do so many Smites?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler:

He had Draigo, some other GK douchebag, 5 termies, storm raven, dread, LR Crusader. For IG I think 2 heavy weapon squads and 2 line squads and a Valkyrie which was dead weight with it hitting on 5+ on the move.

I had 30 CSM, missile havocs, 5 bikes, 5 raptors, 5 possessed, 5 melta chosen, heldrake, defiler, 2 sorcerers.

I even stole the initiative.

Burned a heavy weapon squad to a crisp, then tied up an infantry squad and the land raider with the heldrake, taking 6 wounds in return. Warptimed raptors into his lines, skorched an infantry squad and engaged a heavy weapon squad. Prescient Heavy weapon fire against Stormraven does 1 wound.

GK kill Heldrake with Smite, probably shoot 15 MEQ off the board with the Dread, LR and Stormraven alone, pull off both 9" teleport charges to wipe the bikes and raptors.

I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.

Dread, LR and Raven mow down another 15 MEQ, mass Smite takes out the Defiler (keep in mind GK Smite does straight up 3 MW to Daemons).

I call it a day and post some hyperbole because I actually still had 10 basic dudes left at the end of turn 2 and I'm sure they'd have had a great time against his whole army minus the 30 IG dudes that I killed.

This was with me winning deployment, stealing the initiative, getting two 1st turn charges, tying up the LR with a pile in move, hugging cover where I could, stacking Warptime and Prescience for max effect, etc. Outside that crap roll there's nothing better I could have done. My opponent hadn't even really read the rules beforehand, let alone tacticas.

All of my nope.

I'm gonna say try at least one other matchup before calling 8e worse than 7e. Also, you're gonna need to expend about 3 points of anti-armour fire per every 1 point of enemy armour to put a dent in things. You brought a 7e list to an 8e fight, they're not even remotely comparable situations.

LOL.

A dreadknight shot 15 MEQ off the board huh? The odds of a dreadknight killing 9+ MEQ with a Gatling psilencer is about one in a million and a half. And we're not even dealing with the chances of the incinerator killing 5+ MEQ, which is pitifully low.

It is HIGHLY likely that your GK buddy misplayed the rules. I am *guessing* that he did D3 damage with the gatling psilencer, and had it overflow to the rest of the squad, which it does not.

I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.

Rolling 5/5 1's on 5 dice happens about 1 in 8000 times. If you ever see this - ever - you should take a photo to memorialize the occasion, and burn the dice.

At the very least, it sounds like your buddy rolled hot and you rolled cold.

Were your 30 bois in Rhinos? Were the Possessed? Were the Bikes finding the cover they needed? It honestly doesn't sound like your first turn was bad, you did well. The Heldrake is one big distraction that isn't going to live long, so that's fine it dies turn 1. Your bois should have been in Rhinos. Raptors and Bikes are shooting platforms, they should be avoiding combat at all costs (put your raptors at the top of buildings and your bikes in cover). Your deamons are getting smacked around by GK, nothing you can do about that except get more bubble wrap and use terrain.

Your list doesn't seem very good, and you complain about units doing things they weren't meant to do (raptors/bikes in combat, marines in the open surviving, 0 rhinos or drop pods). I would look up a few battle reports for Chaos and see what people like miniwargaming and frontline gaming are doing because it feels like you came at 8th with either a 7th mindset or a 30k mindset.

 Galas wrote:
Well. I think the problem was the GK smite against demons.

A dread+LR+Stormraven killing 30 CSM in 2 turns isn't really that impresive.
But can just only Draigo, other GK hero and 5 termies do so many Smites?

GK Dreadnoughts get free Smite too, it's easy to miss. Add a few las/melta shots from the Raven to the mix and my vehicles were toast.

But honestly maybe it's just that CSM have ridiculously low damage output. Compare Forge Fiend and Exocrine. The latter has +1 Toughness and about twice the firepower for 20 pts more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
LOL.

A dreadknight shot 15 MEQ off the board huh? The odds of a dreadknight killing 9+ MEQ with a Gatling psilencer is about one in a million and a half. And we're not even dealing with the chances of the incinerator killing 5+ MEQ, which is pitifully low.

It is HIGHLY likely that your GK buddy misplayed the rules. I am *guessing* that he did D3 damage with the gatling psilencer, and had it overflow to the rest of the squad, which it does not.

I Prescience and Warptime 5 meltas up in the LR's grill and roll 5 1s on BS 2+, okay, that is on me and not the ruleset but even if I had killed the LR I'd just have been tabled a turn later.

Rolling 5/5 1's on 5 dice happens about 1 in 8000 times. If you ever see this - ever - you should take a photo to memorialize the occasion, and burn the dice.

I think it's highly likely you need to learn 2 read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Were your 30 bois in Rhinos? Were the Possessed? Were the Bikes finding the cover they needed? It honestly doesn't sound like your first turn was bad, you did well. The Heldrake is one big distraction that isn't going to live long, so that's fine it dies turn 1. Your bois should have been in Rhinos. Raptors and Bikes are shooting platforms, they should be avoiding combat at all costs (put your raptors at the top of buildings and your bikes in cover). Your deamons are getting smacked around by GK, nothing you can do about that except get more bubble wrap and use terrain.

Your list doesn't seem very good, and you complain about units doing things they weren't meant to do (raptors/bikes in combat, marines in the open surviving, 0 rhinos or drop pods). I would look up a few battle reports for Chaos and see what people like miniwargaming and frontline gaming are doing because it feels like you came at 8th with either a 7th mindset or a 30k mindset.

My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.

I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.

I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.

Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:

- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)

As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.

I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.

Seeing as his list beat yours I'd say his list was better, or at least well rounded comparatively. But really, you played one game with terrible lists and had a meh time. Spend a little more time building your list and your next games will be closer.

Still feels like 40k. The end result is roughly the same, but the way to get the result is much easier.

 Desubot wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.

I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.

Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.

Dunno, I found there were a fair few tricks one could do in 7th. I remember one of the better players at the old LGS was hated for Harlequins being "cheese" when they came out because he was the only guy besides the Dark Angels player that knew how to use Hit and Run, and he was really cheeky about using Death is Not Enough to screw up his opponent's battleline and reposition them as speedbumps before getting into his opponent's backfield.

Truth be told, many games became less about smashing into your opponent (unless you were running Superfriends) so much as trying to get the drop on your foe and zip for objectives in a game of rocket tag.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

My list was bad, his list was bad, we both took what we had painted from 10 years ago. I didn't charge with bikes, he got them with the "deep strike and roll a 9" plan.

I watch reports all the time, all I see is people smashing armies into each other and waiting to see who fails more saves. No tactics apart from pile in shenanigans. Degenerate toruney metagames like them are the reason we can't have nice things.

Reading it like that. i thought that was pretty much the main tactic of 7th.

Dunno, I found there were a fair few tricks one could do in 7th. I remember one of the better players at the old LGS was hated for Harlequins being "cheese" when they came out because he was the only guy besides the Dark Angels player that knew how to use Hit and Run, and he was really cheeky about using Death is Not Enough to screw up his opponent's battleline and reposition them as speedbumps before getting into his opponent's backfield.

Truth be told, many games became less about smashing into your opponent (unless you were running Superfriends) so much as trying to get the drop on your foe and zip for objectives in a game of rocket tag.

Im surprised the "get out of assault at the end of your opponents turn" trick was all that complicated

7th devolved into spam the crap out of the best possible thing. most of that being some flavor of Force a ton of wounds (scatter laser), be impossible to kill (invisibility), abuse codex (super friends, formations) (just examples and they fluxuated in the top lists through the edition)

its probably going to happen in 8th im just hoping the differences will be relatively small enough.

gave it a couple goes. I really do not enjoy the game, the direction it went is the opposite of what I find fun, so dropping it to completely concentrate on SW:A might show up when 9th edition drops in a few years.

 Selym wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.

Subject // 7e // 8e

Time to set up a game // 30-120 mins // 5-15 mins
Time to memorise the core aspects of the rules // Impossible // An evening
Time to understand the rules of your codex // Weeks // One week
Ability to keep track of other armies // Impossibru // Possibru
Tactical Depth // None // None, but at least you won't be tabled Turn 1 anymore
Rules disputes // Take 3+ books and several hours to resolve (if they are even resolvable) // Find quote, then realise GW forgot to define things
Playability // Utterly unplayable // Plastic's already on the table m8
Balance // Wtf is balance? // Even the "bottom tier" armies aren't auto-lose
Nerd Rage // Over 9000!!! // Over 9000!!!

Seems better overall. Less retardation, more pew pew layzorz.

Well, it's actually even easier to get removed 1-st turn if you bring a wrong army (something without bauble wrap) against, say, an army of plasma scion comsquads.
The interaction with to-hit modifiers and overheats is very odd. Cover rules are crap. But otherwise the core rules are good. Waiting for the reprices and fixes to overheats and if they come in, it's gona be the best edition. So far, it's hardly good for competitive play. Really great for casual with a bunch of restrictions and a couple house-rules.

So far balance-wise it kinda close to 7-th. 2 out of 5. But core rules are 4 out of 5.

 thekingofkings wrote:
gave it a couple goes. I really do not enjoy the game, the direction it went is the opposite of what I find fun, so dropping it to completely concentrate on SW:A might show up when 9th edition drops in a few years.

Not assuming what you like to play, but that does bring up a point.

As with AoS; GW seems to have chosen a particular target market (for both games). Warhammer looks to be aimed at more casual players that enjoy exciting games more than thinking games (it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy) and are in the hobby for the fluff and models to a significant degree.
i.e. GW are catering to Jimmy, rather than Johnny in terms of psychographic profile.

This is neither a good nor a bad thing, neither kind of player is superior (or "kids" ), it's just a matter of taste.
It does mean that some players who enjoyed earlier editions will be left out though. Which is sad, but fortunately there are many other games and companies catering for those kinds of players.

Had my first game now - tried my Dark Edlar vs Guard and we both had a good time

Bit worried when he used a Command Point to re-roll the Sieze and made it - blew away my Archon/Incubi Raider with two Leman Russ and a Manticore and damaged my Ravager. But charged (or limped across the field) and got stick in.

Made so many flicker field (soo glad they are back on Raiders and Ravagers) and shadow field saves it was untrue. Dark Eldar have lots of great damage limitation stuff that I only lost three models and manged to win on objective but he did have a lot left.

The game worked smoothly and we both comented on that fact that there was little need for rules reference, plenty of maneuvere although it was somewhat less important without vehicle armour variance on different sides. Neither of us had any rules issues.

I really need army cards to save constant flicking inthe books - some of the guys at the club were using Battlescribe but it had some serious errors - Eldar vehicles not having FLY which did make a difference in his fight against Orks.

 Strg Alt wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:

- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)

As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.

Battle bible.

One of my issues so far is the complete invalidation of some units in some armies - the Drop Pod and Riptide come to mind immediately. Overcosted units are just as much a problem as undercosted ones because they lead to stagnation in list-building, which was one of the issues in 7th with only spamming a few units over and over (funnily enough, Drop Pods and Riptides were among the worst offenders for this). I understand the need to address imbalance, but they went too far in many cases, balancing units that were unbalanced in 7th...and this ain't 7th anymore.

Is it just for me or do you feel close combat to be even less useful this edtion ?
A good close combat turn was usually what decided of the winner during my games of 7th, while now even terminators have difficulties destroying a single tac squad.
They will just runaway and runaway and runaway and I need a lot more time to destroy them.
And my opponent's others units stay free to shoot at my assault units every turn.

 DarkBlack wrote:

As with AoS; GW seems to have chosen a particular target market (for both games). Warhammer looks to be aimed at more casual players that enjoy exciting games more than thinking games (it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy) and are in the hobby for the fluff and models to a significant degree.
i.e. GW are catering to Jimmy, rather than Johnny in terms of psychographic profile.

Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.

I played from 1st ed until 3rd and then I didn't pick up a new edition until the Dark Vengeance box came out (7th?). I tried 7th but it really felt like a chore so I packed it all away and forgot about 40k until I was told about the imminent arrival of 8th while picking up some paint. I have now played a few games with my old armies and to be honest it has me interested in the game again. Fortunately having played rulesets such as Black Powder and Bolt Action which have numerous grey areas this edition feels pretty well written. I don't expect a ruleset to be perfect, I'm happy if it gives an entertaining game in a decent amount of time among ordinary, honourable gamers and doesn't require too much homework. This ticks all the boxes for me, if anyone tries to spend five minutes micro-adjusting a melee then they can expect to be despatched to the bar with a very expensive shopping list of single malts as penance. This is the most 40k I have played this millennium and it feels like meeting up with an old friend.

Edited to add...just found out that SM come with 32mm bases now. Knew my good vibe wouldn't last...yay! rebasing!

 Strg Alt wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:

- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)

As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.

Looks interesting downloaded it already. 8th is too bland for me, boring as hell. Some good ideas, better than 7th, but it's like watching black and white TV, after being used to colour.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

I read the free basic rules and was privy to some unit profiles but haven´t had a test game, yet. 8th is definitely better than 7th for the following reasons:

- no free stuff anymore
- no Hull Point mechanic
- no Invisibility psi-powers (AFAIK)

As a whole it´s kinda meh because 40K has been sigmarized. I still prefer 2nd with colourful blast markers (8th: where are they?), proper overwatch (8th: hitting on 6?), fancy psi-power-mini-game, actual vehicle rules (8th: weapons measuring from antenna?), no need for a crapton of models to function, terrific rules for TDA (3+ AS on 2D6) and a lot of other great stuff. So, if you are annoyed with 8th just have a look at the Battle Bible (freely available on the interwebz) for 2nd. It includes basic rules & army lists for all relevant factions.

Looks interesting downloaded it already. 8th is too bland for me, boring as hell. Some good ideas, better than 7th, but it's like watching black and white TV, after being used to colour.

There are definately some good ideas in 8th, but being there to witness 2nd-to-3rd ed transition first hand I'm having deja-vu when it comes to faction blandness - exactly how many iterations of "reroll 1's" "special abilities" can there exist?. Back then great many things got their proper feeling back only when 4th ed kicked in, not when 3rd ed codices came out - those were just as bland as index rules. I fear this time it'll be the same and I'll get convinced to switch to new core ruleset somewhere around 9th or 10th because of the good, old tradition of rules creep. At the moment my closest group stays with our version of heavily modified 7th ed rules (unless we go full speed ahead and revive 2nd ed, because of the Shadow War effect - we have already returned to "proper Necromunda" and we're already having a hard time forfeiting all this detail even when switching to 7th, let alone 8th...)

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.

I think it's both. 8th is intended to be "casual", but because GW's rule authors are incompetent the result is a bunch of things to exploit and a game built around tediously setting up the exploits.