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.

They are bland with the exception of the IG ones. While simple is good for balance and ease of use, this doesn't mean they have to be bland nor does reusing the same ones over and over again really inspire that feeling of uniqueness that I think GW was hoping to tap into. I think that the regiments should be closer to what each version of army traits should be, and that they haven't is rather disappointing.

That said, I like that they've been as broad as they have been. I disagree with Magic Juggler on the idea that these traits need to zero in on a single unit to be "fluffy". Raven Guard are not just Assault Marines, White Fangs are not just Bikes. These traits should absolutely discourage those one dimention lists and I'm happy that units that are iconic to a faction get smaller encouragement via statagems and warlord traits

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
They are bland with the exception of the IG ones.

Is probably my inherent malice talking, by I cannot help reading this in a bad way.
IG ones are not bland because .... ?

The thing is, with minor tweaks, the Indexes were very good.

Then they had to go in and overcomplicate everything.

Imo, given that most of the traits are copy-paste anyways, I think GW should have instead released them as "Army Traits' in the core rulebook, with a selection of 10 or so that are universal among the armies and then just let the players choose. Like the Alpha Legion, Raven Guard and possible Alaitoc traits could just be "Stealth adepts".

@Kaiyangwang
They're much more involved. Some involve positioning, some give straight stat increases, some change their effect under the right conditions. These all effect how the army is played more than, say "get a 6+++ save" or "Ignore cover saves", even if those might be stronger.

Slightly off-topic, but they also get unique orders, which has been the only time so far that an army has gotten something outside of a trait, warlord traits, and relics

See i kind of hate how gw has handled psykers imo. Fluff is a great inspirstion for me and right now theres no difference between
A tzeenchian chaos sorceror a undivided one and a librarian. Which feels wrong imo. O get its for balance sake but couldnt they have atleast allowed a Tzeench sorceror to deny twice. The rules as they are are pretty good but i hate how alot of old abilities have becone stratagems.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The thing is, with minor tweaks, the Indexes were very good.

Sure? don't get me wrong, I am happy with many aspects of 8th. Te number of stuff that is at least viable increased, IMHO (but then again, people that play in more competitive and arguably skilled environments could say that is not the case).
Nonetheless, I think that some aspect of the design was basically wrong, at its core.
Why they have to add hot-fixes to Leman Russes? Because the d6 shots rule for templates was bad and did not take in account the BS.
Why they give ways to ignore the -1 to hit shooting heavy weapons? Because relentless was actually logical on vehicles like Helbrutes.
Cannot tell if not competent rule writing, or just there to sell the codex with the fix.

@Luke_Prowler fair enough, thank you

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
See i kind of hate how gw has handled psykers imo. Fluff is a great inspirstion for me and right now theres no difference between
A tzeenchian chaos sorceror a undivided one and a librarian. Which feels wrong imo. O get its for balance sake but couldnt they have atleast allowed a Tzeench sorceror to deny twice. The rules as they are are pretty good but i hate how alot of old abilities have becone stratagems.

If you exclude Smite, each factions has powers that play differently. Also, rules like a +1 to cast or deny are not trivial on a 2d6 roll.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The thing is, with minor tweaks, the Indexes were very good.

Sure? don't get me wrong, I am happy with many aspects of 8th. Te number of stuff that is at least viable increased, IMHO (but then again, people that play in more competitive and arguably skilled environments could say that is not the case).
Nonetheless, I think that some aspect of the design was basically wrong, at its core.
Why they have to add hot-fixes to Leman Russes? Because the d6 shots rule for templates was bad and did not take in account the BS.
Why they give ways to ignore the -1 to hit shooting heavy weapons? Because relentless was actually logical on vehicles like Helbrutes.
Cannot tell if not competent rule writing, or just there to sell the codex with the fix.

Never assume malice where stupidity is equally possible. I think the writers just plum forgot that vehicles now suffer the penalties as they didn't since 3rd edition. Like I said, some minor tweaks and it would have been good.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
That said, I like that they've been as broad as they have been. I disagree with Magic Juggler on the idea that these traits need to zero in on a single unit to be "fluffy". Raven Guard are not just Assault Marines, White Fangs are not just Bikes. These traits should absolutely discourage those one dimention lists and I'm happy that units that are iconic to a faction get smaller encouragement via statagems and warlord traits

I never mentioned that the traits should be one-dimensional. It's not that a particular set of traits are only honing in on one particular set of units. It's that the traits emphasize taking a completely different set of units, or traits not being enough to offset certain signature units sucking hard ("We ignore cover!" "This is 8th. What is cover?")

The end result is the lists *are* one-dimensional, but with units thematically fitting another army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Dont get me wrong i get why they streamlined thongs but its ended up with stuff being bland.

Not to be a grammar nitpicker (posting on a phone means I make my share of typos) but it is rather amusing that a Champion of Slaanesh would consider streamlined thongs a rather bland affair.