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.

Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games

It is fun, and I play once every other week, but there's still some serious goofs and the players need to clarify a lot of things in terms of what they're bringing to the game. I've seen an upswing in activity since 7th, but it doesn't seem to be holding strong.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:I really think that marking the "too much cheese" option is a sign of your local meta and fellow players much more than an indicator of 8th edition.
Good, playing steady here.

The issue is that the game has to allow for it to get this bad.

Infantryman wrote:

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.

What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?

I do? Probably most adults who aren't living to the hilt? Hell even when I was a teenager I could have done that.
M.

What on earth were you doing as a teenager? It could be that the exchange rate makes it worse over here.
I have trouble justifying buying 2 models worth as much as an army. Especially considering how far I can get into other games with that money.

fresus wrote:I think the game is mediocre. Lots of things could be improved, and I hate the never ending rerolls.
Still, I have fun playing it. Partly because the minis and the settings are great, partly because the guys I play with are fun.

Pretty much this. I might have answered above "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games" if I hadn't been seeing how much better games can be.

I voted not balanced but fun enough.

I might play once a month, it's not great but the game looks cool and we have a laug.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think the Chapter Approved is going to do much other than really disincentivize anything Forgeworld, and caused some minor rejiggling of a few netlists, and that's about it. The game still has massive balance issues and GW's response was typically incomprehensible, as is tradition. Overall the game is better than 7th, but not really in a better place than some previous editions. It's playable, but still has massive glaring issues.

Chaos lists are going to need more than a "minor rejiggling" now that the malefic lord is no longer playable, and I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.

I've never even seen a Malefic Lord.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I can pretty much guarantee you every SM and CSM list is going to have a fire raptor or two in it now.

What sort of WAAC players are you surrounded by? Most people I've met have their established collections which they add to over the years, and that's what they can pull models from. Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?

"Competitive" MTG players easy and they do it on a shorter cycle.

It's all right.

I've played 40k on and off since 3rd edition, and I prefer this edition to every previous edition of 40k that I've experienced. 7th edition was really horrendous, to the point of being nearly unplayable.

Some games do not need to be good for me to have fun playing them. Some badly designed games still somehow manage to entertain. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing well-designed, balanced games, but 40k is much more than just a set of rules.

For me it's still sufficient that 8th edition is better than 6th and 7th editions.

Gonna concur with the "Dumpster fire" comment, the only things that kept me into 40k at all was the fluff (which I think turned to pure garbage now) and the minis (which I am also pretty disgusted with) so yeah the rules I find for 8th being easily the worst mini game on the market today.

Bad, to the point that I have boxed my IG collection that I have been playing with since 4th, and stopped playing entirely.
Its not the cheese for me, its the lack of depth to the rules, coupled with the massive price for the supplements including, laughably, the FAQ and errata (for reference when Bolt Action was in its first iteration and was found to have mistakes Warlord Games released an FAQ and errata and also included rules for new units, all for free.

By comparison GW is charging players through the nose for a bunch of half-assed changes that look as though they where done by throwing darts at a bunch of post-it-notes on a board.

The rules are shallow and look like someone was playing a RTS with a copy of AoS on the table nearby and thought "hmm, these would work well together". What litle strategy and tactics that was in the game has vanished.

Sure, Guard are strong now, but its a blatant cash grab as the only units that where good last edition have now been nerfed into oblivion whilst the previously 'so bad we never take them' units have been buffed to be autotakes in a blatant cash grab.
And, to add to this Guard have been nerfed heavily in the past few updates.

No, 40K is not for me these days.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Who has the money or the will to drop £220 on two new models just because they're good this 6 month point cycle?

Plenty of people. $300 is not a massive amount of money in the context of adult hobbies.

Right. But a Fire Raptor seems pointless to me.
Don't hide behind seemingly too overpowered models.
You could be perceived as a coward or whatnot.

Still unbalanced and ok. Im in it for painting and collecting first, playing second. The occasional game is fun.
I think GW is headed in the right direction. I personally feel more appreciated and taken seriously by GW as a long time customer, which I appreciate.
Model releases have been stellar.

I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird

It's "Bad. No fun." for me (not so much about the cheese part, as our group never had problem with communicating power level).

I'm narrative and not competetive player and what annoys me the most is that 8th feels so "flat" across factions compared to what we had before. Additionally "buff bubble" mechanics goes against "all over board presence" style of play I like. Because of this uniformity, there is so little to explore, so little to experiment with. Different builds often feel very samey and with every new Codex released stratagem mechanics already feels more like concealed formations than actual strategy cards of the old 2nd ed days. And for someone who played ~150 games of 7th and invested heavily in houseruling it, "out of the box" 8th severly lacks interesting replayability.

The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything. The FAQs and CA have basically made it that any unit/weapon can be nerfed for any reason - even when it appeared underpowered/underused to begin with. Hence, I don't really want to buy a unit that seems decent now, only for it to be randomly nerfed a month or so down the line.

To be clear, this isn't me saying 'I want to buy the most OP stuff and have it stay OP'. This is me saying I don't want to buy something that isn't OP and then have it nerfed to the point of being basically unplayable.

 Peregrine wrote:
Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.

Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?

(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.

The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything

Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.

In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.

Still at least there is Necromunda and Shadespire to add some variety to their range - I don't know why they did not do a pdf for hive gang milita for 40k - cross selling is a thing..

 Mr Morden wrote:

Same for different reasons - plenty of money to spend but when all they are releasing is Marine related - can't be bothered as I have hundreds of them already.

In fact has there been a single new model for 40k 8th ed that's not marine related? No new Eldar Aspects, no new Sisters, no new Mechanicus, Just more and more Marines. Yawn.

That's also a very good point.

I think it's made even worse my GW clamping down even harder on options that don't have corresponding models.

For example, I'd be fine with GW letting my DE HQs take Jetbikes or Wings, even if there weren't appropriate models. I'd far rather spend some time converting Scourges or Reavers or whatever than not have those options exist at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
Dumpster fire. 8th is a monument to bad game design that only looks good because 7th was somehow even worse. But TBH my biggest complaint isn't even the balance issues. It's the complete lack of strategic depth, over-homogenization, and obsessive D6 rolling. I can fix balance issues by agreeing to tone down the most abusive lists if it's necessary to have an enjoyable game with someone. I can't fix the issues with the core rules without writing an entirely new game.

Oh look it's peregrine, here to say that 8th is one of the worst things to happen to 40k ever.


Again

If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.

 Rolsheen wrote:
I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird

I love you too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.

Sorry, I thought this was the "state of 40k" poll thread, not the "post how much you love 40k" thread. My mistake.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
I voted awesome, I'm loving the new edition.
Not just for the rules and the fluff but because it has forced all those whiny annoying idiots to bugger off and let us play in peace. Just need to feed some pesticide to a certain little bird

I love you too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
If you don't like it, leave it. No one is forcing you to stay here.

Sorry, I thought this was the "state of 40k" poll thread, not the "post how much you love 40k" thread. My mistake.

There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."

 vipoid wrote:
Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?

(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.

I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:

1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.

2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.

3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.

4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.

5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.

6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.

7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.

8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.

9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."

There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.

 Peregrine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?

(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.

I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:

1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.

2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.

3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.

4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.

5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.

6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.

7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.

8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.

9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."

There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.

1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy

2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.

3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.

4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.

5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...

6. Play matched play

7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good

8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.

9. I'll give you this one but soup armies will probably get you the label of TFG and you can't piss off people if they don't play with you. Deathstars can be countered by snipers, use them.


You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.

I'm amazed how your response to people being sick of your complaining is to double down with larger complaining.

I'm digging 8th. I'm OK admitting it's not perfect, but it got me back into 40k since last playing in the 4E/5E transition. The game is quick and straightforward, and GW is making all the right moves with releases and community outreach to keep me engaged. The new approach of putting the rules on the unit entries is a huge benefit, just could use a little closer scrutiny for errors. The new models have been stunning, pretty much across the board. I'm happy to be a 40k fan again!

 kastelen wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?

(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.

I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:

1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.

2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.

3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.

4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.

5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.

6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.

7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.

8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.

9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."

There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.

1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy

2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.

3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.

4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.

5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...

6. Play matched play

7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good

8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.

9. I'll give you this one but soup armies will probably get you the label of TFG and you can't piss off people if they don't play with you. Deathstars can be countered by snipers, use them.


You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.

Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".

That was my guess up until now but thanks for confirming it. I'm going to go to sleep now and when I wake up this thread better be a smoking hellscape.

 kastelen wrote:
1. Eh, I'll give that to you but if you don't blatantly abuse the rules there is a small level of stratagy

This really just highlights my point. You have to house rule the game, and even if you do you only get a small amount of strategy. A game with 40k's level of rules complexity should have a lot more to justify the word count.

2. no, saying everything wounds on a six is stupid unless you are spamming bare bones basic infantry against vehicles. A 2+ should be rare for wounding because balancing. I'll give you the flyers one but barely.

I think you misunderstood. I meant that everything wounds on at least a 6. Lasguns should do literally nothing against frontal armor on a LRBT. But instead choosing the right weapon is usually little more than the difference between a 4+ and a 5+, instead of bad choices crippling your army and giving you no hope of success.

And why should wounding on a 2+ be rare? Why is it inherently more balanced to limit the power of certain weapons? There's nothing preventing you from having weapons that wound on a 2+ cost an appropriate amount of points to reflect their power.

3. I can see your point but saying that something should act the same every time you use it is stupid when you look at a rapid fire weapon or laser that could have either struck or missed vital organs.

That difference in hit location is already included in the to-hit and to-wound rolls, we don't need yet another D6 roll to see what happens.

4. Carrying around 3 books (I play admech) isn't that bad, pure index armies are just going to have to spend slightly less money. You have a point about the USRs but that makes armies different which will open up new stratagies.

It's not about book count, it's about the total length of the rules. 40k is a very shallow game that has a very high word count for its rules, which is poor design. A game with shallow strategy should have very simple rules, a game with complex rules should have deep strategy to justify the existence of those rules. If you aren't getting deep and interesting strategy out of your rules then you need to trim the length down to something more appropriate.

And no, it doesn't make armies different, because most of them are effectively the same rule. The slight differences between the dozens of deep strike variants or "re-roll 1s to hit" rules don't make armies unique, and offer nothing in return compared to just giving those units the same USR.

5. If you don't like it then make house rules or don't play at all. It's been working fine for me and my friends so your complaints aren't exactly universal...

It's impossible to house rule something that is a core part of the game. And the existence of a house rule is a concession that the rules are broken.

6. Play matched play

Yes, obviously you can avoid the problem by never using the rules, but those rules are terrible design even if you can choose not to use them. Saying "if you don't like it just do something else" is not a valid defense of them.

7. better to make a unit just under unusable and slightly bump them up until they work than make them OP then UP until the unit is good

Blatant false dilemma fallacy. There's a third option: make the unit balanced. Everyone with even a superficial understanding of the game can tell that 4ppm conscripts are not a viable option, and are effectively removed from the codex. There is no need to print those rules to see what happens with them, GW could have gone straight to the next iteration of balance changes.

8. Make an army that could counter this, or just do it yourself if it's going to be too good.

You're missing the point. It's not about winning, it's about the fact that the rules are poorly designed and easily exploitable in ways that are not fun at all. Winning with an exercise in masochism is not a solution to this problem.

You're saying this like basically everything about 8th ed is wrong which is kind of stupid when you see all of the positive feedback GW have been getting. People will recognise when there's a problem and say it but I haven't seen that as much as I should if it's a dumpster fire.

Four things:

1) People are bad at game design and understanding what makes a good game. A quick look at the proposed rules forum will tell you this.

2) Casual at all costs players love their virtue signalling, praising bad game design because it is "casual" and reinforces their beliefs about how the game is supposed to be played. It's still bad design.

3) GW gets a lot of credit simply because 8th is less of a dumpster fire than 7th, which was borderline unplayable by the end. A lot of the praise they are getting needs to be viewed in the context of "thank god it's not 7th", and it remains to be seen how long this positive attitude will last if GW doesn't start doing better than "not quite as terrible as the previous edition".

4) This is a GW-heavy forum, and people who hate the game often stop participating entirely. So there's going to be a strong selection bias at work, where the positive voices are over-represented because people who don't have positive opinions aren't around anymore to offer a counter. It's like showing up at a sporting event and asking how many people like the home team. Even if the team is unpopular with the world as a whole you're going to get an overwhelming majority of positive answers.

Thanks for replying/

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.

That's definitely true. I don't mind no-scatter deep-strike in principle (I don't think the randomness added much tactical depth), but being able to do it turn one with a ton of units for basically no cost makes it rather silly.

Regardless, I think 40k has always struggled with tactical depth. It seems you always end up with a ton of rules but few real options.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.

I'll admit to being torn on this. On the one hand, I get what you mean with regard to wounding. On the other, it's nice that lasguns actually have a function - as opposed ti 7th when they were just a light-show and never accomplished anything ever (even en masse).

And, frankly, I found fliers to be amongst the worst and most boring rules in 6th/7th. Having a unit that was basically invincible barring dumb luck didn't add much tactical depth to the game - especially when many armies had virtually no counters to them. I certainly prefer the current rules to that.

Perhaps the bigger issue though is that they don't really belong on the board in the first place. They shouldn't even be visible to units on the board, let along in range of their weapons. They're the sort of unit that should be represented by air-strikes or bombing runs, not by physical models.

I agree about Heavy Weapons. Also, whilst I don't especially mind vehicles and MCs both using toughness, giving every vehicle an attack characteristic just seems weird to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.

Absolutely agree.

 Peregrine wrote:

4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.

Yeah, at the very least I think 8th should have just kept USRs. I mean, if Deep Strike is going to work the same on virtually every model, could they really not just call it Deep Strike on all of them?

 Peregrine wrote:

5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.

Agreed.

 Peregrine wrote:

6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.

There seems to be a weird mindset wherein anything you do needs to be officially sanctioned by GW in writing. I feel the 'Open Play' section could have been replaced by a small note/suggestion on House Rules.

Reminds me of a while back when, in one of their general FAQs, GW said that they couldn't allow any 40k-related tattoos. There was no mention of how they intended to enforce this. Perhaps store managers were henceforth armed with cheese-graters?

 Peregrine wrote:

7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.

CA definitely seems like a step backward. And one which players are expected to pay for.

I'm genuinely curious about how they decide what needs a change of point cost. I mean, who was complaining about Meltaguns on Scions or Veterans? Who was complaining about the price of the Command Rod on the Tempestor Prime? They just seem really random things to fiddle with.

 Peregrine wrote:

8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.

 Peregrine wrote:

9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.

The detachment system also means that you can take basically anything, whilst still keeping different armies in their own detachments to maintain their bonuses.


I think we agree that 8th is an improvement over 7th (if only because of how abysmal 7th was). But I agree that there have been a lot of missteps and there's a lot of room for improvement.

nou wrote:
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".

Alternatively, I don't buy the idea that the 40k rules are good for any part of the community. I have stated, over and over again, that there are different needs, but GW fails to meet any of them. The things that make 40k bad for competitive tournaments also make it bad for narrative and "casual" players. There is never any situation where, for example, having poor balance is a good thing. It never, under any circumstances, improves the game for anyone. It's just a failure of design.

Nor do I buy the idea that just because someone has an opinion I have to accept it as valid. People can be wrong about game design, and often are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I don't mind no-scatter deep-strike in principle (I don't think the randomness added much tactical depth)

Strongly disagree. The randomness added a lot of risk vs. reward strategy to something that would otherwise be an automatic choice. For example, to use melta effectively you needed to be within 6", but that meant accepting at least a 50% chance of either scattering out of range or into a mishap. You had to make hard choices on how aggressively you wanted to play your units, and what risk of failure you were willing to accept to get the best shot. And it forced you to consider other delivery options: outflanking, fast transports, etc, which had a weaker best-case scenario but a much lower level of risk.

With no-scatter deep strike it's just an automatic choice for every unit that is capable of it. There's no situation where using it ever hurts you, so why not deep strike those units directly into position?

On the other, it's nice that lasguns actually have a function - as opposed ti 7th when they were just a light-show and never accomplished anything ever (even en masse).

The problem there was less about the lasguns (which were fine in cost effectiveness against other troops) and more about things like MC spam, re-rollable 2++ death stars, etc. If you remove some of the stupidity of 7th you have lasguns that are an anti-infantry weapon, but not a substitute for bringing and effectively using actual anti-tank weapons.

And, frankly, I found fliers to be amongst the worst and most boring rules in 6th/7th. Having a unit that was basically invincible barring dumb luck didn't add much tactical depth to the game - especially when many armies had virtually no counters to them. I certainly prefer the current rules to that.

They were only invincible if you didn't bring AA, which is kind of my point. Why didn't you bring ground-based AA? Why didn't you bring air superiority fighters? If you were limited to throwing dice and hoping for 6s then you failed in list construction, and should be punished for your poor strategy. But now in 8th edition there's effectively no consequence to not bringing AA units. You just suffer a -1 penalty to hit, which is largely offset by the weaker durability of most flyers compared to normal vehicles. The same weapons that you bring to deal with tanks can deal with flyers just fine.

Reminds me of a while back when, in one of their general FAQs, GW said that they couldn't allow any 40k-related tattoos. There was no mention of how they intended to enforce this. Perhaps store managers were henceforth armed with cheese-graters?

To be fair, this is the sort of thing that GW has to say to maintain their IP rights. In practical terms it just gives them grounds for sending a C&D letter if they find out that a tattoo shop is infringing upon their IP rights, and provides written documentation that GW is not allowing anyone to use their IP in that way. It's a bit silly, but I can't hold that one against them.

The state of the game is still a mess.
We have some oversimplifications (such as the issue with cover).
They neither help the existing players nor will they bring more new players into the game.
We have zero new players here over the last two years.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
Kastelen, you are relatively new here, right? Peregrine doesn't do well in "broad multi-factor analysis of averaged community needs and eventual GW responses to said statistics", he goes by a simple "anything that isn't exactly my point of view is total BS and people who enjoy other things that I do or enjoy them differently are dumb".

Alternatively, I don't buy the idea that the 40k rules are good for any part of the community. I have stated, over and over again, that there are different needs, but GW fails to meet any of them. The things that make 40k bad for competitive tournaments also make it bad for narrative and "casual" players. There is never any situation where, for example, having poor balance is a good thing. It never, under any circumstances, improves the game for anyone. It's just a failure of design.

Nor do I buy the idea that just because someone has an opinion I have to accept it as valid. People can be wrong about game design, and often are.

And yet there is whole lot of people who are both part of this community and enjoy 8th ed deeply, so apparently GW managed to meet needs of at least those people, no? You have empyrical proof right here in this very thread and yet you still claim, that GW does nothing good to anyone ever. You resolve to arguing with some theoretical "casual", "narrative" and "competetive" categories of community members instead of actually witnessing what numerous real people have to say about their enjoyment and actually LEARN something about this community for once...

We also discussed on various occasions, that what you personally think is good game design is not universally acknowledged as the ONLY WAY (or often even a good way altogether) of doing games the right way, because you still fail to understand one, very, very simple truth about people - what you THINK people needs are and what is good for them and what those needs trully ARE is not the same thing... And that different games may aim at different goals. There is no such thing as a single, best and greatest game ever that ends all of humanity gaming needs and no other game has to ever be wrote again... I personally don't enjoy 8th and I'm vocal about it, but don't think that people who do "are wrong about good game design".

And you don't have to accept any POV as valid, it's entirely up to you. But you should at least think about why there is an increasing number of dakkanauts that adress you specifically in different threads as the most stubborn/unthoughtfull/annoing person here. You always write in absolute statements (even in this very post I'm replying to right now) and usually resolve to "eristic juggling" when cornered (happened a lot in threads we were both active in). I can't remember any post from you in which you were genuinely content about anything. For quite a long time now I'm sincerely puzzled why on earth you still spend time on this forum and with 40K in general, as you seem to derive absolutely no pleasure (both in terms of fun or intelectual challange) from this game, or in fact anything GW related...

 Peregrine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Peregrine, have you ever done a post listing your specific issues with 8th?

(I ask because I've only ever seen you call it a 'dumpster fire' and then move on. )

I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, I'd just be interested to see you explain what specifically you dislike about 8th.

I have, in various levels of detail, but I'll give a few here:

1) Incredibly shallow strategy, despite high complexity. 40k is a game with a ton of rules, but very limited strategy beyond assembling a list of overpowered options and then executing the obvious plan. The winner is usually the person who has the best dice luck and/or the more overpowered list. Only rarely do you see a clever strategic play winning a game. 8th edition makes this worse with things like easy no-scatter deep strike on the first turn. Once you figure out the obvious, that taking plasma IG command squads is good, there's very little strategy involved beyond "I have plasma, remove those units from the table". Or, now that heavy weapons can move and shoot with only a -1 penalty, who cares if you deploy them badly, just move to a better spot and keep shooting.

2) Massive over-homogenization. Everything wounds on at least a 6 and rarely better than a 3+, vehicles and MCs are now identical except for keywords, flyers are barely different from ground units, etc. Consider flyers, for example. In previous editions they were completely different from ground units, and you could be completely screwed if you didn't bring appropriate AA units. In 8th? Just shoot your normal guns at them. Or think about the heavy weapon problem again. The "move or shoot" rule is gone entirely, so heavy weapons are just better guns and you always take them whenever possible.

3) Excessive randomness. Roll a D6 to see how many D6s you roll to see how many D6s you roll, then roll some more D6s. Random shots is stupid, random damage is stupid. It replaces the pretty straightforward math of previous editions with a massive variation in possible outcomes and math that requires statistics software and way too much time to analyze. Instead of being able to make intelligent decisions about what to do all you can really do is throw some dice and hope they roll well.

4) Continued rules bloat. Remember how 8th edition was supposed to be simple? Yeah, that didn't last long. The core rules are shorter, but only because all of the USRs are copy/pasted onto every unit that has them.

5) Continued scale issues. 40k can't decide if it's a skirmish-scale game where the difference between a power sword and power axe on a sergeant is relevant, or an army-scale game where a massive titan can remove the sergeant and his entire squad in one shot. As a result it has rules that are an awkward combination of the two, doing neither thing well.

6) Pandering to "casual at all costs" idiocy. Power levels are just a point system for people who like virtue signalling about how they don't care about balance, and open play shouldn't even exist at all. GW's continued attempts to push an inherently poor system while marginalizing the superior one is irritating.

7) Continued incompetence in balance. CA is a debacle. Conscripts at the same 4ppm cost as infantry squads that are superior in every relevant way? FW models getting nerfed to the point of insanity, despite already being too weak to see any real use? It's clear that GW doesn't really understand the game, and has little or no interest in getting things right. I suppose it's better than 7th, but only because GW's previous efforts set such a low bar to overcome.

8) Character rules that are broken and easily exploitable. It's only the fact that most people aren't TFG enough to bring an army of nothing but characters and reduce the game to an exercise in masochism that this problem is somewhat mitigated.

9) List construction rules that favor "soup" lists and stacking buffs. Remember how death stars were supposed to be gone? Now you don't even need a separate detachment to bring the best buff HQs from a dozen different armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:
There's a difference between "There are things bad with 8th that could be easily fixed, here they are." And "ABSOLUTE FETHING TRASH."

There is, and 8th is in the second category. If it was a decent game with a few minor and easily fixed flaws I would say so, but it isn't. 8th edition is a trash game with problems that are a fundamental part of GW's vision for what 8th edition is. The way to fix it is to delete the entire rulebook and start over.

Me and Peregrine rarely agree on things but this is one of them, I will add to that list though

10: the Fluff so far is some of the worst mary sue nonsense I have ever read from GW, not C.S Goto bad... Yet, it could have and should have been handled in a much better manner, but so far it breaks established fluff with handwavium and Deus Ex moments aplenty.....

11: 40k Players trying to infect 30k with 8th Ed rules, heres the kicker, most 30k players dont want it, some 40k players who also play 30k want it, 30k already had an edited ruleset in 7th, and it worked for 30k quite well, it was a different game that used a similar ruleset, and I for one am happy it has stayed in 7th, or 1st Ed 30k as it will be come to be known. Incidently a fan made 30k ruleset is good, because it is being done by people who are not incompitent.

They seemed to be off to a good start with the base indexes, but I feel they ran off into a minefield with the Codex releases, and feel CA is only going to make things worse.

I've only been buying the card sets at this point, and waiting to see what will be done with Tau and Necrons. There's a good chance my future purchases from GW have come to a screeching, utter halt. I have the models I want now, and their rules writing is not inspiring confidence in the longevity of 8th.