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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stux wrote:
People don't know what they want for the most part. When 8th launched and we were playing a truly streamlined ruleset there were people complaining about lack of depth.

That is a serious misunderstanding of depth and complexity. Depth is about how interesting the gameplay decisions are, complexity vs. streamlining is about word count in the rules. For example, "heavy weapons are -1 to hit if the model moves" and "heavy weapons can not fire if the model moves" are equivalent in complexity but very different in depth. Having heavy weapons be move-or-shoot forces strategic decisions about how to deploy them, whether it's worth moving at the expense of shooting that expensive lascannon, etc. In fact, because effective use of a heavy weapon is situational it is often a poor idea to buy one at all. Having them fire at a -1 penalty minimizes the importance of those decisions because the possible outcomes are closer together. And since heavy weapons are still effective with that -1 penalty (the superior stat line over a basic gun more than offsets the to-hit penalty) there's rarely any choice about taking one.

8th edition at release was somewhat streamlined (though still burdened with nonsense like caring about exactly what melee weapon a sergeant has before a titan removes the entire squad in one shot or a million different versions of "re-roll 1s") compared to the utter disaster of 7th, but only because it was an incomplete game with temporary army lists. It was also a very shallow game with excessive homogenization, minimized importance of LOS/maneuvering/etc, and way too much rolling dice to see how many dice you roll to see who wins the game. Now, after the full game has been released, it's still a very shallow game where the primary deciding factor in who wins is CCG-style list optimization (and how willing each player is to sacrifice everything besides math optimization in making their army) but the word count of the rules is significantly longer.

As if the clouds had parted and the skies themselves crafted a brick, a steaming brick of utter truth. I commend you sir, exalted and on my knees again I say, exalted.

Undecided, I haven't seen the Genestealer Cult codex yet nor the new sisters models.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The core of 7E had a lot of issues in and of itself. I cannot recall a single game of 7E that did not resort to house rules of some form, even if it was just terrain setup. Vehicle rules were an atrocious mess (lets just make all vehicles W2/W3 models with no save on top of the damage table kill mechanic), the Jink mechanic was absurdly poweful and overused, wound allocation was overdetailed and had poor effects on game balance, even the most basic mission design was awful (oh look, they kept Big Guns and Scouring the same as 6E...except HS and FA choices now have no unique scoring ability to offset their added kill value), psychic powers were comically poorly balanced (e.g. Invisibility), the core game rules were really a poor amalgamation of a number of badly implemented patchs that were never well thought out.

8E is far from perfect, but I think the core ruleset has fewer basic issues.

I don't have much time,
but when I do,
I demand house ruled terrain and targeting mechanics.
8th suffers from a lack of realism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
8E scaled back some of the worst excesses of 7E. The 6E/7E period was by far the lowest point of 40k's existence, both in terms of quality of the rules/balance, and market position/sales.

Now, i'd say we're more or less back to 5E levels of balance and rules quality, which is to say, mediocre at best, but dramatically better than the 2012-2017 days.

As for the story progression, eh...not really a fan of how they chose to do that, I think GW's general fluff quality has been on a downward trend for the last decade or so, and I think there's far too much focus on characters these days, but you can still just ignore most of it.

This too.^^

I'd have to say yes...with a simple caveat.

I stated openly months before 8th arrived that I thought it was impossible GW would kill off the mess of 7th edition and re-do the game in such a fashion that I'd be interested in playing it. So, they did...and that's cool. I was playing 2nd ediiton still at the time and enjoying it.

Now back to the caveat. I don't do tournaments. That's such an exceptionally narrow portion of 40K, that I can understand why those who do are griping, etc. The core fundamentals of 8th are good and fun. The game I play barely looks like 40K to most people (we play Tokenhammer, house-rules, etc.). However all of that would not exist without a decent and fun chassis. I don't care about FAQs or Meta, or codex balance nearly as much as other people do - so I'm able to enjoy the game, form it to meet my expectations and carry on. Same goes for my local group.

8th as a chassis is very easy to understand, very easy to house rule, and very easy to create scenarios, units, etc. for house rules and custom play. A lot of the unncessary gunk is gone, and we're no longer slapping putty on 3rd edition rules every year and a half and claiming it's a new edition.

Most important of all is probably that 8th makes cool and thematic events occur on the tabletop more than I've seen in previous editions. You're often able to get a darn good yarn out of a game. I do feel bad for the people who limit themselves to the tournament scene and meta, etc., but that's the type of environment or game that they enjoy.

I guess I'll weigh in...

Initially Yes! Later in spring, no...

As a space marines player after the Tau and DE release I can't win (with vanilla marines)

Though not entirely true I guess? I won a game with GKs against DE which will probably never happen again. Basically my opponent is awful at list building, for example in 7th he opted for the normal for org chart instead of the default DE chart which literally made playing him a joke

Did I get what I wanted? Somewhat.

First, the good:

- The rules have definitely been streamlined since 7th and are now not quite as bloated as they were.

- The ridiculously broken Formations and super-Formations are gone.

- I much prefer the new psychic rules.

- Whilst the balance is still pretty bad, it's definitely far better than 6th or 7th.

- I like that characters have buff abilities, rather than all non-psychic characters just being beatsticks.

- I like that psychic powers, warlord traits etc. are no longer randomly generated.

- I like that vehicles and monsters get weaker when wounded.

- I like that any weapon wounds any target on a 6+.

- Imperial Guard can field infantry armies without getting blown off the table within a couple of turns.

- Dark Lances and Blasters are finally worth a damn. As are Mandrakes.


Now, the bad:

- Whilst the game has been streamlined, it seems like a lot of flesh was trimmed along with the fat. The Initiative mechanic didn't seem overly complex. And, quite frankly, seems far more intuitive than the current mess of a combat system.

- The removal of USRs. Do we really need 400 different names for the same rule?

- The detachment and CP system just seems like an absolute mess, even before we get to the issues caused by allies sharing CPs.

- Stratagems are an interesting idea, but I don't think this was the right time to implement them. It seems like a bad idea to remove unnecessary special rules from the old game, only to dump a load of different ones into it.

- Seize the Initiative is utterly pointless. So we roll to see who goes first. And then we roll to see who really goes first. Wow, what a useful rule.

- The transport rule is very strange. I can understand them wanting some sort of limitation, but only allowing troops to disembark before the transport moves - even for stuff like open-topped transports and Land Raiders - just seems completely counter-intuitive and contrary to the purpose of those vehicles.

- The rules for targeting characters are an absolute mess.


In terms of individual codices:

- Splitting the Dark Eldar codex into 3 subfactions - after removing yet another two units from it - was a big mistake. It just doesn't have enough units to do this, especially when GW refuses to get off their arses and give us some models. I'm not asking for new units you understand - just the units GW has systematically removed from the codex with every edition. I think we're up to about 10 now. If you count the mobility options our HQs lost, it's probably closer to 15.

- The entire Dark Eldar HQ section can go die in a fire.

- The Necron codex just bores me to sleep. The Destroyer Lord (my favourite unit) is a dedicated-melee HQ who is only capable of buffing two units - both of them long-range shooters. So that was well thought out. But, that aside, I just can't muster any enthusiasm to play them. I'm not sure what it is exactly, there's just something about the current book that makes them incredibly dull - to the point where I start writing an army for them but lose interest every time.

- Me in 7th - 'Wow, these Corsairs are great. They're everything I wanted for 7th edition Dark Eldar. I can't wait to play them in 8th.'

 Ginjitzu wrote:
! If I hadn't written the post myself, I'd be accusing the poster of being a GW plant right now!

How do we know you AREN'T a GW plant?
How do we know you aren't a LITERAL plant?

Mr Morden wrote:

Spoiler:

bibotot wrote:
No. Why is Space Marines still crap after all these years? Back in 7th edition, all Space Marine armies were weak, except when it comes to Tournaments where playing the objective is important. Until I see Space Marines actually winning Tournaments consistently (because they are the MOST played faction), I can't consider them balanced in any way.

I seem to recall some very borken SM formations - in an eiditon that some armies did not even get a formation.

8th for me is far far better than 7th and most of the new rules I am happy with, making the terrain rules non optional and some other tweeks would be helpful.

Curious! Why would you make terrain rules non optional?

********************************************************************************

Toofast wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

But is it fair to measure balance in this way? Tournaments will always consist of people actively trying to exploit weaknesses in the rules to gain advantage, and even if Games-Workshop actively try to close those loopholes, they will always be dramatically outnumbered. I'm reminded of a prison guard who said, "we only work eight hours per day to try to think of ways to keep these guys in, but they have literally nothing else to think about all day." OK, so tabletop gamers aren't exactly as limited in their range of life activities as prisoners, but then again...

That would be a good excuse, but GW admits they don't even try very hard to make balanced rules. They make rules for fluff, fun, and selling models, with balance coming in last as a concern. They also don't playtest the rules very well. Video game devs figured out a long time ago that there's more players than devs, and they're better at breaking the game. That's why they have early access, betas, PTR servers, etc. If GW put out a beta codex 3-6 months ahead of release of the regular codex, the players would have a chance to break it, figure out what is undercosted/overcosted, point out spelling errors or contradictions in the rules, and then the final version could be far more balanced. They are finally doing that with SoB codex, but it's taken them damn near 30 years to figure that out. Every codex written for 8th has already needed FAQs and erratas. If devs can balance a game like Dota with 117 heroes, 468 abilities and 100 items that all interact with each other and scale throughout the game, GW can balance 20 odd factions. It would just require balance to be a primary concern instead of the last cursory glance before the book goes to print.

I actually believe that fun and fluff should precede balance in order of importance, but it's certainly an issue when the fun is impacted by poor balance. I think it's madness that it took them this long to realize that products have to be tested to ensure quality. Then again, I have worked with multi-billion dollar software development corporations who still struggle with this concept. I think the frequency of issues that require FAQs and errata probably has a lot to do with the pace at which they are churning out content, which of course is no excuse considering how much they charge for said content! I don't think the Dota comparison is fair. For starters, I don't agree that "20 odd factions" is that insignificant in complexity; in fact, I somewhat feel like it might be far more complex than 117 heroes, 468 abilities and 100 items. Secondly, if a developer wants to re-balance a video game, they can just roll out a software update to the entire player base at the speed of an internet connection. And lastly, though Games-Workshop may be the king of the tabletop gaming industry, they're barely fry when considered next to the behemoth that is valve.

********************************************************************************

LumenPraebeo wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
! If I hadn't written the post myself, I'd be accusing the poster of being a GW plant right now!

How do we know you AREN'T a GW plant?
How do we know you aren't a LITERAL plant?

Huh? *Glances around nervously; rustles leaves.* Did you hear someone call my name? I think I heard someone call my name. I should go.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

ccs wrote:
Well, as a just returning player (and veteran wargamer), I'm going to go with mostly no.

What have you been playing in the interim,

To name several; A few editions of Flames of War & it's spin offs, Battle Group (WWII), SW Legion, Bolt Action, X-Wing, Drop Fleet Commander, Battle-Tech, Blood & Plunder, Sail Power, Blue Max & Aerodrome (both WWI bi-plane games), a bit of HeroClix, some Dystopian Wars, Some Robotech RPG minis, a handful of spaceship combat games, and a wide assortment of historical 15mm-30mm stuff ranging from ancients up through Napoleon....

 Ginjitzu wrote:
and what were you hoping to find on your return?

Well, I wasn't expecting to find terrain, LoS, & weapon fire arcs to have been simplified to the current absurd levels of abstraction. They don't have to be as detailed as some of the stuff I've been playing, but this is ridiculous.

Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

For starters, I don't agree that "20 odd factions" is that insignificant in complexity; in fact, I somewhat feel like it might be far more complex than 117 heroes, 468 abilities and 100 items. Secondly, if a developer wants to re-balance a video game, they can just roll out a software update to the entire player base at the speed of an internet connection. And lastly, though Games-Workshop may be the king of the tabletop gaming industry, they're barely fry when considered next to the behemoth that is valve.

Ok, but there is a difference when one faction has 5-6 often used models, which tournament players probablly call good, and another faction having a similar number of models and zero models someone may want to play with. I get that they can't fix every model to a degree that each one is going to be a valid choice, and every unit being the best is probably not possible to achive for humans, without having pre build armies. What I would like to see from GW is fixing really broke stuff. Something like a codex with zero units worth using be it mono list or ally, should not exist. Or at least they should put up some tag on their book, this is not ment for normal play. Maybe do something like AoS and just give such armies only power points, or maybe not even that, so only crazy narrative people can use those army, and no one else walks in to the trap of spending money on such armies.

ccs wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

ccs wrote:
Well, as a just returning player (and veteran wargamer), I'm going to go with mostly no.

What have you been playing in the interim,

To name several; A few editions of Flames of War & it's spin offs, Battle Group (WWII), SW Legion, Bolt Action, X-Wing, Drop Fleet Commander, Battle-Tech, Blood & Plunder, Sail Power, Blue Max & Aerodrome (both WWI bi-plane games), a bit of HeroClix, some Dystopian Wars, Some Robotech RPG minis, a handful of spaceship combat games, and a wide assortment of historical 15mm-30mm stuff ranging from ancients up through Napoleon....

 Ginjitzu wrote:
and what were you hoping to find on your return?

Well, I wasn't expecting to find terrain, LoS, & weapon fire arcs to have been simplified to the current absurd levels of abstraction. They don't have to be as detailed as some of the stuff I've been playing, but this is ridiculous.

Have you looked into Kill Team or Necromunda. I know they don't offer the same tanks-and-monsters scale as 40k, but their rules might interest you more. I've never played it, but I'm told Necromunda has some satisfyingly pedantic rules, not that it looks like your suffering from a shortage of games or anything.

Not really, as what I really want above all else is a total rehash of the game. Not just binning the d6 system, but the toughness/strength mechanics. All of it. A top-down rework of 40k's mechanics for something wholly new for Warhammer and not a bastardization of prior existing systems.

8th edition is certainly better than 7th, but while improving they just screwed up in new ways while not going far enough to fix old problems. All 8th edition feels like is shoving blobs of models around a curler cue and then sweeping them into a bucket. Either that or you field an army consisting of horrendously expensive centerpiece models. Everything plays as a horde or it sucks.

Frankly as a game? 40K is still objectively terrible and needs a lot of work, and possibly another company if GW never takes itself seriously. The only thing still keeping 40k afloat is the lore and aesthetic, but mechanically it's a gakshow.

 Wyzilla wrote:
All 8th edition feels like is shoving blobs of models around a curler cue and then sweeping them into a bucket. Either that or you field an army consisting of horrendously expensive centerpiece models. Everything plays as a horde or it sucks.

That's why I suggested Kill Team & Necromunda. Those games don't have hordes or centerpiece models. Though maybe the fundamental mechanics are too close to 40k for your liking.

The good: I (finaly!!) got FAQs on a regular basis. That finaly brought me back to wargaming after a long brake.
The bad"ish": I wish they relased small point adjustments for matched play more frequently. And especially on units that almost nooen uses, make them cheaper.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
All 8th edition feels like is shoving blobs of models around a curler cue and then sweeping them into a bucket. Either that or you field an army consisting of horrendously expensive centerpiece models. Everything plays as a horde or it sucks.

That's why I suggested Kill Team & Necromunda. Those games don't have hordes or centerpiece models. Though maybe the fundamental mechanics are too close to 40k for your liking.

They're better, but they are still easily broken and have terrible balance. A good game has fair chances of either side winning. Not one person throwing in the towel because somebody brought Deathwatch or Death Guard and proceeds to murder everything because game designers can't do their job. Likewise kill team is merely a reversal of 40k, where hordes are hot garbage and players who try to use them are actively punished. The core issue is that GW's game designers are bad at their jobs as they do not even care about making games in the first place.

 Wibe wrote:

The bad"ish": I wish they relased small point adjustments for matched play more frequently. And especially on units that almost nooen uses, make them cheaper.

They're hoarding points adjustments for chapter approved, which is actually a pretty significant negative for me. You don't have to read too many of my posts to know that I'm pretty forgiving of issues with rules and loopholes, but selling us something with problems and then trying to sell us the solutions later is pretty god damned cynical and poor form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The core issue is that GW's game designers are bad at their jobs as they do not even care about making games in the first place.

Ah, I think that's being a bit dramatic and a little unfair. You may not like the product, but that doesn't mean they don't care about it. My painting is rubbish, that doesn't mean I don't care about it. Heck, even Matt Ward probably cared about his writing.

Where is "absolutely not at all"?

I'd mostly yes at the beginning of 8th. Now I'm more on the fence, since 7th had a ton of problems that really could only be solved by talking it out with your opponent and having both players have the same expectation of competitiveness and how far to push the rules. 8th cleaned up a lot of that but I find it increasingly drifting into the same territory but for different reasons. It's no were near as bad but there are things I want GW to clean up.. I'm more hopeful than usual since GW is a lot more active in fixing things than they were in the past.

meleti wrote:
Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

At least for vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong (& then point me to the relevant page/FAQ/Errata), but a vehicle here in 8th can trace LoS & shoot you with any of its weapons from any point on the model. Regardless of where/how those weapons are actually modeled.
So when you're tank has a hull mounted gun (Ex: A SM Vindicators cannon) sticking out of its front, & you then shoot me with it out of the rear end of your tank, are you surprised when I feel like I've returned to a ruleset designed for simpletons?

ccs wrote:

meleti wrote:
Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

At least for vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong (& then point me to the relevant page/FAQ/Errata), but a vehicle here in 8th can trace LoS & shoot you with any of its weapons from any point on the model. Regardless of where/how those weapons are actually modeled.
So when you're tank has a hull mounted gun (Ex: A SM Vindicators cannon) sticking out of its front, & you then shoot me with it out of the rear end of your tank, are you surprised when I feel like I've returned to a ruleset designed for simpletons?

Don't forget how aircraft are somehow able to vomit out munitions out of their arse and strike things diagonally behind them that wouldn't have been in their sights even if they had strafed.

ccs wrote:

meleti wrote:
Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

At least for vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong (& then point me to the relevant page/FAQ/Errata), but a vehicle here in 8th can trace LoS & shoot you with any of its weapons from any point on the model. Regardless of where/how those weapons are actually modeled.
So when you're tank has a hull mounted gun (Ex: A SM Vindicators cannon) sticking out of its front, & you then shoot me with it out of the rear end of your tank, are you surprised when I feel like I've returned to a ruleset designed for simpletons?

It's designed so people don't spend several minutes getting the exact perfect angle only to end up arguing about it with their opponent anyway.

meleti wrote:

ccs wrote:

meleti wrote:
Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

At least for vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong (& then point me to the relevant page/FAQ/Errata), but a vehicle here in 8th can trace LoS & shoot you with any of its weapons from any point on the model. Regardless of where/how those weapons are actually modeled.
So when you're tank has a hull mounted gun (Ex: A SM Vindicators cannon) sticking out of its front, & you then shoot me with it out of the rear end of your tank, are you surprised when I feel like I've returned to a ruleset designed for simpletons?

It's designed so people don't spend several minutes getting the exact perfect angle only to end up arguing about it with their opponent anyway.

Absolutely, I much prefer this system. Arcs were a real pain in my opinion and I don't miss them in the slightest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It wasn't as bad in 2nd edition to be fair. Because you often only had one or two vehicles in your army, so spending half your shooting phase working out the shooting for one vehicle wasn't so big a deal. But with the current scale of the game, no thanks!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I’ll preface my answer by saying that 8th for me is subjectely more enjoyable than the last few editions. That being said...

The core rule book is a mess because they just took the rules bloat of 7th and distributed it around individual unit cards instead of having universal special rules which make it more disorganized.

8th is not more streamlined, the rules are all still a mess, you just have to dig harder to find them.

I never once wanted them to advance the storyline, and I think by adding primaris and the primarchs to the game, they have basically ruined the a lot of what made 40k cool and interesting.

For every good thing they did in 8th, they’ve done something wrong, so we’re still stuck with a fairly bad rules set. That being said I commend GW for making an effort this time..

/thread

Agree with everything here. I'll repeat what I always say (mainly about the utter absurdity of the OP's comment on the background)- 40k was never a storyline. It was a setting, it a was a conscious change that happened circa mid 6th ed IIRC. Why? I've no idea. You say 40k was "stagnant and boring". You had 10,000 years of history to play in. On a galactic scale of untold thousands of worlds. You know what 10,000 years is? That is longer than recorded human history so far. Is our own history "stagnant and boring"? Absolutely not. And that is just talking about one planet.

I fail to see how a massive sandbox with almost infinite potential for stories to be told in it can be "stagnant and boring".

I concur 100% with Peregrine.

1: The 40k ruleset is a bloated mess & should be cut down/simplified/streamlined.

2:The limitation on progressing the story beyond 999.M41 has made the 40k universe background stagnant & boring and the story should progress beyond this.

3: What they did to Warhammer Fantasy was a travesty and should never be repeated.


1: Well I would say no, the rules now are just as if not more bloated that previous editions with the exception to the campaign book bloat, but that is coming without a doubt, 8th is a side shift with glaring holes on the rules and balance issues just as bad as 7th.

2: Yep they advanced the story but badly, forcing primaris on every chapter with little to no thought, jumping 200 years with very little filler to make sense, the fluff for 8th is a jumbled mess.

3: yep and thankfully it wasnt.

So did I get what I wanted, no, I got 8th, part of what I wanted, in a perfect world I would have a good hybrid of 7th and 8th and that is what I wanted.

I think my biggest gripe is, that with the removal of USR but defacto reimplementation under 101 differing names (sometimes not even written out propperly cough cough) the basegame seems simpler but the interaction within codex and the baserules is distorted.

Secondly: CA, nuff said. I love the idea of what basically ammounts to a balance patch. I hate the fact that i am supposed to shill out more money to GW for something mandatory beyond the codex and the BRB.

Thirdly: Simplification =/= stupidifiaction..
I'll give you a little analogy: Rome TW II was a streamlined stupid mess, dumbed down to the point it actually hurt itself. Esspecially provincial management. You have less options but it is more complex with mali and boni system then before :Hurray i now need a calculator instead of strategic decisions what to build first and all my people seem to be hippsters that want their food produced by an subsistance farmer in the fething Alps and get rabic if i build a fething wheat field in the freaking province........
This goes also in my first point. You cut out all USR's but reeimplement them and then rewrite some off them and don't do it propperly, what's the point then to simplify in the first place then?!?

Further: Some options have been removed vastly: Marks do mostly nothing now, except giving you maybee the option to use a Stratagem. Traits that are copy and pasted vice versa in differing Codecises and are severly imbalanced WITHIN THEIR OWN codex (Ravenguard and Alpha legion trait compared to WB trait etc).
FW armies got canned: i belive the worst case there is Eldar corsairs and DKoK which got it's two lists cut down into one for whatever reason and corsairs are now i belive two entries. R&H has no variety anymore and basically now represents a bunch of murder hobos whilest half the basic keywords and rules missed.
MEANWHILE : Minescule factions compared to the ones above, get theor own (sometimes blatantly broken) Codices for no apparent reason other then your shekels need to wander to GW's coffers.

Frankly: IT is a better edition than 7th. But as a ruleset it still is not what it could and should be. People should not get punished for playing specific monofactions (GK, vannila Marines, Necrons,etc) You also should not get punished for picking certain units. Should there be better and worse ones, yes! certainly. But when certain picks are so bad that you handicapp yourself to the point were victory is unachievable then i say the balance is off to far.

I also would like a full rework of Terrain rules, the ones we have now are idiotical tbh. Fortifications are largely useless to a degree. I don't mind the +1 to armor, that is especially for high armor units nice that did not profit from cover last editions but could the average dude get also a cover save like a 4+ behind ruins back? As is trenches don't really benefit Guardsmen etc. Whereas before high armor units never went to cover, now low armor units don't go to cover.

This is from a 3rd(early 4th) edition player trying to muddle their way back in to this edition. These are my OPINIONS, and just that....I'm entitled to them, y'all are entitled to call me an angry old woman yelling at the clouds!

The command point system: Utter trash. 99% of the gripes about soup are because of the way CP works, and because the armies many of us enjoy(I like knights..... I'm a titan head, always have been. I bought two before I even decided I might lying playing again. I now have 5 and a warhound in various states of built), or thought looked amazing fluff wise, aren't functional without soup given the CP system. It's something that needs to be ditched, and give the models that needed it parity with the ones that didn't.

Force organization: Lord help us, I fething HATE this detachment malarkey. You may not, I despise it. I understand it makes cp work, and it makes soup...possible, but I hate it!

Soup: I LOVE the allies system. I always wanted to play an imperium battle group. When I saw knights and rread the lore, I was dying to build an army around knights with guard retainers, painted much like my old Bretonian knights! Ditch the CP, and make strategic thinking a "thing" again.

The death of mono armies: Saddens me, a lot. Again, tied to CP and the balance issues. I have 4000pts of metal deathwing terminators.... I may never play them again, except to bolster a very large force.

Mission types: What happened to quarters? What happened to letting those of us who like the simpler slobberknocker games play them without resulting to house rules?

I miss my metal in some ways, but these new models are top notch! I've got a 5 knight+ growing guard force, and have started a small Iyanden army. The depth and scale of what is available, sans a few armies is wonderful.

I do like seeing the lore having advanced some. Still...nervous they're going to WFHB me, but I have hope.


I would like to see the game move back more to mid-large army friendly

Generally pleased.Allies is terrible design though. And balance changes in matched play aimed at handholding casuals are terrible too. But it's the best they've done yet

ccs wrote:

meleti wrote:
Of all the hills to die on, fire arcs?

At least for vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong (& then point me to the relevant page/FAQ/Errata), but a vehicle here in 8th can trace LoS & shoot you with any of its weapons from any point on the model. Regardless of where/how those weapons are actually modeled.
So when you're tank has a hull mounted gun (Ex: A SM Vindicators cannon) sticking out of its front, & you then shoot me with it out of the rear end of your tank, are you surprised when I feel like I've returned to a ruleset designed for simpletons?

Nobody seemed to have this issue with literally any other unit type. Exocrine or Tyrannofex shooting out of its butt? fine. Eldar D-Cannon support weapon platform firing at a target above and behind them? Fine. Guard Thudd Gun or heavy weapons team shooting out their rear ends? Fine. Tank shooting out its rear end? Woah...realism shattered.

Yeah, it's hinkey, but it made no sense to apply this LoS restriction to only a single unit type and not to anything else, including immobile artillery units or fixed-weapon Monstrous Creatures. If we're going to have arcs and LoS restrictions, either it needed to apply across the board, or vehicles needed to have a lot more to offer than they did.