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.

8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

 Grimgold wrote:
RAW 9/10 - best rules set I've ever seen for 40k, mind they have set that bar pretty low, but the rules are clearly worded, and don't leave much wiggle room.

RAI 9/10 - A lot of thought went into making the game play like the fluff, and the various compositions took a lot of forethought.

Fluff 5/10 - The primaris marines are the laziest plot contrivance since new crons, and while I like the IoM being the underdog, not much else about the indomitus crusade turns my crank.

Also Lance845, and MaykOI are very close to the average, as is gossipmeng (though high).
All seem to have similar reasons - rules are either good or can be made so and this due to genuine effort and perceived goodwill on the part of GW, with the narrative driving new releases viewed less favorably.

In fact, this is an interesting trend. Few respondents seem delighted with the backstory. Many are upset with the blinding flash of light machinations vs solid if not grinding true grimdark storytelling.
How much this has to do with knights in blue armor sent by the great spiritual liege is unclear, but likely there is an undercurrent of WTF given the sheer expanse of the IoM and the potential for so many different narrative arcs.


For my part, I am sticking to my 27 due optimism that some few things that I really don't like at all will be changed in the next year. Still holding out for that truly scalable system.

If GW can fix cover, make blast weapons reflect the dynamics inherent in BLAST WEAPONS, and figure out how to fix vehicles in CC then I would be able to ignore other failings completely.

So far I have seen literally zero tactics in any 8th edition battle report other than target prioritization. It's just armies smashing into each other via the shortest route or standing still and blazing away because terrain does nothing, positioning does nothing, the game is just a contest in passing saves.

 jeff white wrote:
8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

but if we remove the fanboys and the haters, basically top 3 and bottom 3.
We get 5273 / 249 = 21.17

Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I think the proliferation of targets with multiple woulds has been, in general, bad for the game. It alters the balance of firepower and resilience in a bad way. Among other things, it overvalues rate of fire and devalues weapon power and armor penetrating ability.
I don't think HP are a very good abstraction for resilience anyway. The idea of "how many hits can I take until I die" is kind of stupid, if you think about it.

But, with regards to a carnifex being a vehicle:
1-4: Crew Stunned/Shaken, It's wracked by pain responses from the hit, rendering it unable to fire and move accurately.
5: Weapon Destroyed. In a bloody mess, the arm-mounted gun comes away at the shoulder.
6: Immobilized. A leg is shot off at the knee. It now is unstable, and has trouble moving if at all.
7: Destroyed. The shot pulverizes the brain, severs the spinal chord, or tears such a chunk out of the creature that it collapses to the ground.

I personally always hated Weapon Destroyed.
It was always insanely difficult to keep track of it, and irrelevant on so many things while devastating to others.

Stunned/Shaken always left me a little confused as well on which is which since the 2 names are so similar...

This is how I would have done the Damage Table

1-3 - Shaken - Your weapons hit on 6s this round
4-5 - Paralyzed - You cannot move and your weapons hit on 6s this round.
6-7 - Immobilized - You cannot move for the rest of the game, your weapons hit on 6s this round.
8 - Destroyed - Welp...

Edit - Shaken Alternative - If you move, your weapons hit on 6s this round.
It's a lot less punishing and creates a choice.

AP 1 - +2 Damage
AP 2 - +1 Damage

STR10 - +2 Damage
STR9 - +1 Damage

Extra Armor and similar upgrades could provide resistance and counter values.
Like -1 on the Damage Table. Some Tanks could even have -1 damage table resistance naturally like the Land Raider.

Core rules are great, the army i collect got gak all over.

 Talamare wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
8102/362=22.3812154696133

If I added correctly, then the average response is now about 22.4

This number is very close to that given by Grimgold:

but if we remove the fanboys and the haters, basically top 3 and bottom 3.
We get 5273 / 249 = 21.17

What did you vote? Maybe we could ignore your vote instead?
Why bother using polling data if you are going to ignore the results? After all, '4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest Brand Toothpaste!'

I think it's safe to say that the people who voted 30 or 3 are exagerrating.

 -DE- wrote:


1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

I would argue with that, considering melee is now governed by alternating activations rather than initiative.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 -DE- wrote:


1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

I would argue with that, considering melee is now governed by alternating activations rather than initiative.

It's still just a form of target prioritizing.

 -DE- wrote:
Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

This was my fear. And good evidence for gw to change these things asap.
Pride will stop them from doing so immediately. But by next year I hope that they come to their senses.
Actually. This has to do with the game being a simulation first off.
The more realistic, the better.
The cover and terrain rules suffer due to lack of realism because they defy expectations and this makes the game more about gaming the system for example with msu to take advantage of terrain limitations in order to get cover saves in the first place
And less about strategic maneuvering.
I suspect that asking people to playtest who are better at gaming the system and organizing tournaments than balancing game systems was one reason that things ended up this way.
Getting customers I.e. gamers in and out of the door is an attitude that results in thinking that dice games with expensive markers in the form of models is an adequate substitute for a robust battlefield simulation.
Good thing though is that now it is our turn to deliver feedback so tha gw can adjust.
As it is I simply pretend that the cover rules are different and that cover applies to the individual model rather than to the unit as a whole.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So far I have seen literally zero tactics in any 8th edition battle report other than target prioritization. It's just armies smashing into each other via the shortest route or standing still and blazing away because terrain does nothing, positioning does nothing, the game is just a contest in passing saves.

Yes. This is the AoS ification coming through.
It needs to be purged with fire.

Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

While I agree all of the 8th battle reports are turning into close-combat scrums, I can't say I've seen anything in 7th that remotely resembled tactics or strategy outside of meta-gaming and abusing loopholes to force a situation.

So while 8th may not be the savior, it can't be as bad as 7th. However, even with GW allowing for minor adjustments via Chapter Approved books, I don't think you'll be seeing whole-sale rules changes anytime soon.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

 Purifier wrote:
"a simple poll"

>makes it a 3-30 point three category poll, two of which no one has any practical experience with so can't really rate.

I dunno man. Probably some part of the upper spectrum. We'll see when we've had a few games and run into the problems that will inevitably occur, and seen just how irrelevant or problematic some of the points people have brought up are.

So much this

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

So, I have a question to the people commenting on "it's just target prioritization".

What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

As far as it's strategic depth, I think, even since I've been playing, it's just been target prioritization. Select what target benefits you most to kill this turn, and which target each gun is mot efficient against, and let fly.


And how exactly is getting cover different this edition than in previous editions? Line-of-Sight and Line-of-Fire are still things.

 Talamare wrote:
With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

It really wasn't. The rules were a bloated mess, there was way too much randomness taking away player choices, etc. Unfortunately 8th is more of the same, dumbing down the game but keeping the same rules bloat and idiotic randomness. The only real difference is that a lot of the rules bloat has moved from the core rules to giving each unit its own special snowflake rules instead of USRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

That sounds like a problem with your games. In previous editions, assuming a proper amount of LOS-blocking terrain, there was plenty of strategic maneuvering. Short-ranged units (whether shooting or melee) had to figure out how to get into range of their targets, long-ranged units had to maneuver to get clear shots, units with heavy weapons had to decide between shooting (even if in a less than optimal position) or moving to set up a future attack, etc. Now in 8th that's been significantly reduced. Melee units can charge turn 1 from across the table, heavy weapons can move and shoot (and even charge!) with minimal penalty, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
With the exception of the broken stuff, 7e was amazing

It really wasn't. The rules were a bloated mess, there was way too much randomness taking away player choices, etc. Unfortunately 8th is more of the same, dumbing down the game but keeping the same rules bloat and idiotic randomness. The only real difference is that a lot of the rules bloat has moved from the core rules to giving each unit its own special snowflake rules instead of USRs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What was it before? I failed to experience any sort of so-called "strategic maneuvering" in 5th, 6th, or 7th.

That sounds like a problem with your games. In previous editions, assuming a proper amount of LOS-blocking terrain, there was plenty of strategic maneuvering. Short-ranged units (whether shooting or melee) had to figure out how to get into range of their targets, long-ranged units had to maneuver to get clear shots, units with heavy weapons had to decide between shooting (even if in a less than optimal position) or moving to set up a future attack, etc. Now in 8th that's been significantly reduced. Melee units can charge turn 1 from across the table, heavy weapons can move and shoot (and even charge!) with minimal penalty, etc.

So where did all the LoS blocking terrain go? It looks to me like it's still all there.

Games aren't long enough and the board is nowhere near big enough for there to be strategic maneuvering. Shifting Leman Russes to clear a shot is really just more target prioritization.

What makes short ranged units no long have to worry about getting in range, and Heavy Weapons not have to worry about having an optimal position?


As I said, I find the fluff adequate, if uninspired, and the rules passable, if not particularly praiseworthy. I'm not a fan of the changes to vehicle operation, as I said earlier, and this the goal of equalizing vehicles and MC's would have been done better by removing the Monstrous Creature type as opposed to the Vehicle type. But I don't see how there's particularly less strategy this edition than there was last edition, or the two editions before it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

except was that the armies involved? the players? or the rules?

I'd sure like to know how people are building lists, and being able to play when the dang game or indexes aren't even in stores.

BrianDavion wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

It wasn't, obviously. But "it isn't quite as bad as the dumpster fire of 7th" is pretty weak praise. If you expect a good game, not just a game that is possibly less terrible than the worst games, 8th doesn't live up to that standard. It's an incredibly shallow game where everything has been homogenized to absurd levels, while still managing to have the same rules bloat problems as previous editions.

I actually got a game of 7th in today while the table next to me was playing 8th and it was surprisingly nuanced with a lot of back and forth. The 8th game turned into "space wolves charge horrors, whiff while the Horrors rock Invulnerable saves and dir die to mass smite spam from mass Heralds" while my Word Bearers vs Blob Guard did have a lot of back and forth, cover-hopping and terrain shuffling. Perhaps the more entertaining part was killing Marbo with Horrors (I use Horrors more as a "sniper" unit than a summon battery), while they ducked past an enemy Valkyrie.

except was that the armies involved? the players? or the rules?

For the 8th game, it was a mix of things. The army for smitespam was a case of low variance between floors and ceilings for killing stuff. Since Smite targets the closest model ("don't choose your target"), ignores "fire in cc" restriction (so you can't hide against it), and ignores saves of any kind so cover is meaningless). With enough Staffs of Change, the Horror player even started just jamming enemy vehicles so they couldn't disengage and just let Smite finish the job for him.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'd sure like to know how people are building lists, and being able to play when the dang game or indexes aren't even in stores.

The entire game, index books included, has been leaked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
But I don't see how there's particularly less strategy this edition than there was last edition, or the two editions before it.

Because everything is homogenized so much. Consider heavy weapons, for example. In previous editions you couldn't move and shoot (effectively), and couldn't charge after shooting. So a unit with, say, lascannons played very differently from a unit with plasma guns. The lascannon unit had massive range but poor mobility, and giving up shooting for a turn to reposition was a tough call. The plasma unit had much better mobility, especially with the transports they often got, but paid for it with much shorter range. Now in 8th the two units are effectively identical. The penalty for moving and shooting with the lascannons is a mere -1 to hit, and you can even charge after shooting. So now it's just a question of which weapon's stat line is better.

Or consider flyers. In 7th they're hard to hit without specialized AA units, but they have some serious drawbacks in their limited firing arcs and inability to start the game on the table. So there's a clear difference between a player who can find a good strategy for handling these problems, and one who can't. But in 8th those differences are effectively gone. The accuracy penalty against flyers is a mere -1 to hit, so you can just shoot whatever random weapons you like at them and not worry about bringing AA specialists. But at the same time the flyer restrictions are effectively gone, so you can just orbit your flyer around the edge of the table without ever worrying about losing shots. There's barely any remaining difference between a flyer and a normal tank, or even a flyer and an infantry squad.

 -DE- wrote:
Unfortunately, that's precisely what 8th is shaping up to be - an exercise in dice rolling with a bare minimum of player input.

With how cover saves are applied and with no facings or drawing LoS from gun barrels, positioning and terrain hardly matter anymore, unless you stand your devastators wholly within some ruin. Make any sort of movement and leave the ruin with just a single model and you lose the cover bonus, making gunlines even more static than before.

1st turn charges are the norm now, and as there's basically zero thinking involved in resolving melees, other than to whom assign wounds, it's just rolling dice and hoping for the best, cutting down on maneuvering even further.

And yet more people blindly charging forward with this stupid crap. None of the things you've pointed out as 'tactical' decisions ever actually mattered in 6th and 7th. Gunlines were MORE static because hitting on 6s was a bigger deal than either cover system for heavy weapons, melee has NEVER taken any thinking, it was a spreadsheet you filled in with dice rolls, now there's all sorts of tricks you can pull with charges and command points and pile ins whereas before it was just 'herp a derp into your lines and roll dice till on person is dead.'

Positioning never matter because everybody and their brother was rolling in ignores cover and vehicles were so fragile hitting rear armor wasn't even worth the effort it took to move models. Drawing LOS from gun barrels and having arbitrary bullgak 'arcs' on guns just compounded how gakky vehicles were.

There are things in 8th that are problematic sure, but this stuff is just bandwagony bullcrap. Come back when you've delved deep enough into the rules to find the real problems.

The "is only a meele in the middle" is fault of the players, not the game.

I'll say it here as I have been saying this throug all of 6th, 7th and 8th of Fantasy.

If you only play pitched battles all of your battles are gonna end in a big meele in the middle.

If you don't use other battleplans, objetives, LOS blocking cover, etc... it doesn't matter what edition of 40k or Fantasy or AoS are you playing. They are gonna end all of them in a big meele in the middle, or a big meele in one deployment zone if one army is a gun line.

Is absurd to claim that the game isn't more than rushing to meele in the middle when if that happens is 100% the players fault.

Heck, even Infinity, if you don't play the battleplans of the game and use the cover that they recommend you to use, all of the games should end in a big meele in the middle.
But nobody ever has used thas as an argument agains't Infinity.

I suppose is because Infinity players aren't forcing to play in a absurd and stupid way to put the blame in the "edition/game" they are playing.


A daemon word bearer summon spam list against one of the weakest codex in all of 7th was a Back and fort game?

Tell me more.


This past month has been people looking for even the smallest point to support their narrative, prefixed from the beginning. Did anybody make an reasonable oppinion about 8th after playing the game or at least reading all of the rules? All the hate 8th has been receiving has been from people that has been hating it since even before any leak rule existed. (And to be honest, some people have loved 8th before that, too) Fanboys vs haters, always the same, no matter the topic

I have 2 Summoners, period, and I only go for Flesh Hounds on the first turn. Truth be told, for the same points value I could have gotten a Gorepack but I wanted the option for Malediction powers.

Guy was a good player, it was an objective game, and he got Seize the Initiative and one-shotted my Herald with a Master of Ordnance after I fluffed Look Out Sir. Logically, this leaves a Chaos Sorcerer doing the summoning and even with twice the wounds, he Perils on any double.

And there was a *lot* of terrain and he used Marbo, and solo Astropaths that would move out, plink wounds off my bikes with Psychic Shriek, then Move Move Move...at least until I crashed into the first Prescienced blob with a Dirge Caster Rhino.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Because 7th was a paragon of deep, nuanced, tactical gameplay?

Not the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
"a simple poll"

>makes it a 3-30 point three category poll, two of which no one has any practical experience with so can't really rate.

I dunno man. Probably some part of the upper spectrum. We'll see when we've had a few games and run into the problems that will inevitably occur, and seen just how irrelevant or problematic some of the points people have brought up are.

So much this

And many of these problem points have come up in this thread, as people trickle in with their votes after reviewing games and reports, and rules, and others return to comment on how their experiences may have changed their minds and initial judgments.
I created this space for this discussion.
And I am grateful for those who have been contributing their insights.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is, and forgive the Godwin, somewhat like saying Hitler wasn't so bad if you ignored the genocide and warmongering.

Plus, for the record, all 7th was was 2nd Lite, and 2nd was much better at doing what it did than 7th ever was.

Seems right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:


For the 8th game, it was a mix of things. The army for smitespam was a case of low variance between floors and ceilings for killing stuff. Since Smite targets the closest model ("don't choose your target"), ignores "fire in cc" restriction (so you can't hide against it), and ignores saves of any kind so cover is meaningless). With enough Staffs of Change, the Horror player even started just jamming enemy vehicles so they couldn't disengage and just let Smite finish the job for him.

That seems to be a problem, jamming up vehicles.

 jeff white wrote:

That seems to be a problem, jamming up vehicles.

I'm surprised, actually. I was expecting less of it, since it seems difficult to take advantage of and a list built to take advantage of it strikes me as having a lot of weaknesses.