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.

1. Fire Arcs (The complete lack of this aspect of the game has destroyed my interest, it's a bridge too far and the final column to snap on my ability to feel immersed. Why introduce unlimited split fire only to make it so laughable that all shots can originate from wing tip or a tank track? It's lunacy. The ultimate metaphor for this edition is the bastion, show a new player that model, next explain how it can shoot 12 times out of any side to said new player. I'll wait. This is the perfect example of what we collectively lose when someone in the marketing department inspires to turn a rulebook into a pamphlet. )

2. Terrain ( Or lack there of I should say. Read the 5th ed terrain section and then read 8th, if you're young and lacking in attention span, we know which one you'll choose, no, no, I'll wait, read your text message... seriously guys, we've destroyed depth and complexity and then lied to ourselves about somehow saving time or something. It's like the nbc executives in seinfield "I like stuff you don't have to think about too much." . I think I've invested literally thousands of hours of painting and reading into this hobby, never once did I think this was somewhere to expect instant gratification.)

3. Leaving combat ( It has very little consequence and gets harder and harder to conceptualize. Why would a tyranid brood let anyone casually stroll out of combat? Why create a really contextual and interesting mechanic in terms of being able to hold units in combat based on physical positioning and numbers only to ruin it by giving half the units the game fly? )

4. Tanks not being able to tank shock ( Why would a banebalde care about a single grot? Is the imperium worried about civil rights lawyers or something? Is the emperor just a stickler for giving pedestrians the right of way? And not to mention that yet again it's a case of "oh, don't have fly? well I guess you're screwed". )

5. No wound pool (1 model in range and los and you can wipe a unit, this was one of the worst aspects of 5th. They could still let you choose wounded but limit it to whats actually in range and los, there is a middle ground to be found here easily.)

6. Vehicles fighting in close combat ( Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the concept of a valkyrie fist fighting a bastion. The fact that a vehicle can go from hyper vigilant super monster/tank that can engage targets in 7 different directions to a blinded wilting dust fart because a rhino humped its leg or a flyer went into hover mode and... what.. landed on it? Help me out here people, like leaving combat, this isn't just "an ab-strac-shun" it's something impossible to conceptualize without some sort of bent monty-python-esque absurd skew to it. And that's if you're fortunate enough to keep a sense of humour about things.

7. AP system (it's bad, so many baseline weapons already have -1, go play marines in shadow war against tau and tell how much you feel power armour is a benefit. With terrain basically being put into the ground, the way the ap system interacts it may as well be the nail in the coffin on terrain ever mattering in any meaningful way. There should be a no cover usr that allows you to apply the ap and without it just baseline saves ranging from low to high based on the actual terrain. The Incentive to use cover even more for heavily armoured units while making it a sad joke for low end infantry just seems perplexing and a big step back for immersion. With everyone shooting getting more ap, power armour and elite units are looking worse and worse unless they bring something special to the table.)

8. Incentive "gully" for weapon strength (if a third of my low-shot high-strength weapons fail to wound, why take them over an assault cannon that costs less? Weapon strength seems almost negligable next to ap or damage, especially with some weapon having fixed damage output while others having quite random damage output)

9. Random damage output (Why does a lascannon have such a wide range of damage output to begin with? Especially when you have say a missile with a lower strength but same ap and a fixed damage output of 3. Or when you clearly have the ablity to do d3 or 2d3, if you're going to do random at least don't make the spread so absurd.

10. Artillery and Blast weapons ( Why does is it able to target pretty much anything? Why can't units at least attempt to conceal themselves under floors or other terrain? Why is artillery pretty much just as effective shooting planes as it is tanks or really anything? Why is there rarely any consequence to firing artillery close to friendly models ie danger close fire? Why do all blast weapons have the burden of random damage output but also must then roll to hit? Why do some weapons take into context the amount of models in the target unit while others disregard any context?

11. Every faction becoming space marines with drop pods ( Units with the ability to basically deep strike make every damn game over by turn 2-3. There's very little reason to not play aggressively when you have total control of when said reserves come in and where. Add to that the ability to shoot and assault and often with every incentive to attempt both regardless of unit profile because why not? Especially if the unit has fly.)

12. Army construction rules ( The power level system getting prominent treatment while anyone wanting to use points being given the middle finger just reeks of passive-aggressive jervis bs. Add to that the jervis/marketing team maxim of in no way mildly restricting what hyper consumer man children can place half built on a table. The 3 detachments nonsense is silly and controls very little. It's unbound lite. I made a list yesterday that was a battalion detachment and a patrol detachment, my opponent had kindly pointed out to me I was one HQ short of the requirement for the patrol detachment, but suggested I take an air wing detachment and it would not only instantly make my list legal again but I got an extra command point for some reason... sigh. I was happy he pointed it out but it just underlines how silly multiple detachments are. )

13. Going from many unit types to essentially two: units that fly and units that do not. ( Fly holds all the cards, they get to leave combat no matter what and also shoot, for some reason. For an edition touting its granularity, with every unit becoming a big health bar, it's still shockingly binary in areas that should have some gradation and nuance. Fly effectively is a teleportation, so pathing is even abstracted to its benefit, like with infantry, the essentially get to melt through terrain. )

14. Infatry melting through walls (Why is this a thing? Especially why is this a thing when you no longer need los to charge a unit? Another slap in the pants to terrain because now you don't even have terrain really dictating any pathing, but only for some units, and quite arbitrarily. On the same token and refference the last point, why are we letting units with fly teleport essentially? Like with infantry melting through ruin walls, you eliminate the ability to corner enemy units.)


I think it's much easier to tweak the core rules of 7th than try and salvage 8th, I'm done with 8th.

Okay, you can keep people in combat, in exchange, you lose any chance at getting first turn assaults. And then we can go back to shooty armies wiping the floor with assault armies every game, just like the "good old days".

The ability to leave combat is really kinda vital for balance.

 ForceChoke wrote:

I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile.

So because I disagree with you, that makes me... hostile?

 MinscS2 wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile.

So because I disagree with you, that makes me... hostile?

The blueprint for a Force Choke thread, bulleted for thematic appropriateness.

1 Thread opens with FC's opinion.
2 Some people disagree with that opinion.
3 FC accuses those people of hostility/disrespect/rudeness
4 People express disbelief and explain they were doing no such thing
5 FC threatens those people
6 Threadlock.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile.

So because I disagree with you, that makes me... hostile?

The blueprint for a Force Choke thread, bulleted for thematic appropriateness.

1 Thread opens with FC's opinion.
2 Some people disagree with that opinion.
3 FC accuses those people of hostility/disrespect/rudeness
4 People express disbelief and explain they were doing no such thing
5 FC threatens those people
6 Threadlock.

And I thought Canadians were supposed to be friendly.

1. I miss the thematic lists encouraged by formations. Bring them back, but tone down the bonuses and give them points costs.
2. Full-cost summoning is almost as poorly designed a free summoning. Find the middle ground. Units can be summoned at a lower cost, but can't themselves summon other units nor can they be used to score point (except by the opponent). If the unit that summoned them is killed, summoned units disappear.

 EnTyme wrote:

2. Full-cost summoning is almost as poorly designed a free summoning. Find the middle ground. Units can be summoned at a lower cost, but can't themselves summon other units nor can they be used to score point (except by the opponent). If the unit that summoned them is killed, summoned units disappear.

... tethering them to the summoner. That's... really neat. I love any game mechanic that allows for both a strong play and a strong counter play possibility.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile.

So because I disagree with you, that makes me... hostile?

You're hostile because hostile you're abrasive.

No, he isn't. It is all in your personal interpretation, there is literally no way I can think he could have phrased it any differently that would have made it meaningfully more polite.

1. Falling back definitely needs more penalty to it. I've played shooty and melee focused armies, and the melee ones are often easily trounced by the simple ability to walk away from them. Maybe some mortal wounds to represent that to get the rest of the unit away safely, a couple guys had to rear-guard and go down.

2. More "old template" weapons need a bonus when shooting at big horde units. Right now it's really difficult to find good options for dealing with a tide of bodies, and the old template weapons that used to do the job really don't now.

3. Morale is too easy to negate as a factor, but also horrendously damaging if you can't. The armies that can run big squads where you would think morale would be a factor, they have commissars, synapse, etc, while the others simply construct their army in a bunch of small squads to counter it. Because it's so damaging, it actually makes some no-brainer list decisions, like always taking 5 man marine squads instead of 10. 2 squads of 5 marines have to be killed the hard way. 10 can lose 5 or a couple more and the others will flee. It can also be hard to keep up with how many models each unit lost.
I don't know the solution, but I feel morale needs some more thought out into it.

3. Some costs. Drop pods are priced pretty outrageously now that it doesn't offer any kind of superior deep strike accuracy over a set of jump packs. They and their passengers also count against you for the number of deep strikes vs deployed units, making it more likely that the drop squad won't get enough support from similar elements because the pod made the army meet their "quota" of deep strikers.

4. Necron RP is nuts. They should have been made similar to 5e where failed RP's were removed. Instead we have this situation where necron units get explosive amounts of healing if the unit was almost dead. If you just have some sub par rolls and can't quite finish off a big unit and this happens, you pretty much just lost the game, because they just got a hundred or more free points back, all the while your forces and potential to bring them down is diminishing. If they're going to keep the "exponential RP," the unit should have to sit still and do nothing to heal itself at least. It is way too powerful for a no-problems passive effect.

5. Not to hate on crons too much, but quantum shielding is dumb. It punishes you for taking the right weapons for taking out the things that have it. Some type of damage reduction or an invuln would be fine, but the way it works now is just wrong, and it has the side effect of making QS units more and more invincible as the game scale (and weapon scale) goes up.

6. Chainswords still don't do anything. Yes yes they get an extra swing, but almost all the people who carry them already had that extra swing previously via the old pistol/ccw loadout, so that was just moving around where the extra swing came from. I was really hoping for at least AP -1 or something to make it better than punching someone bare-handed.

7. Random charge range still way too random, and the "charge phase" is unnecessary. Ideally it should've been done shadow war style, where you charge during movement so you're only having to move your models once. The charge should be less random distance-wise.

8. The "pistol in combat" ability is near pointless. You miss the opportunity to use it when charging thanks to the phase order, you don't get to use it on the enemy turn, and you finally only get the chance to use it if you're both still alive on your next turn, AND nobody decided to walk away from the combat. Charging in the movement phase would've made the pistol rule actually pretty sweet.

9. Overwatch is still a non-decision with no drawbacks. You should have to lose a weaponskill point for the turn or something to try it, to represent that instead of readying themselves for melee combat, the squad is trying some last-ditch close range shooting. Also being able to overwatch multiple times is super silly. If these guys were able to fire 3 times faster, why weren't they doing that the whole time?

10. Mortal wounds bypassing invuln saves AND being readily available all over the place. More of these should just be AP -a lot rather than MW's.

AHEM

 Manchu wrote:
Folks, please drop arguing about the format of discussion in this thread. People are free to post however they please as long as they abide by the Dakka Dakka rules. Just to be clear, Rule Number Two does not require posters to use a particular format, such as a bullet point list. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
AHEM

 Manchu wrote:
Folks, please drop arguing about the format of discussion in this thread. People are free to post however they please as long as they abide by the Dakka Dakka rules. Just to be clear, Rule Number Two does not require posters to use a particular format, such as a bullet point list. Thanks!

Hey we stopped discusing the format. But you're letting people be abrasive and hostile. You're letting people attack me personally without stepping in. You're pretty much enabling trolling at the OPs expense. Not sure why but it's really fething lame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You all complain about GW not listening. Then you cry when someone tries to organize your pentulant screams into somthing easy for them. Wow. Screw this. Done post if you want to or don't. Feth off or not. Not wasting my time on this garbage pile

 ForceChoke wrote:
You're letting people attack me personally without stepping in.

OK we will do this in the thread as an example for all. It turns out you are the one making a personal attack:

 ForceChoke wrote:
I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile.

This is a violation of Rule Number One. You may post on this forum on condition of following the rules. To be clear, I am not interested in debating you about this so drop it.

I am going to leave this thread open for those who have been discussing Eight Edition. Any further metacommentary will result in suspensions.

 niv-mizzet wrote:


5. Not to hate on crons too much, but quantum shielding is dumb. It punishes you for taking the right weapons for taking out the things that have it. Some type of damage reduction or an invuln would be fine, but the way it works now is just wrong, and it has the side effect of making QS units more and more invincible as the game scale (and weapon scale) goes up.

As a necron player, I kind of agree that QS is a bit nuts. It probably should have been "the most amount of damage this vehicle can receive is 1".
That way it can still be hurt by anti-tank weapons.

edited by moderator

1. Nothing yet. It is too early to really form a good judgement on 8th.
2. Wait until the codices drop.
3. 8th is looking pretty good so far.
4. Not enough dakka.
5. Teach players that the correct plural of 'codex' is codices, not 'codexes'
6. Bring back fire arcs.
7. Still not enough dakka.
8. Current rules for flyers and buildings do not make sense.
9. Cover should be per model, not per unit.
10. Wow, I really wasn't expecting to reach the 10th point. No idea what to write.
11. Still not enough dakka though.
12. They should bring back LotR
13. LotR rules were amazing.
14. They should have released a conversion of 40k to LotR rules instead of 8th.
15. Enough dakka? No.
16. OP seems to be heading towards a ban.
17. I seem to be getting more talkative than usual when thinking in bullet point format.
18. I wonder if this thread will get locked if the hostility continues...
19. Dakka still has not reached sufficient quantities.
20. Yay, I got to 20! Now I really am out of stuff to write I guess. Or not. Maybe I should just stop.
21. Yeah, I am going to stop.

I'd like to see boxes ship with the appropriate range of options.

For instance, I had to take land raider flamers to put them on my Razorback. Why is it that this is a wargear option but there is no WYSIWYG equivalent?

If a unit has wargear options, for how expensive they are, i would expect to see a higher percentage included. Or another example, a heavy weapons squad. The heavy weapons squads i can think of only come with 2 of each option, when you can take up to 4!!! If it's that expensive, sell the bits on the side, please. Just give me a path to get what i need, short of ebaying individual bits. drives me nuts.

Hell on that note, here's a feedback:

Kits are great, but please sell bits through your web store. I want the flexibility to buy any number of any specific bit that I want. I could use some extra left hands. boom. I got them.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'd like to see boxes ship with the appropriate range of options.

For instance, I had to take land raider flamers to put them on my Razorback. Why is it that this is a wargear option but there is no WYSIWYG equivalent?

If a unit has wargear options, for how expensive they are, i would expect to see a higher percentage included. Or another example, a heavy weapons squad. The heavy weapons squads i can think of only come with 2 of each option, when you can take up to 4!!! If it's that expensive, sell the bits on the side, please. Just give me a path to get what i need, short of ebaying individual bits. drives me nuts.

Hell on that note, here's a feedback:

Kits are great, but please sell bits through your web store. I want the flexibility to buy any number of any specific bit that I want. I could use some extra left hands. boom. I got them.

OMG, so much this...

I'm looking at starting my Deathwatch this weekend only to find out that the killteam box doesn't have a fifth of the options available to them in the index.

Way to go GW. I found all the bitz I need, and none of them are from GW because GW apparently doesn't actually make half the bits in the unit options for marines.

Also, I found open hands (both left and right), which makes me happy because I wanted a dual pistol blackshield, and GW doesn't actually make space marine left hands with weapon grips. They're all for holding melee weapons or supporting heavy weapons or bolters.

Seriously, 3D printing at 28mm scale can't happen fast enough. Then I can make a lot of them myself with a few minutes in 3DSMax or Blender, and a few minutes printing.

 Arandmoor wrote:

Also, I found open hands (both left and right), which makes me happy because I wanted a dual pistol blackshield, and GW doesn't actually make space marine left hands with weapon grips. They're all for holding melee weapons or supporting heavy weapons or bolters.

Where did you find left handed pistol hands? Dual pistols are actually viable with things like Vanguard Veterans.

There's something in my brain that needs WYSIWYG. I'm totally fine with people around me using counts-as, but I just can't do it on my own stuff, there's a significant mental block. I need to get over it but it's not easy.

 Arandmoor wrote:

Also, I found open hands (both left and right), which makes me happy because I wanted a dual pistol blackshield, and GW doesn't actually make space marine left hands with weapon grips. They're all for holding melee weapons or supporting heavy weapons or bolters.

The Blood Angels box has a left-handed hand flamer. Finding it made me so happy. Dual wielding flamethrowers, how cool is that?

Right and left hands...

http://anvilindustry.co.uk/Exo-Lords/Arms-and-Bionics

Again, they're not GW :(

I have to concur-- 8th edition would be massively better if GW sold bitz once more.

1. Falling back is a great addition, but it does need more penalty. As an IG player that's hard to admit. Perhaps each player rolls a D6, adds their movement, and the player falling back loses the difference or none if he's higher?

2. Match play rule one is stupid. Psykers have been over-nerfed.

3. Cover rules. Make them make sense.

4. Should not be able to assault a true flyer. That's just stupid.

5. Being out of range of overwatch defies logic.

6. Roll off for who goes first with penalty to who finishes deployment last.

8th is awesome, though. IG is finally good!

Flyers need act more like flyers. Guys with jetpacks assaulting a vehicle going over 700 miles per hour is a good way to get squished. Any flyer should not be penalized for acting like a flyer. A vendetta is better off standing still than actually flying. Furthermore, why are flyers auto hit by flamethrowers?

1 Terrain: Make give modifiers to hit if the unit is obscured but not actually in the terrain.
2 add a wargear/vehicle upgrades for all lists
3 Change the vocabulary of movement (re-deploy, pile in, consolidate)
4 Bring back some USRs (even if they are only used on the datasheet)
5 Make wound counters
6 make CP counters
7 Make VP track counters
8 Get rid of Bubbles. In 40k there are all sorts of communication devices. I am sure that Colonel can tell those troopers to hold their ground 50 meters away just as easy as 5 meters away. Make bubbles work on x number of units.
9 fix flamers vs flyers
10 make smite a shooting option for psykers and not a part of the psychic phase.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Flyers need act more like flyers. Guys with jetpacks assaulting a vehicle going over 700 miles per hour is a good way to get squished. Any flyer should not be penalized for acting like a flyer. A vendetta is better off standing still than actually flying. Furthermore, why are flyers auto hit by flamethrowers?

I love that art. That was a scene in the Space Marine game, too.

 Melissia wrote:


I love that art. That was a scene in the Space Marine game, too.

It actually looks like a screenshot from that scene in the Space Marine game. Definitely one of my favourite moments in that game by the way.

think it's an artisitic rendition of a screen shot from space Marine. still Space Marine was the first thing I thought of back when 8th first came out saying that jump pack troops attacking fliers is silly.

If GW is anything like normal mid-size to big company, most employees will be so burdened with work that they wont have time to start interpreting bullet points.

Rules Of complaining at companies are these:
1. Describe the problem(s).
2. Present the solution(s).
Both Points need to be written as shortly and as clearly as possible.
This is done like this as it is unarguably most efficient way, people who just complain about problematic stuff but do not make any effort to find a solution to the problem are useless - They are not helping solve the problem! Disclaimer: This is about more technical problems, behaviour related ethical problems are a very different matter obviously!

No one has time to sit down and start correcting the rules following some vague open for interpretation bullet point list.

Also I am reading nice suggestions from people here, but many of them are far too long walls of text.
Imagine getting an essay assignment with A4/letter length instructions how to do it with multiple separate points. Would this feel easy to do?

Firstly I think 8th is an excellent edition. An enormous improvement on everything that's come before. So these are minor tweaks.

1. Flamers being so good vs flyers is unintuitive. Make them roll to hit vs units with fly.
2. Give overwatch shots vs units that fall back from combat
3. The morale rules are great (they work well in AOS too), but too many armies are insulated against it due to their unit ruling.
4. Pistols should be able to be fired when advancing, like assault weapons (with a -1)
5. The terrain rules are a bit thin. Intervening cover should give armour save bonuses or shooting negatives.