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.

Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

DarthDiggler wrote:
90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

I haven't found this; all my games so far have been undecided until turn 4-5 and even then there was a decent chance of it being turned around.

Most people locally had stepped away from 40K during 7th. With 8th release everyone jumped in to give it a go. A couple of weeks later the excitement has been replaced by meh, and everyone has stepped back to the other projects they were working on.

Some parts of the game sounded like good ideas, such as to hit modifiers and the replacement of the AP system, but in practice just swapped one set of problems for another.

The way vehicles work just piss's off everyone. The cover system frustrates everyone. Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players. Most games are decided early, and worryingly often by whoever goes first.

All in all there was a good idea for a game in there, but they stopped half way through writing the game then rushed out the index's which are full of issues.

I expect the game to be dead by the end of the year locally.

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

It is hundred times better than the broken mess of imba that was 7th. It is far from perfect, but it is a huge improvement.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
My favorite edition in a very long while. It has a few issues, but none of those issues make it feel as bland or painful to play as previous editions. With a little polish, I think 8th can be everything 2nd was without the bloat and complicated rules thrown in just because.

This.
Spit. Polish. Still waiting on that before I invest the 2 hour 50dollar train ride to the nearest game store for a chance to actually play.
Until then, I do my little sims here on my desk between edits and drafts.
And, I find time to paint when I can find time to paint.
But, I see too many reasons not to play to spend the time and money it will take to play - too board/card-gamey for my taste.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

I am sorry that I don't now remember exactly where but I did read a battle report wherein the poster was expecting his hugish conscript unit(s) to wreck a heavy tank, and was disappointed when he was almost successful - only a couple of wounds left.
I think that it was in the context of a tourney, if I recall correctly as well.
Yeah, this is a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Orange wrote:
Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

What other games, if you don't mind my asking?
And, I agree with your assessment - very insightful.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

The only time I've had it game-changingly happen was when my opponent multi-charged his one wound knight into a combat squad with flamer/combi-flamer and another partially destroyed squad. Knight fell to the flamer over watch and took out one of his thunderwolves and none of my troops in the explosion. Otherwise you need lascannons or equivalent. Because of our local meta - even in "friendly" games my lascannon devastator squad is an auto include.

But that is one hilarious example of why we play this game and not a real answer to your question. Nobody in our meta plays mono guard so I don't have good data on lasguns vs land raiders.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

A vet once finished a basi with a shotgun. Was a good time


Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Orange wrote:
Not what I look for in a strategy game, but the games are smoother due to really simple rules. But not as enjoyable as they nerfed fortifications into oblivion thus destroying any of my attempts to stick to my fluff PDF army. 8Th edition feels like that gakky sequel with good ideas but bad directors and actors.

But I start selling stuff and lean towards other games now

What other games, if you don't mind my asking?
And, I agree with your assessment - very insightful.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

It's nice to see the local GWs and other gaming stores become so busy with 40k once again.

Yeah, playing and enjoying 40k again for the first time in years here.

 thekingofkings wrote:

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

Play the lottery, or head to a casino, because lady luck apparently smiles on you.

50-60% to hit, followed by 16% chance to wound, failed save 16-33% to inflict a single wound on your average tank with a lasgun, means they statistically insignificant next to the special weapon and heavy in the squad. If you are popping tanks with a meltagun and a lascannon in each squad, then that is to be expected.

Conscripts aren't doing much against a tank, other than stripping a wound, or two.

 adamsouza wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

We dont bat rep our live games, but I have actually seen this happen in 4 games.

Play the lottery, or head to a casino, because lady luck apparently smiles on you.

50-60% to hit, followed by 16% chance to wound, failed save 16-33% to inflict a single wound on your average tank with a lasgun, means they statistically insignificant next to the special weapon and heavy in the squad. If you are popping tanks with a meltagun and a lascannon in each squad, then that is to be expected.

Conscripts aren't doing much against a tank, other than stripping a wound, or two.

I made a similar suggestion to Jay about the casinos after the weekend, but yeah it does happen, and dice luck has nothing to do with odds, it happens or it doesnt.

So far its an enjoyable edition. I skipped most from the end of 4th until 8th due to bad rules and bloat. Having fun. Some issues but hopefully the codex rollout will fix this

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
Guardsmen killing tanks flat out offends some players.

I have yet to see this happen anywhere and I can't understand why people think it's a common ocurrence. Can someone link me to a battle report where Guardsmen ACTUALLY kill a tank without several turns of very heavy and very concentrated shooting without the aid of heavier weapons?

I don't mean mathhammer. I mean several actually real examples that prove that concentrated lasgun fire is actually killing tanks regularly.

I just don't buy it.

0.5x0.16666x0.3333=0.027773889 Percent chance of a las gun wounding a toughness 7, +3 tank. Most of the tanks I have been fielding have 14 wounds. That means about 504 lasgun shots. So, a unit of 30 guardsman sitting at rapid fire range for a little over 8 rounds, and assuming that the tank never fires back. Again. I just don't buy it.

As for myself. I have really been enjoying the game. I played a last week. Chaos game against an eldar force. Lost but killed a lot of stuff. Eldar can bring savage weight of fire and every 6 hurts. I still had tanks living long enough to strike back st the enemy. Found terminators and land raiders worth their points again. Fliers seem to have been balanced. I had a great time. Most Excited I have been in ages for the game.

I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So far my biggest take away from 8th so far in the limited number of games I played is that I hate the cover system. Its both boring and generally impractical for anything other than small units of infantry.

The Codices are pretty balanced so far compared to each other so far, and outside some super specific complaints (Conscripts, Roboute, Centurion Devastators are terrible), seems things are on the up and up. Once everyone gets their snowflake rules, things will be pretty awesome.

Game was basically destroyed, 7th was better

 Elbows wrote:
I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

Haven't tried it yet but I own the rules, looks pretty good.

I really like it. It's the best version of 40k by far. I think Age of Sigmar is a tiny bit better though. :-)

I am not a fan. My warlord can fire its massive belicosa pattern volcano cannon into a screaming horde of tightly clustered orks...and kill 6 at best.

Most fun I've had since 3rd/4th edition. Tyranids are playable again (without using like 30 Flyrants) and Sisters have been a pleasant surprise. My Penal Legion gunline still works just fine as well. SO's Tau had a rough start but he's figured them out, though they need that Codex sooner rather than later.

I need to play a few more games with my DE before I'm settled into a real opinion on them, but so far so good.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I should probably add a bit to the discussion since my first response was perhaps overly simple.

The local group here is maybe 15-16 guys and we play once or twice a week (or so). 8th is universally being enjoyed, however there have been several trends immediately noticeable:

- We all ignore the terrain rules for the most part, and declare forests etc. to block line of sight completely...we give cover to vehicles when they're not in area terrain, etc. The rules-as-written has yet to take hold because to a man we all find the strict and odd terrain rules to suck.
- As a kind of rule no one fires vehicles weapons from the corner of their tank track or anything...it's just something we don't do.
- We all play power level games with no points games that I've seen
- No one is running super tournament lists, just the occasional strong unit
- I don't play games on skimpy-terrained tables if I can avoid it. I think underwhelming tables is probably one of the top two things which ruins peoples games without them being aware of it.
- I've been personally skipping the entire scenario thing (fething hate Maelstrom and all that crap). Custom designed simpler scenarios have proved to be really fun and far easier to design for 8th.
- Balance has been surprisingly good at the moment, and a far cry from 7th.
- Games go faster.
- We've come up with maybe 4-5 rules questions which haven't been properly addressed (or we can't figure them out) but for the most part we all ask around when a rules query comes up and it gets a pretty comprehensive think-through
- People who have used the Open War deck are enjoying it.

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

GodofHobos wrote:
I am not a fan. My warlord can fire its massive belicosa pattern volcano cannon into a screaming horde of tightly clustered orks...and kill 6 at best.

Seems like the wrong weapon for the Job. I bet if your Titan had an anti infantry weapon like a flames storm cannon you would kill a few more.

Addressing the question of balance. I've heard a lot of people whining that they can't just take win button units they used to take. As a daemon player, lots of folks are bemoaning the loss of the summoning non sense. Etc. I for one am glad that they took that out of the game, My most recent game against an eldar player found him telling me that he was glad that his army had been significantly nerfed. People actually enjoyed playing. Against him. Math hammer on different weapons does show surprising internal balance between weapons now. Overall I feel like they did a great job here.

I agree that terrain needs a change. if they had retained the same name between abilities on data sheets II think it would make the abilities easier to remember. I.e. Disgustingly resilient could have remained feel no pain.

I also agree that I would prefer slightly better rules regarding measuring too and from weapons on vehicles. I.e.measure from the weapon but I can buy the logic that this better represents the tank moving around in the flux of battle.

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

So you have a few very major houserules, only play friendly lists that don't have any sort of optimization, and only use simple scenarios.
So HOW exactly do you know that the balance is good?

So non-spam, non-tournament lists are by default "friendly lists" without any sort of optimization? Excellent logic. Is the topic here "how is everyone enjoying 8th?" or "How is 8th for spammy tournament players"? Which of those questions did my answer address? Of the 14-16 players who game regularly no one has an unbeatable army so far. Hordes being the toughest of armies so far.

I'm not saying you can't be having fun. I'm saying you can't have a good sense of how good the balance is. You didn't just say 'non-spam, non tournament', you also specified that you only take the occasional strong unit, and you use Power Levels.
With Power Levels, either you're optimizing the crap out of your army by bringing all possible weapon choices and maximizing potential, or you're using it for easy, quick list building - In which case you're not heavily optimizing.

It's great that your LGS is having a good time.

My LGS uses Power Levels and everyone optimizes the crap out of everything (my Sororitas have an Inferno Pistol, Boltgun replacement, and power axe on almost every model that can take them, including regular sergeants, and some have even more upgrades where available, for example).

It's still fun and balanced, imo.

Playing the game I love, the fluff is "meh" still, but I can live with that, I just use the old 1st edition stuff.

Really liking not needing the game rulebook open with a dozen bookmarks to play, only quibble so far is 'smite' not being on the same page as the other powers in the indexes.

The cover rules are a bit odd, GW create a system where you can fire models individually, and the owning player assigns the hits individually, then doesn't allow cover to be on a per model basis. Ditto firing through a wood provides less cover than firing into it, can live with it though.

Enjoying playing again, the game is still unbalanced and trying to apply reality to it still doesn't work, but its no longer irritating to play with the need to constantly cross reference stuff in a way that appears designed to stop people photocopying the rules.

Put the points on the data sheets for sanity (likely to make my own to do just that for the units I have) and very happy.

Combined with the perfect timing of GW releasing this just as Battlefront disappear up their own behinds and its perfect, heck even got me to try AoS.

So far have dropped a few hundred squid with GW, something I've not done in years

I had a game in 7th where my Invisible Daemon Knight with a re-rollable 2++ invul save was fighting against a huuuge unit of wolves with characters rocking a re-rollable 4++ and Invisibility. We played 7 rounds and were in combat from the bottom of t1, and the only things that died were 10-12 wolves and some Pink Horrors.

That's when I decided that the rumors of an incoming "AoS'ing" of the game was a good thing.

My Eldar would table people by turn 2, taking out warhound titans in one salvo. My Renegades were fun until I met someone with an invisible death star when my army literally could not hurt them (ITC house rules on blasts hitting invis was never used here)

And how many pages of community made FAQs did we need? Not to mention different ones, NOVA, ETC, ITC. It was basically impossible to have a pick-up game without a lenghty talk about which FAQ to use and how we were going to interpret various rules that just didn't work.

I'm really loving 8th edition so far. I've found that a lot of stuff dies in the first 3 rounds, but after that it tends to be an even scramble for objectives with the remaining units slugging it out and boiling down to some really tactical choices. The fight phase can be huge if you read the rules carefully and know what you're doing instead of just having the "closest to closest, run right in" mentality.

So yeah, I'm very positive. Whenever things annoy me in 8th, like the cover/terrain rules, I think about what an absolute mess 7th edition was in the end and stay positive about the future.