State of 40k

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.

**Formosa**

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

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

I am in the same boat as you mate, I am waiting to see what they do with Dark Angels and Orks at the moment, I have a £1k budget I have saved up for Orks for when they drop but the Index and CA have really put me off, either way I may end up buying the new Nobs and Ghazghull when they drop anyway.

**Stormonu**

Thinking about it some more, I believe when the indexes were released, the game was slanted towards infantry-heavy composition. The point reductions have been swinging the meta towards larger models and the inclusion of more vehicles.

I also have a feeling that GW has no desire nor clue about balancing Strategms, and is just giving them out wily-nilly without worry as to how they affect game balance overall. They might as well be called "Cool Points", not Command Points. They should have a clear idea at HQ that a command point is worth approximately X points, and be aware of how many CP's each army can potentially have at a given points level - I think CP's should, in fact, be limited by points/power level and not driven by the FO.

**MagicJuggler**

I am avoiding 8th. Aside from it being a symptom of GW Marketing and Design both being sidelined in favor of Legal and the game being "Their Dudes, not Your Dudes," the game as a whole just feels buggy and unfinished altogether.

However, the real issue I have is the game has managed to take the first-turn advantage associated with IGOUGO and amplify it by several factors. In 5th-7th, there were in fact scenarios where you might opt to go second. Alternating Deployment, turn 1 Deepstrike, and heavily nerfed cover have all made it so there really isn't a disadvantage to going first. Combine this with a general increase of firepower (TL weapons just double their rate of fire, which is great for Marines and Guard since they still get reroll auras), Reserves being restricted to specific units, and Command Points being all up-front (with higher numbers) rather than replenishing from turn-to-turn (but with lower numbers), and you really have little reason to do anything else except frontload those stratagems that help you alphastrike better.

Of course, Psychic Focus, Stratagems individually only usable once per phase, Soulburst being "one of each type per turn," etc. are fake balance. If you need to add such arbitrary caps into your game, maybe you should analyze your core mechanics and ask if the ideas were good to begin with? Da Jump may be "fair" because you only get to *attempt* it once per turn, yet if it brings your uberblob in range to delete several enemy units in one go, yet your opponent has one CP left to attempt "deny on 4+" then you're converging towards a situation where you might as well not play 40k, and simply reduce the whole affair to a coin toss!

This isn't unique to 8th of course. 7th had the same issue with certain power interactions. D was "fair" because it "only" deleted anything on a 6. At least until an Eldar player took a Lynx, rolled three 6s, and one-shotted an Adamantine Lance. Stomp was similarly "fair" because it "only" had a 1 in 6 chance of deleting what was underneath it, and the Grimoire was "fair" because it "only" had a 2 in 3 (well, 8 in 9) chance of adding +2 to a unit's Invulnerable Saves. Hell, Daemons as a whole were "fair" since they "only" had a 1 in 36 chance each turn of rolling to see if they risked losing half their army. Inversely, woe betide your foe if they played Eldar and you roll an 11, forcing a 3d6 Ld check that could turn their Farseer (presumably their Warlord) into a Herald, giving auto Slay the Warlord!

**vipoid**

MagicJuggler wrote:
Combine this with a general increase of firepower (TL weapons just double their rate of fire, which is great for Marines and Guard since they still get reroll auras)

Well, unless you count the Exterminator Leman Russ - which had its Twin Linked Autocannons upgraded to . . . regular Autocannons.

Joking aside, I agree with basically everything you said. I especially agree with your points on 'fake balance' - wherein a dubious ability is 'balanced' by making it once-per-turn or based on a random roll.

Out of interest, how would you suggest changing Command Points to avoid the frontloading you talk about? Should you only able to use a certain number of Command Points each turn? Or should they be entirely independent of detachments?

**Wayniac**

Stormonu wrote:
Thinking about it some more, I believe when the indexes were released, the game was slanted towards infantry-heavy composition. The point reductions have been swinging the meta towards larger models and the inclusion of more vehicles.

I also have a feeling that GW has no desire nor clue about balancing Strategms, and is just giving them out wily-nilly without worry as to how they affect game balance overall. They might as well be called "Cool Points", not Command Points. They should have a clear idea at HQ that a command point is worth approximately X points, and be aware of how many CP's each army can potentially have at a given points level - I think CP's should, in fact, be limited by points/power level and not driven by the FO.

I think this would be a good idea. Right now, the gimmick is to game as many CP as possible, preferably with a way to regain it. Remember when they said in the previews that CP would be a reward for building thematic (i.e. "fluffy") armies? Instead, it just encourages soup lists that can take tons of cheap troops and HQs to fill out Battalions.

At this point, all I can really say is it's better than 7th. I think that the ITC is going to have to step up and create a "Tournament Play" subset of matched play with extra restrictions to reel balance back in, because GW doesn't seem to want to do it. Things like, for example:

* To be Battle-forged, your army must contain at least TWO of the same keyword in all of your detachments, rather than just one (this alone I think would virtually kill soup lists)
* An army cannot benefit from more than one faction trait, even if Battle-forged
* CP only is granted by detachments that match the keywords of your primary detachment (i.e. no taking a cheap HQ/Troop battalion just for extra CP)
* Effects that trigger on a 1 only trigger on a natural 1 (i.e. no more stacking penalties to make overcharged plasma explode 50% of the time)
* A roll of 6 to hit or wound will always hit or wound (removed BS like Orks not being able to even shoot at units with a -2 penalty)
* No special characters allowed (ignore the Ynnari FAQ requiring it for them; they were nerfed anyways) for ITC events

Just spitballing but you get the idea. ITC basically reworked most of 7th edition to make it playable, they will IMHO need to do the same thing (although potentially not as much) now for 8th to make it more balanced for tournament play.

**Tyel**

Much prefer it to 7th - but the gloss is sort of coming off.

I am sort of hopeful they will do something about alpha strikes - in order to make the game more interactive with meaningful choices beyond list building - but I don't see how.

**Drager**

Wayniac wrote:

* To be Battle-forged, your army must contain at least TWO of the same keyword in all of your detachments, rather than just one (this alone I think would virtually kill soup lists)

This kills alot of things that are very fluffy. Gene Stealer and Tyranid Allies, for one. Also pretty much all Ynarri builds that use Harlequin, Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Which would really suck, especially as it goes against the narrative and further gimps none imperial factions.

Wayniac wrote:

* An army cannot benefit from more than one faction trait, even if Battle-forged (this would put an end to crap like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then taking a Stygies VIII detachment with 6 Dragoons just to exploit the -1 to hit, or things like taking an Alpha Legion chaos detachment to use Warptime on Mortarion in a Death Guard army)

Fair I guess, if you want, but it's not that big of a balance issue anyway.

Wayniac wrote:

* Effects that trigger on a 1 only trigger on a natural 1 (i.e. no more stacking penalties to make overcharged plasma explode 50% of the time)

Another buff to Imperium and nerf to counter strategies. Great.

Wayniac wrote:

* A roll of 6 to hit or wound will always hit or wound (removed BS like Orks not being able to even shoot at units with a -2 penalty)

This is really good.

Wayniac wrote:

* No special characters allowed (ignore the Ynnari FAQ requiring it for them; they were nerfed anyways) for ITC events

Oh wow, my only playable HQ is now removed if I play Wych Cult, instead, I have to use utter garbage.

Most of the above just tilts things in favour of imperial factions and/or Chaos and screws xenos factions. Doesn't look like better balance to me.

**MagicJuggler**

In the game I'm working on, they're independent of detachments and generate at the start of the turn based on your army. However, rather than being used as a pseudo-mana for bespoke temporary statbuffs, they literally represent how coordinated the army is as a whole. I always found "I order you to outrun your Chimera" a little silly.

The game is Alternating Activation with Interrupts, and these Tactical Points let you manipulate activation and interrupt order. I think a good analogy would be Starcraft APM: You can only micro so much and when you overfocus on one part of the battle, you risk being outmaneuvered elsewhere.

Tactical Points are solely for turn structure. I imagine some characters have Hero Points that they can either use as ersatz Tactical Points, or for activating Heroic Feats (more akin to 8e Stratagems or WMH Power Actions). Hero Points are more flexible, but limited to specific heroes/their units, rather than being available armywide.

And based on this framework, you can differentiate "Command" armies, "Elite" armies, and "Heroic" armies. The "Command" armies have a lower number of base TP and their heroes have minimal HP, but their characters generate extra TP and they get discounts on assorted TP activation combos. "Elite" armies have a higher base TP value, while "Heroic" armies have more HP for their characters but lack a good TP pool. "Elite vs Heroic" could easily be the difference between, say, a Marian Legion and the 300 Spartans or so.

**ChargerIIC**

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

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

To quote a certain podcast, wait a month and it'll be a new 8th Edition

Altough I do feel for Xenos players. How SM Subfactions got a codex before Xenos mono-factions boggles the mind

**Galas**

Peregrine wrote:

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

What? Are we in the same Dakkadakka?

**gummyofallbears**

I haven't experienced balance issues first hand, as all the games I strive to play are generally fairly balanced, I've had trouble finding games that are a middle ground between overly competitive, and a dumpster fire. I want to play a competent, strategic game, just not with 500 brimstone horrors, or two demon primarchs, or 15 razorbacks or whatever.

I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)

A definite upgrade from 7th, but it seems a lot of issues with different units are just fixed with the same things. Oh, a shooting unit is currently bad, GW fixes almost all of those issues with letting the unit shoot twice, with very little variety in the buffs implemented I think.

**Voss**

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

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

To quote a certain podcast, wait a month and it'll be a new 8th Edition

Altough I do feel for Xenos players. How SM Subfactions got a codex before Xenos mono-factions boggles the mind

At thirty years in, it shouldn't. Marines carry the product line and the company.
Could/should they do more for xenos factions? Sure.
But the business logic behind front loading Marines is pretty solid.

The only real surprise is that Space Wolves are still over the horizon in the unknown.
As the most special of special snowflakes chapter, they often get a lot more attention than the not-so-special Angel twins.
Which makes me think GW is waiting til they'll get a real release, not just some repacked boxes with an upgrade sprue and a LT each.

**bananathug**

Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even though I disagree with the tone of the post, this x1000. I've had a nagging dissatisfaction with WH after the inital glow disapated from dusting off my army from 5th edition and this post seems to codify the issues I'm having.

The main things are:

#1. Agreed, it doesn't seem like a strategy game but a list building and dice rolling game. Which is fun but there seems to be a distinct lack of tactical play at the highest levels with really optimized lists. Feints, flanking, positioning all have very little impact because of the range of guns (48" is ridiculous on a 4x6 table, 60"...) movement (36"+ movements w/ psychics/strats, pinpoint deepstrike, flyers...) and virtual non-impact of terrain (if it doesn't block LOS 100% it has next to no impact)

#2. Agreed, again it takes away tactical choice. Why would I want to bring anti-tank and anti-infantry when guilliman assault cannons kill everything better. Everything killing everything has really put a emphasis on volume of fire (160 shot cultist blobs anyone)

#5. I think this is a fundamental issue and not sure how it can be fixed. I'd almost rather them have different rules and point costs for games under 1k, 1-3k, and then 3k+. Would allow for better granularity. Interaction between units does not scale well in this game and things that work at 1k points do not at 2k.

**DarkBlack**

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

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

I think the simplification is good for Warhammer.

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

I think casual play is where Warhammer (either) is best. It does not suit everyone, but those people can play Infinity.
One of the best things about "NuGW" is that they seem to have realised that they don't need or want to please everyone. Take the Kharadron Overlords; there was a lot of "what the feth is this gak", but also plenty of "OMG steampunk sky dwarves! YES!". Those who don't like it don't matter, but going for pleasing one target group was the aim; rather than lots of "meh" from most people.
The rules, similarly, appeal to one type of player; which sucks if you're not it, but it's amazing if you are. Which seems to have been achieved; those who liked 40k despite 7th are loving it and those who have not liked the experience presented by Warhammer are shrugging (or raging) and going on to games better suited to them.
It's not a game for competitive play and as far as I can tell, never has been.

I'm not pleased with the load of rules GW expects us to buy now though.

**Daedalus81**

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

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

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

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

....Cawl, Greyfax, and Celestine? Or do you mean 8th only? 6 months is a pretty damned small window.

**auticus**

There is simplification.

Then there is over-simplification.

We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.

Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.

**Unit1126PLL**

I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.

Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.

**Blacksails**

auticus wrote:
There is simplification.

Then there is over-simplification.

We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.

Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.

Exactly.

A time/labour intensive CCG, or more expensive and more time/labour intensive board game.

I was hoping for a wargame with 8th. 5th wasn't a great game by any stretch, but it was a damn sight better than this and 7th.

There's a lot in 8th that could be fixed without alienating people. Fixing balance issues would benefit everyone, and to honest, making the game more tactical/adding depth would please most people, seeing as 40k is still functionally a wargame, and people expect there to be some thought involved.

At this point, one of the big contentious points would be shrinking the game size down and/or removing flyers and superheavies form the game, which would alienate people who have grown to love armies heavily based around them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.

Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.

And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.

It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.

**Unit1126PLL**

Blacksails wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.

Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.

And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.

It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.

My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.

But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.

I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.

**nou**

Blacksails wrote:
auticus wrote:
There is simplification.

Then there is over-simplification.

We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.

Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.

Exactly.

A time/labour intensive CCG, or more expensive and more time/labour intensive board game.

I was hoping for a wargame with 8th. 5th wasn't a great game by any stretch, but it was a damn sight better than this and 7th.

There's a lot in 8th that could be fixed without alienating people. Fixing balance issues would benefit everyone, and to honest, making the game more tactical/adding depth would please most people, seeing as 40k is still functionally a wargame, and people expect there to be some thought involved.

At this point, one of the big contentious points would be shrinking the game size down and/or removing flyers and superheavies form the game, which would alienate people who have grown to love armies heavily based around them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.

Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.

And...who exactly has the space, let alone the tables for a 20x20 board, not to mention the logistics of getting in to the middle of the board, let alone the huge amount of terrain that would be needed.

It'd just make more sense to change ranges, speeds, and shrink the game to make the board feel larger.

Space and available terrain have been a huge problem since... forever really. Except for very edge cases most batreps I see and FLGS I went into have too little terrain even for 6x4 tables and this has not changed since my early 2nd-3rd ed days. Maelstrom during 7th was sort of a way of artificially enlarging 6x4 table by forcing players to move around, but with 8th that is now gone, at least with higher end games of alpha-strikes and tabling.

Large area tables have to either be long but still 4-5' wide or divided into separate or ridge/portal connected zones, L or U shaped to be manageable. Only two FLGSs I've been to have necessary space to fit more than one such setup. Those things can be achieved, are fun to play on, but realistically speaking, there won't ever be a "movement" within this community strong enough to upscale "standard table" above 6x4...

**MagicJuggler**

Personally, I always was a fan of reducing all movement and ranges by 33%, and making squad coherency a 1" requirement (with certain units being able to disperse to 2-4" apart or so). Flamers/blasts would be the same, and ironically would be relatively more powerful as a result.

**Mr Morden**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
The biggest issue I have at the moment is that I really don't want to buy anything

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

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

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

....Cawl, Greyfax, and Celestine? Or do you mean 8th only? 6 months is a pretty damned small window.

Yep 8th only - they were all produced for 7th ed. And yet how many new Marine models have we had in that time ?

**auticus**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think Warhammer resembles a board game or a CCG purely because distance and speed matters a lot more than it does for those.

Say what you will for shallowness and lack of tactics, but the fact that using a 20x20 board instead of a 6x4 actually has a HUGE impact on the utility of various units and completely changes the way the game is played indicates to me that there is at least some semblance of maneuver.

Thats just it though... distance and speed don't really matter in 40k or AOS. In either game you can get into combat in turn 1, bypassing any need for maneuver. 40k is designed to be over by the end of the 2nd turn.

You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.

A 20'x20' board is... I've seen that like three times in 25 years. The standard is a 6x4, and on a 6x4 with current metrics in place, the game is to me a glorified board game that utilizes popular card game mechanics only instead of cards we buy and paint miniatures.

Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.

**Blacksails**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.

Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.

But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.

That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.

I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.

It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.

**nou**

Blacksails wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.

Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.

But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.

That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.

I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.

It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.

Instead of converting ruleset you could just use tape measure in centimeters rather than in inches, since there are no more templates in the game and size of the bases don't matter all that much and BAM!, your 6'x4' table is now a bit larger than 15'x10'. Since cover and LOS are pretty much irrelevant now and level of abstraction in 40K is quite high now, you don't lose too much immersion but gain so needed space to manouver.

**Formosa**

nou wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

My buddy and I played on the floor of his game room plenty of times. The terrain was sometimes unpainted, because he liked to build it but not paint it, but we had enough. Cardstock and foamboard are cheap, and he loved making terrain.

Man, I wish I had a 20x20 space I could clear out for games.

But yes, you could play 6mm warhammer 40k, and there'd also be room for maneuver.

That's the dream really. Make this current iteration of 40k into Epic again, and boom, a lot of issues would be solved. I'd love for that to happen.

I'm also not sure how anything you said refutes my point that 'the fact that the space you play on matters a huge amount to how the game functions'.

It refutes it simply on the impracticality of it. You are technically correct in that its a solution, but its super, super unrealistic to even suggest regularly using a 20x20 space. Frankly, its more plausible to use a converted ruleset on a standard table than play on a 20x20 area.

Instead of converting ruleset you could just use tape measure in centimeters rather than in inches, since there are no more templates in the game and size of the bases don't matter all that much and BAM!, your 6'x4' table is now a bit larger than 15'x10'. Since cover and LOS are pretty much irrelevant now and level of abstraction in 40K is quite high now, you don't lose too much immersion but gain so needed space to manouver.

Plus if you use 40k Terrain then buildings look mega gothic and mega massive, just takes a bit of imagination.

**DarkBlack**

auticus wrote:

You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.

Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.

Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.

I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?

Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.

**thekingofkings**

Sorry folks, there will not be a 9th edition, Peregrine and I are in complete agreement which means the world is in fact going to explode and destroy us all.

**wuestenfux**

I feel 8th is a fun game, but should not be taken too seriously (same with all GW games I think, considering how terribly the game is optimized for competitive play.)

Right.
The community would highly welcome a tournament based rule set like Steamroller for WMH. But GW is refusing this from the outset.

**auticus**

DarkBlack wrote:
auticus wrote:

You can get the same results from 40k the card game. Both a CCG and 40k rely heavily on netlisting and listbuilding in general, neither really have any meaningful maneuver, and you just pick a target and roll some dice at it to see what happens.

Is it fun? It can be fun. Is it really a wargame? I'd say no, it stopped being that years ago. Is that bad? If you like board games or CCG style games then you're probably in heaven right now. If you want a wargame, you don't have much left on the market to pick from. Especially in the genre that 40k sits in. Gates of Antares is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind at this point.

Oh gak! Sorry! I didn't realise that the definition of a wargame was whether a game is satisfying to you in particular. Oh great master of the tabletop.
Here I was thinking a wargame was a game using models and terrain on an open table (i.e. you have to measure, rather than having a board with markings on). I really though that some wargames could just have simpler rules, like Kings of War.
Didn't realise that game simplicity or design was the deciding factor, suppose cards are not what make them card games either.

I also forgot to look down on board games, no intelligence required there I guess. Does that make chess a wargame?

Depends on what exactly the genre is, if you mean grimdark science fantasy, no. If you mean SciFi then there's gates of Antares, Deadzone and Infinity.

Oh boy. We took this down to dakka dakka land didn't we.

I don't think anywhere I posted that my *opinion* was the defacto for the world. It is my *opinion*. Also never mentioned anything about wargames and simpler rules not being wargames. So take it down a couple notches there Ultimate Warrior.

But I'll explain for you MY OPINION.

A wargame intuitively creates a battle or war. A card game like Magic could also be called "a wargame" because you are opposed against someone and you are "battliing them". Battleship could also be called a "wargame" for the same reason.

Now a "wargame" has up until very recently involved two key factors that are absent from 40k. That being... maneuvering pieces being crucial, and battlefield management being key (managing terrain). In card games like Magic... or in board games like Battleship... or Dominion, or pick any of the hundreds of board games or card games that have us fighting our opponent, maneuver either doesn't exist at all (like card games) or is very benign (like board games).

40k doesn't have maneuver really. I mean technically you move models. But you can get engaged in turn 1 adn the game is designed to be over by turn 2. Maneuver is largely irrelevant. You can just point at what you want to fight, and your models alpha strike it and then you both roll a bunch of dice. Just like magic the gathering and just like a bunch of board games.

40k's terrain rules are also largely irrelevant. You don't have to manage the battlefield and the terrain because the terrain is for the most part ornamental and could just as easily not exist because it gives next to no impact in the actual game (by design, many people for years and years complained about terrain and how they don't like using terrain because it impacts the game and they didn't like that)

So you are left with a game that, *to me*, is more similar to a board game or a card game than it is a wargame.

This has nothing, zero, nada to do with simplicity or any of the other straw man points you pulled. Dragon Rampant has a very siimple ruleset and is more of a wargame than AOS is. Kings of War has maneuver and feels like a wargame. Age of Simgar is like 40k, its more like a board game or a card game because *to me* maneuver and battlefield management don't really exist in either system. Its all about target priority (just like magic and board games) and its all about list building (deckbuilding). Gates of Antares is absolutely a wargame that feels like an actual battle being played, and not two people deckbuilding some combos and then playing them out.

Neither 40k nor AOS feel like a battle would actually feel, nor do they really represent the fiction that the Black Library writers write in terms of the battles and how the battles play out, because iin the liiterature maneuvering and terrain do matter (as they would intuitively matter in any battle).