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.

 purplkrush wrote:
For those who seem to understand what I'm getting at, as admittedly my OP wasn't the clearest, Maybe I should break things down a bit more:

What rule set would you prefer to have for the breakdowns of troop types?

Would you prefer...
-5th for vehicles?
-8th for Characters/HQ?
-3rd for Troops?

If a fan-made rule set was to be made, how would you structure the basics according to editions? With the obvious caveat that some points and rules tweaks would be in order to balance the amalgamation of rule sets. The idea would be total inclusivity for past and future units and updates for units as they come out.

I think vehicles are better in Apoc, the 2 types of weapons is really nice, and you can balance the game better when you separate the two. I didnt like them in 5th at all, actually i HATED 5th vehicles, when you can shoot 10 lances at a rhino and it not die, thats stupid.

I also like HQ's not being in units between 8th and AoS 2.0 its kinda nice, it also stops some of the deathstar mechanics

I like detachments, BUT i wish you had to take either a 1 Patrols for every 1k points or 1 Battalion for every 2k points (PS, chance the CP system first), and then you can pick 1 of any of the other detachments. I also want allies back, 1 detachment for allies limited to 500pts.

For troops? That should be up to the codex to change that like in 5th/6th/7th

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
For those who seem to understand what I'm getting at, as admittedly my OP wasn't the clearest, Maybe I should break things down a bit more:

What rule set would you prefer to have for the breakdowns of troop types?

Would you prefer...
-5th for vehicles?
-8th for Characters/HQ?
-3rd for Troops?

If a fan-made rule set was to be made, how would you structure the basics according to editions? With the obvious caveat that some points and rules tweaks would be in order to balance the amalgamation of rule sets. The idea would be total inclusivity for past and future units and updates for units as they come out.

I think vehicles are better in Apoc, the 2 types of weapons is really nice, and you can balance the game better when you separate the two. I didnt like them in 5th at all, actually i HATED 5th vehicles, when you can shoot 10 lances at a rhino and it not die, thats stupid.

I also like HQ's not being in units between 8th and AoS 2.0 its kinda nice, it also stops some of the deathstar mechanics

I like detachments, BUT i wish you had to take either a 1 Patrols for every 1k points or 1 Battalion for every 2k points (PS, chance the CP system first), and then you can pick 1 of any of the other detachments. I also want allies back, 1 detachment for allies limited to 500pts.

For troops? That should be up to the codex to change that like in 5th/6th/7th

8th Ed.

10 Lances.

3 Misses.

7 hits, 4ish wounds.
Maybe 1 passed save.
D6 damage.
9 Damage.

Rhino survives.


They're really not that much different.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
For those who seem to understand what I'm getting at, as admittedly my OP wasn't the clearest, Maybe I should break things down a bit more:

What rule set would you prefer to have for the breakdowns of troop types?

Would you prefer...
-5th for vehicles?
-8th for Characters/HQ?
-3rd for Troops?

If a fan-made rule set was to be made, how would you structure the basics according to editions? With the obvious caveat that some points and rules tweaks would be in order to balance the amalgamation of rule sets. The idea would be total inclusivity for past and future units and updates for units as they come out.

I think vehicles are better in Apoc, the 2 types of weapons is really nice, and you can balance the game better when you separate the two. I didnt like them in 5th at all, actually i HATED 5th vehicles, when you can shoot 10 lances at a rhino and it not die, thats stupid.

I also like HQ's not being in units between 8th and AoS 2.0 its kinda nice, it also stops some of the deathstar mechanics

I like detachments, BUT i wish you had to take either a 1 Patrols for every 1k points or 1 Battalion for every 2k points (PS, chance the CP system first), and then you can pick 1 of any of the other detachments. I also want allies back, 1 detachment for allies limited to 500pts.

For troops? That should be up to the codex to change that like in 5th/6th/7th

8th Ed.

10 Lances.

3 Misses.

7 hits, 4ish wounds.
Maybe 1 passed save.
D6 damage.
9 Damage.

Rhino survives.


They're really not that much different.

Lance are -4ap, Rhino gets no saves, 10 shots, 7 hits, 4 wounds, 4D6 = 14 wounds.

But, even if only 9 damage does go through in 5th that MEANS NOTHING, at least i know the next wound will kill it unlike in 5th, you can still have the same chance to not ill it even if you do wound it. In 5th wounding it doesnt mean anything, you still need to get that 5 on the chart (unless you have rules that says otherwise)


Edit: spelling and correction

4th Edition is my favorite edition, I think. 4th had the most customizations for armies, and was pre true-LOS rules, pre Ward, pre Knights/Fliers, and pre AP-inflation. Imo it was the last edition that focussed on infantry. It had different 'levels' of play, with Omega being the best.

2nd is also great, I've been playing some of that recently.

TinyLegions wrote:
Personally I am a fan of the 5th. On the issue of wound allocation, I always assumed that a guy would "pick up" what the guy that got shot left

The problem with 5e wound allocation was the multiwound wargear rules which made it possible to spread damage around without removing models. You had to put 11 wounds on a nob biker squad before the first model died for instance.
And it was a little slow - honestly allowing players to remove what they want so long as injured multiwound models (excluding characters) are removed first would have served well enough.

 purplkrush wrote:
What rule set would you prefer to have for the breakdowns of troop types?
Would you prefer...
-5th for vehicles?
-8th for Characters/HQ?
-3rd for Troops?
If a fan-made rule set was to be made, how would you structure the basics according to editions? With the obvious caveat that some points and rules tweaks would be in order to balance the amalgamation of rule sets. The idea would be total inclusivity for past and future units and updates for units as they come out.

IMO 5e books (sans GK) and 5e rules, with normalised points for imperial/chaos shared stuff and psychic abilities.
Ditch fliers, add forgeworld on a select basis, simplify wound allocation, tweak cover saves (5+ for soft cover, negated by blasts), and adjust the vehicle damage rules (+1 to damage rolls when immobilised and the first shaken result temporarily knocking out one weapon rather than all of them as a starter).
Replace the mission scoring rules entirely.

Beyond that it's mostly just small tweaks to USRs (i.e. MCs taking d3/d6 wounds from instant death and having rending 2+ rather than armourbane), moral (i.e. units above half strength having the option to go to ground rather than flee), and the notable offenders amongst wargear, faction rules, and unit composition.

YMMV on foc shenanigans, squadrons and platoons, and characters with unique buffs available to some factions. It's entirely possible to trim/pad all of the 5e factions to around two dozen core unit entries.

No addition has been perfect and some much less perfect than others but I have fairly decent memories of 5th being a solid edition.
Enjoying 8th too if getting a touch stale with the shooting-heavy / alpha-strike aspect to it.

Nothing from the 3rd - 7th era please. That is basically the game at its worst. Play 2nd edition or even Rogue Trader over it.

In fact they didn't ditch enough of the junk added during it when making 8th, where the core rules (that is the main rulebook set) are actually the strongest and most coherent they've ever been.

8th edition is fascinating, because the core rules are the simplest (and arguably best) they've ever been. The actual unit rules have become dazzlingly complicated though. Wide open detachment rules, plenty of options for soup, more codices than ever, subfaction rules, bespoke psychic powers and strategems, and increasingly complicated auras and buffs allow some armies to play like it's warmachine.

Look at an ultramarines gunline: it gets chapter tactics, tactical doctrines, and a combat doctrine. Most units will be in auras for rerollin hits and wounds of one, and as many models as possible will be in a bubble for shooting after death. Plus, you can add psychic powers and chaplain prayers, as well as strategems. and a warlord trait. Oh, and if they're part of a specialist detachment they can take a second chapter tactic. A single unit can easily have over a half dozen buffs layered onto it. That's very complex.

 Polonius wrote:
8th edition is fascinating, because the core rules are the simplest (and arguably best) they've ever been.

Simplicity came at the cost of so much though. Not just armour penetrating weapons being good against concealment, small arms being effective against tanks, and flamers being ideal against aircraft but whole strategic aspects of the game that were removed in terms of positioning the models.
Things that were risky like flinging artillery close to friendly units or teleporting into a tightly packed area became a sure thing, while charging an opponent or determining game victory conditions became a game of dice.

I remember my first impression of it being that it had become more like a computer game. For the most part units could have been boiled down to a single model being worn away by enemy fire RTS style - point, click, accumulate damage.

If a tactical squad was one guy with 10 wounds that rolled twice their remaining wounds to attack, with a couple of 'special' dice on the side if you took upgrades like a plasmagun, would the game really change? Some rules like bodyguard even work quite explicitly this way.

Well, at a minimum, he'd have smaller footprint. So he'd be easier to hide out of LOS and easier to keep in Cover. If Charged, less models would be able to get CC attacks on him as well.

A.T. wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
8th edition is fascinating, because the core rules are the simplest (and arguably best) they've ever been.

Simplicity came at the cost of so much though. Not just armour penetrating weapons being good against concealment, small arms being effective against tanks, and flamers being ideal against aircraft but whole strategic aspects of the game that were removed in terms of positioning the models.
Things that were risky like flinging artillery close to friendly units or teleporting into a tightly packed area became a sure thing, while charging an opponent or determining game victory conditions became a game of dice.

I remember my first impression of it being that it had become more like a computer game. For the most part units could have been boiled down to a single model being worn away by enemy fire RTS style - point, click, accumulate damage.

If a tactical squad was one guy with 10 wounds that rolled twice their remaining wounds to attack, with a couple of 'special' dice on the side if you took upgrades like a plasmagun, would the game really change? Some rules like bodyguard even work quite explicitly this way.

I never really interpreted having a cover save as being hidden, so much as having some concrete between you and the the person shooting at you covering your torso, in which case a lascannon having the penetration to blow through the chest high wall without question seems very reasonable, and at the least more reasonable than Aegis Barricade being as proof against a Autogun as it is against a Baneblade Cannon.

I'm of two mind on the loss of armor facing. With many models that don't have a coherent front-side-rear arc removing facing removes a lot of discussion. It arguably didn't add a whole lot most of the time anyway. In addition, in order to really matter, a vehicle has to have either limited fire arcs or restricted movement options for armor facings to matter.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm of two mind on the loss of armor facing. With many models that don't have a coherent front-side-rear arc removing facing removes a lot of discussion. It arguably didn't add a whole lot most of the time anyway. In addition, in order to really matter, a vehicle has to have either limited fire arcs or restricted movement options for armor facings to matter.

Positioning to threaten from two angles could make a big difference. Something like a predator was three times more vulnerable to missile fire from the side and a frontal exchange of fire between russes, battlewagons, and other AV14 was a slow affair - but one squad sneaking into the rear arc even with just small arms could knock them out of action.

In 8e you just dump your vehicle in whatever position it balances best on the scenery and clump your squads up tightly in the face of artillery to maximize LoS blocking. All that matters is getting into range.

A.T. wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm of two mind on the loss of armor facing. With many models that don't have a coherent front-side-rear arc removing facing removes a lot of discussion. It arguably didn't add a whole lot most of the time anyway. In addition, in order to really matter, a vehicle has to have either limited fire arcs or restricted movement options for armor facings to matter.

Positioning to threaten from two angles could make a big difference. Something like a predator was three times more vulnerable to missile fire from the side and a frontal exchange of fire between russes, battlewagons, and other AV14 was a slow affair - but one squad sneaking into the rear arc even with just small arms could knock them out of action.

In 8e you just dump your vehicle in whatever position it balances best on the scenery and clump your squads up tightly in the face of artillery to maximize LoS blocking. All that matters is getting into range.

Ha, that's a good one! The only thing that outflanks Leman Russ tanks to their rear are things that had a special rule that just hit rear armor.

If a unit is getting legitimate shots on the rear armor of your Leman Russ, you've already lost the game and then some. The frontal arc is approximately wide enough that actually getting into the side arc of the tank is basically in my deployment area, and even then the side arc is AV13 and the rear arc isn't even a space on the table.

I do miss the relative balance between tanks and the things that infantry carried that could hurt them of editions gone by [read: "tanks didn't care about gakky little infantry grunts with bazookas"], and the premier decider of battles between me and my friend was the Vanquishers and the Hammerheads, but that balance won't return again if we went back to 5th edition. There are Riptides now, half of everybody has monstrous creatures that happily ignore cannons that would tear a turret off a tank, and we all own a greater pool of models than we did at the time.

A.T. wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
8th edition is fascinating, because the core rules are the simplest (and arguably best) they've ever been.

Simplicity came at the cost of so much though. Not just armour penetrating weapons being good against concealment, small arms being effective against tanks, and flamers being ideal against aircraft but whole strategic aspects of the game that were removed in terms of positioning the models.
Things that were risky like flinging artillery close to friendly units or teleporting into a tightly packed area became a sure thing, while charging an opponent or determining game victory conditions became a game of dice.

I remember my first impression of it being that it had become more like a computer game. For the most part units could have been boiled down to a single model being worn away by enemy fire RTS style - point, click, accumulate damage.

That's pretty accurate, but it's also been forced by the scale the game wants to play at and the types of weapons and units the game has pushed. Extreme levels of abstraction are required when you design a game to essentially cover every possible scale and type of unit all playing on a relatively flat 6'x4' board.

 Insectum7 wrote:
4th Edition is my favorite edition, I think. 4th had the most customizations for armies, and was pre true-LOS rules, ...

4th edition wasn't 'pre-true-LOS'... Every previous edition of 40K, back to Rogue Trader used true LOS, with varying levels of abstraction to deal with area terrain. 4th edition still used true LOS, it just had slightly more regimented abstract LOS rules for area terrain than other editions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm of two mind on the loss of armor facing. With many models that don't have a coherent front-side-rear arc removing facing removes a lot of discussion. It arguably didn't add a whole lot most of the time anyway. In addition, in order to really matter, a vehicle has to have either limited fire arcs or restricted movement options for armor facings to matter.

Positioning to threaten from two angles could make a big difference. Something like a predator was three times more vulnerable to missile fire from the side and a frontal exchange of fire between russes, battlewagons, and other AV14 was a slow affair - but one squad sneaking into the rear arc even with just small arms could knock them out of action.

In 8e you just dump your vehicle in whatever position it balances best on the scenery and clump your squads up tightly in the face of artillery to maximize LoS blocking. All that matters is getting into range.

Ha, that's a good one! The only thing that outflanks Leman Russ tanks to their rear are things that had a special rule that just hit rear armor.

If a unit is getting legitimate shots on the rear armor of your Leman Russ, you've already lost the game and then some. The frontal arc is approximately wide enough that actually getting into the side arc of the tank is basically in my deployment area, and even then the side arc is AV13 and the rear arc isn't even a space on the table.

I do miss the relative balance between tanks and the things that infantry carried that could hurt them of editions gone by [read: "tanks didn't care about gakky little infantry grunts with bazookas"], and the premier decider of battles between me and my friend was the Vanquishers and the Hammerheads, but that balance won't return again if we went back to 5th edition. There are Riptides now, half of everybody has monstrous creatures that happily ignore cannons that would tear a turret off a tank, and we all own a greater pool of models than we did at the time.

I liked firing arcs, as they rewarded mobile firepower. Outflanking scout bikes could unload into the back of gunlines, land speeders could drift into the side arc to slam a few missiles around the front plate. Even a humble tactical squad could move up in a rhino for a better angle.

All that said, I don’t miss them that much. A lot of time was spent trying to figure out angles, what side you were on, etc. It was more tactically deep, but not without cost.

--

Every edition was broken in different ways. Pick your poison for what edition suits you best. Best thing to do is find a group of people with a similar mindset and have fun. But rose tinted glasses are a real thing. I have fond memories of early 3rd. But it could be horribly abused. And the rules bloat of late 3rd would shock those who think it’s bad these days...

Suicide terminators for Chaos were quite reliable.
Three meltas to the back end solved most vehicle situations.

tneva82 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't get the OPs point, GW is moving some old units they no longer produce into legends, (thus giving a bare minimum amount of support for something that realisticly would have been squatted even not that long ago) the down side is legends units won't likely be alowed in tournies, so his solution is to play an older edition... which likely won't be supported by any tournies?

Depends on community. Fans got pissed at GW and made FB 9th edition on their own producing superior product that is now played in tournaments.

Would be nice for players to say screw it for GW and take over rule producing. Maybe get something even remotely decent ruleset eventually.

With none of the new releases incorporated. 9th Age is doomed to die a very slow death.

I think it is true that we remember the best from editions rather than the worst.
2nd: I mostly remember the excitement of this new hobby, getting the rules wrong but having so much fun anyway, and getting all my friends around for giant multiplayer games that were completely ridiculous. Plus, I still have my Blood Angels from back then, slathered in paint by an enthusiastic but very unskilled 12 year old Da Boss who could not wait til the undercoat dried, so a lot of them are still pink.
3rd: My favourite time was playing this when it was new with my Orks, which I had just started, a mix of 2nd edition Deathskull metals, Blood Axe Commandos and Gorkamorka Orks. The basic army lists were really fun to play against each other, and the new turn structure and simplified rules seemed revolutionary to me. I was disappointed by the army books, which seemed really lacklustre compared to the 2nd edition ones, but excited to get new units for my Orks, and I loved the Brian Nelson miniatures to death.
4th: Played my first tournaments in this edition and ran a big gaming club during. My main memory of this edition is waiting forever to get my Orks updated while a million marine variant armies came out. I did not really like this edition, but I felt that the Chaos Codex that came out was nearly as good as the old one and allowed for some pretty amazing themed armies. Was the Armageddon global campaign in this edition? That was awesome too.
5th: Probably my favourite edition. I was playing pretty much weekly with my Orks and they finally had a book that was a fun read and allowed a variety of interesting builds that could compete with other armies, even if they were not the most overpowered thing ever. I had a lot more fun games in this edition than the others and bought a lot more stuff as a consequence. Started a Crimson Fists army just because I had bought the starter set a bunch of times. The codices were pretty variable in quality though, and few were as good as the 2nd edition ones.
6th: Bought the starter, read the rules, tried a couple of games and fell sharply out of love with the game. Just did not like how the aspects of 5th I did not like seemed to become more and more part of the core game, and kinda signed out of the system.
7th: Barely interacted with it, I saw it as a nakedly cynical ploy given how short the time was between 6th and this.
8th: Heard good things about it, came back to see what the fuss was about. I can see why people like it, and I think it is a big improvement on 6th and 7th, but there is a lot about it that niggles at me and I cannot see myself playing it. Some awesome stuff released though, Mechanicus and Genestealer cults really brings back the 2nd edition nostalgia.

Weird how 5th seems to be the consensus edition people would go back to. It seems like 5th and 8th are both pretty decent, with some love for 3rd and 2nd.

I did a poll on who like which edition most and 5th was the most liked legacy edition, but still outclassed about 5:1 by 8th.

Least liked edition was 6th.

 Jidmah wrote:
I did a poll on who like which edition most and 5th was the most liked legacy edition, but still outclassed about 5:1 by 8th.

Least liked edition was 6th.

I'm a fan of 8e (at least relatively speaking), but devils advocate: surely people who vote on the poll will more likely be current players (I know there are many around here who don't play, but it will surely tend towards more active players), and surely people who currently play will skew towards 8e fans.

Therefore the poll is likely to miss out a lot of people who left the game due to not liking the state of it, whether that was 8e, or maybe they left 7e or earlier but didn't come back.

Possible, but that contradicts the other signs of 8ths incredible success, like GW's business numbers, facebook activity, multiple fan sites (B&C, dakka) reporting an all-time high in user activity and massive increases in organized event participants.
On top you have the subjective effect of huge amounts of people coming back to the game that have not played in decades. Most people unhappy with 8th seem to be those who enjoyed 7th, because they signed up for a completely different game.

As many people as ever are playing WH40k, and the vast majority of them would rather play 8th than any other edition.

As many people as ever are playing WH40k, and the vast majority of them would rather play 8th than any other edition.

Sign me up for 8th over others. Started in 2nd and ignoring any rose-tinted views I have found 8th edition the most engaging version yet. Ton of people playing it and everybody around me is having fun. Except maybe for GK players.

Legends is good terminology, personally I think every game I'll play will be a Legends allowed game, I might make my opponent pay another 10-50 pts if it's busted compared to modern costs and he's trying to game the system in two or three years.

I liked 7th, it was not good out the box but it had some good things going for it. Wound allocation worked nicely, except for Characters, I'd use the most modern 8th rules for those. Blasts also made a lot of sense most of the time, even if they were hell to resolve once in a while. I don't think any of the factions were playable and fun out of the box so you'd have to rewrite every codex.

I'm not sure about my thoughts on Decurion Detachments, I like the idea of pushing people in the direction of a combined arms force, but not everyone had access to the same levels of broken detachments which made things unfun. 3x Battalion or 2x SupCom + 1x Battalion isn't really any better in terms of army composition and single Force Org was too restrictive IMO. I prefer CP as formation benefits compared to special rules.

Necrons were too busted for my liking in 6th and 7th and 7th ed RP was stupid, late 5th edition would probably be my go-to if I was not allowed to make any rules interventions if I felt like going back, but I don't usually because I love 8th.

8th is super good, I especially like Stratagems, but I do get nostalgic about firing lines, wrecks and blast markers once in a while. What I hate the most about 8th is vehicles only getting -1 when they move 12" and only for heavy weapons, on top of that they only get D6 inches for advancing, it seems there is very little granularity with how far vehicles move this edition.

Cover gives the wrong incentives in terms of Guard benefitting less from cover than Marines which is another thing I dislike.

Removing models from anywhere to the point where you don't even need to be in coherency is dumb. Aura abilities are kind of dumb, I'd prefer if there were only entirely within abilities, no patching up 90 Grots at once with one Painboy.

I don't feel the need to make homebrew rules for 8th except to accommodate my opponents and for fun. But that's mostly due to GW making an effort otherwise I'd have to homebrew fixes for all the mistakes of 8th or maybe play with something ITC came out with.

If I was given free reign of writing and infinite time and playtests every codex then 7th is a good system. I might go even further on the simulationist side and make tanks have to turn like blocks of infantry in WHFB. I might also remove Overwatch and go back to punishing movement more heavily for shooting units. Hit on 6s for heavy weapons or RF weapons at longe range when moving.

I think there's an overabundance of Stratagems in 8th for some factions, I'd like for people to have a far smaller number. Something like 0-5 for faction, 1-3 for sub-faction, 2-5 per Specialist Detachment, with a half dozen generic Specialist Detachments if you wanted to go that route. Even if you created 100 Specialist Detachments you'd only have to look through your opponents 6-15 Stratagems before the game begins, looking through 30-60 is way too much.

Alternatively, just 25ish generic Stratagems that everyone gets or picks a number from that they get to use with each army. In my perfect world, each army list has access to less than 10 Stratagems, giving opponents plenty opportunity to read their opponent's every Stratagem without dragging the game out too much. I also dislike Chapter Tactics, it's a completely unnecessity in a world with Stratagems and only invalidates countless armies because it'll be much less efficient to run Blood Angels Predators than Raven Guard Predators. If it just came down to a Stratagem or two that BA Preds didn't have access to I think the punishment for taking a BA Pred would be or at least feel less severe, depending on how OP those Stratagems were of course.

I hope that Legends unit points are slightly too high, like many of the Index units are now because they haven't been updated - then there would be no reason to disallow them anywhere, even if other points values change over the years. I would personally just like the opportunity to use all of my models and don't mind if it puts me at a slightly disadvantage. If it puts me at an advantage instead, then it wouldn't feel right to use them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Possible, but that contradicts the other signs of 8ths incredible success, like GW's business numbers, facebook activity, multiple fan sites (B&C, dakka) reporting an all-time high in user activity and massive increases in organized event participants.
On top you have the subjective effect of huge amounts of people coming back to the game that have not played in decades. Most people unhappy with 8th seem to be those who enjoyed 7th, because they signed up for a completely different game.

As many people as ever are playing WH40k, and the vast majority of them would rather play 8th than any other edition.

To paraphrase Mark Hamill, it doesn't need to be good, it just needs to make money. People like bad things all the time.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Possible, but that contradicts the other signs of 8ths incredible success, like GW's business numbers, facebook activity, multiple fan sites (B&C, dakka) reporting an all-time high in user activity and massive increases in organized event participants.
On top you have the subjective effect of huge amounts of people coming back to the game that have not played in decades. Most people unhappy with 8th seem to be those who enjoyed 7th, because they signed up for a completely different game.

As many people as ever are playing WH40k, and the vast majority of them would rather play 8th than any other edition.

To paraphrase Mark Hamill, it doesn't need to be good, it just needs to make money. People like bad things all the time.

You realize that this paraphrasing is perhaps the worst counterpoint to any argument? I mean, it is a completely empty statement that mounts to a very verbose "nuh-uh" response.

I mean, I get it. You personally really dislike 8th. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than other people's opinion. Except mine of course.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Possible, but that contradicts the other signs of 8ths incredible success, like GW's business numbers, facebook activity, multiple fan sites (B&C, dakka) reporting an all-time high in user activity and massive increases in organized event participants.
On top you have the subjective effect of huge amounts of people coming back to the game that have not played in decades. Most people unhappy with 8th seem to be those who enjoyed 7th, because they signed up for a completely different game.

As many people as ever are playing WH40k, and the vast majority of them would rather play 8th than any other edition.

To paraphrase Mark Hamill, it doesn't need to be good, it just needs to make money. People like bad things all the time.

You realize that this paraphrasing is perhaps the worst counterpoint to any argument? I mean, it is a completely empty statement that mounts to a very verbose "nuh-uh" response.

I mean, I get it. You personally really dislike 8th. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than other people's opinion. Except mine of course.

8th is an objectively bad game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
8th is an objectively bad game.

By what metric? People are having fun, the game is popular, GW is making money on it. No 8th might be subjectively bad if you go by the metrics of a well-written and tight ruleset getting tighter and tighter. But an objective metric of how good a game is would almost inevitably have to include 8th edition or else exclude games that most people agree are good games. Gameplay is fun. Story is degrading, but given its long history much of the story of the overall work is still super good. Difficulty is low, debth is high. Complexity is expanding rapidly, but most of that complexity is optional, you'll have to work quite hard to justify how optional content is objectively bad, rather than subjectively bad because you don't like it personally. Even if you haven't read all the added rules you can ask 3-5 questions and weedle out the most important information you need about them if your opponent is using them.

 vict0988 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
8th is an objectively bad game.

By what metric? People are having fun, the game is popular, GW is making money on it. No 8th might be subjectively bad if you go by the metrics of a well-written and tight ruleset getting tighter and tighter. But an objective metric of how good a game is would almost inevitably have to include 8th edition or else exclude games that most people agree are good games. Gameplay is fun. Story is degrading, but given its long history much of the story of the overall work is still super good. Difficulty is low, debth is high. Complexity is expanding rapidly, but most of that complexity is optional, you'll have to work quite hard to justify how optional content is objectively bad, rather than subjectively bad because you don't like it personally. Even if you haven't read all the added rules you can ask 3-5 questions and weedle out the most important information you need about them if your opponent is using them.

Objectively 'badly designed' game, he meant to say.
[He? Probably a he. Do cat bugs have a gender? Does bacon?]

It's got some great marketing and very pretty minatures, though.

Not sure it's really defendable when you go, 'In order to play this game you will require two people, two thousand pounds, a large table, paint, glue, clippers, over one hundred paper printed documents, a rulebook, two yearly updates to the rulebook, two faction specific rulebooks, along with possibly another suppliment, access to Dakka's 'you make da call' online forum, and a dice for when you still disagree what any of these rules mean.'

That's not great design, and if anyone thinks that's the only way to make a playable wargame and this is good design, then I honestly don't know what to say.