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.

How do you guys like it? Does it meet expectations? Does it exceed expectations?

I feel like GW and the flgs were not ready.

Stock is almost totally gone and many army requirements for some are even out of stock to order.

Where are the new kits?

Bigdoza wrote:
I feel like GW and the flgs were not ready.

Stock is almost totally gone and many army requirements for some are even out of stock to order.

Where are the new kits?

I meant rule wise.

I hesitate to say the game is fixed, but it is awesome. There are some mechanics that need to be improved, but overall the imperfections have been greatly reduced.

The best part about 8th edition is how fast you can get though a game. Playing at 2000+ points, have played 5 games and nothing went a full 2 hours.

Its a lot more fun. I feel 7th was the worst of any edition I've played going back to 3rd. It even rates worse than 5th edition for me, which I hated more than anything.

Its not fixed by any means... the min/max crew will destroy it in short order. By December there will be threads complaining about the teabag builds like always... but overall the things I hated like convoluted huge rulebooks and length of gametime have been addressed.

I wouldn't say it's "Fixed", at least not yet, there are small things here and there that bug me, and we haven't seen a single codex drop yet, which will be the moment of truth in my eyes as to the health of 8th edition.

If GW royally screws up the codex balance (again) then it doesn't matter that the main ruleset got improved because balance will go out of the window again.

That said, the indexes seem to be fairly even in power level, so I think while they probably won't be perfect, GW would have to actively try to screw up to break the game half as bad as 7th was.

Seriously, screw 7th edition with a rusty chainsaw. After playing 8th I'm not going back.

I haven't played yet but I hope to soon.

It's more fun (except for that reroll rule idiocy), but I feel like it is missing some necessary details such as reserves in matched play and vehicle weapon firing arcs. I also don't care for the mix n match force org charts that allow some really bad combinations that are borderline wose than the previous version (100+ horrors for one).

That said, 7th was the worst edition I have ever played (been playing since the end of 2nd). Good effing riddance.

Anyone know when the chapter approved codex comes out? I heard from my local GW it is already in the making?

Its better than 7th but that's not a particularly high bar to clear.

So far out of 5 games noticing that TaC lists dont do tooooo well against skewed lists (speed demon jet bikes and horde lists) but thats probably me not making the right decisions.

but so far nothing seems straight unfair at all which is fantastic.

After one game of eighth I can say so far so good. There are one or two rules discrepancies that were only due to us being new to it. One or two strange rules which I'm stull unure of, vehicle firing arcs as mentioned above, characters not joining units and not being allowed to be targeted etc etc
But overall our group is happy to keep playing.

8E is definitely better than 7E. No question.

That said, given what a total pile of garbage 7E turned out to be that's not a hard bar. 6E and 7E were depressingly low points for 40k, and the market reflected their abject failure with 40k losing its tabletop dominance for the first time in...literally ever, to Xwing.

8E is far from perfect, and there appears to be lots of poorly thought out or poorly handled implementations, but it appears thus far to be...playable, which I think is about all we can expect from GW.

Do you guys think it will bring a lot of old players back and gain new players?

I have been reading that GWs net income is doing very well right now.

I stopped saying "better" or "worse" a long time ago, and now just say "different" or "same". At the moment, 8e is just different. Definitely looking forward to trying out new Primaris Marines, or different Tau, but my beloved Grey Knights still feel the same.

SJ

It's a fun game.

What I don't like:

1. Bland. Space marine chapters are incredibly bland. Loss of chapter tactics is disappointing. For instance, was it really necessary to delete Iron Hands completely? Why would you play Salamanders / White Scars / Imperial Fists, to get literally *one* named HQ?

2. Nerfs. Some units are totally worthless now. For instance, the humble drop pod. They cannot carry Centurions & Dreadnoughts, which is disappointing. Does anyone plan on paying 10% of their list to allow TAC marines to deep strike?

3. Faction keyword restricting buffs. Most of this stuff is totally redundant, how many different ways are there to reroll 1s? Why is it that a blood angels psyker can't buff a space wolves unit, none of the powers are good enough to be game breaking.

4. Morale phase & Hordes. There's literally 0 downside to bringing insane blobs of small units. The whole purpose of morale is negated in scenarios where it should be a balancing factor. As a result, "And they shall know no fear" should really read, "They know more fear than conscripts."

What I do like:

1. Faster games.
2. More balance.
3. Nothing that seems totally unbeatable or unkillable.


What I'm on the fence about:

1. Mortal wounds. It's an interesting idea, we'll see how it pans out.
2. Vehicles being very weak in melee, and susceptible to rules exploiting to freeze them in place.
3. No penalty for shooting through your enemies units to hit something in the back.
4. NuMarines. They're not good on the table, like, at all, except hellblasters.
5. charging without seeing your target, or charging through walls.

2) I dunno. by making it not take centurions or dreadnoughts now you have options between centruions walking or devs dropping or sitting back. otherwise why take dev squads when you can have more shots with more wounds that ignore cover with centruions.
dreads.... little disapointing but they are still fine as counter deepstrike back line holders or move up with other units.

but thats my personal take on it.

It's better than 7th and not as simplified as was initially feared, so in that respect it's a winner.

It's still riddled with all the normal GW game annoyances though, including one of my personal pet-hates about the modern output of the studio - annoying restrictions based not on what makes sense in the lore, nor even based on a rational look at the model range, but on a mindless, vacant, vacuous adherence to the "if we don't make literally the exact model for this thing, it doesn't exist". Made even more infuriating by the fact they don't even stick to the rule themselves.

A good example is Deathwatch - there is no good reason for them not to have Apothecaries and Techmarines. None. There are examples of them in the existing background, there's no in-universe logic why they wouldn't have them, and even if GW don't sell those specific models they sell Techmarines and Apothecaries and they sell bloody Deathwatch pads, so it's not even like putting them in would be tempting people to buy third-party stuff even if you take GW's mental paranoia about third-party sellers seriously. But GW still take the time to explicitly forbid taking them as Deathwatch.

Worse, thanks to the way Keywords work, you can't even rely on higher-level shared keywords to include them since both their key abilities are dependent on sharing the same <Chapter>.

And the indices are riddled with that kind of irritation - random senseless prevention of equipment choices and arbitrary restriction of certain units abound. Now a lot of them are holdovers from the way things worked in 7th, but if they were going to bother to go through and put out fresh rules for literally every unit in the game, you'd think they could have taken a little extra time to do the job properly.

I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

I do think it is much better, particularly much better than recent years.

As for different...? Eh. They could have gone a bit further (reducing attack resolution to 2 rolls, at least- some things just generate way too many dice for this three-tier resolution mechanic to be even remotely sane).
In some ways it couldn't be too different, as it had to still support the bloated trash models they cranked out- like flyers and giant things. Though I was pleasantly surprised a lot of those were toned down.

But part of it is an intentional return to older mechanics after an edition that pretty much flopped (and came too fast, and lasted relatively little time). This seems to be a trend in gaming industry. But at least it seems to have worked out better than 5th edition D&D.

There are a few problems, but one of the real tests is if they'll take the simple steps to fix them (conscripts & dire avengers, for example). Alos, multi-wound models and multi-damage weapons interact in an amazingly cumbersome way. Easy batch rolling suddenly careens to a halt and falls off the bridge.

The other real tests if they continue past practice and utterly wreck things with uneven and poorly thought out codexes. Despite the horrid organization of the indexes (another problem area, with wargear there, cumbersome and nigh-useless data sheets there, and weapon points there and unit points there and the metric ton of cross referencing required to put an army together), I'd rather type of a functional spreadsheet with all the information together and ride the sanity train for a couple years before they muck things up. I rather dread the return of <whatever> Tactics to warp sensible listing into demented caricatures based on a throw-away quirk or preference rather than functional force allocations. (We love bikes! Great, go re-build a Hardly Drivable in your spare time. 90% of your combat strength does NOT ride bikes, because you are a codex chapter).

usmcmidn wrote:
I'm curious, the guys who are lifers and have been playing since the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions... how do you like it? Is it different? Is it still fun even though there was a drastic change in rules and the way the game is played?

2nd was Herohammer. Never played it because I didn't like how one character could kill an entire army and the rest of the stuff was just a character delivery system. It had cool rules, but most were never used from what I could tell. I liked 3rd edition when it came out. 4th was somewhat better I thought and 5th as a ruleset was good, though the individual codices broke it badly (notably Dark Eldar and then Grey Knights). 6th was not fun (whoever thought Invisibility was a good idea was an idiot) and 7th was worse because it was basically a money grab reprint of 6th where the only changes were bad to worse (free formations, etc.).

As for 8th, I like it so far. It feels a bit bland, but I think that should improve as we get new codices. About the only thing I despise is the new reroll "clarification". It basically makes no sense and serves only to confuse people with a non-intuitive rule that I expect literally everyone will probably get wrong at least initially, especially new players.

Things I like:

1. Pretty much no more deathstars.

2. Allies shenanigans are gone thanks to the Keywords idea.

3. no "free" abilities/units if you happen to take the right formation.

4. no summoning spam.

5. no random psychic powers (always hated that idea).

6. no overtly broken psychic powers, e.g. invisibility.

7. Mortal wounds. At least now there is a way to deal with annoying 3++/2++ models. I do worry about the potential to spam the ability going forward, but we will have to wait and see.

8. Faster games.

9. Nothing is unkillable.

10. Alternating combat is nice.

11. Split fire should have always been a universal rule.

12. No more scatter for deep strike!!!!! Finally it works the way it always should have. Random scattering and mishaps was just so stupid, particularly for things like Jump Packs where you can actively see where you are going.

13. Charging after arriving from reserve. Should always have been that way.


Things I dislike:

1. reroll rule (already mentioned).

2. drop pods seem way overcosted now for their limitations.

3. no reserves rule in matched play.

4. I Go, You Go - would have vastly preferred individual unit activations. It's still possible to focus everything on one key unit and destroy / cripple it before it even gets to do anything which I have always hated. The Bolt Action dice activation method works *WAY* better in my experience at mitigating that problem.

5. It appears spam is not quite as dead as I would have hoped. e.g. the 100+ brimstone horrors idea.

6. Reserving points from your total for summoning/reserves does not seem fluffy or even useful IMO. I get why it was done, but I have to imagine there were better options.

7. I originally thought the idea of Power Levels was dumb, and frankly the more I read them the more my opinion on them is confirmed. They may serve as a mild barometer for narrative games, but the disparity between units is way too obtuse to be even remotely valuable in making sure a game is balanced.

8. No vehicle firing arcs. The idea of being able to fire all weapons from any point on the hull just seems dumb and detracts from my suspension of disbelief during a game. I suspect I will never like this rule.

9. Vehicles being able to be locked into place. That is just dumb overall.

10. Charging without being able to see your target.

11. The advance rule should have just been called Run. Calling it Advance is totally counter-intuitive to me and doesn't accurately describe what the unit is doing IMO.

12. Specifically for Eldar - I think the Ghosthelm should have ignored the first Perils of the Warp result, or at least granted a reroll. That was always the fluffy part of that piece of Farseer wargear.


Things I am uncertain about:

1. Morale as it applies to hordes seems like it would be extremely unbalanced, but I have yet to try it or see them in action so who knows.

2. Random charge ranges. I wasn't a fan of it in the last two editions and I still am not now. However, it works so I'm okay with it.


Anyway, I'm sure I will find other things as time goes by. Otherwise I like 8th a lot. Much better than anything since at least 4th edition, maybe 3rd.

I just got my Imperium indexes and the rule book in today. I must say I am impressed. I only briefly skimmed over it but it looks pretty good.

And what is a deathstar?

I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

7th had mostly functional core rules, that were bloated by extraneous items bolted on (Destroyer/Stomp/etc), and some special rules being redundant (Stealth vs Shrouded) or pointless (hi Soul Blaze). However, most the hate for 7th came less from the core rules themselves but from specific armies (hi Eldar) or Formations (hi Riptide Wing).

8th arguably leveled out a lot of things (though this is debatable) but the core rules are...exceptionally quirky, flying in the face of "common sense." Given the choice between salvaging a "mostly functional" core ruleset and cleaning up the extraneous bloat, versus nuking the system with all sorts of glitchy side effects, I'd rather the first choice.

8th is a lot more fun than 7th. It is quicker to play, and more balanced. However there are some issues. Most vehicles (at least in the SM book) are just way too expensive. As someone who normally plays a vehicle heavy army, this hurts...a lot (rip transports and vindicators). Also I think there is just too much random for the sake of random and a lack of variety. I am hoping the variety issue is fixed with proper codicies, and some other the other issues via errata and faq.

Vehicles have gotten more expensive because they are hard as hell to remove unless you focus your anti-tank on them one at a time. Every vehicle got this treatment.

8th is leagues better than 7th. Every army is a lot closer together in terms of power, and the rules are a lot simpler with less need to rush to the rulebook every 5 seconds to check if I'm doing something right. I memorized all the rules for my models and core rules in record time. 8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.

 andysonic1 wrote:
8th isn't perfect, there are some odd things here and there, but it is 100% better than the retardation that was 7th. 7th was bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat with no end in sight. It needed to go.

Subject // 7e // 8e

Time to set up a game // 30-120 mins // 5-15 mins
Time to memorise the core aspects of the rules // Impossible // An evening
Time to understand the rules of your codex // Weeks // One week
Ability to keep track of other armies // Impossibru // Possibru
Tactical Depth // None // None, but at least you won't be tabled Turn 1 anymore
Rules disputes // Take 3+ books and several hours to resolve (if they are even resolvable) // Find quote, then realise GW forgot to define things
Playability // Utterly unplayable // Plastic's already on the table m8
Balance // Wtf is balance? // Even the "bottom tier" armies aren't auto-lose
Nerd Rage // Over 9000!!! // Over 9000!!!

Seems better overall. Less retardation, more pew pew layzorz.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.

Honestly the rules are setup in such a way that someone is going to be shot off the board pretty quick. It's their solution to the criticisms of previous versions that they simply took too long to play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.

I'm not disputing this but... actually I'm disputing this. How did you play for this happening to you?

I'm sorry but I can't take seriously that 8th is worse than 7th. You can like it less, thats acceptable. You can say that some aspects are worse in 8th than 7th, thats true too, and others are just the same. But, as a whole, 8th is much better than 7th. If that means that is a good game by itself, is something that can be talked about.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I feel like 8th is somehow worse than 7th; on the surface it looks better but that's because the flaws have been pushed under the hood.

Having had my first game tonight, I agree. I was expecting a game that was okay, kinda meh because of the low impact of movement and terrain. I did not expect my MEQ horde to get tabled in 2 turns by an army constructed via the method of "whatever old IG and GK I happen to have painted". I was supposed to hold an objective for 5-7 turns... how??? I don't see why scenarios exist if an army is gone in 2 turns. Chain-summoning degeneracy excepted, this is waaay worse than 7th.

Lists?

Eh, as someone who thinks 8th is definitely an improvement over 7th I could still understand someone who thinks 7th was better. Not sure how you can say that 8th is objectively a better game and anyone who says they think differently is simply wrong?