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.

Recently picked up 8th edition rulebook and either I'm slowed or something is missing. Where are all the rules in the book? Where are the rules for vehicles, weapon types (found general weapon rules but what about power weapons, snipers, twin linked?) Can't find special rules either about deep striking or infiltrate. In the 7th edition book there was a section dedicated to all the special rules in the book. After the "core rules" section it's all about different game types and styles of play wtf?

You're not missing anything, they're just all gone. Nonexistent.

Forget 80% of what you thought were rules from 7th, they've gone bye-bye. The other rules (snipers, deep striking, etc.) are in the actual datasheets for the units rather than consolidated.

Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

I feel like we could've made good use of like 5-8 more keywords for simplicity:

-the airborne/hover/hard to hit package
-deep strike
-relentless
-superheavy walker movement
-probably some others I'm forgetting

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

Seconded

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

I feel like we could've made good use of like 5-8 more keywords for simplicity:

-the airborne/hover/hard to hit package
-deep strike
-relentless
-superheavy walker movement
-probably some others I'm forgetting

Nope. I dont want to reference multiple sources to know what a single model does. One source for each is all it should ever be.

 Lance845 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

I feel like we could've made good use of like 5-8 more keywords for simplicity:

-the airborne/hover/hard to hit package
-deep strike
-relentless
-superheavy walker movement
-probably some others I'm forgetting

Nope. I dont want to reference multiple sources to know what a single model does. One source for each is all it should ever be.

This probably isn't the edition for you, then. Lol. I mean, even as it is simplified, we still have the fly keyword, rules for transports and passengers, special rules for characters, rules for how different cover interacts with different unit types...and so on. I don't think it's unreasonable to universalize a few special rules that many armies use already. Calling it "manta strike" or "aerial assault" or "teleport strike" just adds to confusion and bloat.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
You're not missing anything, they're just all gone. Nonexistent.

Forget 80% of what you thought were rules from 7th, they've gone bye-bye. The other rules (snipers, deep striking, etc.) are in the actual datasheets for the units rather than consolidated.

Ah i see. The data sheets for each are in the indexes i assume? I havent picked up xenos 2 yet.

Was just baffled by how much 8th is simplified.

Yes it`s all in the idexes.
But with all the codexes coming out fast we have good chances they all are released until end of 2018.

With chapter approved realeased in december you will need that one to for additional rules & updated point values.

I really love the way they put all the special rules into the unit entry.
Makes it much faster and you have all the information in one place.

It means that different units can behave in different ways. For example, rather than giving loads of disparate units the Deep Strike rule, you can have teleporting Terminators behaving differently to airdropping Assault marines to tunnelling Trygons.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Rather than having a billion special rules that you have to cross check, everything related to what a unit does is on the unit's datasheet. The only exception to this is the Fly keyword.

It's a much better system IMO.

I feel like we could've made good use of like 5-8 more keywords for simplicity:

-the airborne/hover/hard to hit package
-deep strike
-relentless
-superheavy walker movement
-probably some others I'm forgetting

Nope. I dont want to reference multiple sources to know what a single model does. One source for each is all it should ever be.

This probably isn't the edition for you, then. Lol. I mean, even as it is simplified, we still have the fly keyword, rules for transports and passengers, special rules for characters, rules for how different cover interacts with different unit types...and so on. I don't think it's unreasonable to universalize a few special rules that many armies use already. Calling it "manta strike" or "aerial assault" or "teleport strike" just adds to confusion and bloat.

I don't get why you think manta strike and teleport strike, by wording the rule entirely the same, would be any kind of confusing.

Also, fly does 2 things. easy. cover doesn't interact with different unit types in any way until you get to advanced rules. The basic rules don't make any distinction with unit types at all. In the advanced rules the distinction is often infantry/not infantry. So difficult. I know.

Having no special rules section is extremely messy and disorganized.

I can't stand the fact that everything has it's own special rules which are identical to another units special rule but called something differently.

Special rules were not a problem for 7th ed. It's the fact that there were many unnecessary and redundant special rules. Rules for fly and deepstrike for example should be in the core rules, there is no need to have them on the data sheet at all. You could just have the special rules from the main rulebook written on the unit card itself for easy reference.

I don't understand why people think that this new way of scattering the rules all over the place is somehow a better system than having everything nicely placed in a single book written in a coherent manor. It's so messy it drives me nuts, even the way the 8th ed. rule book is laid out is a disaster, you have to flip through a different sections just to find a rule that somehow might apply to your specific game or not.

Eh, it works fine in practice.

The only thing I'll agree with is that the main rulebook is poorly organized - I agree. That's solved with a few simple 3M tabs of course, but it is not a logically laid out rulebook (outside of the basic 8 pages). I will say that the general technical proficiency of their writers isn't superb. Things are poorly worded and a lot of issues people have (invented or not) could be be fixed with simply more time spent editing.

The worst about 8th rules organization is the lack of point values on data sheets. The rulebook is a mess as well, but you don't need it that much. Ideally deep strike etc. would appear on data sheets and the core book, but that would take effort.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Having no special rules section is extremely messy and disorganized.

I can't stand the fact that everything has it's own special rules which are identical to another units special rule but called something differently.

Special rules were not a problem for 7th ed. It's the fact that there were many unnecessary and redundant special rules. Rules for fly and deepstrike for example should be in the core rules, there is no need to have them on the data sheet at all. You could just have the special rules from the main rulebook written on the unit card itself for easy reference.

I don't understand why people think that this new way of scattering the rules all over the place is somehow a better system than having everything nicely placed in a single book written in a coherent manor. It's so messy it drives me nuts, even the way the 8th ed. rule book is laid out is a disaster, you have to flip through a different sections just to find a rule that somehow might apply to your specific game or not.

They tho some of the times are not idenitcal,, DSing rules for the most part are but some are not. Scout rules are a bit different between armies as well.

I personally like Key words better within the rule book, having 6-7 main key words IMO is better, like DS, Scout, Sniper, Fly, Fleet, Rend. This yes is in another book, but the rules are universal and everyone knows them, this will cut down on rules on datasheets and easier to read addition special rules that are placed inside current DS/Scout rules.

You could probably put twenty or thirty things in a keywords section, GW's just made a conscious choice not to write one (because "too many USRs" was a constant complaint about 6th/7th).

(Rending, Strikes First, Feel No Pain, fixed Advance speed, Deep Strike, Infiltrate, target characters, Stealth, extra bonus cover armour, +A, +A charging, Explodes, Flyer package, Skyfire, measure to hull instead of base, Scout, fall back and shoot normally, Superheavy, Melta, and that's just the list of USRs I got out of a walk through the Craftworld index, there are more they don't have.)

It would probably be useful to have some USRs, just because that makes things much easier to FAQ -- the 8th edition FAQs can get messy when they're trying to explain the functioning of a common rule which different models have access to by different names. Reminder text could still be included on data sheets. At the very least they should internally have something like USRs, which they could copy-paste onto unit data sheets. This would avoid problems with similar rules which are inconsistently-worded (like the various Feel No Pain type rules).

But as-is, yeah, almost everything is on the data sheets.

Dionysodorus wrote:
...At the very least they should internally have something like USRs, which they could copy-paste onto unit data sheets...

I almost think they do have USRs for internal use, given how much better 8th is about treating similar effects consistently than AoS with its fifteen different versions of "a shield" was.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
...At the very least they should internally have something like USRs, which they could copy-paste onto unit data sheets...

I almost think they do have USRs for internal use, given how much better 8th is about treating similar effects consistently than AoS with its fifteen different versions of "a shield" was.

Hey, I liked all the different versions of a shield...

It made it so each army tended to feel unique.
Some just gave protection from missile attacks, some did missile+CC, some even let you potentially shrug off Mortal Wounds from various sources.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
...At the very least they should internally have something like USRs, which they could copy-paste onto unit data sheets...

I almost think they do have USRs for internal use, given how much better 8th is about treating similar effects consistently than AoS with its fifteen different versions of "a shield" was.

Hey, I liked all the different versions of a shield...

It made it so each army tended to feel unique.
Some just gave protection from missile attacks, some did missile+CC, some even let you potentially shrug off Mortal Wounds from various sources.

I'm aware I started this argument again by bringing it up, but since I don't want to derail this thread in a vague and tangential discussion about whether other games' ways of handling "special rules" worked or not I will invite you to PM me or start another thread if you want to continue the discussion and then stop.

 combatcotton wrote:
The worst about 8th rules organization is the lack of point values on data sheets.

This is the best part of 8e organization. Because it's annoying, yeah, but they did it so it would be easy to release new sheets with new points alues as they reassessed models for balance. And i'd rather have to spend two extra minutes flipping back to the back of the book to get the point values then have years of them going "oh, well, guess that's broken", because they put the rules right on the data sheet, making it harder to update.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 combatcotton wrote:
The worst about 8th rules organization is the lack of point values on data sheets.

This is the best part of 8e organization. Because it's annoying, yeah, but they did it so it would be easy to release new sheets with new points alues as they reassessed models for balance. And i'd rather have to spend two extra minutes flipping back to the back of the book to get the point values then have years of them going "oh, well, guess that's broken", because they put the rules right on the data sheet, making it harder to update.

Why is it any harder to update?

While I'm not too fussed about the removal of USRs I'm rather miffed that in some cases the rules for weapons and abilities etc have appeared to be copied and pasted with little thought as to what is actually using it.

Example: Leman Russes have a unique rule stating that if a Plasma Cannon overheats, the tank is not slain but takes 6 mortal wounds.

If a Chaos player takes a Combi-Plasma on his Land Raider and it overheats, the Land Raider is instantly slain.

The fact that a mass-produced tank is not destroyed when it's turret-mounted Plasma Exterminator Cannon goes boom, while a much more advanced vehicle goes nuclear when the guy on the cupola burns his fingers, makes me think that they could have spent a bit of time ironing out irregularities such as this.

 JNAProductions wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 combatcotton wrote:
The worst about 8th rules organization is the lack of point values on data sheets.

This is the best part of 8e organization. Because it's annoying, yeah, but they did it so it would be easy to release new sheets with new points alues as they reassessed models for balance. And i'd rather have to spend two extra minutes flipping back to the back of the book to get the point values then have years of them going "oh, well, guess that's broken", because they put the rules right on the data sheet, making it harder to update.

Why is it any harder to update?

If the points values are on the data sheet, each time you calculate points on a unit, you have to go to your list of updated point values to check if the points on that unit changed, meaning you're in the exact same place you were to begin with with this edition. Unless you're planning on penciling in your codex the new point values every time they update, or want to just buy a new codex every year. It's not so much that it makes it "harder to update" as that either way you're eventually going to have to be checking a separate points list for values anyway, so why not just get in the habit from the get go?