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.

Hi,

I'm new here and I wanted to ask some things about 8th edition. My primary focus in this hobby always was painting the models I liked and reading the backstory, which I really love for the most part. I've dabbled with gaming in earlier editions, but never played a lot. I was however always interested in how the rules of the editions evolved and changed. The first rulebook I got and the first codices I collected were 3rd edition all those years ago.

Now 8th edition has come along and some of my closest friends and I decided to get into actually playing the game more frequently instead of only collecting and painting stuff here and there. So I wanted to ask how you like 8th edition so far and what things you might not like.

Also, since I have somewhat caught up to the rules of 8th, I wanted to bring up some things about it that I have some reservations about and wanted to ask your opinion on those points. 8th edition has obviously been streamlined quite a bit compared to previous editions, which makes it easier for new and returning players to pick up the game. This is a good thing generally in my opinion, but games workshop might have overcorrected a little bit with simplifying things (surely not as bad as Age of Sigmar but lets not get into that...).

Like I said in the beginning the fluff in 40k is really important to me and I like to see that fluff represented on the tabletop, at least in some parts and some changes in 8th really dont make sense in that regard, at least in my opinion. What kinda bothers me in 8th is the removal of the specific weapon- and ballisticskill values for a unit, as well as the removal of initiative values.
The introduction of to-hit values from 2+ to 6 make things easier, no doubt about that, but the in game comparison between different units suffers fluff-wise from this. What I mean by that is, that a normal guardsman should not hit an ork and a freakin bloodthirster on the same value. It makes no sense fluff wise and it sort of devalues elite units.

Which brings me to my next point. The lethality of the game as it is now is quite staggering. The maybe then time consuming higher complexity of earlier editions was replaced by the time consuming act of rolling and rerolling a million dice every shooting phase. The "everything can wound everything" rule is not a bad idea in principle in my opinion, but not in its current form.

Since Games Workshop most likely will not revert the unit statlines to those of earlier edition, I nonetheless think that you could make things more interesting and immersive if you gave units more special rules that represent the fluff in some subtle way. Like giving a unit that is known for its combat ability in melee some sort of melee overwatch when they are charged or have them block incoming attacks on 6s. I am not a game designer so those suggestions probably suck balancewise, but you get my point.

I am interested to hear what your opinions

Most of the issues you described were present in earlier editions to one degree or another.

On specific WS/BS values: BS above 5 (2+) was effectively nonexistent, and when it did exist there were to-hit rerolls from other sources that rendered it irrelevant (ex. 30k (7th edition rules) Custodians have BS5 vehicles with twin-linked weapons, which are effectively BS10 since they hit on 2+ and reroll failures). Similarly the WS stat-comparison table had some nonsensical holes, namely that same Bloodthirster could never manage to hit those same Guardsmen on anything better than a 3+ no matter how hard he tried. The irrational bits where the rules break with the fluff have been moved around rather than added with respect to those.

On lethality: The issue isn't usually everything-can-wound-everything; worst-case attacks like lasguns shooting Land Raiders might get a wound through if they're lucky. The lethality of this edition comes with overly-efficient crossover weapons that have moderately high stats in all of rate of fire/S/AP/damage and can be spammed as an effective tool against all targets; battle cannons, plasma weapons, Knight guns, etc. However it is worth noting that this is a problem that's been around since at least 5e brought psybolt autocannons and psycannons to the table, it isn't a new one. In some ways 8e is less lethal than earlier editions; Guardsmen get their saves more often, cover improves armour rather than giving you a fallback if your armour doesn't work, and vehicles get saves against more attacks.

Rolling and rerolling a million dice is still a problem, but if that bugs you I find avoiding pure Guard armies and playing games at around 1,000pts does avoid it reasonably well.

As to adding more special rules I have to disagree; I find a lot of problems with 40k emerge from GW trying to make everything obviously unique instead of subtly unique. Their decision to drop universal keywords in favour of writing more unique rules on everyone's datasheets may have made units more unique but it also makes it a lot harder to know what everyone's stuff does, a lot easier to get blindsided by a rule you didn't know was there, and a lot easier to have missed the one-sentence tweak that changes the meaning of the whole thing in amongst the mountains of FAQs required for all the unique special rules. It's not a problem of balance as much as it is one of making the game usable/playable without legal counsel.

I like it for the most part.

I do not think strategems were a good idea. The command point rerolls and such in the main book were fine, but the quality of strategems is so widely varied that it just guaranteed balance issues.

Also, I really like alternating activations and GW needs to find a way to get them into regular 40k.

I really don't like 8th. I dislike the lack of WS/BS, I find stratagems a bit silly in how you can just magic up something different, Initiative needs to return.and mortal wounds are a bit awful in my opinion and I could go on about the many things I dislike.

But with all that aside it's still an alright game, just not my cup of tea and it does seem I'm a minority in disliking it so much.

Disclaimer: I enjoyed 2nd edition and quit after 3rd/4th just became dull. Checked back in around 7th and saw it was still the same (but getting worse), and only returned via 8th.

What you see in 8th is largely derived from AoS, the concentration being on easier rules (the game is just as complicated but it's now been shifted to other parts of the game instead of the core rules) and killing more units = more models on the table. The interest in a quality tabletop game hasn't existed probably since 2nd (when the company was run by geeks and was nearly bankrupt). 3rd was dumbed down incredibly in order to attract sales, push more models and make entering the game easier/faster.

3rd through 7th was the same skeleton under all of the editions and none of it was particularly good.

8th has a better and more solid core...but is already a victim of its bloat and very poor subsequent rules writing in codices, etc. The rules benefit bodies more than ever before. It's a fundamental problem of the game if you ask me. You mentioned fluff, but we can skip that - I've never seen 40K represent the fluff accurately in over 20 years. Ditch that expectation.

Tactical game play (which in reality has never been strong in any edition of 40K) has been replaced with Strategic game play. In essence your maneuvering to shoot a tank in the back, has now been transformed into combining a stratagem with a particular unit within a certain range to create a special effect. So the thought is there still, but just a different type. It's not any less "deep" as people like to insist. If anything the card-game style combos require more thought and planning than most of the editions of 40K.

Is that good? Eh. Up to you. While I enjoyed 8th at the start, the rules have gone full slow now and I'm enjoying it less and less. It's become bloated and produces some things which are laughably pointless in a table top game. You will not find another game in the world where you can generate 200-300 dice rolls for a single unit (in one friggin' attack!). The sexy and sleek core of 8th we enjoyed in the early days of Index 40K (which had its own flaws) are now simply stepping into the absurd. This wildly exaggerated bizarro land of 40K makes it very tough for gamers to meet up and play a like-minded game. The gulf between a weak and strong list has probably never been this present. That's a design flaw.

On the plus side...GW is selling a bajillion models and raking in the dough. So you'll never struggle to find a game and you'll have loads of cool new models to play with. I'll continue to play 8th with my buddies but I'm no longer following 40K forward. I will not be replacing armies, buying new armies, etc. I can have a lot of fun with 8th (it is the most narrative-friendly version they've done since 2nd), but the plot has been lost.

I won't play 8th. I dislike nearly everything about the edition: IGOUGO, fixed to-hit rolls, instead of USRS they gave units "bespoke" special rules that are really just slight tweaks under different names to maybe a dozen mechanics, and "everything can hit everything" doesn't make sense/breaks immersion in a game with such a wide variety of units. The reliance on increasing or decreasing an existing stat, allowing a unit to take a basic action an extra time, random shots and random damage as core gameplay elements just aren't fun. I like choice-based rulesets with a high degree of player agency.

I have to ask Blastaar...from what you said, why have you played any edition of 40K? 8th edition is not "that" different from any other edition of the game. You sound like you're just whinging to whinge? Do you have anything constructive to add?

I ultimately find 8th to be tactically void and instead relies on stratagems and buff auras to give the illusion of depth. Games of 8th (win or lose) are just boring and it feels like a step or two away from just mashing toy figures together until one side has all their guys knocked over. GW sucked the soul out of the game in the name of balance and we are left with a blank husk of a game.

Van, similar question - what edition of 40K did you find tactically amazing? I'm curious.

8th edition is a bad game that only looks good in comparison to the unplayable disaster of 7th. IGOUGO still exists, terrain is a joke, positioning and movement are devalued, poorly skilled children are pandered to at every opportunity, excessive randomness is everywhere, dice optimization in list construction is by far the most important factor in who wins, soup has destroyed any concept of faction identity, and the CP/stratagem mechanic makes the game into even more of a CCG with really expensive "cards". In short, 8th edition has the strategic depth of a puddle while simultaneously having a higher word count than several other games combined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Van, similar question - what edition of 40K did you find tactically amazing? I'm curious.

5th edition was not the deepest game ever but it was still much better. Things like vehicle facings/arcs, only troops being able to score objectives, more LOS blocking terrain, and harsher penalties for mistakes made 5th edition a game with more interesting strategic choices. 8th edition plays much more like a CCG where you line up all of your "cards" and exchange attacks until someone runs out of HP.

There is good and bad in 8th, at the start it felt more "balanced" than 7thm, but now it feels like we are moving more and more towards the mess that 7th was (looking at you Vigilus).

Things that bug me is as other people stated the difference in Stratagems. Some are just to good to avoid and others are never used.
Same with "<chapter>" traits, why take Dark Creed when Prophets of Flesh have all the good stuff?
Then we have the issue that armies gain the "traits" for all units except Marines sine the "traits" don't work on vehicles.

Even worse I would say are the relics. Some armies have relics like a pistols that deal 2D or items that gives +movement/fly and then we have knight relics that gives all weapons +1D (+2D vs titanic) or Cawls Wrath wich is a +1d +1d super plasma, these relics all cost 0/1/3cp... How can you even compare them?!

Re-rolls are all over the place. Add to this with most good ranged units having BS3+ with buffs to hit like spells/auras/etc some units could just skip the to hit rolls. Then its the same thing once again with the wound rolls.

But for my biggest issue in 8th it must be random shots and random damage.
Take for exampe 2d6 shots, 2 shots or 12 shots is night and day. To many games go so far that win of defeat hinges on you rolling high.
Add to that random damage like d6, making it so four lascannons have the same odds to either outright kill a Knight or deal a wooping 4 damage.
Sure it is a dice game and good rolls are important, but when things like damage and number of shoots (something that have nothing to do with skill or planning) can solely make or break a game its becomes a big issue since it adds way to much randomness.
How do you even determine the point value for 2d6 shots?, adding that some units can reroll the amount of shots (tank commanders) wich suddenly make the price screwed in their favor.

I would like to se a drop in wounds, removal of everything can wound everything and more flat damage/shots.
No more or atleast less aura re-rolls, make it more like Necrons where your Characters select a unit and buff them for that turn.

I felt that in 4th and 5th edition of 40K a game could swing either way each turn, with games often going to the final turn and being generally pretty fun and exciting with a few exceptions.

With 8th, pretty much every game I've played of this edition has been decided by the end of turn two. There is no back and forth. First player has a very distinct advantage due to the increased lethality of all armies in the game. You no longer bring an 'all-comers' list; you simply spam the best thing in your favorite three armies and hope that you can deal more damage over two turns than the other player that has the same game plan.

That said, 8th is great for non-competitive play where youre just throwing dice with friends and everyone can police themselves not to bring the ultra-competitive lists and have a good time. If you fall into that category, you'll probably enjoy your time in 8th edition!

Blastaar wrote:
I won't play 8th. I dislike nearly everything about the edition: IGOUGO, fixed to-hit rolls, instead of USRS they gave units "bespoke" special rules that are really just slight tweaks under different names to maybe a dozen mechanics, and "everything can hit everything" doesn't make sense/breaks immersion in a game with such a wide variety of units. The reliance on increasing or decreasing an existing stat, allowing a unit to take a basic action an extra time, random shots and random damage as core gameplay elements just aren't fun. I like choice-based rulesets with a high degree of player agency.

All the stuff you named is the reason why I have been spending money on this game like made and having more fun this edition than all other editions previous. 8th is amazing! Best iteration of the game in its entire history!

5th was the beginning of the great marine massacre, so I have to disagree there.

Mediocre at best rules-wise.

I've pretty much completely lost interest in 8th edition. There is a lot I could say about it, and most of my criticisms have already been posted, but most of all I just find it to be boring. I occasionally play it, when someone asks me to, but I always kinda regret it by turn 2 and wish we were doing something else.

One the flip side, it got me into Horus Heresy and I've been having an amazing time playing and building my army for it. It's honestly my favorite version of Warhammer, though I've only been playing since 6th edition.

Tiberias wrote:
Hi,

I'm new here and I wanted to ask some things about 8th edition.

I think you'll find that Dakka's primary propose is to convince you that 40k is a horrible waste of time and you'd be a moron for investing in it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Most of the issues you described were present in earlier editions to one degree or another.

On specific WS/BS values: BS above 5 (2+) was effectively nonexistent, and when it did exist there were to-hit rerolls from other sources that rendered it irrelevant (ex. 30k (7th edition rules) Custodians have BS5 vehicles with twin-linked weapons, which are effectively BS10 since they hit on 2+ and reroll failures). Similarly the WS stat-comparison table had some nonsensical holes, namely that same Bloodthirster could never manage to hit those same Guardsmen on anything better than a 3+ no matter how hard he tried. The irrational bits where the rules break with the fluff have been moved around rather than added with respect to those.

On lethality: The issue isn't usually everything-can-wound-everything; worst-case attacks like lasguns shooting Land Raiders might get a wound through if they're lucky. The lethality of this edition comes with overly-efficient crossover weapons that have moderately high stats in all of rate of fire/S/AP/damage and can be spammed as an effective tool against all targets; battle cannons, plasma weapons, Knight guns, etc. However it is worth noting that this is a problem that's been around since at least 5e brought psybolt autocannons and psycannons to the table, it isn't a new one. In some ways 8e is less lethal than earlier editions; Guardsmen get their saves more often, cover improves armour rather than giving you a fallback if your armour doesn't work, and vehicles get saves against more attacks.

Rolling and rerolling a million dice is still a problem, but if that bugs you I find avoiding pure Guard armies and playing games at around 1,000pts does avoid it reasonably well.

As to adding more special rules I have to disagree; I find a lot of problems with 40k emerge from GW trying to make everything obviously unique instead of subtly unique. Their decision to drop universal keywords in favour of writing more unique rules on everyone's datasheets may have made units more unique but it also makes it a lot harder to know what everyone's stuff does, a lot easier to get blindsided by a rule you didn't know was there, and a lot easier to have missed the one-sentence tweak that changes the meaning of the whole thing in amongst the mountains of FAQs required for all the unique special rules. It's not a problem of balance as much as it is one of making the game usable/playable without legal counsel.

I completely agree with you on the WS/BS values on earlier editions, but I also said I think GW overcorrected with 8th. I think the removal of the values was not a good idea because you could have expanded the old table so units could hit on 2+. I agree that in previous edition the comparison between WS of two units in combat did not make a big enough difference, but they could have tweaked the old system a little instead of just flat out removing it. You mentioned the custodes, who represent the best humanity can field in the fluff. So for example make a new WS comparison table and give them WS6 and BS5 for example, so on the new table they would hit WS3 on 2+ and WS4 on 3+....so they would wound a guardsman on 2+ and a space marine on 3+ which kinda makes sense. Now again I'm not a game designer and this is probably not the best example, but you get my point.

On the point of more special rules and making units more subtly unique. What would be a subtle change in your opinion to make a certain unit more unique?

 Elbows wrote:
Van, similar question - what edition of 40K did you find tactically amazing? I'm curious.

I wouldn't say it's tactically amazing but 7th had a lot more depth under the hood. Unit types and USRs gave models a lot more characteristics in how they operated. Blast weapons, cover saves from terrain, vehicle facings, and closest casualties made model placement matter a lot more than just bubble wrapping with chaff units. The previous system of Toughness and AV made it so certain weapons where useless against hard targets and gave weapons more defined roles. Psychic phase was garbage but it at least had some risk involved with how many dice you rolled. Deepstriking was also a high risk high reward mechanic that could turn games around if you pulled off a danger close drop. A lot more actions/situations resulting in diminished unit performance such as jinking, going to ground, falling back, snap shots, etc plus again a proper cover save meant that units tended to have fewer opportunities to deal their maximum potential damage.

7th had it's horrible game balance (no thanks to GW cranking it up to 11 with the decurion era codexes) but despite GW's lack of any effort to balance things. If you played a game with two armies that where relatively even in strength then you could have a very engaging battle which was far more likely to come down to objectives than anything you see in 8th. With 8th it feels like a game of mathhammer where the army with the most dakka wins and the environment plays a far less role in the flow of gameplay.

The barebones rulebook was a complete mistake as they accounted for absolutely no depth of mechanics or universal operations in the game so everything is crammed into the codexes. Instead of just having basic mechanic concepts that all armies know exist, anything special is codex specific. It just makes for very bland gameplay and without stratagems you really don't have a lot of interesting things going on with all these units. Personally I don't like how stratagems work in the game and it gives the game a slight bit of a MtG feel to it. Stratagems are as bad as trying to learn formation bonuses because they are codex specific. Unless it's a super popular stratagems or with an army you also play, it tends to create more "gotcha" moments due to being uninformed than out playing your opponent.

Elbows wrote:Disclaimer: I enjoyed 2nd edition and quit after 3rd/4th just became dull. Checked back in around 7th and saw it was still the same (but getting worse), and only returned via 8th.

What you see in 8th is largely derived from AoS, the concentration being on easier rules (the game is just as complicated but it's now been shifted to other parts of the game instead of the core rules) and killing more units = more models on the table. The interest in a quality tabletop game hasn't existed probably since 2nd (when the company was run by geeks and was nearly bankrupt). 3rd was dumbed down incredibly in order to attract sales, push more models and make entering the game easier/faster.

3rd through 7th was the same skeleton under all of the editions and none of it was particularly good.

8th has a better and more solid core...but is already a victim of its bloat and very poor subsequent rules writing in codices, etc. The rules benefit bodies more than ever before. It's a fundamental problem of the game if you ask me. You mentioned fluff, but we can skip that - I've never seen 40K represent the fluff accurately in over 20 years. Ditch that expectation.

Tactical game play (which in reality has never been strong in any edition of 40K) has been replaced with Strategic game play. In essence your maneuvering to shoot a tank in the back, has now been transformed into combining a stratagem with a particular unit within a certain range to create a special effect. So the thought is there still, but just a different type. It's not any less "deep" as people like to insist. If anything the card-game style combos require more thought and planning than most of the editions of 40K.

Is that good? Eh. Up to you. While I enjoyed 8th at the start, the rules have gone full slow now and I'm enjoying it less and less. It's become bloated and produces some things which are laughably pointless in a table top game. You will not find another game in the world where you can generate 200-300 dice rolls for a single unit (in one friggin' attack!). The sexy and sleek core of 8th we enjoyed in the early days of Index 40K (which had its own flaws) are now simply stepping into the absurd. This wildly exaggerated bizarro land of 40K makes it very tough for gamers to meet up and play a like-minded game. The gulf between a weak and strong list has probably never been this present. That's a design flaw.

On the plus side...GW is selling a bajillion models and raking in the dough. So you'll never struggle to find a game and you'll have loads of cool new models to play with. I'll continue to play 8th with my buddies but I'm no longer following 40K forward. I will not be replacing armies, buying new armies, etc. I can have a lot of fun with 8th (it is the most narrative-friendly version they've done since 2nd), but the plot has been lost.

On your point regarding representing the fluff on the tabletop: I think it was a little bit better in earlier editions, but generally I agree with you, it was never that well represented. Then again they could have done something about this in 8th instead of overcorrecting this much.
I am actually really curious if 8th only turned out to be like it is now because market research told GW that they need to dumb down they game because then kids would play it more and buy their models more. So one CEO said f*** those nerds they will buy our sh*t anyway, no matter how much we dumb down our game!
I think kids are not too dumb to play a game that has a bit more tactical depth and even if they were, I think they would still want to own the shiny, pretty new models GW pumps out. It is interesting to me that such desicions always seem to severly overcorrect instead of refining what was already there. Best example for me is AoS, where they had a rich and decades old lore and they just chucked it out of the window and spat in the face of every warhammer fantasy fan who liked the lore of the old world. I just hope they don't take a similar direction with 40k going forward, because then I'd have to turn my back on GW for good.

Crimson Devil wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Hi,

I'm new here and I wanted to ask some things about 8th edition.

I think you'll find that Dakka's primary propose is to convince you that 40k is a horrible waste of time and you'd be a moron for investing in it.

Well maybe it is, but like I said I am a sucker for the lore and the models primarily. It would be nice though if the game was also interesting to play.

The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.

yet the only tanks that do get used are those that break the rules with flying, shoting twice, stacking - to hit etc. Your not going to see a normal tank like a predator or a land raider being used.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.

Do you think removing the WS chart and replacing it with the current unit stats was ultimately the better desicion than tweaking it and making it matter more in combat? Something like the example I gave a couple of posts before. I am genuenly curious.

 Elbows wrote:
I have to ask Blastaar...from what you said, why have you played any edition of 40K? 8th edition is not "that" different from any other edition of the game. You sound like you're just whinging to whinge? Do you have anything constructive to add?

The question was asked, and I answered it. 8th is pretty different in execution of mechanics, if perhaps not in spirit. I enjoyed the game at the time when I played pre-8th, but I always had issues with each edition I played, and the poor balance of 7th and extreme simplicity of 8th were the last straw for me. If GW ever fixes the issues I have with the game, I'll be happy to pick it up again.

Overall I like 8th. I do think they over corrected to an extent though and they didnt go bold enough with stats once they decided to go past 10 on toughness and strength. They should have decompressed the stats. As an example catachans are strength 4 and so are marines. That flies against the fluff and does spoil my immersion. Marines could have been str and tough 5, imperial guard str and tough 3 and catachans 4 etc. Now this is just an example and would need much more thought than I have given for it to work properly and more importantly be balanced.

I do miss armour facings. The old system had flaws but the new system feels like vehicles are just tough infantry. I think there should be a separate system for wounding and damaging vehicles so they feel different to infantry.

Having ws go is another over simplification imo and not a good change. It isnt like its complicated before hand but I do think more granularity was needed.

Cover and terrain in general needs a rework.

I do miss templates. I dont mind the current system but it needs to scale. A flamer on a 20 man squad should be getting more than d6 hits. As a base a flamer should be rolling 2d3. Then scaling depending on unit size.

They largely failed (both chaos and imperial) to balance marines against cheaper infantry. A guardsman is the most cost effective infantry there is. There should be better balance for taking elites over chaff. But then again it needs to be balanced.

Fightingfirst wrote:

I do miss armour facings. The old system had flaws but the new system feels like vehicles are just tough infantry. I think there should be a separate system for wounding and damaging vehicles so they feel different to infantry.

That is about the one thing I do miss - vehicle armour and weapon facing. 8th does make things like flyers more useful, but it does feel a little weird that I can shoot stuff behind me with my front-mounted, forward-facing guns. And who didn't like deep-striking in behind a Land Raider with a bunch of melta guns???

I miss all of the vehicle rules, armour facings, weapon arcs, that 8th got rid of. I enjoy 8th but I miss the strategy of 5th edition.

I think the terrain rules are too basic and the removal of template weapons makes said weapons a lot weirder.

Stratagems are good though even though the majority are wildly variable in terms of balance.

I see 8th edition as a necessary evil.

Or, if you prefer: it isn't the edition we need, it's the edition we deserve.

The bones to build a good game are there. But the flesh on them is a grotesque approximation of a strategical game.

Comand points regens, farms, and batteries just broke it for me. At the begining of 8th, i faced like 2 tfg who essentially had unlimited CP and it was broken af. Dont know it they FAQ or errata it b4 i rage quit the game n sold my entire army being salty af.

 Cybtroll wrote:
I see 8th edition as a necessary evil.

Or, if you prefer: it isn't the edition we need, it's the edition we deserve.

The bones to build a good game are there. But the flesh on them is a grotesque approximation of a strategical game.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with this sentiment. I don't feel that 8th edition is a particularly stellar game. Instead, it seems like more of a start of an edition, and 8th edition has been a testing grounds of sorts, with continuous rules changes and modifications for when the real game is finished and released. 8th just doesn't have enough meat to it for me, and seems more like a skeleton the game should be built on rather than the game itself.