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.

All the rumors and talk of the apparent "second coming" of 8th edition has got me thinking about the large playerbase who tend to complain about 7th edition as if its the literal worst possible state of 40k, neglecting to note that 8th edition may be even further from their ideal 40k. I tend to think that most of the playerbase who do hate 7th will see 8th with the same ire, not from a mechanics standpoint (not that I think much will change) but just because its rather typical of those people, not to say there arent a select few that dislike 7th and will gladly welcome change but people like that are few and far between.

Personally I see it with ambivilance and will enjoy playing 40k reguardless, I also don't see how they can shake things up too much. But here is to hoping I can choose my psykic powers instead of rolling and get a little more reliability and tactics in my daemons rather than luck.

If they let you choose your powers then they would have to try a lot harder to balance them so they're equally useful. Right now when playing Grey Knights I fish for Gate and Invisibility but I can end up with utterly redundant powers like hammerhand and mental fortitude. On the one hand this randomness is extremely frustrating, but on the other hand it makes up for the fact that many armies have no access to psykers at all. It's very difficult to balance the system when you take that into account.

There are too many 40K players and ex-players to ever have a "best" edition. I'm sure some people love 7th (and in 10 years time will be mentioning how fond they were of it, etc.).

If 40K changes substantially they will game a new type of player and new players...and lose some of the old. Such is life. I'm an old 2nd edition grognard who won't be bothering with modern 40K unless it got some miraculous reboot (of the entire thing - which won't happen).

A full AOS style change might get my attention, but I doubt it. There is no "right" answer for GW --- short of making sure they make profit on the game (something which dipped substantially this year across the board).

I think it's more of "it can't get any worse" at this point. They have units of Gargantuan Creatures when just two editions ago a unit of Monstrous Creatures would be a big thing.

Plus, if there is going to be a 8th edition, it would be an initiative Rountree took, and so far he's done a decent job of un-screwing 40k (not good, just decent) so there is some hope.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I think it's more of "it can't get any worse" at this point.

Pretty much. There are a lot of changes that a new edition could bring that would help the game out a lot, and everyone is basically hoping that a few of them find their way into a new edition.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I think it's more of "it can't get any worse" at this point. They have units of Gargantuan Creatures when just two editions ago a unit of Monstrous Creatures would be a big thing.

Plus, if there is going to be a 8th edition, it would be an initiative Rountree took, and so far he's done a decent job of un-screwing 40k (not good, just decent) so there is some hope.

You see, the thing is it can get worse, careless balancing could nerf monsterous creatures but make vehicles neigh unkillable. Its all unknown at the moment, also nerfing certain things to any degree can change the balance of everything, nerfing D weps and GMC's may make eldar significantly weaker while horde/infantry based armies become OP, its all a matter of balance and change could be better or worse

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I think it's more of "it can't get any worse" at this point.

Look at Age of Sigmar, it can always be worse

Prediction: 8E will have even more rules bloat, and thus be even harder to balance in any meaningful way.

Reason: GW needs to continue supporting all the models that are in current use, and they need to draw in more sales by adding stuff. There will likely be more weapon types and possibly even another unit type, and almost certainly more special rules.

Result: 8E will do to 7E what 6E did to 5E.

 Selym wrote:
Prediction: 8E will have even more rules bloat, and thus be even harder to balance in any meaningful way.

Reason: GW needs to continue supporting all the models that are in current use, and they need to draw in more sales by adding stuff. There will likely be more weapon types and possibly even another unit type, and almost certainly more special rules.

Result: 8E will do to 7E what 6E did to 5E.

Burrowing units: Burrowing units are only on the table when they ant to be. If your opponent tries to shoot or assault them then burrowing units can move underground on a 2+ and the enemy unit cannot shoot or assault anything this turn.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Prediction: 8E will have even more rules bloat, and thus be even harder to balance in any meaningful way.

Reason: GW needs to continue supporting all the models that are in current use, and they need to draw in more sales by adding stuff. There will likely be more weapon types and possibly even another unit type, and almost certainly more special rules.

Result: 8E will do to 7E what 6E did to 5E.

Burrowing units: Burrowing units are only on the table when they ant to be. If your opponent tries to shoot or assault them then burrowing units can move underground on a 2+ and the enemy unit cannot shoot or assault anything this turn.

A wild Trygon appeared!

It uses Burrow!

It's Super Effective!

Land Raider Squadron has been knocked out!

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Prediction: 8E will have even more rules bloat, and thus be even harder to balance in any meaningful way.

Reason: GW needs to continue supporting all the models that are in current use, and they need to draw in more sales by adding stuff. There will likely be more weapon types and possibly even another unit type, and almost certainly more special rules.

Result: 8E will do to 7E what 6E did to 5E.

Burrowing units: Burrowing units are only on the table when they ant to be. If your opponent tries to shoot or assault them then burrowing units can move underground on a 2+ and the enemy unit cannot shoot or assault anything this turn.

A wild Trygon appeared!

It uses Burrow!

It's Super Effective!

Land Raider Squadron has been knocked out!

But then the Marines get the new unit, the Landraider Terrus Ultremor, a burrowing Landraider.

People will complain about everything like they have before, and yet still rush out to buy the new edition. It will be another year of "GW fanboys" vs. "GW haters".

War, war never changes.

WarHAMMER does though.

6E lost a bunch of 40k vets. 7E lost a bunch of 40k vets. Unless 8E fixes things significantly, I'm hoping it sees a gutting of anyone who joined before 6E.

8th ed could bring death from the skies into the core rulebook. Another freaking phase into the game, another stat to remember, and more silly crap.

At the same time, we could see stuff like a plastic warhound, and GW make rules and points for it. Maybe its a little undercosted? Maybe every imperial army starts bringing one?

Maybe we see the natural point level bump to 2000, or 2250 because of this? Rumors of plastic primarchs come true, and we have these +400pt characters running around slaughtereing everything left and right like tiny titans from hell. So you have to fight leman russ and a warhound tittan, but you brought a fluffy list.

What if CSM/Tyranids/Orks never get any worthwhile updates, and we have to continue to hear them complain all the time?

Stuff can always get so much worse.

 Selym wrote:
WarHAMMER does though.

6E lost a bunch of 40k vets. 7E lost a bunch of 40k vets. Unless 8E fixes things significantly, I'm hoping it sees a gutting of anyone who joined before 6E.

Will it? I've see plenty of guys who bailed at 5th, and 5th, and some who stopped at 3rd.

Reavas wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I think it's more of "it can't get any worse" at this point. They have units of Gargantuan Creatures when just two editions ago a unit of Monstrous Creatures would be a big thing.

Plus, if there is going to be a 8th edition, it would be an initiative Rountree took, and so far he's done a decent job of un-screwing 40k (not good, just decent) so there is some hope.

You see, the thing is it can get worse, careless balancing could nerf monsterous creatures but make vehicles neigh unkillable. Its all unknown at the moment, also nerfing certain things to any degree can change the balance of everything, nerfing D weps and GMC's may make eldar significantly weaker while horde/infantry based armies become OP, its all a matter of balance and change could be better or worse

The rules can get worse, but the situation won't. The reason 5th is looked upon favourably is because 6th and 7th edition rapidly degenerated the game from "mildly complex" to "bloated mess" within 2 years. Bloating it further won't cause the same outrage it did before, but more of a resounding "meh". Death From the Skies was suppose to change up flying and bloated the rules further but most people sorta just ignored it.

I don't mind formations. I don't like the imbalance (this is worse than 5E, but I admit that 5E had issues), the fliers, D-Weapons, and the super heavies. That gak should remain in Apocalypse games or scenario games. Not in tournaments and pick up games.

The game really just needs some simplification. The best thing GW could do to satisfy the players is to release "2 ways to play" 1 being a structured and limited version like 5th/6th, and 2 a bigger, yet no-so Apoc version of anything goes.

That way they don't have to rewrite/re-bablance every codex, allowing players to choose their level of play

 kronk wrote:
I don't mind formations. I don't like the imbalance (this is worse than 5E, but I admit that 5E had issues), the fliers, D-Weapons, and the super heavies. That gak should remain in Apocalypse games or scenario games. Not in tournaments and pick up games.

I like what Formation were meant to do, but not what they ended up doing.

The whole point behind formations was to make it so you could run a fluffy army and make your armies more diverse, but with the rules associated with them, it made them min maxing power houses of abuse.

What i really think needs to happen in 8ed to fix some of this crap is the following.

-Formations need to have an extra point cost associated with them
-no super heavy walkers, or MGC in games under 2k points
-No D weapons in games under 1500 points
-tone back on the AP 2 weapons on the field.


IMO a big issue with 7th is that they upped the scale of the game. Right now rules are basically apoc rules, with out titans, and even then, legally you can still field them. There are to many "apoc" creatures on the field now, and "apoc" class weapons on the field. D-weapons were designed to take a massive amounts of units with no questions asked, and in Apoc games thats not a big deal people, Oh i lost 20 space marines, NBD, i got like 400 more. But in a game of 1500 or less, looseing a whole squad to a single shot, well there goes the game.

 Selym wrote:
WarHAMMER does though.

6E lost a bunch of 40k vets. 7E lost a bunch of 40k vets. Unless 8E fixes things significantly, I'm hoping it sees a gutting of anyone who joined before 6E.

Why ?


Do you think anyone will do a 9th age for 40k ?

 loki old fart wrote:

 Selym wrote:
WarHAMMER does though.

6E lost a bunch of 40k vets. 7E lost a bunch of 40k vets. Unless 8E fixes things significantly, I'm hoping it sees a gutting of anyone who joined before 6E.

Why ?


Do you think anyone will do a 9th age for 40k ?

As long as they dont AoS it, no, i dont mind a rule trim, i just dont want homogenized armies, where the only difference is their colors.

 Galef wrote:
The game really just needs some simplification. The best thing GW could do to satisfy the players is to release "2 ways to play" 1 being a structured and limited version like 5th/6th, and 2 a bigger, yet no-so Apoc version of anything goes.

That way they don't have to rewrite/re-bablance every codex, allowing players to choose their level of play

After a several edition hiatus...I jumped back in and was like.. wtf. You can literally just field whatever the eff you want? No more FOC? that sacred equalizer that held the two armies to reasonable parameters? Titans and super heavies in a 1500 point skirmish? It went from squad based combat and zoomed out to a more over arching, war level combat that is dominated by units with such a concentration of points. Black holes of points on the tabletop running around just, absorbing units one by one.

....and here I am..feeling silly in my first game back... fielding 100+ boys in a 1500 point game, like the good ol' days o_O

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The game really just needs some simplification. The best thing GW could do to satisfy the players is to release "2 ways to play" 1 being a structured and limited version like 5th/6th, and 2 a bigger, yet no-so Apoc version of anything goes.

That way they don't have to rewrite/re-bablance every codex, allowing players to choose their level of play

After a several edition hiatus...I jumped back in and was like.. wtf. You can literally just field whatever the eff you want? No more FOC? that sacred equalizer that held the two armies to reasonable parameters? Titans and super heavies in a 1500 point skirmish? It went from squad based combat and zoomed out to a more over arching, war level combat that is dominated by units with such a concentration of points. Black holes of points on the tabletop running around just, absorbing units one by one.

....and here I am..feeling silly in my first game back... fielding 100+ boys in a 1500 point game, like the good ol' days o_O

This is exactly the problem, I really wish thye would go back to the 5th strat, and make it so if you wanted to filed a fluffy army, like say, Deathwing, you just needed to take a spicific character or a HQ in term armor and make the terminators troops instead of elites.

The 5th edition ork codex did this REALLY well. Warboss on bike? one squad of warbikers or nob bikers are troops. Big Mek? boom 1x deff dread as troops. MA warboss? boom 1x mega armor nobz are troops. It added a personality to the game. A leader/warlord (as well as the player) preferring one type of warfare and his army reflecting that style.

I think GW takes too many half-measures to "encourage" fluff play. Take Come the Apoc allies for example. There should really be very, VERY few times this level of alliance is used. GW clearly knows this and that is why the deployment must be outside a certain distance and units are subject to "One eye open".

The problem is that is not restrictive enough to prevent players from abusing it. Then GW sees this happen and instead of pull back the reigns, they throw out the half-measure entirely, creating the 'free=for-all' that now exists.

If GW has learned anything from AoS it's that players WANT restricted play. We like boundaries, even if they aren't perfectly balanced.
My hope for 8th edition is a return to mandatory 1 CAD/FOC play and no Come the Apoc allies allowed. Formations are fine, but you should have a "Core" before you can add Formations.
Unbound would be fine as an option, but the "structured play" should have more structure than it does not. Maybe only 1 detachment per 500pts allowed, for example.

-

I really wish they'd get rid of this FoC and Formation shenanigans in the next edition. These just tossed balance out the window and also made the whole "battlefield role" classification completely useless.

I remember back in 4th edition that the Store Manager told me that Troops were intentionally meant to be worse than anything comparable in the HS or FA slots because they represent the army's bread and butter; the most numerous units they had access to. FA and HS were suppose to be limited either due to training or lack of equipment, while Elites were suppose to be Troops with the drawbacks removed for a higher price. That was the inherent balance. While FoC shifts did happen, it's usually done as the exception, rather than the rule and was very few and far in between (and often came with restrictions for other stuff, like the original Deathwing being ONLY able to field Terminators, Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts rather than just Terminators as Troops).

I know that cuts down on the creativity but honestly half of the problems with the game would be solved if these weren't an issue. That and squadrons of vehicles/ units of MCs outside of Guard and Tyranids respectively.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I really wish they'd get rid of this FoC and Formation shenanigans in the next edition. These just tossed balance out the window and also made the whole "battlefield role" classification completely useless.

I remember back in 4th edition that the Store Manager told me that Troops were intentionally meant to be worse than anything comparable in the HS or FA slots because they represent the army's bread and butter; the most numerous units they had access to. FA and HS were suppose to be limited either due to training or lack of equipment, while Elites were suppose to be Troops with the drawbacks removed for a higher price. That was the inherent balance. While FoC shifts did happen, it's usually done as the exception, rather than the rule and was very few and far in between (and often came with restrictions for other stuff, like the original Deathwing being ONLY able to field Terminators, Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts rather than just Terminators as Troops).

I know that cuts down on the creativity but honestly half of the problems with the game would be solved if these weren't an issue. That and squadrons of vehicles/ units of MCs outside of Guard and Tyranids respectively.

Scatterbikes piss all over that theory any way. Since we are stuck with them, troops are no longer remotely balanced, so we might as well have formations.

Or move windriders to Fast Attack, and put back restrictions on weapon selection.

 Selym wrote:
Or move windriders to Fast Attack, and put back restrictions on weapon selection.

The model kit has all scatterlasers. That's not happening. Windriders have been troops forever. That's not happening. Accept that the era of troops as less powerful is over.

Honestly I welcome it. The fact that it takes some armies over 2 hours to play at 2000 points, and they cannot even finish 3 turns, something is wrong.

And let us not forget 5th ed had it's issues too, it wasn't all roses and sunshine. Transport abuse, grey knights being ridiculously overpowered, boring missions, etc.

If I want to be totally honest, with the introduction of points and structured match play, Age of Sigmar is much more fun to me. The game play is faster, I don't need a thesis in dwarf lore to understand the other armies rules. And none of the strategy is lost.