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.

Nah 8th edition can't get here soon enough for me. I can't wait to see if my garbage tier army actually becomes wait for it A LITTLE BIT COMPETITIVE?! I'd be nice to say win 1 out of 10 instead of 1 out of 100. And from what little I've seen my army might even shoot up to tourney eligible.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Ah right, 6th removed the Griffon, Colossus and Medusa. Forgot about that. The Colossus was "good on paper, meh in practice" but the other two had their place. Between that, removing DE and Ork special characters (rip Wazdakka/Zogwort) and axing Mycetic Spores (before making Tyrannocites), GW's policy of "no models=no rules" did not do anyone any favors. Gamers lost, GW lost, Chapterhouse Studios lost...all over legalese about 3rd party models due to a gap in rules and model releases.

Of course, Fire on My Target & Bring it Down got notably buffed, Vets were cheaper anyway (10 points cheaper, so really the same as the old Chimera team...it's not like you were using Krak Grenades...), so *shrug.*

Also, I almost never remember the Hydra tracking rule ever mattering in a 5e game I ever played. Eldar Bikes were already 3+ armor and gave 50% cover to Serpents/Falcons, while Tau had Disruption Pods, Ork Bikes had Exhaust Clouds, and Marine Land Speeders either hanged back with Typhoons or were suicidal Deep Strike...honestly, Hydra tracking ended up being a "rule that did nothing in most games I ever encountered them with.

The Hydra's ability was useful against skimmers, particularly Eldar (never really had a problem with screening jetbikes, they were mainly MSU spoiler squads that liked to stay out of sight) & Dark Eldar (where they were murderously effective), and through most of 6E before the update hit in the last few weeks against Flyers for the ~15 months or so they were very strong.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Ah right, 6th removed the Griffon, Colossus and Medusa. Forgot about that. The Colossus was "good on paper, meh in practice" but the other two had their place. Between that, removing DE and Ork special characters (rip Wazdakka/Zogwort) and axing Mycetic Spores (before making Tyrannocites), GW's policy of "no models=no rules" did not do anyone any favors. Gamers lost, GW lost, Chapterhouse Studios lost...all over legalese about 3rd party models due to a gap in rules and model releases.

Well the No Model No Rules.. Was forced on GW due to the Chapterhouse case, Because GW was suing 3rd parties for IP theft because they were making models for units that didn't have one

Revenant78 wrote:
Ok so here is a serious question, let's forget ( in case this is part of the reason I don't know not to sound like some x files episode ) that GW may intentionally be making the rules far less than perfect each edition. Let's forget about their business practice also to sell more models...

Is it reasonable to say given GW's rather strange ways, that over the years...yes this includes rick and andy etc, that NONE of these "designers" have ever been competent enough or dare I say it...even cared enough to tweak and fix and do the very best to their ability to make 40k and army books balanced ? One would think working internally in the studio ( and being privy to things months ahead since they work along side the sculptors and create the units they sculpt later ) that they do discuss rules and units and so on with other designers.

Or is it a case that no mattere who is designing or working for them for the rules, that given human nature people will forever break the game ? or is it a case of just a total lack of serious playtesting ?

I know people for years claim GW never playstests or x designer is to blame for ww2 and many other things but what is the true reality here sarcasm and anger aside ? does anyone know truly ?

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

 Megaknob wrote:

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

Don't get too excited. Even if the initial release is well balanced, plenty of ways to screw it over with subsesquent releases. AoS GH has been out less than a year and what I gather, balance issues have already surfaced.
I remember when 6th edition came out and nerfed Grey Knights and generally levelled playing field between the codices. First 6th edition Codices were hardly overpowered. Had GW finally learnt its lesson....? Yeah...well...

And cold hard fact is that power creep sells. Look at MtG.

Backfire wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

extensive play testing has been done this time around, by the people who are most likely to exploit the rules they have been given specific orders to balance the game, and from what I have seen it is very much on its way to being balanced..... lets get on with 8th.

Don't get too excited. Even if the initial release is well balanced, plenty of ways to screw it over with subsesquent releases. AoS GH has been out less than a year and what I gather, balance issues have already surfaced.
I remember when 6th edition came out and nerfed Grey Knights and generally levelled playing field between the codices. First 6th edition Codices were hardly overpowered. Had GW finally learnt its lesson....? Yeah...well...

And cold hard fact is that power creep sells. Look at MtG.

AoS has some issues with balance yes, Tomb King Settra lists were painful, Fyreslayers were overcosted, something needs to be done a bit about Beastclaw's a bit.. But in general the balance is still better from worst to best compared to 7th. Main thing really is to fill out some of those tiny factions.

Along with seeing how well GH2 improves the balance.

Revenant78 wrote:
A major part of the problem is the player base itself. I know in the late 80s early 90s the majority of players I met at the few GW stores that existed, including also conventions that played all manner of rpg and wargames were not of the mindset of today, which mainly got created through the whole win at all costs tournament mentality...and through the constant emphasis on dif 40k forums to build the most hard as nails solid army lists.

I remember once meeting a guy back after the first daemonhunters codex came out for 3rd, and this guy would just not shut up about how powerful and unbeatable his grey knights army was, and the entire time I sat there saying...buddy I would not play you if you paid me, you are the kinds of swine who are doing damage to this game and enticing new players. 40k should be fun, wargames should be fun in general, not some ego tard stroke fest...that mentality would be no dif than trying to play an rts or fps with a semi god mode ability.

Since the start I've always been 100% about themed fun armies, I believe unbound is totally great for that and we already got that in 7th, it's mostly the same in 8th. I realize 7th ( and EVERY edition and I played 2nd a lot it turned into an overwatch snooze fest or with nades ) has it's problems, I realize many people started with this or that edition, but in reality they were all 40k as we have known it at it's core, rick has had little to do with it since 2nd I am pretty sure, but it's remained mostly that same core game with simply variations done to the rules.

Part of the problem is GW itself coming up with rules, not really bothering to playtest them that much, and yes creating some cheese to sell the newest plastic kits.

I think if players worked towards actually trying to have fun and make games friendly with out the @peen ego mentality that let's be honest...nobody gives a f about other than these miserable fks, then the overall attitude towards the game, the atmosphere, all of it would be far better.

You can either have fun or join the people who want to try and break it ( and the fun ) on the first day, in which case just reject them or don't complain.

What's this all about? If you're having fun with 7-th you'll sure as hell have fun with 8-th. In fact, you'll have fun without rules at all.

 koooaei wrote:

What's this all about? If you're having fun with 7-th you'll sure as hell have fun with 8-th. In fact, you'll have fun without rules at all.

Two things I have most fun in 40K are tanks and blast templates. Both of which are going away in 8th. Also, the game sounds seriously dumbed down - everything can move and shoot with everything. Doesn't leave much tactical choices for the shooting aspect. Basically it sounds like all tactical aspects of 8th edition are in the assault phase, like with AoS. That doesn't interest me in the slightest.

What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings?

Because sitting around waiting while you did the quantum mathematics of a group of Wyverns trying to see how many hits they get was so tactical and so much fun.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

The existence of blast weapons prevents players from doing stuff like running multiple units of troops blobbed together in Napoleonic musket blocks, encourages spreading out after Deep Strike, and gives practical purposes to Tank Shock or other ways to mess with your opponent's movement. Also as written, blasts in 8th can either target a character or a unit but never both at once.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
7th edition has it's problems sure, but when played for fun with friends, ignoring broken formations, it is fun.

It also has an advantage over any older versions in that it's complete. Every army has a valid useable codex.

If only my skaven had gotten a nice hardback 8th edition codex before fantasy was murdered.

If you're playing for fun, with friends, then *any* edition is fun. However, playing 3E-5E is faster and less painful.

Wait, Squats got a 40k 7E Codex? And Sisters, too? When did that happen?

Dogs of War player here... I didn't get an Army Book in WFB 8E. Or 7E. Or 6E. Last time Warhammer Armies: Dogs of War was in print was 5E.

Squats don't exist so don't count. Sisters of battle did get a codex, it's called imperial agents it has their whole army in it. When played using standard cad's and at lower points 1000-1500 points he balance between armys isn't too bad. Don't get me wrong eldar / tau are still strong, but it's the broken detachements that ruined the game for most people.

I will stick to 7th because HH (and I just bought Inferno! So DONT switch FW!), but my 40k armies will be going on to 8th (mostly because I played 5th before switching to WHFB, then AoS and then 30k). Unless it turns out to be worse than 7th, in which case all my xenos armies will get Heresified and I'll just play 30k.

If anything I'd go back to 5th edition

8th is looking promising so I want to give it a fair shake. If it does end up imploding though, I definitely think 5th would be a better pick for retro games than 7th.

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

In other words, there are no tanks anymore - just generic monsters. Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

I honestly never thought I would play 40k again after 6th edition. Now I am strongly considering coming back with 8th.

Honestly anybody upset about Tanks not having facings is just bring upset to be upset.
Vehicles are just fething garbage, partly because of that along with other numerous problems. If it really upsets you THAT much you're being irrational.

Gave up on the car crash that was 7th, hopefull for 8th

Backfire wrote:
Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

You'll just have to settle for the actual advantages of flanking maneuvers instead of the ones the game mechanics gave you, you know, like people in real battles might.

Backfire wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
What's all that tactical about blast templates? Wasting time on spreading 2' away and not occupy multiple levels on buildings? And tanks aren't gone. They're just changed to have toughness, an armor save and unique damage chart to each of them. The only...tactical(?)...downside is no armor facings - means that there's no use flanking tanks and that they can effectively sideway slide their way through the board. But i'd take it over what we currently have with battletanks. That are all but obsolete because of how rules function.

In other words, there are no tanks anymore - just generic monsters. Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

So.. because there's no armor values anymore, there's no reason to try & get units into the opponents backfield? What about distracting some of their shooting away from your front line? Tying up a heavy weapons squad in CC? Pushing them off an objective?

I'm starting to think the only reason people attempted to deep strike/outflank units was simply to have an easier shot at a vehicle. Sure, that's a valid decision to make, but it's not the only reason to get units into their lines. Dropping a melta squad into the sides/rear of a tank isn't a TACTIC - it's a GOAL. A tactic would be getting units back there to distract your opponent so you can move more freely up the battlefield. Flanking maneuvers are useful for so much more than getting side/rear armor on a tank. Once people start understanding that, the quicker we can move past this tired discussion of 'Whelp, vehicles only have a T value now, this game is gak.'

While the tactical element of facing on tanks was neat, there were major balance issues with it and having only a single unit type care about facing (when it could apply equally to many or all other units) was rather silly and pointless, and it didnt help that determining facing was not always easy with many vehicles.

I never got started with 7th. Bought the rulebook, saw that it was just 6th edition but with the stupid amped up to 11, and just never bothered with it.

I'll likely give 8th ed a go... And if it turns out to be as bad as it's starting to look (which is disappointing after the initial few sneak peeks looked rather promising) then I'll likely stick to playing 40K at home with friends, using a hybrid of 5th and 6th.

Never in a million years did I think I would hear a World Bearers player express their appreciation for 7e...

 insaniak wrote:
I never got started with 7th. Bought the rulebook, saw that it was just 6th edition but with the stupid amped up to 11, and just never bothered with it.

I'll likely give 8th ed a go... And if it turns out to be as bad as it's starting to look (which is disappointing after the initial few sneak peeks looked rather promising) then I'll likely stick to playing 40K at home with friends, using a hybrid of 5th and 6th.

I can't see you enjoying 8th. You've been militantly against pretty much everything that's been shown so far and, as much without judgement as is possible, that attitude is likely to heavily influence any games you play. It's unlikely you'll enjoy 8th even if it is good, just due to the 'anti-hyping' that's happened.

ERJAK wrote:

I can't see you enjoying 8th. You've been militantly against pretty much everything that's been shown so far and, ...

I really haven't. I had no issue with the statline changes, I like the weapon changes that have been shown so far, I've been advocating for years for vehicles to be shifted to having a Toughness like everyone else, and I love the look of the new Psychic rules.

If I've seemed to be overly negative about certain aspects, it's because they're things that I'm really not a fan of.

Hell no.

7th has terrible rules. The fact that anyone plays it is a testament to how popular and appealing the setting is.

 DarkBlack wrote:
Hell no.

7th has terrible rules. The fact that anyone plays it is a testament to how popular and appealing the setting is.

Not exactly

Every edition of both whfb and 40k were played, the simple reason is 1 GW stores enforce you play the current edition and most FLGS go along with that ( although they still allow oop and other editions ), this mentality also goes right back to the whole meta/waac mentality...monkey see monkey do.

Interestingly enough I've noticed a high percentage of the waac types having the most craptastic looking armies, usually either counts as or tons of terribly painted plastic, they are usually the least creative or passionate types you can encounter or play against, other than their passion for winning and nothing else. I think that's what happens when tools are consumed with their ego or need to compensate for real life insecurities. Still they at least occupy a slot of entertainment at the cost of their own dignity.

As long as the internet and in turn GW stores and FLGS stores continue to follow this mindset, not much will ever really change...other than people leaving and going to other games, which has already happened. The main reason people stick with GW is not loyalty or love for them as a company, it's personal love for their ip's and miniatures. I used to love GW in the late 80s and early 90s, I no longer give a fk about GW but I still love their miniatures and settings...although I stuck by my choice to stick with 8th fb and have never looked back, I can't stand aos and other than the khorne stuff I have not bought anything and never will, it's 8th or any oldhammer for me for life.

It's exactly why I don't have high hopes for 8th, what I honestly believe at this point over 8th...what it's going to be...it's basically going to be aos 40k, with yes nice new models ( and some ridiculous bs models too ), a trainwreck of the existing fluff, terrible animu da style art ( which is even worse than the digital vomit we have now ) and a mostly semi balanced game on initial release that will eventually run into similar issues of the past.

The whole "new gw" thing, what this actually is for the most part is GW finally got some business sense ( perhaps not perfect ) and decided hey...there is still plenty of love and paying customers for rogue trader content/minis....lets bring these back out in plastic and profit, the same thing with specialist games...they know it sells so they are releasing them again in updated plastic and new versions.

GW is a company that in the past had a CEO that said "we don't do market research." There's not much room for them to go from there but upwards.

I'm not a fanboy of 7th by a long shot, but I personally feel it's got a passable compromise between certain problem rules of 5e, and overcorrections of 6th. Patching the system would do more to make the core game more playable rather than gutting sections of it wholesale. Things like random damage, turning vehicles into Prius Bumper Cars, etc aren't exactly promising, and the rabid fanboyism defending it is frankly a bit creepy.

For perspective, I remember at the start of 7th when Orks got nerfed and lost FOC swaps and Wazdakka and people argued that GW was trying to scale back the power level of OP armies...

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Some of them may be called tanks, but they do not work like ones. With that, pretty much the last incentive for flanking maneuvers is gone from 40K.

You'll just have to settle for the actual advantages of flanking maneuvers instead of the ones the game mechanics gave you, you know, like people in real battles might.

And what advantages are those? Now when the last mechanical advantage is gone, the one which was based on how stuff works, you know, in real battles?