8th edition Overall Opinion poll

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.

**koooaei**

Cover rules aren't really good. In practice they almost never work for the attacker and always work for the bunched up defending gunline - which you can now build more easilly as you no longer need troops in your cads. And they don't even loose mobility cause they can shoot heavy weapons on the move.

**Flood**

Played 5 games now, SM vs Daemons and Eldar.

The narrative's the same as usual; interesting premise, poor execution.

The changes to gameplay did not go quite far enough for me; maelstrom still has a bit too much random; chickening out of making the whole game alternate activations. However it is by and large fun, involving and encouraging tactical/strategic decisions.

I think the 'meta' will be player-driven rather than developer-driven, if GW can restrain themselves in future updates.

Terrain, for my group, works just fine. The rules are simple and straightforward, almost as good as my personal favourite system for handling terrain: Kings of War.
We use a ton of ruins and walls on our table, covering at least a full third of the 6x4 (although I am a firm believer that everyone should always be getting a save of some sort). We also like to play fast, aggressive lists, so bunkering down is not normally an issue.

So I gave it a 25. Huge improvement, but could use some refining yet. Very optimistic about 40k's future now, whereas before I had not touched the game in 18 months due to the state of the thing.

P.S. I love the basic mission where you have four objectives on the board and score every turn; no first blood, set game length of five turns. Clean, simple, fun.

**Motograter**

28 for me. Personally im just glad 7th ed is dead and gone. Such a horrible mess that killed loads of interest but its back on track now

**steam**

Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

**ZebioLizard2**

steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

The Daemon Weapons are pretty much gone along with all other relic sorts.. Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

**jeff white**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I am kinda sad this pole didn't include a "40k", "OVER 9000" and "UP TO 11" reference.

Yeah. Sorry about that. I am not sure how many would have voted 31+ but it would have been a fun option.

I would like to run a second poll in a week or so to ask how much people have changed their minds.
Maybe I will include such options in that one.

**steam**

Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

The table was fun, and could give you some fun experience. Its just needed a rework, and not a totall removal. Also, CSM are now a generic SM codex... And it saddens me a lot.

**jeff white**

Poly Ranger wrote:
Forgetting about the fact that it is very early to tell any of these things aside from the fluff that has been released so far as we do not have all the rules and units and how they all interact yet, the poll itself is very difficult to read and get conclusions from.

This is because you have used 28 options and only had 179 replies (at time of posting) this doesn't really show us anything from the graphic of the poll. 3-15 would have shown us more, or 3-12 even better. 28 options dilutes any trends we could see. Also it gives the impression (as seen above) that 15 is the middle when it is actually 16.5.

This may help more:
Mode 30
Median 24
Mean 21.4

The interquartile range is between 17 and 27 which means the middle 50% of people have given it a reasonably high score. This is a reliable sample being the middle 50%.

47% of people have said it has only dropped up to 5 marks from a perfect score (this includes those who dropped it no marks at all).

So overall it still looks like 8th is being viewed very favourably.

This was supposed to be about first impressions.
I would like to open a second poll after people have a chance to sort things out.
We can say why we changed our evaluations and point to some problems which were not obvious from the start.
Thanks for pointing out that the middle response value is 16.5
Later on I should calculate an average score...
I was not expecting this poll to be statistically significant so much as offer a structure to organize initial thoughts and give feedback.
For myself, I benefit from making my thoughts explicit, letting others critique them and let myself reflect over them.
That is really what thisnpoll was about.
And I have learned a lot from reading the responses.

**MagicJuggler**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.

2-CSM lost all of their flavore....
Where are my deamon weapons? Where is a new boon table!? Where is the fun!?

GW really hates CSM....

The Daemon Weapons are pretty much gone along with all other relic sorts.. Though it surprises me that people actually liked Kelly's "Chaos is Random!" table.

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

Incidentally, the Chaos Warband was a surprisingly underrated and underused formation afaik. Universal Obsec was a nice ability, and the "roll 2 pick with option to discard one" roll for boons did a lot to give extra mileage to CSM. The formation made me want to actually buy Power Weapons for my Bike Champs: A Slaaneshi Biker with Power Lance had respectable odds of taking out half a 5-man Tactical Squad alone and if you got a Daemon Prince out of it, all the better.

Of course there were those games where it mattered not, where you fought Necrons or Eldar, the only characters either being the mandatory Lord/Zahndrekh and maybe Orikan, or a Farseer and Warp Spider Exarches. Regardless of this, such things helped distinguish Chaos Marines (an army of warriors) vs Codex Marines (an army of soldiers).

Now Obliterators are a Loota Centurion, losing melee, tactical flexibility, the ability to be run as solo minis...they somehow went to being a unit with even less options in-game than Devastator Centurions. Terminators are no longer field able in units of 3. Hell, even Forgefiends got the nerfbat on offensive output, losing the ability to fire on the move without penalty, losing Daemonforge, etc.

**jeff white**

bob82ca wrote:
Played my first few games today. 1850 points with my Imperial Guard and then with Dark Angels. Both games were against my friends Tyranids. I have to say that I like the overall "toned down" balance but there is a lot wrong with this edition unfortunately. Here's what I noticed:

Cover is almost non existent. The bonus it gives you is not that great and a lot of your units will not be eligible to use it. This is a real shame and you will find yourself doing all sorts of things that don't make sense. Shooting through labyrinths of stuff and your opponent not getting any cover because they're not all inside of it!

Nerfing everything is a step in the right direction, however don't expect 8th to have amazing balance cause it doesn't. They've done this thing where they made units and upgrades have ridiculous points values (93 pts...) and the idea is that all of the units have been expertly balanced. Anyways let me tell you right now that they're not! Just like AOS you're going to find a ton of stuff that's just not good. Tyranids for example have a unit that fires 12 plasma shots that deal 2 dmg each and can fire at BS 3+. It's priced at around the same as a Leman Russ but its 10X better in dmg output and just as survivable. Also, Tyranids can instead build this creature into one that has a giant mouth and is CC only...it costs way more in points and is just way worse. There is no reason anyone would take it :p So anyways, balance it sort of garbage.

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

I agree on the cover wholeheartedly.
Blast weapons being more useful against single models is also a problem that denies the virtue of blasts.
The way that vehicles work in close combat is also a problem.
I can see how these might be fixed with rules adjustments/rewrites.
Ideally gw will use white dwarf to float alternatives and then get feedback going forward.
The hope is that units can be points balanced as the codexes are released and perhaps updated in a ongoing "live" fashion.
The big mash up in the center tossing dice is something that i expected given AoS.

**ZebioLizard2**

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

It wasn't the main issue, but it was confirmed that many of the mutations that would've been useful to buy had become part of the randomness to justify it. Rather then allowing for such things as allowing Chaos to buy 2+ armor or the like.

And given I had played CSM long before the invention of the "Chaos Warband" I had plenty of issues of spawndom for important characters, or winning games because of stupid luck of having two Aspiring Champions suddenly become daemon princes... While the whole "You don't keep your artifacts or any gear" for Daemon Princes made it just as bad for my kitted out Chaos Lords. I don't like winning because of randomness or losing because I managed to kill a Sargent and lose my expensive units as a result.

**steam**

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.

Incidentally, the Chaos Warband was a surprisingly underrated and underused formation afaik. Universal Obsec was a nice ability, and the "roll 2 pick with option to discard one" roll for boons did a lot to give extra mileage to CSM. The formation made me want to actually buy Power Weapons for my Bike Champs: A Slaaneshi Biker with Power Lance had respectable odds of taking out half a 5-man Tactical Squad alone and if you got a Daemon Prince out of it, all the better.

Of course there were those games where it mattered not, where you fought Necrons or Eldar, the only characters either being the mandatory Lord/Zahndrekh and maybe Orikan, or a Farseer and Warp Spider Exarches. Regardless of this, such things helped distinguish Chaos Marines (an army of warriors) vs Codex Marines (an army of soldiers).

Now Obliterators are a Loota Centurion, losing melee, tactical flexibility, the ability to be run as solo minis...they somehow went to being a unit with even less options in-game than Devastator Centurions. Terminators are no longer field able in units of 3. Hell, even Forgefiends got the nerfbat on offensive output, losing the ability to fire on the move without penalty, losing Daemonforge, etc.

Since English is not my first language, I couldent say it better!
How I would describe chaos in 8th? You know when you eat a stake, but it has 0 salt or pepprt on it? Its bland to no end, and you cant seem to find anything to season it with? Chaos is that stake.

Also, I have the feeling that 8th edition is like 6th was. When 6th came out, its was garbage. No one liked it, no one cared. So they released 7th, and improved 6th. So I have a feeling, that in 1 year, we will se 9th edition. Which will be an improved 8th.

EDIT.
Also, I cant see GW not adding more option for armies and units via data gaks.

**bob82ca**

AnomanderRake wrote:
4/8/8 here for a total of 20 points. New fluff is kind of dull, but the rules are actually well set up, barring some typos/mild teething issues.

I wouldn't say those results are favourable. I work in the game industry and one thing that you will notice is that people in general lean towards positive revues. It's sort of a "fanboy" effect. So for instance a really bad mobile game might have 3/5 stars. So even though it's technically better than 50% it's considered to be quite the failure. Same goes for things like Steam revues, if a Steam game is even 70% positive it's probably pretty bad.

It's very, VERY hard to score less than 50% on revues for mobile/PC game. (User revues that is). Although I will admit that there is a possibility that people (like myself) who are not pleased with it, might be more inclined to click on this thread to speak their mind about it :p

**bob82ca**

jeff white wrote:
bob82ca wrote:
Played my first few games today. 1850 points with my Imperial Guard and then with Dark Angels. Both games were against my friends Tyranids. I have to say that I like the overall "toned down" balance but there is a lot wrong with this edition unfortunately. Here's what I noticed:

Cover is almost non existent. The bonus it gives you is not that great and a lot of your units will not be eligible to use it. This is a real shame and you will find yourself doing all sorts of things that don't make sense. Shooting through labyrinths of stuff and your opponent not getting any cover because they're not all inside of it!

Nerfing everything is a step in the right direction, however don't expect 8th to have amazing balance cause it doesn't. They've done this thing where they made units and upgrades have ridiculous points values (93 pts...) and the idea is that all of the units have been expertly balanced. Anyways let me tell you right now that they're not! Just like AOS you're going to find a ton of stuff that's just not good. Tyranids for example have a unit that fires 12 plasma shots that deal 2 dmg each and can fire at BS 3+. It's priced at around the same as a Leman Russ but its 10X better in dmg output and just as survivable. Also, Tyranids can instead build this creature into one that has a giant mouth and is CC only...it costs way more in points and is just way worse. There is no reason anyone would take it :p So anyways, balance it sort of garbage.

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

I agree on the cover wholeheartedly.
Blast weapons being more useful against single models is also a problem that denies the virtue of blasts.
The way that vehicles work in close combat is also a problem.
I can see how these might be fixed with rules adjustments/rewrites.
Ideally gw will use white dwarf to float alternatives and then get feedback going forward.
The hope is that units can be points balanced as the codexes are released and perhaps updated in a ongoing "live" fashion.
The big mash up in the center tossing dice is something that i expected given AoS.

Yeah I hope so but they said the same thing about AOS and I don't think they've changed any of the units for warscrolls. AOS had their 1 year anniversary and goblin spiders are still wrecking face. Those frost giant on mammoths are still doing 6 mortal wounds automatically. I was looking through my undead stuff again and they didn't improve any of the completely useless stuff like Black Coach. Although, when they release the army books it will give them a chance to do a re-balance :p

**Ankhalagon**

So. Now the probability to play dropped to about 1% to play the new edition. My pals tend to care about it as much as for AOS.
Oh, well.

**GodDamUser**

This poll format makes me annoyed...

But in the end enjoying the New edition so far

The Dark Imperium novel improves the fluff a bit, but still the Momentum forward has not been my favourite fluff..

Still beats new Crons, as well a BA and Cron BFF's

**Lance845**

steam wrote:
Have a few gripes.

1- The idea of a units, which has different weapons, to be able to shoot at different targets.
Dont like it, and to be honest, it wasent needed at all.
.

The best effect of that change is you are now more encouraged to build up bigger units than go MSU. One of the major drawbacks of building up units in 7th was wasted shots. A unit of 30 termagants has to fire 30 shots at a single enemy unit even if there is one 1 guy alive in that unit. Now that everyone has split fire you don't have to worry about wasted shots, you can take a single unit of 30 guys and decide how to divide it up.

I would say it was very needed as a counter to the MSU no brainer that was 7th ed.

**MagicJuggler**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Compared to the other Chaos is Random Tables there was far more reward than risk generally speaking, since the drawback was only for Challenges that you might lose (meaning vs Space Wolf/Smash deathstars) while the ability to gain boons wasn't dependent on how you killed enemy Characters. The real annoyance was the fact a Daemon Prince didn't keep any Relics or Mastery Levels, but other than that the table wasn't the main issue CSM had.
It wasn't the main issue, but it was confirmed that many of the mutations that would've been useful to buy had become part of the randomness to justify it. Rather then allowing for such things as allowing Chaos to buy 2+ armor or the like.

And given I had played CSM long before the invention of the "Chaos Warband" I had plenty of issues of spawndom for important characters, or winning games because of stupid luck of having two Aspiring Champions suddenly become daemon princes... While the whole "You don't keep your artifacts or any gear" for Daemon Princes made it just as bad for my kitted out Chaos Lords. I don't like winning because of randomness or losing because I managed to kill a Sargent and lose my expensive units as a result.

I miss the Pete Haines list of Daemonic Mutations as much as every other Chaos player does. (I also miss the old GW website that had experimental rules, tactics articles, etc). It was also amusing how much of a Star Wars fan Pete was ("I remembered facing Stormtroopers once and imagining a certain other Stormtrooper...", or how he described a potential unmarked Chaos Lieutenant with Jump Pack and Combi flamer and how he would "leave it at that lest I infringe on another certain intellectual property"). I think 8th could have easily kept such a rule in place ("The Crimson Path") that gave CSM ways to replenish Command Points by wiping out units, taking objectives, etc.

I skipped out on 6th, both because life was in the way (new job, distance from gaming), and because frankly the rules for 6th were messy in a lot of areas (Challenges, models in transports cannot score, etc) and the idea of associating Chaos Space Marines with Heldrakes and Plague Zombies had all the tactical interest of watching paint dry. My Orks gathered shelf space too, as the idea of running them in a tide to support Necrons was also fairly silly.

When 7th patched challenges, added universal scoring and Obsec, and just cleaned up a lot of the core mechanics that steered me away from 6th, I got back into the game conditionally. I still didn't have time to do tournaments but I could get games in. I relearned the army and came to some conclusions about the strengths and flaws of the CSM army: While model for model individual Chaos Marines are not *that* much weaker than their loyalist counterparts, the FOC for CSM is pretty one-dimensional: Every long-range choice was in Heavy Support and every "fast" unit was in Fast Attack. By contrast, the Elite and Troop slots were point-inefficient for fire support and they all had infantry-movement. By contrast: Marines could take Bikes, Pods, or Razorbacks to compensate for any of the aforementioned flaws with their Troops, while they could run Vanguard, Bike Command Squads, Sternguard with 2 Heavies or even the odd Rifle Dreadnought. In short, Loyalists had a far easier time scaling their army, and with less tax to boot. Realistically, a Chaos Elite Slot was either for Termicide or the rare MSU solo Mutilator gimmick. (Incidentally, losing the ability to field Mutilators solo also defeated half their purpose)

I've proposed rule tweaks in the past, to fix this specific issue for CSM. Be it letting Chosen take a second Heavy or purchase Chaos Steeds, be it giving Chaos Plasma Weapons "Gets Really Hot" (Chaos Plasma weapons fire an extra shot, but each roll you have to make *two* armor saves for each roll of 1), etc.

**Mr. CyberPunk**

bob82ca wrote:

Boring combat! OK I will try my best to describe this but the game has a lot of stuff that can deploy 9" away from your deployment. In theory this seems pretty good because "hey CC is making a come back". Unfortunately it results in CC on turn one, and because of other movement tricks almost everything is in CC by turn 2. I found that the games sort of played out like AOS. A huge clusterf*** of rolling dice and not much else. Even with his large monsters my opponent was having troubles eating through 10 man squads of guardsmen. Space marines are even worse, they are very survivable and are never failing battle shock. By turn 3 it's like watching paint dry.

Sloppy game design. As Dark Angels my jet fighter had a special rule that meant it could not be charged by ground targets. It was also "hard to hit". My opponent on the other hand had 2 flyers that could be shot normally and charged. They performed very poorly (flying hyve tyrants suck now) and he was left scratching his head. Also, all of my guardsmen were constantly retreating (for free) and his CC units could not tie me down. I really felt like a Tau player or something. Jetfighter also had a stupid rule that had me flying my jet perpetually in a square around the board ( check it and you will see what I mean).

Far less depth. Yes I know people wanted the game to be more streamlined but I'm finding that there is a lot of "unnecessary bloat" that was actually VERY necessary! The removal of the AP system and the ability to fire my weapons at whatever I want made for 2 very boring games with the shooting phase. Basically I choose something big that I want to kill, then I fire all of my big guns at that and all of my little guns at everything else. (Pro 8th ED tip, don't fire blast weapons at infantry! It's a waste and WAY better against single). Anyways, in 7th it sure was annoying having to fire your rocket launcher at that tank and leaving your bolters to do nothing right? Well let me tell you that all of those tough decisions will be sorely missed...the introduction of "total freedom" makes the game "total boredom".

Anyways that's just my opinion. Some people might like the stress-free approach to streamlining the rules but I just felt like I was rolling a crap load of dice and nothing else :p --------> 4/10

Mainly agree with your post. While I personally like rules heavy games, I could understand why they wanted to streamline the new edition a bit. Still, I feel they went way too far. Removing the rules for vehicles, USR (how in the hell is it easier to have a thousand different rules by different names doing the same thing ???) and templates is simply bonker imo, and makes for a far less enjoyable experience imo. The new Moral test and Pshychic phases are both clear downgrades too. But to answer the topic directly :

I'd give the new fluff a 4 as, not only do I dislike seeing Primarch back into the fray, the fluff behind R.G. revival and the new Sigmarines is simply abhorrent. It still is new though, and maybe it will evolve into something interesting down the line (maybe with the Imperium descending into a civil war), but right now, it's not only childish but unimaginative.

Rules as written is a 3. It seems that there is too many thing that they didn't think of properly (circling vehicles so that they can't disengage, blast being better vs big models than hordes, flamer being better vs flyers, cover benefiting heavily armored units more,....). They simplified the game way too much and it now feels very similar to AoS, which I find boring and uninteresting.

Rules as intended is a 4. As I said before, I like a game with an extensive ruleset so I may be a bit biased here. Still, even with all of the changes they came up with, they lacked the balls or hindsight to drop IgoUgo (or at least, add a gakload of reactionary actions) , one of the biggest problem in a game like 40K were there is so many models on the table. Game feels like it still needs polishing and, once again, they are far too few tactical decisions to be made. Watched a BattleReport of 8th ed. on MiniWargaming.com and it look like an exercise in pushing models and throwing dices around :(

Definitively not for me in its current incarnation. Will wait to see what they'll do with the new codexes and if they realease a supplement for Advanced Rules, but as of right now, I'm planning on sticking with 7th edition (which was great, if you played with similarly minded persons)

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

**Marmatag**

RAW: 7/10. The psychic phase was decimated, Psychic Focus in matched play irks me, Grey Knights look to be the worst marine chapter again. Loss of uniqueness across space marine chapters, loss of chapter tactics.

RAI: 10/10. What they're trying to do is create a balanced game that's quick to play and easy to learn, and I can get behind that.

Fluff: 9/10. While I would have much rather seen the creation of primaris marines more as named characters acting as psuedo primarchs, I do like that they've advanced the setting.

**jeff white**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

That is an interesting idea re monstrous creatures.
Agree completely re templates.
Eventually they are gonna have to use USRs to fix stuff like land raiders trapped by grots and so on,
I.e. anything with keyword ABC can move through any units with keyword EFG during any movement phase regardless of Close combat.
Enemy models moved through in this way are displaced and injured on a strength v toughness test with armor saves granted.

**3orangewhips**

I haven't been this excited about a new edition since 3rd. Graded on a curve (and I taught public school for 6 years) it's 10/10/10.

**carldooley**

I gave it a 3. I was interested, until I saw the new To Wound rules. Weight of fire is in, while accurate firepower is out. The ability of each player to assign wounds was another nail in the coffin. What does it mean? Movement trays are in. There is no longer any reason to space out your models, as Blasts\Large Blasts\Templates are out.

I have the feeling that 40k is going to feel like fantasy. If I wanted tercios of infantry, I'd play Fantasy instead. I remember games where facing and positioning MATTERED, but it won't with 8th.

Lastly, I play Tau. JSJ is gone. Tau are decent in melee now. And there is no way to buff my shooting anymore to the levels that I had (even in third). It feels as though all the armies play the same now. If I wanted that, I'd play chess.

I'll revisit this game when the Tau codex is released, but for now? I'm probably going to sit out of the game.

**davou**

how are you gonna make a poll and then ask me to do math!?

**Purifier**

steam wrote:
GW really hates CSM....

No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

**3orangewhips**

Purifier wrote:
steam wrote:
GW really hates CSM....

No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

Purifier, we need to repeat this as often as possible (which I have seen you do in numerous threads). Many have never been through something like this before, and don't have the time to keep up with numerous updates and info as its released.

You're doing the Emperor's work, my friend.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

jeff white wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Fluff: 7 Adequate, if uninspired.
RAW: 7 Also Adequate. Meets the requirements, if not the way I would have done it.
RAI: 8 Pretty good, I like the intent behind the rules, mostly.

What I would have done differently:
Instead of converting Vehicles into Creatures, I would make all MC's into vehicles. A Carnifex can be a 12/12/10 Walker.
Get rid of Hull Points, and go back to using the VDT to determine when vehicle-things die.
Not removed template weapons, and not added multiple-wound hits.
Kept USR's, instead of each unit having uniquely named but otherwise identical special rules.

Otherwise, things look good, and a lot better than 7th.

That is an interesting idea re monstrous creatures.
Agree completely re templates.
Eventually they are gonna have to use USRs to fix stuff like land raiders trapped by grots and so on,
I.e. anything with keyword ABC can move through any units with keyword EFG during any movement phase regardless of Close combat.
Enemy models moved through in this way are displaced and injured on a strength v toughness test with armor saves granted.

I think the proliferation of targets with multiple woulds has been, in general, bad for the game. It alters the balance of firepower and resilience in a bad way. Among other things, it overvalues rate of fire and devalues weapon power and armor penetrating ability.
I don't think HP are a very good abstraction for resilience anyway. The idea of "how many hits can I take until I die" is kind of stupid, if you think about it.

But, with regards to a carnifex being a vehicle:
1-4: Crew Stunned/Shaken, It's wracked by pain responses from the hit, rendering it unable to fire and move accurately.
5: Weapon Destroyed. In a bloody mess, the arm-mounted gun comes away at the shoulder.
6: Immobilized. A leg is shot off at the knee. It now is unstable, and has trouble moving if at all.
7: Destroyed. The shot pulverizes the brain, severs the spinal chord, or tears such a chunk out of the creature that it collapses to the ground.

**Thousand-Son-Sorcerer**

Overall i like it in general the simplicity really streamlines the games. There are some aspects I dont like psychic phase being turned into 3-6 spells per army sucks for me I understand it, but my army was build around being knowledgeable about spells and knowing what to go for with the different armies to face. Now there are exaclty 3 options for the models i have and they cant overlap

**Peregrine**

Purifier wrote:
No, everyone lost a lot of nuance. Spells, special army wide rules, loads of things. GW doesn't hate CSM.

This isn't a final product. These Index-books are a stop gap before real codex books. That's when you'll get your flavour back.

IOW, the simplicity of 8th, supposedly one of its few good attributes, isn't even a permanent thing and will be gone as soon as GW gets around to reintroducing the rules bloat in each individual codex.