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.

Played my first game of 8th edition last night. The game was enjoyable and I was struck by how quickly it went by. 100 power level army and was done in just over an hour. The infantry were the MVPs on both sides.

On the drive home, I was thinking about how different it is from previous editions. There was less strategy involved, things just died very quickly and (other than AP and cover) there were few modifiers. By the fourth round, less than half the original models were off the table.

It's very early to be saying this, but I think the streamlined rules are going to have a big impact on tactics.

Still working out what it all means, but here are my predictions for how the rules will impact the way we play the game.

1) There's less value to spreading out across a deployment zone, and more value to big blobs of units. Armies that emphasize offense are going to be the top tier. Anything that maximizes the number of shots per turn is to your advantage.

2) Synergy matters more in this edition. Saying this based on experiences with lascannons, which are great at taking out multi-wound models from range, but the wounds don't spill over to other models. You need infantry to kill blobs of things, and you need heavy weapons to kill bigger / tougher things. Armies that emphasize this dynamic of units working together will enjoy more success.

3) Movement matters more in this edition. Not in the sense of the statline, but in the sense of things being able to move together to support one another. A vehicle that can move along with your troops will likely be more valuable than a stationary one simply because it will be better able to react to changes in the opponent's position. Armies that can reposition themselves effectively will do better than others.

4) Heavy Support is Heavy Support. It's really there to take out your opponent's Heavy Support, which frees up infantry to take out lighter targets. Anti-vehicle is going to occupy most heavy support slots instead of horde-killing options.

No good impressions about assault yet. Would love to know your thoughts.

Strategy is making a plan, and tactics is making that plan happen. When you say there was less strategy involved, are you saying you didn't plan to win? And if you didn't plan to win, then how did you use tactics? Or are you saying that due to Power Level, you just threw together 100 points to play a game, in which case you chose to include less strategy in the game; it wasn't a function of the rule set itself.

In this kind of game, strategy has always started with building your list, then looking at the mission, seeing your opponent's list, and deploying your army.

Tactics is where you make battlefield decisions, or in this case, squad X is going to shoot at squad A because it's on an objective, or squad Y is going to shoot at tank B because it's carrying a bunch of troops that will disrupt my plan. Or Sgt Z will be in the middle of the squad so he isn't the first to die.

Your assertion about tactics changing is 100% accurate and true. While the strategy of the game hasn't changed much, the tactics have changed dramatically. You should move away from this idea of "streamlined rules" as you are still thinking 7th edition. Move on and embrace them. The best thing you could do is totally forget all about 7th edition.

I would like to preface my rebuttal to all the following in that I haven't read all the rules for 8th yet.

1) There's less value to spreading out across a deployment zone, and more value to big blobs of units. Armies that emphasize offense are going to be the top tier. Anything that maximizes the number of shots per turn is to your advantage.

Why do you want to clump all your units up in the deployment zone? Sure, there are no more template weapons, but with different movement stats, wouldn't you have to be very, very aware of how you deploy units so that you don't run into a traffic jam? What about line of sight- If all your models are behind a terrain feature, or your opponent deployed behind a terrain feature, doesn't that lead once again, to a traffic jam as units try to move and get a shot off? Where there no objectives to claim or places you had to move to in the game? Further down you say movement is very important, but that is counter intuitive to clumping all your units together. Or is this a matter of trying to maximize command benefits or bonuses on characters? The "This model gives all models with this keyword a reroll to misses while within 6'"? The second part of your statement about offense has been true in 40K as well. Deathstars could only be overcome with either luck or overwhelming offense. While the Deathstar might be gone, it's spiritual successor is alive and well if you clump all your units together to maximize benefits. As I said in another post, due to the way the wounding chart works, #shots > everything else. Big units will have their place, but MSU will still be a thing due to how many command points and how you use them comes into play. MSU grants more command points, fills out the force org chart for even more command points, and gives you flexibility in activation and control the flow of the battle. One big unit will have a lot of resiliency and will stick around longer, but it can still only do one thing at a time. MSU allows you to move one unit to an objective, another to assault a unit, and another unit to set up a great firing lane. More units give you options, flexibility, and the initiative over an opponent with less units. MSU will still be a thing.

2) Synergy matters more in this edition. Saying this based on experiences with lascannons, which are great at taking out multi-wound models from range, but the wounds don't spill over to other models. You need infantry to kill blobs of things, and you need heavy weapons to kill bigger / tougher things. Armies that emphasize this dynamic of units working together will enjoy more success.

There was synergy in 7th edition- it's ultimate form was in Detachments and Death Stars. It's just been pushed down to the units and models themselves now. Though Keywords will rise to replace it. In regards to bigger weapons for bigger targets... again, # shots > everything else. The discriminator here will be how much a Lascannon costs compared to more shots from other sources. In other words, if a Lascannon does on average 3 wounds for 30 points, how many more bolter shots can I get for those 30 points? As you pointed out, excess wounds from big guns don't spill over. So which is better? One big shot that does a lot of wounds to one model, or a lot of little shots that only do 1 wound, but to multiple models/one model? (rhetorical question). Things that specialize in one area will probably do better then all around armies, and the hierarchy will be something like this: All psyker armies (though there really isn't an army that can pull this off, yet), all shooty armies, and finally, all assault armies. Why? Because Psychic phase is before shooting and assaulting. Shooting is before assaulting. And finally, assaulting is dead last. The morale test, or break test takes place in the end turn phase- it doesn't matter when the wound comes up, just that it's a wound. Removing/wounding models before the enemy can do anything is a huge advantage. If I can shoot you before you shoot me, and before you assault, that's an advantage over someone that can only assault. Assault style armies will have a hard time in this edition without some big bonuses to movement.

3) Movement matters more in this edition. Not in the sense of the statline, but in the sense of things being able to move together to support one another. A vehicle that can move along with your troops will likely be more valuable than a stationary one simply because it will be better able to react to changes in the opponent's position. Armies that can reposition themselves effectively will do better than others.

This has always been true and will continue to be true. However, you bring up a point about clumping units together to maximize benefits- then won't you have to be very careful about clumping up and jamming yourself? Can't all models move and shoot now? It's just a firing penalty that some vehicles ignore, right? No more "I moved at combat speed, so can only fire one weapon at full BS, everything else snap shots". Now it's "My tank moves 12", and I'm firing all my weapons at you at -1 BS". We have to be careful here, because in 7th edition, infantry, vehicles, and monstrous creatures where three very different things with very different rules and abilities. Now, they all share the same rules and stats. Forgetting all about 7th edition and how a tank or vehicle "should work" will enable you to look at a model and say "move 6", 10 wounds, 3+ save, and a gun". Which did I just describe? A vehicle, monstrous creature, or infantry? The answer is you are still thinking 7th edition! Unlearn what you have learned!

4) Heavy Support is Heavy Support. It's really there to take out your opponent's Heavy Support, which frees up infantry to take out lighter targets. Anti-vehicle is going to occupy most heavy support slots instead of horde-killing options.

This might be a default idea from 7th ed. I would submit that it really depends on your heavy support, and the army you are facing. As all models can basically split fire, I would say heavy support is the place where you will concentrate the most amount of shooting in your army. While other force org slots will have their use, #shots > all.

Iv played a few 1.5 and 2k games

they lasted about 3 hours though that involves a lot of rule and unit referals so thats probably going to drop down to 1.5-2 hours which is fantastic.

things i learned.

kill tanks they are tough and basically no joke. same with big MC type things.

Dreads are a pain to kill without dedicated anti tank as it should be, and if they charge into combat, expect to lose a lot of stuff.

Jet bikes are a pain in the ass trixy eldar are still trixy so watch your HQ positioning.

Strategy has changed quite a bit for necrons, we don't do the melee and ranged thing anymore, we go for max sized units, and we are more reliant on building synergy rather than spamming our best units. But aside from that minor quibble, what tamwulf said seems correct.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Strategy is making a plan, and tactics is making that plan happen. When you say there was less strategy involved, are you saying you didn't plan to win? And if you didn't plan to win, then how did you use tactics? Or are you saying that due to Power Level, you just threw together 100 points to play a game, in which case you chose to include less strategy in the game; it wasn't a function of the rule set itself.

In this kind of game, strategy has always started with building your list, then looking at the mission, seeing your opponent's list, and deploying your army.

Tactics is where you make battlefield decisions, or in this case, squad X is going to shoot at squad A because it's on an objective, or squad Y is going to shoot at tank B because it's carrying a bunch of troops that will disrupt my plan. Or Sgt Z will be in the middle of the squad so he isn't the first to die.

How did you know I love semantics, and my birthday is next week? This is a great response.

My strategy was defined primarily by an interest in the new ruleset and testing a specialized CSM build. By 'specialized,' I mean each unit had a clear battlefield role - Predators were there to blow up big things, Noise Marines were there to shoot up smaller things, Raptors were there to chop up things that would be supporting the smaller things. There were also Havocs, bikes, and Chaos Lord, but they were not essential to the overall plan.

Winning fit into this plan at some level, in that I would like to see the army list prevail. But I did not expect to win since I don't really have a feel for how to play with the new edition. Part of strategy is being realistic.

With regards to tactics, my original post hinted at what kinds of decisions I made on the battlefield and they are mostly aligned with the goals stated above. Nothing spectacular happened, but there were a few notable events.

- It took 8 lascannon shots to kill a Wraithknight.

- For all the greatness of being able to arrive without scattering, my Raptors missed their first charge.

- I had Noise Marines disembark, shoot, and assault from a Rhino. It was very satisfying.

But let's get into the substance of things.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Your assertion about tactics changing is 100% accurate and true. While the strategy of the game hasn't changed much, the tactics have changed dramatically. You should move away from this idea of "streamlined rules" as you are still thinking 7th edition. Move on and embrace them. The best thing you could do is totally forget all about 7th edition.

I would like to preface my rebuttal to all the following in that I haven't read all the rules for 8th yet.

Good.

 Tamwulf wrote:

1) There's less value to spreading out across a deployment zone, and more value to big blobs of units. Armies that emphasize offense are going to be the top tier. Anything that maximizes the number of shots per turn is to your advantage.

Why do you want to clump all your units up in the deployment zone? Sure, there are no more template weapons, but with different movement stats, wouldn't you have to be very, very aware of how you deploy units so that you don't run into a traffic jam? What about line of sight- If all your models are behind a terrain feature, or your opponent deployed behind a terrain feature, doesn't that lead once again, to a traffic jam as units try to move and get a shot off? Where there no objectives to claim or places you had to move to in the game? Further down you say movement is very important, but that is counter intuitive to clumping all your units together. Or is this a matter of trying to maximize command benefits or bonuses on characters? The "This model gives all models with this keyword a reroll to misses while within 6'"? The second part of your statement about offense has been true in 40K as well. Deathstars could only be overcome with either luck or overwhelming offense. While the Deathstar might be gone, it's spiritual successor is alive and well if you clump all your units together to maximize benefits. As I said in another post, due to the way the wounding chart works, #shots > everything else. Big units will have their place, but MSU will still be a thing due to how many command points and how you use them comes into play. MSU grants more command points, fills out the force org chart for even more command points, and gives you flexibility in activation and control the flow of the battle. One big unit will have a lot of resiliency and will stick around longer, but it can still only do one thing at a time. MSU allows you to move one unit to an objective, another to assault a unit, and another unit to set up a great firing lane. More units give you options, flexibility, and the initiative over an opponent with less units. MSU will still be a thing.

I would not characterize it as 'clump all your units up in the deployment zone.' Emphasizing offense in your main force is more important now. Tactics that emphasize defense, such as objective camping, will put armies at a disadvantage.

Everything seems to happen a little faster in 8th edition, it feels like it's easier to dish out wounds. A lot of games will be decided by the fourth round, when someone's main offensive force has been decimated and their opponent is just cleaning up.

I realize this is a small sample size, but my opponent was very vulnerable after I was able to take down his Wraithknight with the Predators. My Noise Marines were positively lethal afterwards, being able to disembark, shoot and assault all in the same turn. My Raptors were very effective in tying up Wraith Guard, and the fact they did not scatter when they arrived was the reason they were so effective.

Having a bunch of them strike together meant a very short game. My opponent distributed his forces. While he was able to take some models off the board, I was really just cleaning up after the fourth round. Could have tabled him if the game went 7 turns.

 Tamwulf wrote:

2) Synergy matters more in this edition. Saying this based on experiences with lascannons, which are great at taking out multi-wound models from range, but the wounds don't spill over to other models. You need infantry to kill blobs of things, and you need heavy weapons to kill bigger / tougher things. Armies that emphasize this dynamic of units working together will enjoy more success.

There was synergy in 7th edition- it's ultimate form was in Detachments and Death Stars. It's just been pushed down to the units and models themselves now. Though Keywords will rise to replace it. In regards to bigger weapons for bigger targets... again, # shots > everything else. The discriminator here will be how much a Lascannon costs compared to more shots from other sources. In other words, if a Lascannon does on average 3 wounds for 30 points, how many more bolter shots can I get for those 30 points? As you pointed out, excess wounds from big guns don't spill over. So which is better? One big shot that does a lot of wounds to one model, or a lot of little shots that only do 1 wound, but to multiple models/one model? (rhetorical question). Things that specialize in one area will probably do better then all around armies, and the hierarchy will be something like this: All psyker armies (though there really isn't an army that can pull this off, yet), all shooty armies, and finally, all assault armies. Why? Because Psychic phase is before shooting and assaulting. Shooting is before assaulting. And finally, assaulting is dead last. The morale test, or break test takes place in the end turn phase- it doesn't matter when the wound comes up, just that it's a wound. Removing/wounding models before the enemy can do anything is a huge advantage. If I can shoot you before you shoot me, and before you assault, that's an advantage over someone that can only assault. Assault style armies will have a hard time in this edition without some big bonuses to movement.

Yeah, totally agree with your points about 7th edition. But synergy was dependent on a lot of things, like rolling the right powers, arriving at the right time, not scattering, etc.

I guess I would qualify the original statement by saying intraunit synergy is more important than before. Like I said, I played a specialized army, where everything had it's role. It was a lot easier to get each unit to perform, mostly because there was so little randomness.

 Tamwulf wrote:

3) Movement matters more in this edition. Not in the sense of the statline, but in the sense of things being able to move together to support one another. A vehicle that can move along with your troops will likely be more valuable than a stationary one simply because it will be better able to react to changes in the opponent's position. Armies that can reposition themselves effectively will do better than others.

This has always been true and will continue to be true. However, you bring up a point about clumping units together to maximize benefits- then won't you have to be very careful about clumping up and jamming yourself? Can't all models move and shoot now? It's just a firing penalty that some vehicles ignore, right? No more "I moved at combat speed, so can only fire one weapon at full BS, everything else snap shots". Now it's "My tank moves 12", and I'm firing all my weapons at you at -1 BS". We have to be careful here, because in 7th edition, infantry, vehicles, and monstrous creatures where three very different things with very different rules and abilities. Now, they all share the same rules and stats. Forgetting all about 7th edition and how a tank or vehicle "should work" will enable you to look at a model and say "move 6", 10 wounds, 3+ save, and a gun". Which did I just describe? A vehicle, monstrous creature, or infantry? The answer is you are still thinking 7th edition! Unlearn what you have learned!

So I can see where some context would make this point more understandable.

I had a unit of Havocs and 2 Predators on the table, everybody was kitted out with Lascannons. I perched the Havocs on top of a building, they did not really have a clear way to shoot at anything. My Predators advanced with the rest of the army and took out a Wraithknight in a single turn.

Movement, in the sense of mobility / not being stuck in a fixed position, seems to matter more. The same Havocs would have had a hard time positioning themselves to shoot up the Wraithguard, but the Predators did not. The reason I say it's more important has to do with the first 2 points: you want to maximize offense and you want to have things do the job they are supposed to do. In this case, I needed Predators to shoot up the WraithKnight, and that let the rest of my force do what they needed. It would not have been possible if they were stuck on a roof, or camping behind cover.

 Tamwulf wrote:

4) Heavy Support is Heavy Support. It's really there to take out your opponent's Heavy Support, which frees up infantry to take out lighter targets. Anti-vehicle is going to occupy most heavy support slots instead of horde-killing options.

This might be a default idea from 7th ed. I would submit that it really depends on your heavy support, and the army you are facing. As all models can basically split fire, I would say heavy support is the place where you will concentrate the most amount of shooting in your army. While other force org slots will have their use, #shots > all.

Yeah, good point. The idea I was trying to get across is it's not all about Lords of War / D Weapons / whatever this edition. Those things are still around in various forms, but Infantry seems to have a lot of advantages. For example, with split fire, you can now focus on more than one unit at a time, which means you are not wasting shots on inappropriate targets.

I have a strong feeling the armies that enjoy the most success will tend towards anti-vehicle options in their Heavy Support choices, the idea being their role will be to clear the way for infantry to do what they do best. Sure, heavy bolters are going to have a place, but I don't think people will be taking dakkapreds even in games against Orks. Lascannons, autocannons and melta are just too good against vehicles, and they usually take a lot of shots to be successful.