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.

This thread is mainly directed to SM and CSM players, but I suppose it also applies to other codices.

It seems like a big point of complaint with 8th edition is the homogenization of SM chapters and CSM legions. Chapter Tactics and Legion Rules are gone.

At least some people are hoping that they come back in a later codex, perhaps in the form of passive buffs.

Do you want "greater" complexity back? Why or why not?

Personally, I don't, for a few reasons:

1. Greater complexity by definition is harder to balance, and it was poorly balanced in 7th edition. Not all chapter tactics and legion tactics were created equal, but this wasn't properly reflected in the points costs. Ravenguard devastators cost exactly the same number of points as IF devastators. And do I really need to mention ravenwing chapter tactics? You'll find the same thing in 7th edition legion rules. Death guard legion rules were, in my view, straight up OP.

2. But let's suppose we got passive chapter tactics and legion tactics back, and they were perfectly balanced. That would mean one of two things. Either space marines would cost more points, or else, everything else would get buffed too. Neither of these alternatives is desirable to me.

The first alternative would mean that I likely couldn't run a battle company at 2000 points.

The second alternative means a tendency to power creep and an arms race....again.

3. I don't think it's necessary. The people who are saying that key words are useless are simply mistaken. HQs have AoE buffs which are keyword specific. I don't have IF chapter tactics any more...but captains now confer rerolls of 1 when rolling to hit for units with x chapter-specific keyword. So it actually works out even better for me much of the time, because it means that my heavy and/or special weapons also get to reroll.

To be clear, I do hope to see "chapter tactics" and "legion tactics" come back in the form of keyword specific stratagems, and "bland" ones at that. I hope that we don't see cheap stratagems that confer army wide buffs.

But frankly, I embrace the death of chapter tactics and legion specific rules. Game balance is better off because of it.

We don't need complexity.

We need depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

 Talamare wrote:
We don't need complexity.

We need depth.

This. Complexity is the price you pay for things you want. Depth is the thing that we want. Merely increasing the complexity of the rules without changing the fact that 8th (like 7th before it) is a very shallow game would just mean increasing the rules bloat problem, not improving the game. And, as other games have demonstrated, you can have a deep and interesting game without having absurdly complex rules. 8th edition just isn't that game.

 Talamare wrote:
We don't need complexity.

We need depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

I completely agree with you, and I think that, in at least certain respects, we have greater depth in 8th edition than in 7th edition.

The switch from passive chapter tactics and legion rules to HQ AoE buffs and stratagems actually means that in-game decisions matter. Do I put the captain with a line of infantry in the backfield? Or do I stick him in a rhino? If I do put him in a rhino, where does that rhino need to go?

Yes. Sufficient to better simulate battle at the scale of the game.
Shouldn't take much...
What I really want is a truly scalable rules system...

 jeff white wrote:
Yes. Sufficient to better simulate battle at the scale of the game.
Shouldn't take much...
What I really want is a truly scalable rules system...

I don't even know what the bolded means.

What do you mean by that?

I agree depth is whats needed not complexity. Naturally adding depth will add some complexity, but that can be mitigated by auras, and modified units.

Depth is needed, yes. 8th is about as deep as the leftovers at the bottom of a glass. We need better than that.

 Verviedi wrote:
8th is about as deep as the leftovers at the bottom of a glass.

Why do you think this?

Do you think that 7th edition had more depth?

Why or why not?

 Traditio wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
We don't need complexity.

We need depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU

I completely agree with you, and I think that, in at least certain respects, we have greater depth in 8th edition than in 7th edition.

The switch from passive chapter tactics and legion rules to HQ AoE buffs and stratagems actually means that in-game decisions matter. Do I put the captain with a line of infantry in the backfield? Or do I stick him in a rhino? If I do put him in a rhino, where does that rhino need to go?

You're right that some of the rule changes added depth.

Tho plenty of core rule changes also reduced depth.
Believe it or not, but excessive mobility often serves to destroy a lot of a games potential strategy.
Strategy that would give the game more depth as it forces you to make more tactical choices.
8th Edition has had probably the largest mobility creep of all the editions so far.

A lot of people like to say...
Strategy is List Building, Tactics is playing on the table.
There is some truth to that, but I want to emphasize that there is strategy on the table top.

Strategy is big picture. Where you plan your units, and where will they go to be able to adept to a changing battlefield is Strategy.
Again, Strategy creates Depth.
If your units can be anywhere on the battlefield at any point. You just destroyed that potential Strategy. You just destroyed that potential Depth.

 Traditio wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Yes. Sufficient to better simulate battle at the scale of the game.
Shouldn't take much...
What I really want is a truly scalable rules system...

I don't even know what the bolded means.

What do you mean by that?

What he means is that if you were to scale the points the time factor wouldn't matter.

This means that you can finish an apocalyptic style game (5k+ pts) in the same time frame as a 2k pts game because of a streamlined rule set

Personally. There is still a lot of depth in 8th edition. People just haven't experimented enough yet.

 Traditio wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
8th is about as deep as the leftovers at the bottom of a glass.

Why do you think this?

Mostly the ridiculous homogenization of everything. For example, look at heavy weapons. In previous editions you had to choose between moving or shooting, in exchange for having the most powerful guns. In 8th there's no more tradeoff, a heavy weapon is just a better gun. Your devastator squad full of missile launchers can move and even charge just like a tactical squad, so why take the tactical squad? And it's no longer a big deal if you deploy your devastator squad in a bad spot, just move them to a better one without losing much firepower. Just throw some stuff on the table and roll some dice and it's going to be about as effective as the best strategy.

Do you think that 7th edition had more depth?

Don't know, don't care. Both were about as deep as the leftovers at the bottom of the glass, and arguing over whether the absurd balance problems of 7th or the dumbed-down rules of 8th are slightly shallower isn't all that interesting. They're both bad, just in different ways.

Yes Tradio, everyone wants Chapter/Legion tactics back

I'm a bit surprised they completely deleted chapter tactics.

It's not about complexity for complexity's sake, but a good system. 8th doesn't really seem THAT much less complex than, say, fifth edition, to me.

 Traditio wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
8th is about as deep as the leftovers at the bottom of a glass.

Why do you think this?

Do you think that 7th edition had more depth?

Why or why not?

What Peregrine said, pretty much.

Also, the over-randomness. Timmy can't win games because he's bad with strategy, so GW added a million dice rolls to the game so he can always feel like a winner by moving the outcome to almost solely random results instead of actual skill.

7th had the same issue, but 8th is worse.

Verviedi wrote:Also, the over-randomness. Timmy can't win games because he's bad with strategy, so GW added a million dice rolls to the game so he can always feel like a winner by moving the outcome to almost solely random results instead of actual skill.

7th had the same issue, but 8th is worse.

Can you provide specific examples?

I'm finding that 8th edition has much less randomness. You technically can roll for warlord traits and psychic powers, but the rules also give you the choice to pick the ones you want rather than rolling for them. Likewise, instead of random deployment zones, you can pick what kind of deployment zones you want. There's even less randomness in terms of actual deployment. Alternating deployment means greater tactical depth and meaningful strategic player interaction.

One thing that I really like about 8th edition is that much more depends on player skill rather than sheer luck or having the most OP rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
Yes Tradio, everyone wants Chapter/Legion tactics back

Everyone?

I certainly don't. I prefer the HQ AoE buffs over the passive chapter tactics and legion rules.

 Verviedi wrote:

Also, the over-randomness. Timmy can't win games because he's bad with strategy, so GW added a million dice rolls to the game so he can always feel like a winner by moving the outcome to almost solely random results instead of actual skill.

Yes, because there was so much strategy involved with bringing a WarConvocation, Tidewing, Beast Hunter Shell Vanquishers, etc etc.

7th had the same issue, but 8th is worse.

The sad part is I know you think you're right on this.

 Traditio wrote:
Can you provide specific examples?

Have you seen the weapon stat lines lately? Roll to see how many shots, then roll to see if you hit, then roll to see if you wound, then roll to see how many wounds you inflict. Combine that with the homogenization of everything and the game is becoming more and more about who rolls better dice.

Likewise, instead of random deployment zones, you can pick what kind of deployment zones you want.

No you can't, and thank god. That was a misreading of the rules, one player determines which deployment zone to use but the way they determine it is by a random roll. It's just telling one player to roll the die (as if it matters), not giving them control over the deployment type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because there was so much strategy involved with bringing a WarConvocation, Tidewing, Beast Hunter Shell Vanquishers, etc etc.

There wasn't, but that was a problem with individual units/formations, not the core rules. Now the core rules have been homogenized and stripped of their strategic depth, on top of whatever dominant lists emerge and reduce the game to "my dice are better than your dice".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Can you provide specific examples?

Have you seen the weapon stat lines lately? Roll to see how many shots, then roll to see if you hit, then roll to see if you wound, then roll to see how many wounds you inflict. Combine that with the homogenization of everything and the game is becoming more and more about who rolls better dice.

Heavens forbid there be weapons that require you to roll a D6 for shots...we've never heard of such a thing!
Oh right...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because there was so much strategy involved with bringing a WarConvocation, Tidewing, Beast Hunter Shell Vanquishers, etc etc.

There wasn't, but that was a problem with individual units/formations, not the core rules. Now the core rules have been homogenized and stripped of their strategic depth, on top of whatever dominant lists emerge and reduce the game to "my dice are better than your dice".

You can keep thinking that if you want.

I maintain the problem was the players.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I maintain the problem was the players.

Elaborate, because I can't even begin to imagine what you could mean by that.

Those random-shot weapons should have been scorched from existence, not allowed to spread their taint.

Peregrine wrote:Have you seen the weapon stat lines lately? Roll to see how many shots, then roll to see if you hit, then roll to see if you wound, then roll to see how many wounds you inflict. Combine that with the homogenization of everything and the game is becoming more and more about who rolls better dice.

I think that you've overstating the scope of this.

1. The randomness in determining the number of hits is largely relegated to former template and blast weapons, and blast weapons were already more or less mostly random. Rolling 1d6 to determine the number of hits is qualitatively no more random than placing a blast template and then rolling a scatter die. If anything, rolling 1d6 hits is actually less random.

Furthermore, the fact that blast weapons now have a random number of hits actually means less homogenization, not more. Now space marines can fire blast weapons much more accurately than orks.

2. Though I will agree that it would have made just as much sense, and would have been much less random, had they given these kinds of weapons static values (e.g., krak missiles dealing 3 damage, krak grenades dealing 2 damage, lascannons dealing 4 damage, flamers automatically getting 4 hits, frag grenades automatically getting 3 hits)...

3. ...I don't think that this really matters in the grand scheme of things, since when we are talking about large numbers of rolls, it's going to tend to approach the statistical average anyway.

Randomness hurts the most when we are talking about making a relatively few number of rolls (e.g., like determining warlord traits or psychic powers).

4. How does homogenization increase randomness?

No you can't, and thank god. That was a misreading of the rules, one player determines which deployment zone to use but the way they determine it is by a random roll. It's just telling one player to roll the die (as if it matters), not giving them control over the deployment type.

Check again on that, because I believe that you are mistaken.

The way it works is that there's a roll off, and then the person who loses the roll off (or wins the roll off, depending upon your perspective) then decides the kind of deployment zones to be used.

Furthermore, there's even less randomness because of the addition of the stratagem that allows you to reroll dice. Now instead of having a 1/6 chance of rolling to seize, any player with a reasonably constructed army now has a 1/3 chance to seize which, by definition, is less random.

I really fail to see where people find the tactical dept of the core rules of 3rd to 7th edition.

Warhammer40k has always been a shallow game but people just refused to accept that reality. Now he is still a shallow game, at least compared with the competition, but with much more coherent (Yeah yeah homogeneization. Thats what it is for you, to me is a more coherent ruleset) rules and player interaction in all of the game phases. From deployment to movement to shooting and, surprisingly, to meele.

Yeah, they have made the boring as f*ck meele phase that was 100% auto mode since 3rd to a engagin and interactive experience between the players.
But God forbid us for analizing with objetivy the ups and downs of 8th edition. Or is the best thing evah or is just crap.

8th is a better 2nd edition in my mind. So... I'll have fun playing the s**t out of it before they broke it releasing Codex full of special snowflake rules that people can't live without!

 Traditio wrote:

Verviedi wrote:Also, the over-randomness. Timmy can't win games because he's bad with strategy, so GW added a million dice rolls to the game so he can always feel like a winner by moving the outcome to almost solely random results instead of actual skill.

7th had the same issue, but 8th is worse.

Can you provide specific examples?

I'm finding that 8th edition has much less randomness. You technically can roll for warlord traits and psychic powers, but the rules also give you the choice to pick the ones you want rather than rolling for them. Likewise, instead of random deployment zones, you can pick what kind of deployment zones you want. There's even less randomness in terms of actual deployment. Alternating deployment means greater tactical depth and meaningful strategic player interaction.

One thing that I really like about 8th edition is that much more depends on player skill rather than sheer luck or having the most OP rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
Yes Tradio, everyone wants Chapter/Legion tactics back

Everyone?

I certainly don't. I prefer the HQ AoE buffs over the passive chapter tactics and legion rules.

There's a lot of random shot weapons, random damage rolls, and random effects on weapons. The alternate deployment and warlord trait tables being fixed are good, yes, but in general the amount of dice being rolled went up, not down.

The reason random damage and hits exist is to negate the in-game mathhammering. If you have a Rhino with 9 wounds and you enemy has two devastators with lasscanons that do 4 damage each, you are 100% sure that they can't kill you. If each lasscanon does d6 of damage then it becomes a game of playing with the chances of being sucesfull. You can push the limits for a great risk-great reward situation if you wish. Just like the Plasma Guns having two firing modes, one powerfull with overcharge and other normal without the ristk of blowing yourself.

You can call that randomess and a bad mechanic. I can agree that people is totally entitled to not like it. But is a legitimate way to create a gameplay experience and it has is reasons to exist. I like it, so good for me. You don't, bad for you, and I say this in a honest way. For every decision a person making a ruleset takes, theres a group that is gonna like or love it, and other that is gona dislike or hate it.

 Talamare wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I maintain the problem was the players.

Elaborate, because I can't even begin to imagine what you could mean by that.

A large part of it came down, in my opinion, to player attitudes.

Some people chose to take what were fluffy formations in a way that was abusive as hell. See War Convocation with Flesh Tearers taxi service early on.

 Galas wrote:

Spoiler:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Verviedi wrote:Also, the over-randomness. Timmy can't win games because he's bad with strategy, so GW added a million dice rolls to the game so he can always feel like a winner by moving the outcome to almost solely random results instead of actual skill.

7th had the same issue, but 8th is worse.

Can you provide specific examples?

I'm finding that 8th edition has much less randomness. You technically can roll for warlord traits and psychic powers, but the rules also give you the choice to pick the ones you want rather than rolling for them. Likewise, instead of random deployment zones, you can pick what kind of deployment zones you want. There's even less randomness in terms of actual deployment. Alternating deployment means greater tactical depth and meaningful strategic player interaction.

One thing that I really like about 8th edition is that much more depends on player skill rather than sheer luck or having the most OP rules.

BrianDavion wrote:
Yes Tradio, everyone wants Chapter/Legion tactics back

Everyone?

I certainly don't. I prefer the HQ AoE buffs over the passive chapter tactics and legion rules.

There's a lot of random shot weapons, random damage rolls, and random effects on weapons. The alternate deployment and warlord trait tables being fixed are good, yes, but in general the amount of dice being rolled went up, not down.

The reason random damage and hits exist is to negate the in-game mathhammering. If you have a Rhino with 9 wounds and you enemy has two devastators with lasscanons that do 4 damage each, you are 100% sure that they can't kill you. If each lasscanon does d6 of damage then it becomes a game of playing with the chances of being sucesfull. You can push the limits for a great risk-great reward situation if you wish. Just like the Plasma Guns having two firing modes, one powerfull with overcharge and other normal without the ristk of blowing yourself.

You can call that randomess and a bad mechanic. I can agree that people is totally entitled to not like it. But is a legitimate way to create a gameplay experience and it has is reasons to exist. I like it, so good for me. You don't, bad for you, and I say this in a honest way. For every decision a person making a ruleset takes, theres a group that is gonna like or love it, and other that is gona dislike or hate it.

I certainly agree there, that different people like different things. After all, we're not all infallible robots (note: please fix this).
I'm a fan of that scenario. Being able to arrange things so the constants align and they can't kill you. It allows for tactical play to get the math JUST right so that you can get your Rhino up to where it needs to be.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I maintain the problem was the players.

No, the problem was indisputably the rules. If the rules were well-written and balanced then no amount of player optimization can break the game. Abusive lists can only happen when the rules are garbage.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I maintain the problem was the players.

Elaborate, because I can't even begin to imagine what you could mean by that.

A large part of it came down, in my opinion, to player attitudes.

Some people chose to take what were fluffy formations in a way that was abusive as hell. See War Convocation with Flesh Tearers taxi service early on.

Having written a roleplay sistem from scratch for a server with tens of people every day I have mixed feelings about this.

In one hand, you should look for the loop holes and try to fix them, to avoid people abusing them. Thats just good rulewriting.
In the other hand, it reaches a point where people just bend so much the system that is impossible to avoid all of those things without making the system totally unusable from his primary purpose (Roleplay in mi case)

I have look, because being the administrator of my own server I can say in many cases just "This is a system for roleplay, not to make a munckin character and destroy everybody in pvp)

But Warhammer40k isn't that. Is a competitive game, and as every competitive game people will go for the most efficient and broken option. And thats a given for boardgames, wargames, videogames or even sports. Because thats the nature of competitive gameplay: You go there to win, not to have "fun".

The problem is that for a good balance competitive experience you need restrictions. A TOON of restrictions. But people hate restrictions, even more if they don't allow them to use some broken combo/unit/hero/techniche/wathever. Thats the hipocrisy that I find tiresome.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I maintain the problem was the players.

No, the problem was indisputably the rules. If the rules were well-written and balanced then no amount of player optimization can break the game. Abusive lists can only happen when the rules are garbage.

I agree that GW has had bad rulewriting... from the beginning. But you and every here knows that people is gonna go full aboard with the most broken thing. Even if that just gives them a 5% of advantage.
The problems comes when you just can't win by your skill if you don't use the broken tool. In Warhammer40k you had that. It doesn't matter how good you are playing orks. You can't win against Wraitknights and Scatterbike spam. In other games you can win if you are better even taking sub-optimal choices (Like a less powerfull hero, fighting character, army, etc...)
But that comes down again to the fact that Warhammer40k in any incarnation or edition has puth the weithg of winning first in list-building and second in rolling dice, and third, your choices.
(Obviously if you took absolutely stupid choices is very probably that you lose, but the margin for that if you had a better list that your opponen was very very broad)

 Verviedi wrote:

I certainly agree there, that different people like different things. After all, we're not all infallible robots (note: please fix this).
I'm a fan of that scenario. Being able to arrange things so the constants align and they can't kill you. It allows for tactical play to get the math JUST right so that you can get your Rhino up to where it needs to be.

This explains why you plain Adeptus Mechanicus I'm more of an Ork mindset!