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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Is that true tho? 8th especially emphasizes clever (ab)use of non-intuitive rules interactions like pile-in moves and Fight phase initiative in favour of any semblance of realistic battlefield tactics. In my opinion a casual game would reward players for doing what makes sense, not for creative rules reading. Spending 5 minutes precisely positioning models in every melee - not hyperbole in the slightest - is exactly the opposite of a fast end exciting game where you just put models in the table and see what happens.

I think it's both. 8th is intended to be "casual", but because GW's rule authors are incompetent the result is a bunch of things to exploit and a game built around tediously setting up the exploits.

If you feel that way about GW's abilities, why do you expect a different result?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If you feel that way about GW's abilities, why do you expect a different result?

Who said I ever did?

After several games of 8th, I actually hate it (and I am surprised by that). Unfortunately, my gaming group is moving over to it, so my choices are limited. I'll probably just play 30k games from here on out, even though I don't like 7th much either.
I have played every edition of 40k, and while I won't say 'this is the worst', I will say 8th is the least fun I've ever had.
Specific things I don't like:
The Morale system in it's entirety.
The way vehicles are now treated the same as everything else (lack of weapon arcs, armor facings, etc).
The amount of randomness involved.

I can see why other people would enjoy this, and good for them. For me, this edition is a huge disappointment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If you feel that way about GW's abilities, why do you expect a different result?

Who said I ever did?

While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.

At least that's the way they read to me.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.

At least that's the way they read to me.

Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.

At least that's the way they read to me.

Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.

Sometimes you just want to eat at McDonald or watch a Michael Bay movie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
While you are militant in all of your opinions. When it comes to GW your posts strike me as more emotionally driven than intellectually driven. As if you can believe they disappointed you again.

At least that's the way they read to me.

Nope, I had low expectations for 8th and they were confirmed. I simply point out bad game design when I see it, and if there's any emotional drive it's annoyance at the fact that people keep defending GW and the garbage they shovel out.

So, why do you play or follow 40k?

Because he has his right to not like the present situation of something that he liked in the past.
But personally I'll recommend him to just leave 40k behind (Not his miniatures, I have seen them and they are a work of art). Is like a toxic relationship. You can't look away but it only gives you paint. I have experienced something similar with Warcraft. But even with thousands of € spent in comics, videogames, books and merchandaising, is better to just let it go.

 Galas wrote:
Because he has his right to not like the present situation of something that he liked in the past.
But personally I'll recommend him to just leave 40k behind (Not his miniatures, I have seen them and they are a work of art). Is like a toxic relationship. You can't look away but it only gives you paint. I have experienced something similar with Warcraft. But even with thousands of € spent in comics, videogames, books and merchandaising, is better to just let it go.

on that I agree. definatly healthier to walk away if you just don't like it. but following the developments of a game you just don't like anymore is toxic, and can kill the elements remaining you do like (such as the "hobby aspect"), and ruin memories of better times

I don't like binary rules, I think they're generally inferior to granular rules. I understand that this is my opinion, not an objective fact. Nevertheless, having now played my first 3 quick games of 8th edition; I don't think this edition is 'better' than 7th or 6th. I think it's just different and bad in some new ways. It's a breath of fresh air, but I feel myself getting angry and frustrated with the rules already.

I better explain what I mean by binary:
Examples of binary rules in 7th; Armour Saves vs AP. Amour saves vs cover saves, instant death, movement speed.
Examples of binary rules in 8th; Weapon Skill, Order of combat in the fight phase, 'Slain'.
Examples of granular rules in 7th; Weapon Skill, Initiative
Examples of granular rules in 8th; Armour Saves vs AP. Cover save modifiers, damage.

While I'm at it, I don't think 'bespoke' is better. At least, no the way GW has done it. Having rules on the datasheet is good, I approve. Having many identical rules with different names is bad. Having 70+ 'Universal Special Rules' is bad. Having 0 shared special rules is also bad.

I don't like several aesthetic changes such as WS and BS both being X+ instead of a flat number. I get why they did it, I just don't like it. I'd have preferred to see Armour Save become a flat number which you modify, then add D6 to get 7+.

I also don't like random for random's sake. As seen in 'run/advance' and in the volume of D3 rolls in 8th. I'm not convinced that Dx shots is better than templates and blasts. I can see an argument for removing scatter though.

So, I'll do what I always do, which is write out my idea of what the rules should be. I doubt they'll ever get taken up by the community, but that's ok. I'll start a Proposed Rules thread at some point, but I thought I'd submit my ideas here first.

My Basic Wishlist
• Run is just a flat 3" or 4" increase, not a d6
• Restore Weapon Skill. Use the 7th edition SvT formula for rolling to hit with WS vs WS.
• Restore Ballistic Skill. User BSv7 rule with modifiers.
• Flip saves so that power armour is a Sv of 4. User Save v 7 rule with modifiers.
• Reinstate difficult terrain: -2" move or -3" if running
• Restore flamer templates, and possibly blast markers
• Flamers have range and template is the special rule. Effectively they all have torrent at limited range. Regular flamer is only 2". Heavy 4". Redeemer 6". Hellhound still 12". Maybe limit the arc more than torrent did?
• Put some universal keywords in the main rules. Vehicle. Monster. Poison. Ignores cover, Feel No Pain, Deep Strike. Things which are used on many units in many armies. Not every special rule that shows up just once or twice.
• Restore vehicle access points and fire points
• Partially restore vehicle fire arcs
• Reinstate Initiative. Charge gives +2 initiative. When equal, the player whose turn it is strikes first.

• Restore Weapon Skill. Use the 7th edition SvT formula for rolling to hit with WS vs WS.

Honestly I hope this never happens again, mostly in part off GW's weird issues with Daemon Engines and Monsters being WS3 for a fair number of them.

Actually Ballistic Skill hasn't changed. Before it was a value that translated to a roll, that you need to see in a small table. Now they give you directly the roll you need to made.
"Oh, I have a BS of 5, let me check... ok I need to roll 2 or more to hit" Now is just "2+ BS" much more clear.

To me thats one of the only objetive improvements from 7th to 8th that is jus flat out better done.

 Galas wrote:
Actually Ballistic Skill hasn't changed. Before it was a value that translated to a roll, that you need to see in a small table. Now they give you directly the roll you need to made.
"Oh, I have a BS of 5, let me check... ok I need to roll 2 or more to hit" Now is just "2+ BS" much more clear.

To me thats one of the only objetive improvements from 7th to 8th that is jus flat out better done.

Indeed - now both stats use the same method rather than say 7th where they don't.

One thing I quite like in 8e so far is the lack of having to flick through so many pages in-game. Less tables, easier-to-remember-and-track random, less convoluted core rules.

One plus on the lack of USR's is that you just refer to the unit profile for all relevant data. Granulation and standardisation I'm sure will follow with codexes, and I hope it retains the reduced referencing.

Another thing I noticed during play was that aircraft movement restrictions are pointless, they can shoot whatever wherever anyway, so they just fly in a square pattern all game to avoid table edges that looks naff but doesn't really inconvenience them.

It solely matters for the sake of them being fired at and/or charged.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Another thing I noticed during play was that aircraft movement restrictions are pointless, they can shoot whatever wherever anyway, so they just fly in a square pattern all game to avoid table edges that looks naff but doesn't really inconvenience them.

I played an entire game without thinking about it, carefully maneuvering my stormtalon to get shots until after my 6th turn it hit me that it didn't matter anymore. Going to take some getting used to.

GW removed any tactic and sense remaining in 7th ed. Getting behind a tank to hit its weak rear armor, gone. Fire arcs for tanks, gone. Anything can hurt anything, now any S3 unit can kill any unit with T100. Flamers autohit aircraft flying supersonic speed. Tanks cant move when they are surrounded by infantry. Tanks cant fire when there is an enemy unit within 1".

Regarding vehicles, it is puzzling why all vehicles don't have a relentless like rule that allows them to retreat and shoot. Hive fleet Charybdis' ones have it.... The vehicles for me are prolly the only thing that the new edition fails with. Bringing them under the unified rules for infantry allows for some unwanted interactions.

There is basically no difference between troopers and vehicles anymore. A vehicle is identical in all respects to a foot soldier now, down to the fact it suffers a penalty for shooting a heavy weapon on the move. And so an IG heavy weapons team hauling around a heavy bolter (an equivalent of a super heavy machine gun) that is a bitch to set up is suddenly as mobile and as accurate on the move as a Leman Russ shooting its anti-personnel Heavy Bolter sponsons with no set-up time and no recoil. That's totally what goes on across the battlefields of the 41st millenium in the fiction.

Vehicles got botched royally in the effort to simplify and streamline every aspect of the game. We've got MBTs unable to drive through a single infantryman and squash them like a bug, which turns grunts into veritable dragon's teeth. We've got jets circling around a span the size of a football stadium lest they spontaneously explode upon hitting an invisible wall. We've got vehicles taking a peek over the corner to let loose with all its weapons regardless of their placement (just like a foot soldier).

7th wasn't perfect by any means, but at least the vehicles acted in a semi-believable manner. But no more.

And balance still sucks, let's not fool ourselves.

Yeah... current edition is bland sauce.

Current impression is cautiously positive. I don't think the terrain rules are too hot, but the game is playable and once we have got the rules memorized will be relatively quick.

Wins: Faster gameplay, more reliable abilities (like not killing yourself deepstriking), more consistant performance (no "instant death/explodes!" to kill a big unit instantly with a lucky roll, which was a real pain when it decided the battle on turn 1). New missions seem quite interesting. So far balance seems OK

Losses: Terrain/cover seems both bad and unintuitive, and really hurts 6+ save armies while rewarding space marines (although I guess the save modifiers balance out by hurting SM more in general). Currently the books are designed to make picking an army for matched play as hard as possible (having points costs in the back means endlessly flicking around. I hope GW doesn't mind if everyone in the world photocopies those pages).

In many ways it reminds me of 4th edition D&D in terms of simplification and homogenisation. And I quite like 4th D&D.

Mark.

I'm playing my first game today. I'm in high hopes!

Seems like the love-fest for 8th is coming to an end for a lot of people...I'm still on the fence about it personally, and rules-wise, it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over 7th, simply dumbed down and homogenized.

Vast improvement over seventh.

So, uhh... The new Primaris Captain and Librarian have come out. £22.50 each, so pretty cheap. And GW had graced us with yet another opportunity to give them money, by giving price hikes to randomly selected kits aged over 2 years old!

Yeah, my "love-fest" is most certainly dead.

Well I had my first game. Some things were weird but I overall enjoyed myself.

I laugh everytime I hear a person from 3rd edition and on say the game is too simplified now. lol

If you want an edition with Vehicle movement rules and fire arcs and Turning limits and even more restrictions that the 'bland' 3rd -7th was try 2nd edition....that should wake you up.

Anyways I do like 8th a great deal.

I really am annoyed when long time gamers, but not long enough, keep using terminology and rules sets from 7th and back to describe similar items from 8th.

THERE IS NO rending or feel no pain. When you use those non-legal game terms you are speaking gooberishgook to players who have returned from many years ago. STOP IT please.

I guess I can chat to you all day about DataFaxes and slow, combat and fast move speeds; Artillary Dice and Sustained Fire Dice to 'equate' the new 8th edition stuff. It would be inane for me to do so to 'communicate' to you about concepts from 8th.

Move On and enjoy the game or do like many 2nd ed players have done...take a 5 10 or 15 year break and then come back.

peace

 admironheart wrote:

peace

That ending only works when combined with a mic drop. Git gud scrub!

But yeah, this is 8e. It's not like 6e or 7e where you can just port the terminology over.

I wholeheartedly agree that your communication would be inane but also believe it would be greatly entertaining to see your detailed description of the 8th edition nuances less then a handful of weeks after its release. It would be incredibly great and helpful of you if you did indeed have a full days worth of material to discuss compared to the, as you say, blandness of 3-7 editions.

Anyways, I'm hoping the codices add some life and colour to this game as well as iron out the many incidents that slipped through the cracks, despite the claim of being the most tested (only needed 3+ test games for that title.