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.

I have played 8 games go so far, I am finding it's all just very bland :(

Terrain is straight up useless now, bar blocking LoS which is important. Special rules all just feel a different shade of grey and weapons feel very generic.

Hoping the Faction Codex's spice it up a bit more.

Nah mate, it's rad.

Anyone finding flicking around the Indeces a hassle (which I agree it can be) – I've found those little Post-it Index tabs an absolute godsend.

 Grimgold wrote:

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
Actually one other gripe, I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

This one caught my eye too. When the objective has been to simplify the rules, the fact that it requires some pretty hefty mathematics to compare that +1 modifier to a -1 on a different roll makes it pretty shady.

Same for when to use re-roll, you almost need a poker-pro's real-time pot-odds calculation mentality to make those decisions if you want to play competitively, as the value of a re-roll depends on so many other probabilities.

I spent most of my time playing in 2nd, and the 8th edition vehicle rules seems a bit off compared to the vehicle cards of 2nd. But from what I can tell, the cards disappeared in 3rd and never got back. The 8th rules are OK, but not as "wargame"'y.

Another thing I had hoped they would have gotten rid of is the excessive use of named characters.
To me it never made sense to see high ranking officers/legends/etc show up in a small battle, let alone two or more of them. But they way they tack auras on these characters that are not otherwise available encourage stacking them. I would have preferred to run my own generic characters for the immersion and roleplaying feel, but doing so can put your list at a disadvantage.

But I guess this goes to the collectable mini game story others posted. Generic characters require players to give them a story, and that story does not really make sense to copy. So when "little jimmy" sees some player field his personal space marine captain instead of a story-supported primarch the push towards buying that model to field it himself is not as strong. And if the generic characters were as strong as the named ones, there is potential for them to be stronger due to option optimizations.
But it still does not change the fact that it is thematically silly to have these legendary characters blown up by massive guns over and over. Color me old fashioned, but it does not work for me.

 Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

And that's how it should be. A greater ballistic skill should benefit you when shooting at units in cover. In the end it benefits the unit being targeted, because that additional 16% chance of missing means that the lascannon might miss you, instead of you gaining a bonus to your armour which won't matter to the meltagun/lascannon, etc.

As above poster said, being in cover should make it harder to hit you, if you get hit that cover shouldn't then give you a better save as it has already been bypassed. Flamers and blast weapons would negate this rule.
The psychic phase has been over simplified. I wanted certain things toned down ie invisibility but think it hasn't got enough powers. I also think the psychic back lash from perils is too strong.
All that being said I am happy overall with the new edition, hopefully they retain the balance whilst adding some flavour with each of the codex releases

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

Since most orks care more about close combat, the added durability is probably a boon to them over the -1 to hit.

Lets take ork 10 lootas shooting at a devastator squad in cover.

In the current system they do 1.48 wounds,
in the -1 to hit they do 1.111 wounds. Not a big deal.

For durability though if those devestators have 4 heavy bolters

Current system = 4.444 dead orks
-1 to hit = 4 dead orks. Not a big deal

If we look at weapons with no AP
30 Shoota boyz at a tactical squad in cover

+1 armor =1.67 wounds
-1 to hit = 1.67 wounds

The 10 marines shooting back with bolters
+1 armor = 4.44 wounds
-1 to hit = 4.17 wounds

so net gain orks with -1 to hit (not a large gain but a gain.)

The real gain would be on any weapon with AP -2 or higher. Marines in cover still get a save, orks get nothing in the current system.

SO lets say those devestators from earlier have 4 grav cannons.

not moving
+1 armor = 7.1 wounds
-1 to hit = 5.333 wounds

Moving
+1 armor = 5.33 wounds
- 1 to hit = 3.5 wounds.

If the orks were shooting those marines with Rokkits (say 10 tank bustas)
+1 armor = 1.39 wounds
-1 to hit = 0.92 wounds



So it helps orks defensively not offensively. It isn't really a big difference either way, but as +1 armor it means things with a 3+ save get cover against anything not AP -5, while things with a 6+ save only get it against things with AP -1

Disappointed that so much was copy/pasted straight out of AoS, I don't dislike the AoS ruleset and I like a lot of the rules that were chosen - I have mixed feelings about activations though, I do miss the initiative stat - I just wish they'd put some effort into improving or at least flavouring the text.
The games I've played have run smooth, mostly slowed by new 8th edition players tracking down unit and weapon profiles rather than chasing rarely employed special rules or arguing about scatter dice results.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I feel like cover should have given a -1 to hit rather than a +1 to armor save, because a -1 to hit is great for everyone, a +1 to armor save varies from doubling survival to not really having any effect.

Which just changes "who benefits most" to other type. Rather than high saves to those who have high BS. Marines would find cover much less of a problem than orks. So -1 to hit wouldn't really be that great for orks.

Since most orks care more about close combat, the added durability is probably a boon to them over the -1 to hit.

Lets take ork 10 lootas shooting at a devastator squad in cover.

In the current system they do 1.48 wounds,
in the -1 to hit they do 1.111 wounds. Not a big deal.

For durability though if those devestators have 4 heavy bolters

Current system = 4.444 dead orks
-1 to hit = 4 dead orks. Not a big deal

If we look at weapons with no AP
30 Shoota boyz at a tactical squad in cover

+1 armor =1.67 wounds
-1 to hit = 1.67 wounds

The 10 marines shooting back with bolters
+1 armor = 4.44 wounds
-1 to hit = 4.17 wounds

so net gain orks with -1 to hit (not a large gain but a gain.)

The real gain would be on any weapon with AP -2 or higher. Marines in cover still get a save, orks get nothing in the current system.

SO lets say those devestators from earlier have 4 grav cannons.

not moving
+1 armor = 7.1 wounds
-1 to hit = 5.333 wounds

Moving
+1 armor = 5.33 wounds
- 1 to hit = 3.5 wounds.

If the orks were shooting those marines with Rokkits (say 10 tank bustas)
+1 armor = 1.39 wounds
-1 to hit = 0.92 wounds



So it helps orks defensively not offensively. It isn't really a big difference either way, but as +1 armor it means things with a 3+ save get cover against anything not AP -5, while things with a 6+ save only get it against things with AP -1

You forget, there are many other ways to get a -1 to hit, and they can stack past 6+. If you stack two of them together, orks become incapable of shooting.

Nah, these indexes are advertised as just stopgap measures until the codexes themselves get released. So I don't really expect them to be overwhelmingly interesting. But at least they changed up the metagame, and might actually be getting me back in to 40k tabletop instead of just enjoying the lore as I have been since mid-6th. so they have that going for htem.

I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

Getting a +1 save on an obscured vehicle is hilarious this edition.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

It is less that and things like no cover for being obscured, requirement for whole unit to be in the terrain, difficult terrain only being a penalty to charging units (so cover is double bonus for shooting units in many cases, they get bonus armor, and are harder to charge.

 Lance845 wrote:
I see people complain about terrain a lot. Is nobody using the City Ruins advanced rule?

+1 to your save can be good. +2 is drastic.

As mentioned earlier, good AP can override cover so that it benefits those units that ironically are least likely to require it. Some armies (hi Daemons) just don't care whatsoever.

Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

Don't think of it as being harder to hit when in cover, think of it as that lascannon shooting through the cover to hit you. With all the sensors and stuff, it's not like they don't know your there.

I have a few quarrels overall with the rules. I wish intervening models provided cover, I dislike the "done first go first" system, and I find Rule of 1 and Half in Reserves to be unnecessary restrictions that would be better solved by just...designing better rules for deep strikers and psykers rather than gimping certain armies. I mean, is it cheesy and unfun to play with if your opponent takes nothing but light infantry troop choices and a few buffers? Yes. Would it be a good solution to just restrict people to so many light infantry units? No. Design the game better.

But overall, vast, vast improvement IMO. None of the scariest stuff people have been complaining about that I've played against (conscript spam, Hemlock fighter spam, Ynnari, Imperial Knight armies, Tau alpha strike) has even come close to stuff that in 7th was considered relatively tame (Celestine backed deathstar, Necron decurion with Canoptek harvests, Warcon)

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

 Selym wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

Are you sure you don't mean "flies next to a Bastion, so the pilot can hit it with its sword."

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope - all seems to be good so far - thats also the verdict of the rest of my club.

I rated it 11/9, flies like a plane, lands like a terrorist incident.

Are you sure you don't mean "flies next to a Bastion, so the pilot can hit it with its sword."

Yes, that one xD

The only thing I'm actually disappointed about in 8th is the amount of remodeling I need to do for optimization purposes.
My scout sarges need power weapons since they aren't ridiculously overcosted anymore, I need to get a bunch of vehicle twin asc tops for razorbacks, my 30 sanguinary guard now all want plasma pistols...

Also I think I need to get more assassins for the competitive lists, holy carp.

Other than that, 8th seems to be great so far. I'll probably wait for my specific codices before remodeling just to make sure things aren't reworked. I'd hate to tear off 30 angelus bolters just to find out they realized they overcosted them compared to plasma pistols and corrected it.

It's pretty much what I wanted from GW.

If you were playing 7th because you wanted a tactically rich game then you're supporting the wrong company.

Honestly, I am a little bit. When the mortal wound mechanic was introduced, the dev's said "Don't worry, these will be very few and far between. Armies will not have wholesale access to them." Well, apparently that's true - for Tau. Psykers dish those out like candy at Halloween. Snipers, which have become very prevalent in my area, dish out 1-2 per turn. My regular DA opponent manages to throw 3-6 mortal wounds per turn at me, while at the same time, managing to out-shoot my Tau. I played against a TS/Tzeentch Daemon list earlier this week who managed to hit me with 20 mortal wounds in one turn...

My suits have become very points inefficient at killing pretty much anything, in fact, most of my army has become extremely points inefficient in general. Tau sniper drones are pretty worthless, yes, they can target Characters irrespective of enemy unit distance, but don't dish mortal wounds, and generally only hit on 4+. Markerlights sources are just as vulnerable as they have been, while providing less of a benefit, unless you can spam them. Tau generally benefit from MSU in order to squeeze enough drones and Markerlights, which essentially means we just never go first, unless we can seize. Our survival hinges on how many drones we can squeeze in to soak damage, which means we're low on points for items that can reliably kill models.

I have 6 games under my belt now in 8th, and have yet to win a single game. All my heavy hitters have either been made useless - Riptides, Ghostkeels, and to a lesser extent, Crisis Suits, while units like Broadsides that are capable of considerable dakka have skyrocketed in price, making them difficult to squeeze into a list if you actually want to be able to grab objectives. Meanwhile, SM armies are capable of taking LRC's, that can pump out 41 shots per turn @ 12" for ~350 pts, while my 380pt IA Riptide can, at best, pump out 8. I guess if I wanted to spend 700pts, I could take 3 HYMP Broadsides w/ Missile drones and SMS and pump out some 70 shots a turn, but that's almost half of a 2k list.

The base rules are pretty solid, they're for the most part smooth, easy to follow and intuitive. I would prefer it if vehicle weapons actually drew LOS from the weapons instead of a millimeter of tread sticking out from the base of a wall, but that's probably my biggest complaint with the base rules. I think most of the armies are pretty bland too, tbh. I'm hoping that we start getting Codexes sooner, rather than later that address that.

It's still better than 6th/7th, though.

It's different but good. Much prefer 8th edition to 7th edition.

I am not disappointed in 8th only because I never thought it was going to be very good, and didn't believe all the "this is new GW" crap.

I have found that I don't like any of the changes they made, I either actively hate them, or I am entirely indifferent. On top of all the changes I don't like, their rules are still vague leading to arguments or just don't function as written, and all their supposed play testing missed obvious errors, I'm looking at you Leman Russ Vanquishers, and they made every thing soooooo bland with every thing being homogenized. For instance we used to have 7 Leman Russes each with a different job, a tank hunter, a generalist, an anti heavy infantry, an anti infantry, an anti entrenched infantry, an anti light-medium vehicle, and a siege tank. Now we have one anti tank, one anti infantry, and 5 generalists of varying quality.

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
I am not disappointed in 8th only because I never thought it was going to be very good, and didn't believe all the "this is new GW" crap.

I have found that I don't like any of the changes they made, I either actively hate them, or I am entirely indifferent. On top of all the changes I don't like, their rules are still vague leading to arguments or just don't function as written, and all their supposed play testing missed obvious errors, I'm looking at you Leman Russ Vanquishers, and they made every thing soooooo bland with every thing being homogenized. For instance we used to have 7 Leman Russes each with a different job, a tank hunter, a generalist, an anti heavy infantry, an anti infantry, an anti entrenched infantry, an anti light-medium vehicle, and a siege tank. Now we have one anti tank, one anti infantry, and 5 generalists of varying quality.

And the AT one is weaker at AT than the generalists...

I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Stroggified wrote:
I am super disappointed at the psychic focus for match play. I feel it really really hurts Grey Knights. Only 1 hammerhand a turn wooooo!? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

Isn't it that one psyker can't cast the same power twice in a turn? Many psykers can cast two powers, have smite and can select two powers for the game. Iirc, the rule is to stop you doing shenanigans like casting smite twice per psyker.

I've really enjoyed it thus far.
At the end of 7th it was a mess. Deathstars and Magnus were out of control.

8th has been really good overall. I agree with the mass that I wish terrain had more of an effect, and LOS terrain blocking is mandatory.

Love the ruleset. My main issue is with the current balance. There are a couple of units that need the nerf bat ASAP, #1 priority being Roubute Gulliman who is so undercosted he makes the 7th Wraithknight look like a joke.