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.

Or at least lessens its effects.

Doesn't seem to have gotten too out of hand yet. noting terribly obvious

possibly conscript spam but that can eventually get fixed.

 Peregrine wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem as always is people see rules and decided to try and break things.

And sufficient playtesting (along with good game design in the first place) prevents this from happening.

In fact I'd argue that one of the purposes of play testing is to break things. It's the only way you find out.

Minor wording clarity aside this edition is really well done EXCEPT the travesty that is the mission system. I have to believe since every tournament has thier own mission primer that they told gw how the current maelstrom and war missions are completely unbalanced and not good at all from a competitve standpoint that gw intended the missions to be unbalanced because they wanted them simple instead of copying the nova/itc/adepticon primers which are vastly better than the rule books crap missions.

However other then that the game is well done.
However they need to nerf plasmagun/pistol to str6-str7 overcharged to make them balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Doesn't seem to have gotten too out of hand yet. noting terribly obvious

possibly conscript spam but that can eventually get fixed.

conscripts just need thier unit size reduced to lower command efficiency for them.a max unit size of 20 maybe 30 max will quickly make requiring multiple commands a much bigger tax.
The plasmagun imho is the biggest fubar. It's 2 points more the. The grenade launcher and better at anti infantry and significantly better vs monsterous creature. The plasma gun is also significantly cheaper then the melta gun but much better vs vehicles even tough vehicles within deepstrike range andnonly slightly worse then a meltaguns when the melta gun is within 6in. The plasmagun needs to be nerfed to str6base and str7 overcharged. Which will make it worse vs vehicles then a melta gun even in deepstrike, but the best anti MC t6 weapon and slightly better then a grenade launcher. Where it should be!!!

gungo wrote:
Minor wording clarity aside this edition is really well done EXCEPT the travesty that is the mission system. I have to believe since every tournament has thier own mission primer that they told gw how the current maelstrom and war missions are completely unbalanced and not good at all from a competitve standpoint that gw intended the missions to be unbalanced because they wanted them simple instead of copying the nova/itc/adepticon primers which are vastly better than the rule books crap missions.

However other then that the game is well done.
However they need to nerf plasmagun/pistol to str6-str7 overcharged to make them balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Doesn't seem to have gotten too out of hand yet. noting terribly obvious

possibly conscript spam but that can eventually get fixed.

conscripts just need thier unit size reduced to lower command efficiency for them.a max unit size of 20 maybe 30 max will quickly make requiring multiple commands a much bigger tax.
The plasmagun imho is the biggest fubar. It's 2 points more the. The grenade launcher and better at anti infantry and significantly better vs monsterous creature. The plasma gun is also significantly cheaper then the melta gun but much better vs vehicles even tough vehicles within deepstrike range andnonly slightly worse then a meltaguns when the melta gun is within 6in. The plasmagun needs to be nerfed to str6base and str7 overcharged. Which will make it worse vs vehicles then a melta gun even in deepstrike, but the best anti MC t6 weapon and slightly better then a grenade launcher. Where it should be!!!

Dunno at ST7 the plasma gun is relatively weaker against the some tanks and at 1-2 damage a gun depending on range its not really going to be taking down basic transports before its contents spill out and paint the ground a nice shade of red while a few meltas have the potential of erasing most transports if taken in a relative number. you would need a LOT of plasma to do the same thing in the same amount of time (obviously you can get gak rolls with meltas and las cannons but it is a dice game) you can over charge to wound tanks on a 3+ just like meltas but then you are risking losing your points investments which depending on the army might honestly not be worth it without even more support (points)

mind you iv only played against basically marines i cant say whats good or not good against fitly xenos or lesser imperium

Ruin wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Hmm nope, since it is infact the most playtested edition of 40k.

Exalted.
Nothing more fun than kacky numbers, I still remember the "90% of fights wind up on the ground" business, lets not mention that we included the number of fights that ended there because one fighter had been struck unconscious, shot or tasered.

First post.

Im shocked at the amount of sooking here. I've been playing since 1E and this is probably the best edition yet.

Some issues remain of course, but they wont come up in friendly games, and in Tournaments things like 'spam' lists can be pretty easily rectified by limiting FOC selections in addition to points values.

'2000 point, 2 x Battalion FOC max, no understrength units'

HoundsofDemos wrote:
This is one of the tightest set of rules they've released. The problem as always is people see rules and decided to try and break things.

Following the rules is trying to break them? How do you function...

You sig just makes more and more sense every day.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Runic wrote:

Ruin wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Hmm nope, since it is infact the most playtested edition of 40k.

I excitedly await your proof of this edition not being the most playtested out of all the WH40K editions.

You missed the point. It's not a claim that this edition wasn't the most playtested, it's pointing out that "most playtested" doesn't necessarily mean much. If 7th got 5 minutes of playtesting and 8th got 6 minutes then 8th is "most playtested" even though neither had anywhere near enough. And that seems to be the case with 8th, it might be the most playtested but it's still clearly a barely-tested dumpster fire that only gets the title because previous editions got even less.

IOW, sucking the least is weak praise.

Right, and I think people are harping on the wrong quote from GW. In a Q&A, one of the devs mentioned that every unit would be viable. Now, "viable" can mean a lot of different things, but I think that everyone can agree that this is not the case (the Stompa makes an easy counterexample). Now, not to hate on GW too much -- the proportion of viable units is much higher than it used to be, and it seems to be in such a way that every codex has a viable build or two (or more!). But people are let down by the fact that the game is not that balanced, and that's fair. GW promised us the moon, and gave us... well, not the moon. After all the "NUGW" talk, I think a little pessimism/skepticism is warranted.

gungo wrote:

The plasmagun imho is the biggest fubar. It's 2 points more the. The grenade launcher and better at anti infantry and significantly better vs monsterous creature. The plasma gun is also significantly cheaper then the melta gun but much better vs vehicles even tough vehicles within deepstrike range andnonly slightly worse then a meltaguns when the melta gun is within 6in. The plasmagun needs to be nerfed to str6base and str7 overcharged. Which will make it worse vs vehicles then a melta gun even in deepstrike, but the best anti MC t6 weapon and slightly better then a grenade launcher. Where it should be!!!

GL is better than single shot Plasma all of the time.
It is worse than RF plasma, which requires 12".
It is worse than OC plasma, which can kill the user.
It is much worse than OC&RF plasma, which can really kill the user and has to be within 12.

Grenade Launcher - stand off and do reasonable damage.
Plasma Gun - get close and bring the pain.

Note: this does not consider scions, which likely should have their own slightly more expensive plasma gun.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
This is one of the tightest set of rules they've released. The problem as always is people see rules and decided to try and break things.

Following the rules is trying to break them? How do you function...

Trying to find loopholes in the rules is following the rules? How is this an argument...

 andysonic1 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
This is one of the tightest set of rules they've released. The problem as always is people see rules and decided to try and break things.

Following the rules is trying to break them? How do you function...

Trying to find loopholes in the rules is following the rules? How is this an argument...

Because there are not just loopholes in the rules, but certain rules which have gaping holes of information or just ridiculous when done exactly as written. That's not looking for a loophole, but what is recognizing what is there.

At first they were saying 2.5 years of playtesting, then 2, now 1...

I think they did playtest a lot of rules "concepts" but it's plainly obvious that the final copy of the rules we are working with now were not playtested at all.

I'd say that a "Designer's Notes", a "Stepping into a new Edition" doc ,and full FAQ for the BRB and all indexes, all not 3 weeks from release, are a testament to that.

I suppose it's possible that by the time they were done, everyone involved was way too close to it and they really needed to bring in someone fresh, who knew nothing of the changes. to catch all the stuff that's generating so many questions from people now. I'm sure the ruleset they created works great and is perfectly clear to them in their minds, and the way they are playing it in the studio, I just don't think the rules, as they are presented to us in the book, are written terribly well. The rules in isolation are alright, but so many of the rules interactions are not clear.

I think they need someone completely outside the process with a legal background to have a final look over things before they publish.

 Weboflies wrote:
I think they need someone completely outside the process with a legal background to have a final look over things before they publish.

I think just a random joe who walks into Warhammer World would to tbfh. Or better yet, why didn't they release the core ruleset as a beta to the public 6 months in advance? That way they could fix the actual release.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Weboflies wrote:
I think they need someone completely outside the process with a legal background to have a final look over things before they publish.

I think just a random joe who walks into Warhammer World would to tbfh. Or better yet, why didn't they release the core ruleset as a beta to the public 6 months in advance? That way they could fix the actual release.

Isn't that what is actually happening though, since 8th is now going to be the constantly changed and updated edition? They release the new rules and get feedback from the community, then they release an Errata and FAQ every month or so as the community finds faults. Maybe GW will release a mass errata balancing a lot of armies once the meta has straightened out. We'll have to wait and see whether they'll hold to their promise of a fluid and changing rule set.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Weboflies wrote:
I think they need someone completely outside the process with a legal background to have a final look over things before they publish.

I think just a random joe who walks into Warhammer World would to tbfh. Or better yet, why didn't they release the core ruleset as a beta to the public 6 months in advance? That way they could fix the actual release.

Isn't that what is actually happening though, since 8th is now going to be the constantly changed and updated edition? They release the new rules and get feedback from the community, then they release an Errata and FAQ every month or so as the community finds faults. Maybe GW will release a mass errata balancing a lot of armies once the meta has straightened out. We'll have to wait and see whether they'll hold to their promise of a fluid and changing rule set.

You and I both know that's utter rubbish. You think the first 4 codexes haven't already gone to print? It's literally impossible for them to change.

Player since 2E and this is the most fun I've had since 3rd.

The bar for them to actually reach 'most playtested edition ever' probably wasn't very high to begin with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Weboflies wrote:
I think they need someone completely outside the process with a legal background to have a final look over things before they publish.

I think just a random joe who walks into Warhammer World would to tbfh. Or better yet, why didn't they release the core ruleset as a beta to the public 6 months in advance? That way they could fix the actual release.

Isn't that what is actually happening though, since 8th is now going to be the constantly changed and updated edition? They release the new rules and get feedback from the community, then they release an Errata and FAQ every month or so as the community finds faults. Maybe GW will release a mass errata balancing a lot of armies once the meta has straightened out. We'll have to wait and see whether they'll hold to their promise of a fluid and changing rule set.

You and I both know that's utter rubbish. You think the first 4 codexes haven't already gone to print? It's literally impossible for them to change.

Oh yes, the codeces have probably already been put to print but that doesn't stop them from Errata + FAQing the factions to a balanced level. Saying that, it is a rather messy way of doing it.

8th is so much better than 7th that I think people just like whining.

Alcibiades wrote:
8th is so much better than 7th that I think people just like whining.

We've known that for a long time, what else is the Internet for? Surely not swapping ideas and information, that would be perposterous.

Alcibiades wrote:
8th is so much better than 7th that I think people just like whining.

It really isn't. The only real improvement GW made was killing off the obvious broken parts of 7th (psychic phase and formations) and resetting the power creep by releasing every army's rules simultaneously. Removing the most obvious flaws is something so trivially easy that GW shouldn't really get much credit for it, and it remains to be seen whether any supposed gains in balance and simplicity will survive once the stripped-down temporary rules start getting replaced by the full codices. In terms of core rule quality I'm not at all convinced that 8th is better than 7th, and IMO it's a step backwards in a lot of ways.

The fact we need FOUR OR FIVE FAQs printed out just to play a game now and it's not even a month old shows they didn't playtest anything.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The fact we need FOUR OR FIVE FAQs printed out just to play a game now and it's not even a month old shows they didn't playtest anything.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. There are several reasons why you can have a heavily playtested game still need FAQs immediatly out of launch

- These are errors that were caught after they started the printing process (a process that has to be started months before release)
- The printers had caused those mistakes that needed to be errata'ed
- These were mistakes play testers caught but GW didn't implement them or implemented them incorrectly for the print run
- These were mistakes caused when converting the rough draft playtesters interact with into the final product that gets printed
- Playtesters are only human and failed to catch issues with the game

Just a little rational thought and its easy to see how quick FAQs are need even with significat play testing

some FAQs are needed.

Some points need tweaking (twin assault cannon seems a bit too good).

Flyers seem to have too many wounds.

It's a fun game though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The fact we need FOUR OR FIVE FAQs printed out just to play a game now and it's not even a month old shows they didn't playtest anything.

That doesn't prove anything. how many people do you think they had in their play testing group? (considering that they where proably doing it for about a year and kept it secret all that time) 25? 50? 100?

a tiny fraction of the number of people who play 40k. (also they're focusing on real problems, meanwhile I've yet to see many genuine problems with the rules here, beyond a few odd points costs, and some pedantic focusing on advancing/assault weapons. (which everyone universally agrees that they know the intent) .Playtesters also don't focus on typos. thats for EDITORS,

honestly thats not too bad considering. I once had a game designer (line developer of Battletech at the time) comment to me that a week of release will spot more issues in a product then a YEAR of playtesting. That's just the way it is.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. There are several reasons why you can have a heavily playtested game still need FAQs immediatly out of launch

- These are errors that were caught after they started the printing process (a process that has to be started months before release)
- The printers had caused those mistakes that needed to be errata'ed
- These were mistakes play testers caught but GW didn't implement them or implemented them incorrectly for the print run
- These were mistakes caused when converting the rough draft playtesters interact with into the final product that gets printed
- Playtesters are only human and failed to catch issues with the game

Just a little rational thought and its easy to see how quick FAQs are need even with significat play testing

These reasons would explain why an error or two might have slipped through. They don't explain why the sheer number of errors that made it into 8th edition would get through playtesting, especially when the community was spotting problems immediately after the full rules were released. The inescapable fact here is that whatever limited playtesting happened for 8th edition was laughably inadequate, and 8th is only the "most playtested edition" because previous editions were even more of a joke.

 Weboflies wrote:
I think they did playtest a lot of rules "concepts" but it's plainly obvious that the final copy of the rules we are working with now were not playtested at all.

Well of course there is no significant playtesting of "The final version". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "The final version" happens very late in the process of development.

Whats the point of playtesting if you aren't open to making further changes? And if you are open to further changes its not "the final version"