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.

My gaming group decided to stick with 7th instead of moving forward with 8th. Since these are the only people that I TT game with, obviously I stuck with 7th as well.

I have not even seen the rules for 8th, but I'm curious now that it's been out for a while, what do you think? Was it an improvement over 7th? What's better, what's worse? Interested to see how it's been received now that people have been playing it for a while.

It's a much slimmer ruleset. Faster to play by a fair margin (although looking rules up tends to be replaced with looking up unit datasheets).

I understand USR's became a bit bloated, but they could have kept a couple of pages worth and slimmed the datasheets down.

Balance is improved, but there's still some off-kilter between units and factions. But they have shown they're willing to address that with FAQ and Errata (and fairly quickly as well).

I'm anticipating them dealing with Brimstones and Conscript spam in short order.

7th had more realism and sense, that has been thrashed, for faster and smoother gameplay. Only the fight phase has become more complicated.

8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

I'm a big fan of it. I like the changes to vehicles. I like having command points, I like how reserves work now.

Not sure I would want to go back to 7th.

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

40k just one of several TT games we play so there's no real feeling of need to keep up with the newest stuff. For example, the games I play are more LoTR than anything else lately.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

7th is a miserable train wreck. 8th isn't perfect but basically anything is better than 7th and 8th is a lot more then just a little bit better.

A small recommendation from me: If you guys don't want to spend a lot of money, the five indexes and a rulebook are all you really need. While it has some outliers (conscripts), it's largely balanced and simple. The impending codex releases look like they're gonna shove some of the needless bloat back into the game, so missing out on them isn't too much of a biggie.

 jasper76 wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggle with learning new things.

There is no need to spend any money if you don't want to and still play 8th..though you will get tempted to because the biggest thing for me is internal balance is just much improved, so you want to own more models for variation.

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is a miserable train wreck. 8th isn't perfect but basically anything is better than 7th and 8th is a lot more then just a little bit better.

I think this sums it up pretty well.

CovenantGuardian wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

CovenantGuardian wrote:
8th is a massive improvement on 7th. I don't see why your gaming group chose that, none of the players i've met have prefered 7th ed.

We actually like 7th alot (except Psychic phase), amongst us we accumulated a vast library of 7th stuff, and nobody wanted to spend any more money.

Plus although I don't play rpgs, generally, these guys are still playing 2ND Edition AD&D...

I see , i know some those people at work. They resist change at all costs, i don't understand that mindset at all except for old people that struggles with learning new things.

No real need to be judgemental about my group We have legit reasons for not upgrading, and it's not like we are bothered that other people decided to move on to 8th. In fact I hope everyone who upgraded to 8h is having a blast with it!

8th switches out some problems with 7th for others, adds rules that don't make sense, and is fairly bland and lifeless as a whole. For me, the biggest issues with 8th are that cover is fairly pointless, and the Psychic Phase is worse than the 7e one in terms of scaling. Also, the emphasis on "buff stacking" is far more prevalent, point costs are whackadoo, and the whole thing deels like we're paying to beta test.

Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.

8th is not the same game as 7th, at all.
The models play roughly the same, but everything has the same type of stat-line now, making comparisons much easier.
There are no tables to refer to, apart from a simple S vs T comparison.
Codexes might bring some of the 7th bloat back, but every unit's ability and weapons are (nearly) all on their unit page. And even those are being put in the boxes with the models.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.

So not wanting to spend a bunch of $ on a game we sometimes play, not wanting to make a drastic upgrade from a game we already really like, this is petulance?

If you're enjoying 8th, more power to you, for my part.

It's fun!

8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.

I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.

8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Your gaming group are being petulant IMHO. 8th is by far the better game. The only "legit" reason you could have for not upgrading is if you played Taudar Cheese.

The salty troll is real. It's totally not "petulant" to call people names for not playing the version of the game you want.

Yeah for the pretty low investment you should definitly get into 8th. I've so far enjoyed it much more than 7th. Only downfall is the indexs are clunky, hopefully that is changed with codexs.

They went a little too simple ("everything can wound everything" and "vehicle facing doesn't matter" are the two complaints I hear most often) but it's the best edition I've played since 5th. If C:SM is any indication, there's going to be really cool things you can do with limited resources that aren't points to give your army upgrades. An example is how you can spend command points (most non-horde armies will have have maybe about 4-6 of these) to turn your SM Captain into a Chapter Master. Just struck me as an interesting new resource to add depth to the game without actually breaking the hell out of it (yet).

Ultimately, I really just wish 5th would just come back though.

I feel like claiming it's expensive to upgrade is a bit of an excuse. Its like 15 bucks for an relevant Index and the core rules are free.

But otherwise its much better than 7th. I playes 2 games of 7th and they were miserable. I've already played three times as many games of 8th and basically all my groups other games have fallen to the wayside for it. I really like command points and stratagems as a system.

I don't believe the game is simpler either, just that people are still playing it as if its simple and then complaining because they lost. It's certainly streamlined but I'm finding that I'm actually having to think during my games rather than pointing and clicking. Likewise I'm noticing in battle reports that people are having trouble adjusting to the changes to vehicles especially.

On that note, I really like the changes to ranged weapons now. They've struck a good balance between the statlines. You can't just take a bunch of lascannons, pop all the vehicles on turn one and then turn them on infantry, it takes concentrated fire to kill a vehicle quickly and it takes a good volume of firepower to keep infantry under control and most things can't do both. Despite people saying "anything can hurt anything" they very rarely do. I've yet to see a lasgun volly even wound a tank.

8th is a superb edition, and with the FAQs one of the better editions gameplaywise.

p5freak wrote:
7th had more realism and sense

You're... joking, right?

I know I demand realism in any game about superhuman space catholics, gundam aliens, space tolkien, and demons.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.

I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.

8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.

I would actually compare 8th to 7th as Go vs Monopoly; the former has a simple ruleset that begets more thinking than it seems, while the latter has a ton of rules trying to encompass everything, but has no tactical depth (note that tactical depth is different from strategic depth; the former happens during the game, the latter happens during army building).

 daedalus wrote:
I know I demand realism in any game about superhuman space catholics, gundam aliens, space tolkien, and demons.

"Hard realism" and "cinematic realism" are two different things. It's one thing for Luke Skywalker to be able to cut a hole into an AT-AT and toss a Thermal Detonator inside it without being blasted to smithereens. It's another when a giant tank runs into an infantryman and comes to a halt like a carnival go-cart, or a fortress with guns sticking on opposite ends of it can fire all of them from the same direction.

Or to use another classic cinematic example, let's consider Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. There was this iconic action montage where Harrison Ford rode a horse on a cliffside, and was up against a Nazi tank with sponsons. He ducked and weaved until he could place a giant rocm in one of the sponsons, causing it to misfire when it targeted him. In 8th Edition, this would definitely be his Last Crusade, because the tank could shoot him from any part of its hull!

7th didn't really have realism in either sense, so the distinction doesn't really matter vis a vis this conversation.

I was mostly just joking around. I get what you're saying, but I'd argue any sort of sense of realism even in that category was vastly overrated in 7th as well. I mean, I quit because 7th got so bad, but I recall scenes where entire armies would dump their weapons into something, only to all of it bounce off the 2++ rerollable. That might be exaggerated somewhat in the fogginess of memory, but there were situations where it got pretty stupid.

On the other hand, now flame throwers are an effective anti-air weapon and artillery can fire their cannons out of the side of their treads. I guess it all depends on how much the abstraction bothers you.

So, the system is similar but different at the same time.

The rules are pretty much: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf

There is a small advanced rules section and a section on types of play (Open, Narrative and Matched play) If your playing with points to build your armies your playing Matched play.

Also, there is a small section on Advanced Terrain that most people use as standard. To Summarize (If your in terrain (Ruins, Woods, Craters) as infantry most of the time you get -1 cover save) otherwise some items do special things.

The only other part is the Datasheets. Which currently is the indexes except for Space Marine.

Game play wise, it is a solid version of the game. It is fun to play and brings alot of the missing armies back into play. It did weaken up Tau and Eldar. And strengthened Orcs and Tyranids.

It isn't without flaws, as can be seen by having to FAQ that flyers couldn't allow you to be counted on the board. This is because players created metas of just taking 5 Stormravens. A behavior of the players not the game designers. Game designers intent was you only really have 2 flyers in your army.

Also, for people heavy into psychic phase. The reduction of powers may cramp their style. As the entire game is streamlined. This means the 7th edition psychic phase was seriously toned down. .

OP:
Basic rules are here:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Battle-Primer-2017-ENG
Full rulebook is ~$115, usually less at FLGS.
Getting the relevant index is ~$50, usually less at FLGS ($30 at mine) and it includes many armies in each.
So expense is definitely not worse than in the past.

I like how the game plays, probably is my favorite since 2nd edition(??!!).

Good:
The behavior/flavor of units and weapons have been preserved with this new system.
No templates or deviation! Just roll dice, no game delaying "partially or fully under the template" or deviation moments.
You can squish your models in big blobs and not have to do the careful 2' spacing: NO templates.
Morale is a huge mechanic in this game (unless you are Orks grouped together...). Failure does not destroy a unit but it does kill off models.
Do need to keep track of how many models killed in that phase for how much of a negative modifier is applied to a morale save
Deep-strike or it's variants work with little or no messing about.
Vehicles are big tough things again, a Rhino may actually get to deliver the troops to where they planned on going.
Troops are back to being hit-points for the unit, strip off what you want and characters cannot join a unit, THEREFORE positioning of models are almost irrelevant EXCEPT if the character model is the closest unit it can be shot at unless it is sniper rifles then you are always good.
Shoot with pistols in shooting phase even when in melee!
The charging unit attacks first (makes figuring out charging worthwhile again).
Note: All charging units attack first, then first non-charge unit goes first on who's turn it is. Makes that spending 2 command points to steal to go first a big deal.
Command points simply used for re-rolls is a fine bonus for structured forces.
Fixed the WS / BS stats so you roll above the amount to hit. No opposing WS skill stuff like S vs T... easier for the new people and possibly easy for us old folk to adapt to.

Bad/Weird:
Some "reality" bending stuff:
- Flamers are the best for shooting aircraft (auto-hit).
- All and any weapons can shoot from any part of the model.
- A unit must be completely in area terrain or no cover save is granted.
- Unless stated otherwise: any special auras, repair abilities or orders cannot be used when embarked in a vehicle.
- Uses true line of sight. We are ready to add to tree area terrain the special "solid wall of trees" model to add to it.
- When a unit is shot at, even models out of line of sight or range can be removed when wounded (this may not be a bad thing, but is an "issue" for a friend of mine).
- Some units simply state they can target units out of line of sight (range only), no penalties, just roll to hit... my Whirlwinds were terribly exciting again which may not be a bad thing...

Overall:
I wish they scrapped the I go / you go rule but pretty much everything else seems to work ok.
I do have to play Psychic phase stuff a bit more.
A serviceable rule-set and I genuinely have fun with (Black Templar vs Orks for a few battles, MEAN!).

 Melissia wrote:

You're... joking, right?

No, i'm not.

Why shouldnt a tank get cover outside of ruins, if the shooting unit is inside the ruin, and the tank is not fully visible for them ? It worked in 7th, removed in 8th.
The wound allocation makes no sense in 8th, it was more realistic in 7th. How can a model die which is not in LOS ? How can a model die which is not in CC ?
Anything can hurt anything. It makes no sense for ork boyz to be able to kill a land raider with their crude axes and blunt swords, whatever they have. It makes no sense that 600 conscripts can take down a titan with their flashlights.
The damage chart is somewhat unfair. If a unit has T4 it doesnt matter if the weapon has S5, S6 or S7, they all have the same chance to wound. Why should a S7 weapon (which is usually more expensive) have the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon ? This was better balanced in 7th. This gets worse the higher the toughness is.
In 7th you needed LOS to the hull of a vehicle, the gun didnt count. In 8th all you need to see is a tiny bit of the gun.
Why do vehicle have to suffer the same penalty of -1 to shoot when they move and fire a heavy weapon as infantry does ? Makes no sense.
In 7th infantry out in the open could drop to the ground, and get a cover save, which makes sense. They cant do that anymore in 8th, unrealistic.
In 8th all tanks need is LOS from the hull, and they can shoot all their weapons, they couldnt do that in 7th. Makes no sense, unrealistic.
In 8th Infantry can embark and disembark from a vehicle from anywhere, they couldnt in 7th. Unrealistic.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
8th is a totally different beast than 7th; it's more like a checkers game than a chess. Whether this is something you want or not, personal preference.

I think 8th could've really been amazing if they'd fixed certain things (e.g., vehicle hull points) rather than homogenized them. I am sad that a lot of armies lost flavor and special rules that made them unique, or rules like weapon facings/mounts that added some depth.

8th is like a brand new, bare bones car on the lot: it's shiny, it's quick, and it's polished, but it lacks some of the flavor of your older model at home.

I would actually compare 8th to 7th as Go vs Monopoly; the former has a simple ruleset that begets more thinking than it seems, while the latter has a ton of rules trying to encompass everything, but has no tactical depth (note that tactical depth is different from strategic depth; the former happens during the game, the latter happens during army building).

I wouldn't say that conscript mathhammer is "more thinking than it seems." lol. I mean, at least 7E forced you to position your scatbike spam properly, position models to avoid blasts/flamers, that sort of thing. But really, when all is said and done, I don't say this to be harsh on 8th edition, but I do think it gets overrated and I think there was a real missed opportunity to take the good from 7E and put it with the positive changes 8E has brought without losing a lot of what made games interesting.