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.

Man, I got my Index for $25 at my FLGS on launch.

p5freak wrote:

 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.

Why should a tank get cover at all when the thing shooting it will blow through most types of cover?
Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.
Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.
The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.
So shooting a vehicles gun does no damage?
Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.
IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions? Either way is just a mechanical choice neither is more "realistic"
You're right about the realism for targeting from tanks, but why should vehicles be subject to mechanics that other units are not? Either all models should require LOS from their front facing and their weapon, or nothing should. GW opted for the simple nothing should.
Depended on the vehicle, many vehicles were close to anywhere, open topped were anywhere (and you could do this in 7th, it was just a penalty), this really isn't a huge hit on realism for most vehicles.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
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.

Well every edition will have a list for the braindead dice rollers. But trying to overcome stuff and the synergies that have developed (and, going by the salty posts on this forum, consistently confounded some people) has far more depth than 7th's "Shoot everything then run for the objective" gameplay.

7th was truly without merit

8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.

Is it better than 7th? Yes, by an order of magnitude (from a playability standpoint).

Is it a great wargame? I'd say no.

The upside of 8th:

Rules are easier to follow, games are faster.

Downside of 8th:

Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.

I'd say it's significantly better than 7th, with the caveat that 7th isn't exactly a high bar.

 Marmatag wrote:
The upside of 8th:

Rules are easier to follow, games are faster.

Downside of 8th:

Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.

I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.

Breng77 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The upside of 8th:

Rules are easier to follow, games are faster.

Downside of 8th:

Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.

I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.

The internal balance is hideously fubar though, and this is the same forum that complains that the top BAO Necron list was #46.

I am unsure how to describe this but I found 6th and 7th to be "unplayable" compared to 8th.

There were so many grey zones in the old rules that if it was not for the "roll for it" rule we would still be arguing.

Simple rules does not equal a simple game.
Chess has simple rules for each piece, we are more complex than that.
I think we are in good territory here for "hidden complexity" within the game rather than being limited to army list building represents %80 of your win probability.

Other than the new rule-set look-up delays we had very few grey-zone discussions, the rules seemed pretty clear.
My competitive gamer side was very happy with things being a bit more clear-cut.
My "fluff" gamer side was happy because all the miniatures and weapons all behaved in a very similar fashion with different rules.

I dunno, would anyone who has played 3 games or more of the new addition still prefer a prior edition?
I think I may never go back, the indexes are a great baseline to start from if we get all freaky about the new codex books coming out.

Genuinely interested in your opinion, I am oddly VERY happy with these rules.

 Mr Morden wrote:
7th was truly without merit

8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? We've seen one codex so far, that's hardly "codex creep". You don't need "multiple books" for armies because there aren't books out at all anyway. You need exactly two books, the index/codex and the rulebook, to play an army. If you want to take legacy options, then you need a 3rd book, oh noes the horror! Exactly like 7th where you needed 543 books!

Breng77 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The upside of 8th:

Rules are easier to follow, games are faster.

Downside of 8th:

Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.

I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.

There isn't much of a difference for me between 7th and 8th. Instead of Tau and Eldar shooting me off of the table in 1-2 turns its Imperial Guard and Tau.

I live in the East Bay. About 25 miles from Game Kastle, about 15 miles from Black Diamond, and others. The meta out here is competitive, so everyone runs these factions. I play against Astra Militarum, Tau, and Harlequins. That's it.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The upside of 8th:

Rules are easier to follow, games are faster.

Downside of 8th:

Balance is just as bad as 7th, but for different reasons.

I'm not convinced the balance is just as bad as 7th. I don't think it is great, but at least GW is making some active tweaks, and I don't think the bottom armies are near as bad as they were in 7th. It seems like most armies have at least 1 decent build which is more than I could say for 7th.

The internal balance is hideously fubar though, and this is the same forum that complains that the top BAO Necron list was #46.

Yes internal balance is more or less the same it has been sadly. But external balance is a slight improvement.

 jasper76 wrote:
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.

Definitely better than 7th. Probably better than anything since 3rd.

As released it had a few issues, but they were less significant than most editions, with the exception of a few problem units.

They seem pretty intent on screwing the pooch with the codexes though. So the real problem (army/codex balance, with a double helping of internal balance problems due to restricted traits/stratagems/relics), seems set to bleed through again. And at double pace since they're rushing marines out the door.

I think fifth was better actually, until they started adding in flyers. But then again, third was kind of bland and boring.

Still, wouldn't trade back to fifth. it had its own problems. Best to move forwards and forge a better game.

p5freak wrote:

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

Anything that penetrates tank armor really should be able to penetrate a hedge row.
Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?
This has some merit, but we're also dealing with (admittedly bad) fluff where a Wave Serpent got taken down by kids throwing rocks.
By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon? It's always been like that, it's just changed. If anything, this makes it MORE reasonable by spreading the cap out to higher strength weapons.
The "hull" of a vehicle spawned countless arguments. I can't hate GW for trying to do something about it, even if I agree with you personally.
I agree with the move and shoot thing for vehicles. 7th was not vehicle movement/shooting rules done right though. If anything, that was probably 5th.
I also miss going to ground. It appears to be the hazards of "lets simplify everything".
For that matter, it's unrealistic that infantry and mosterous creatures could shoot from any part of their body as well. In the name of realism, perhaps we should also implement a cumbersome facing element as well?
As the concept of a vehicle was entirely reduced to a single featureless unit indistinguishable from any other model in the game, there wasn't really much that could be done about it, unfortunately.

I miss 5th.

Why should a tank get cover at all when the thing shooting it will blow through most types of cover?

GW didnt remove cover for vehicles, and it should work both ways, no matter where the vehicle is, inside or outside of the terrain. The shooting unit has the same view of the vehicle, no matter if they are inside, or outside of the terrain.

Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.


Only models which are within LOS should be able to get killed, it wouldnt hurt 8th. Instead of thinking, and delaying the game, which models to remove you would just remove those who actually can be attacked.

Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.

Maybe a balance thing, but still unrealistic. Damaging a vehicle yes, but not kill it.

The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.


No, i dont want auto-wounds. Its unrealistic that a S7 weapon has the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon.

Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.

In 7th tanks had better chances to hit, or could fire more guns, when they only moved half their movement value. Makes sense, if you dont move fast you are giving the gun crew more time to aim. This has been removed. You are sitting in a chair, and move a joystick, you are more "comfortable" than outside. You know there is a thick metal hull to protect you. Outside its loud, gunfire, explosions and shrapnel, all around you, the enemy is rushing towards you, and you also have to carry and aim that heavy weapon.

IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions?

Yes it makes sense, because it is realistic. I suggest you watch some war movies. Whenever infantry gets fire upon, they drop to the ground, or seek cover.

Games between a fluffy army and an optimized army are not much closer and not auto-lose like they were in 7th. I'm not punished for taking my melee World Eaters now, in fact I'm like a kid in a candy store!

 andysonic1 wrote:
Games between a fluffy army and an optimized army are not much closer and not auto-lose like they were in 7th. I'm not punished for taking my melee World Eaters now, in fact I'm like a kid in a candy store!

In fact, your world eaters are gonna get a pretty big buff with the upcoming codex.

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 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.

Bro you need to chill out.....

I will say that if you are going to do retro 40k, IMO 5th is way better than 7th. Sure, you'll lose some 7th-edition toys unless you do a compatibility patch, but you won't have to deal with all the broken, ridiculous stuff that 7th had.

Like I said... 7th was a low bar to clear.

 daedalus wrote:

Anything that penetrates tank armor really should be able to penetrate a hedge row.

If you want to shoot something, you need to see it first. Its not about penetration. You probably dont have time to aim properly because there is gunfire and explosions around you. The more you see, the easier it is to aim, and hit. If you see less, you dont hit as good.

 daedalus wrote:

Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?

Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.

 daedalus wrote:

By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon?

Once you reach a certain damage level you get hurt automatically, or you are incinerated right away, doesnt matter if its a nuke, or 1 million degrees hot plasma.

 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.

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...

If you like Lotr you will be happy with 8th Edition, as it took some Elements of it. It feels much closer to Lotr, as it now is easy to learn, but hard to handle. Concerning Balance Lotr is still the better game though. While 7th Edition was more like watching an Action movie, in 8th and Lotr you have to apply actually tactics. And the scenarios are great, I hope they expand on that.

Short answer is 8th is rushed out, flavorless, and kinda goofy (see a 3 story tall monster cannot assault something an the second floor and vehicles fire all weapons from hull corners.

It is simpler, however I am eagerly awaiting the full "unlocked" game with all the codexes. I feel like it's going to be a common thing to see people try to run at least 9 CP due to the couple dozen stratagems they could use.

I think 8th is a big improvement.

However, some things from 7th I wish they could have kept. Facings being on for example.

p5freak wrote:


GW didnt remove cover for vehicles, and it should work both ways, no matter where the vehicle is, inside or outside of the terrain. The shooting unit has the same view of the vehicle, no matter if they are inside, or outside of the terrain.

The cover rules apply the same to all models not just vehicles. They made cover harder to get for everything. So given that it is fine for vehicles, they removed intervening terrain as cover to make things more clear cut

Sure wound allocation makes sense, the models don't represent static figures so it represents guys moving up to take the place of the fallen models, picking up their weapons etc, 7th wound allocation where a single 2++ re-roll character can bullet catch for a whole squad is far more immersion breaking.


Only models which are within LOS should be able to get killed, it wouldnt hurt 8th. Instead of thinking, and delaying the game, which models to remove you would just remove those who actually can be attacked.

Why is this needed? the current system works fine and allows the defending player more choice in who to remove (no LOS sniping through gamey mechanics like blocking your own LOS with a vehicle to kill the heavy/special/sarge) As I said it represents those out of LOS models moving up to fill in for their compatriots/moving the whole time, the squad is turning the corner and getting mowed down as they do so. Maybe you could restrict casualties from any 1 squad to the number of models they can see, but not just those models. Besides, you as the defender can choose to remove those models first to reduce further shooting from other squads, or even the same squad if it has various weapons. Explosive weapons and flamers would still hit things around corners as well.

Anything can hurt anything is a balance thing, it can be a bit off, but really it is likely that hordes of small guys should eventually be able to take down a tank through various means.

Maybe a balance thing, but still unrealistic. Damaging a vehicle yes, but not kill it.

There is no functional difference in this game between the ability to damage something and to kill something. Damage = causing wounds, loss of all wounds = death, so is your argument that small arms should never be able to remove the final wound from something?

The damage chart is no more unfair than it ever has been, it has just shifted a bit. IN 7th T4 got wounded by S6, 7, 8, 9, 10 by the same number, so really it just shifted so that more things wound on 3s than wound on 2s, it makes a lot more sense, if anything it improves overall durability for tougher units against stronger weapons compared to lower T units. Seems fair to me. Your problem is more that you want everything above a certain strength to almost auto-wound rather than fail 16% more of the time.


No, i dont want auto-wounds. Its unrealistic that a S7 weapon has the same chance to wound as a S5 weapon.

No it isn't, at least not anymore unrealistic than it was in the last 4 editions where S7 and S9 wounded T5 or below the same. SO again what you are saying is either "I never liked the to wound chart and 7th wasn't any more realistic than 8th." which sure I could go with that it is the result of a D6 system. OR "I'm ok with things wounding the same as long as that value is either a 2+ or a 6+, because somehow that is more realistic than a 3+/5+ being more prevalent."

Why shouldn't it be difficult for vehicles to move and fire? They are moving faster than infantry.

In 7th tanks had better chances to hit, or could fire more guns, when they only moved half their movement value. Makes sense, if you dont move fast you are giving the gun crew more time to aim. This has been removed. You are sitting in a chair, and move a joystick, you are more "comfortable" than outside. You know there is a thick metal hull to protect you. Outside its loud, gunfire, explosions and shrapnel, all around you, the enemy is rushing towards you, and you also have to carry and aim that heavy weapon.

There are no rules for different movement distances for units in this edition other than advancing, so given that they are always faster than infantry it makes sense that it is hard for a moving shooting platform to hit a "moving" target. If we wanted true realism big vehicles should be easier to hit, infantry might have a -2 on the move and tanks -1, small targets would be harder to hit, etc. Since we don't have rules at that complexity them being the same is a fine-representation.

IT makes sense to you that guys in an open field can drop to the ground to gain cover against giant explosions?

Yes it makes sense, because it is realistic. I suggest you watch some war movies. Whenever infantry gets fire upon, they drop to the ground, or seek cover.

And if they are getting bombed with explosions they still die. Really getting those few extra rolls mostly just slows down the game. I could go either way on it, but it isn't a big deal in the realism factor compared to some immersion breaking stuff in past editions.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

p5freak wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?

Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.

For someone who wants "realism" you lack imagination to make it so. The models are not only "moving" during the movement phase, they aren't statues they are moving the whole time things are happening.

p5freak wrote:

If you want to shoot something, you need to see it first. Its not about penetration. You probably dont have time to aim properly because there is gunfire and explosions around you. The more you see, the easier it is to aim, and hit. If you see less, you dont hit as good.

That's still reflected somewhat with TLOS (for however little it actually comes up). Regardless, in a world where you have superhuman space catholics that have automatic carbine rocket launchers firing shells described as anywhere from the thickness of a finger to the thickness of a soda can, some sort of thermal imaging goggles or auspexes or whatever you want to call them don't feel that unreasonable.

 daedalus wrote:

Maybe the visible guy died, and someone came up from behind to fill his place?

Movement is in the movement phase, or when you consolidate. Not when wounds are allocated. You could fill blank spots later, but GW decided to handle it different.

Eh. Abstraction and hand-waving. I don't see a significant difference in that and just saying "well, that guy in the back jumped on the mounted gun to replace the guy you shot off it, like in movies!"

 daedalus wrote:

By that same token, how 'fair' was it that a S9 weapon have the same odds to wound a T4 model as a S6 weapon?

Once you reach a certain damage level you get hurt automatically, or you are incinerated right away, doesnt matter if its a nuke, or 1 million degrees hot plasma.

But Strength and AP aren't the same thing. Like a witchblade that's S9 but a guardsman could save against it, or a Space Marine that could walk away unscathed from a S10 storm eagle rocket landing directly atop him. I've never actually seen a reasonable GW explanation of what it means to get wounded or not get wounded anyway, so I'm not sure what the difference in "fluff terms" is between a 16.6% chance and a 33.3% chance for an autocannon to not do "something" to a space marine. It was as much abstraction then as it is now. It's just different abstraction.

I dunno. There's definitely a lot of abstraction, but you have to accept that in something like this. It's not a combat simulator, it's a beer and pretzels game set in a future hodgepodge of science fiction elements, fantasy, and a little bit of high octane nightmare fuel made casual. While some of the changes do bug me a little, I guess I don't fundamentally see it as anything I can really take THAT seriously. I am sorry that you can't feel the same way.

I still miss 5th.

It is full of errors and balance-issues, but it is still a hundred times better than the broken mess that was the 7th edition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
7th was truly without merit

8th is better but sadly seems to be slipping back into bad habits like Codex power creep and multiple books required for armies.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? We've seen one codex so far, that's hardly "codex creep". You don't need "multiple books" for armies because there aren't books out at all anyway. You need exactly two books, the index/codex and the rulebook, to play an army. If you want to take legacy options, then you need a 3rd book, oh noes the horror! Exactly like 7th where you needed 543 books!

One dex that a boosted the power level of that army - the following dexes are doing the same thing from the leaks.

The Chosen Ones (with a Dex) get the boost - others don'y - how is that not Power Creep.

Some of my Armies (ie the non marine ones) will not get a dex with all the shiny new power boosts and options unitl 2018.