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.

Why would you need to get a starter set just because it's a new edition? I'm imperial to the core and I couldn't care less about NuMarines. Needless to say, my interest for death guard is even lower.

Yet, this new edition got me playing a proper* GW game since time immemorial. Instead of getting the starter box, I got some** IG-dudes. Though, even if 7th edition was still going on, I would have started 40k regardless and I would have picked IG as my faction.

*Bigger than Kill Team.
**An underestimation!

I'm actually enjoying it. Previously, I only played because all my friends did.

The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Power Creep still exists at the moment by way of the "Haves and Have-nots" dichotomy: If you have a Codex, you by default have access to many more options than your opponent. (In the case of Space Marines and CSM, there's also lots of point cuts that nobody else got either.) We'll have yet to see if it exists in other ways, perhaps in a "Newer codices are better than old ones" manner, perhaps in some other way, but it's still absolutely a problem.

Building entire armies around buff bubbles is also tiresome. They killed single deathstar units, but didn't kill the philosophy around deathstars, and so winning armies at my LGS generally revolve around having a few buffy characters surrounded by infantry units all floating with someone within 6". Deathstars are dead. Long live the deathstar.


A few rules are weird, redundant, or counter-intuitive and kind of aggravating. The way re-rolls, modifiers, and gets-hot type rules are handled all seems needlessly unfair, unfun, and complicated. Stacking positive to-hit modifiers shouldn't make models immune to Gets Hot, but by the same token, firing your gun at nighttime shouldn't make it more likely to explode. If I have a buff that offers re-rolls on all failed to hits, meanwhile, I shouldn't be leaving a bunch of failed rolls on the table because I'm not allowed to re-roll them since the modifier hasn't been applied yet.


Many armies feel very samey. With a few exceptions, most Psykers function as batteries that pump out Mortal Wounds first and do any other functions second.


8th is better than 7th in a lot of ways, but lost a lot of flavor and still feels very samey.

In a lot of ways, I think of 7th as eating a Chicago pizza: It's bloated, overdone, and will give you the runs, but there is that moment where you can find solace in its greasy mess.

By contrast, 8th is like a lightly flavored tofu: It might be healthier in the long run and it's a lot easier to digest, but it just doesn't feel right, lacking flavor or substance.

Waaaghpower pretty much nails most the issues I have, and at the risk of bringing up the "abstraction" arguments all over again, it's very easy to argue that the changes to movement and shooting are one of the reasons Stormravens became so powerful before a series of nerfs. There is something both mechanically "unfair" and in violation of "common sense" physics when a flyer can stop units from moving past it while simultaneously being immune to being charged.

Anyway, I think it matters less which edition ypu play rather than who you play with, but ymmv.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In a lot of ways, I think of 7th as eating a Chicago pizza: It's bloated, overdone, and will give you the runs, but there is that moment where you can find solace in its greasy mess.

By contrast, 8th is like a lightly flavored tofu: It might be healthier in the long run and it's a lot easier to digest, but it just doesn't feel right, lacking flavor or substance.

Waaaghpower pretty much nails most the issues I have, and at the risk of bringing up the "abstraction" arguments all over again, it's very easy to argue that the changes to movement and shooting are one of the reasons Stormravens became so powerful before a series of nerfs. There is something both mechanically "unfair" and in violation of "common sense" physics when a flyer can stop units from moving past it while simultaneously being immune to being charged.

Anyway, I think it matters less which edition ypu play rather than who you play with, but ymmv.

Thats why you have to properly season tofu.

you can ALWAYS add on

but you cant undo a deep dish pizza.

To me 7th was more like one of those chinese buffets; lots of choices and everything tastes good, but ultimately you're just eating the same thing that the local cheap takeout place can do for cheaper and the tastes all start blending together after the first plate.

8th is like fine cuisine; still ridiculously expensive, but it's a subtly more enjoyable experience.

Until you get to the primaris marines. Those guys the the deep fried twinkies at the end of a nice pressed duck.

We have found it to be far and away the worst edition of the game. played it a couple of times and put it in the bargain bin. I personally have not found it to be faster, smoother or even fun. The aesthetic I cant stand, hate primaris everything. I am glad others are liking it but overall I am pretty disgusted with it, maybe a half star out of 10. Will never play 8th edition again. tabled my second opponent in 2 turns, miserable experience.

8th Edition has brought me back into the game (played since 2nd Ed, walked away for 7th). Get the core rules for free, pick up an Index and you are in. There is plenty of bleating about Primaris marines, but I have to admit that they look cool, and who cares about Tactical Squads anyway?

Seriously, give it a whirl.

Very much.

I've played quite a lot of games, on the order of 25 or 30 now, I stopped counting and lost track. Also, my Sisters are really good, and that makes me happy.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though? Rulebook calls for d3 pieces per section, but that's not very helpful, because it doesn't really qualify what a 'terrain piece' should be. From the talk I see on this forum, it sounds like players are calling for massive terrain labyrinths so that no guns can fire more than 15-20", or at least that there should be enough terrain to completely hide your army from gunlines, which sounds really dumb and unfair to me.

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board that offer between 6-10" each of Line of Sight blocking - some of these walls have windows, so you can't hide huge tanks behind them, but your infantry can duck in corners easily enough. It's enough terrain that you can safely tuck some critical units behind it, without making the first turn of shooting completely pointless.

The problem, of course, is that anything NOT completely obscured just... Dies. It happens more often than not that players lose a quarter of their army in one turn. There's just not much coming back from this... Unless I scatter the board with so much line of sight blocking terrain that long-range shooting becomes completely pointless, and melee armies win the day by default.

I've only played a couple games so far, but I've enjoyed them.

Some things I thought might bother me I don't actually care about once I'm actually playing.

It seems more abstract, so we need to use more imagination.

I think if we were using the Indices forever I would be disappointed, but knowing that Codices are coming out that add a lot more flavor back in I don't mind at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The armies are pretty well balanced compared to previous editions, but I'm getting tired of actually playing it because everything plays out pretty much the same. Whoever goes first gets a MASSIVE advantage because of how bloody this edition is - If you're otherwise equally matched, then the game will go the way of Player 1 almost every time.

Every time I hear something like this it makes me wonder if people are playing on tables devoid of Line of Sight Blocking cover.

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though? Rulebook calls for d3 pieces per section, but that's not very helpful, because it doesn't really qualify what a 'terrain piece' should be. From the talk I see on this forum, it sounds like players are calling for massive terrain labyrinths so that no guns can fire more than 15-20", or at least that there should be enough terrain to completely hide your army from gunlines, which sounds really dumb and unfair to me.

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board that offer between 6-10" each of Line of Sight blocking - some of these walls have windows, so you can't hide huge tanks behind them, but your infantry can duck in corners easily enough. It's enough terrain that you can safely tuck some critical units behind it, without making the first turn of shooting completely pointless.

The problem, of course, is that anything NOT completely obscured just... Dies. It happens more often than not that players lose a quarter of their army in one turn. There's just not much coming back from this... Unless I scatter the board with so much line of sight blocking terrain that long-range shooting becomes completely pointless, and melee armies win the day by default.

I think it's "2 pieces per 2' square". Each piece is approximately 8" by 8" and about 2-3 stories tall, from roughly eyeballing GW-issued terrain.

my general rule for cover is there shouldn't be anything more than a dinner plate sized area not being covered by...well cover. And the type of cover should at least be space marine waist high. I haven't met an opponent who didn't agree to this as the minimum yet.

Good to see some very positive experiences.
This is my favorite, been playing since 2nd edition.

I think we are not far off from a couple tweaks and it will be very good.

Yes, the Primaris marines have me a bit concerned of where they are going with this (old vs super tall marines in the fluff? A bit beyond odd).

I like the horde of dice rolling and losing the templates (temporarily?).

It has flavor.
I can play a lot faster, not fuss over silly things and actually execute my strategy and tactics happily.
Some of the changes have surprised me as I saw everything function on the tabletop, had quite a few laughing moments and going "that is NASTY!" and not be thinking something is insane overpowered.

The new models to build and paint up I cannot argue with... I am rather happy with the esthetics of them.

All in all: yes GW is getting my money again, my marriage may be in jeopardy due to unbudgeted spending... I may have to sell other hobby stuff... it is that dire.

Waaaghpower wrote:

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though?...

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board...

Yeah, that's not enough. You need like double that.

As a guidline I would suggest standard 4ft by 6ft table have at least a piece of LOS blocking terrain in every 2ft section.

I build the terrain for my club. Every new piece since 8th edition is either 3", 6", or 9" tall of LOS blocking.

Most people are gravitating to the 6-9" pieces.

Look at this ITC setup.



6 pieces of LOS blocking terrain, plus forrests, plus barricades, plus the billboard.



If you are not playing with enough terrain, you are just giving Adeptus Astartes and Tau an advantage they don't need.

 adamsouza wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

What amount of cover are you supposed to use, though?...

Most tables at my LGS have 3-4 buildings across the board...

Yeah, that's not enough. You need like double that.

As a guidline I would suggest standard 4ft by 6ft table have at least a piece of LOS blocking terrain in every 2ft section.

I build the terrain for my club. Every new piece since 8th edition is either 3", 6", or 9" tall of LOS blocking.

Most people are gravitating to the 6-9" pieces.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. That's the LOS blocking terrain, not ALL the terrain. We also have at least a couple pieces of area terrain such as trees or craters and/or non-LOS blocking terrain. Those ITC boards are pretty similar, trading 1-2 of the buildings for several very wide foresty areas.

Also: Games Workshop CLEARLY doesn't intend for every board to be a maze of terrain, seeing as some of their missions (including the most recent Konor mission) call for using very little terrain.

The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

I like it but I don't love it. I've played since 2nd edition and it is fun. The lack of deathstars and psychic shenanigans is a welcome change from 7th, but the core rules feel a little too simplified for my tastes.

CONS: I dislike vehicles having wounds and being able to shoot all their weapons from their headlights, and at first I thought they were too hard to kill. A lack of armor facing and weapon line of sight takes away a significant aspect of 7th edition that I loved. (Outmanuevering the enemy.) I dislike characters being separate from their squads and the overall points increases across the board. My armies are definitely much smaller (for example my 1850 Dark Angels list from 7th is now about 2400 points, and it wasn't a Lion's Blade...) but what remains is quite potent. Long range firepower is utterly lethal and piles of plastic dudesmen die each turn. Combined with smaller sized armies and it means games are pretty well decided by turn 3. None of the index armies really feel like they capture the flavor of the factions to me.

PROS: It's easy to get into assaults, but unless you have dedicated melee troops it doesn't really accomplish much. Dedicated assault units are very handy as opposed to being almost useless in 7th, unless you went full deathstar. Vehicles are more expensive, but they actually live a decent amount of time so it's worth the extra points. Grav cheese and detachment cheese are gone. Command points are an excellent addition. Having a few rerolls can really stop plain old bad luck from costing you a game. The indexes feel well balanced against each other, with the exception of IG every army seems like it has a chance to win.

But my favorite thing about 8th is that the humble Sister's of Battle are a force to be reckoned with. Yes, our entire army consists of 15 units in total (by comparison Codex: Space Marines has 31 units JUST IN HQ while we have 3.) but we have 8 or 9 units that rock the house and the rest are at least respectable.

DarthDiggler wrote:
The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

So, do you think less or more terrain would help?

If you cover everything with terrain, no one can move their troops.

If you cut terrain, shooty units will just have a field day.

I play IG and I think you need to have an substantial amount of LoS-blocking terrain but not every square inch should be covered by it. I've basically heard suggestions that all game tables should be walls made of three story buildings... that can't be right, right?

 Desubot wrote:
Having Great fun.

only complaint may be the cover save system and how it interacts with some things.

but otherwise i like this system way more.

I will echo this as my one big complaint. However, this game is ing Fantastic to play. I love it way more than I liked 6th/7th when I started. And on an extra plus side, it's a breeze to get people into the game. No more intimidating MASSIVE sets of rules (I think I could kill someone with my 6th rulebook), and it runs smoother.
Overall, I give it an 8/10. Fix cover, and it's a 9/10.

I see terrain as a sliding scale of balance, that nerfs or buffs various types of units based off of the scale of terrain and the variety.

The more area terrain you add,the more effective melee is and the less effective low-AP shooting is.
The more LOS-blocking terrain you add, the more effective highly mobile units and barrage-type shooting is and the less effective long-range slow units are. I don't think that there's a 'Sweet spot'. Those ITC boards don't look fun to play on, because they apparently have almost nothing to give the +1 to a save, they JUST block line of sight.

 Stevefamine wrote:
I'm now spending money on Gamesworkshop products...

It's great!

Ditto. A lot of that, for me personally, is that I've found a couple of older gamers who are willing to play non-cutthroat.
We don't netlist and we are even okay with playing with the army booklets from the starter if the player wants to.

The game itself has been AoS-ified and I also view that as a good thing.
You can literally put any of your toys on the table (as long as they belong to the major faction) and head off to the races.

EDIT: Oh and I picked up two starters. It has provided us (with addition of only 3 other models kits---2 of which I owned and had zero plans to ever build) with around 2k worth of the starter armies.

I don´t like this edition at all. The vehicle-rules are stupid, realy, they are absurd.

I don´t like the characters, whose seem to be only walking buffs anymore.

Balance? Astra Militarum. Conscripts. Yeah.

I don´t hate it, like the 7th edition, but I like it in the same way as I liked the 5th. Wich I only played, because my friends did. So I don´t play 8th edition, because....nobody of my friends plays it.

RedCommander wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
The ITC standard terrain displayed above is the reason IG heavy artillery plus conscripts is doing so well. Nothing can hide from artillery, but artillery can hide from you thanks to so much LOS blockers.

I agree that 8th has become bland. 90% of games are decided by the end of turn 2.

So, do you think less or more terrain would help?

If you cover everything with terrain, no one can move their troops.

If you cut terrain, shooty units will just have a field day.

I play IG and I think you need to have an substantial amount of LoS-blocking terrain but not every square inch should be covered by it. I've basically heard suggestions that all game tables should be walls made of three story buildings... that can't be right, right?

Well, it looks good, but it's no fun to play on.

Enjoying it, it plays smooth. Terrain rules are lacking, 3rd/4th ed forest rules were better. I havent played enough games to really fully get the feel of it, but overall its quite enjoyable.

Not digging the tendency to make buffblobs. There doesnt seem to be much incentive not to. Templates and weak armor facings helped mitigate this in the past because packing models tightly had immediate risks, and the potential to flank vehicles encouraged attacking from different angles.

The 8th ed look better than the 6th and the 7th.
The general rule set is much smaller which leads to less debates.
Whether the armies are balanced or not, we will see.

Aside from 3 things I am growing to really loathe about it, it is a much better game than most previous editions. The downside is that I am finding it really boring compared to previous editions as well, although I am grudgingly accepting of that.over the almost unplayable mess that 7th became.

The bottom line for me is that it offers a decent, playable game (considering all the units involved not a small achievement), while sacrificing a lot in the narrative department to achieve it. It's far down my list of favorite games but at least it's on it again.

Not even talking about realism etc that makes wargaming different from some boardgame (what this edition is seriously lacking)
I have some serious issues with alpha strike armies (stuff that does major damage turn 1) .In a game that is supposed to last 5 turns, it should not be possible to have the game decided by the end of turn 1, or turn 2 if something went wrong. Really... It is no fun to take your army to the gaming store set up for half an hour, play for 15 minutes, see that you have lost over 50% of your army before you had the chance to do anything.


But the game should IMHO get rid off:
Reliable turn 1 charges (like dropping 18 berzerkers with a kharybdis assault claw, with a chaos sorcerer for warp time and a dark apostle/kharn for re-rolls, or ork boyz with da jump, Stormboyz etc)
Turn 1 deep strikes/alternative deployment (should be some downside to not deploying immediately on the battlefield)
Reliable turn 1 plasma rapid fire with re-rolls... Really... no fun in that. (hate those plasma scions lists)
IMHO they should even remove all battlefield role-spam detachements. They break the game 1 by 1. Giving everyone an A bomb isn't balancing, it is just waiting to see who gets to use his first.

Me and my friends came back to 40k because of it, whether you like the base rules in 7th versus 8th it's the best Games Workshop has ever been.

It's worth play just because things are no longer locked in limbo, they actually release patch updates like computer games, something i have wished for 20 years.