Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like the fact the pace of the game has sped up. No more looking up every special rule. It is my belief that all the special rules of 7th edition dramatically increased the time it took to play a turn.

Loving it, i also highly enjoyed 7th as well. but 8th is more fun.

Jockeying for position in my eyes in things like - Using scatbikes to stay out of range, then deciding to get in charge range to commit to a objective, while making the charge distance for a opponent 9" to keep it relatively safe.

There is just SO much speed in the game now. Genestealers go on Average 29" across the table with a swarmlord. Teminators with warptime almost guarantee a charge etc.

There is less time before the engagement, essentially.

I really like the pace of the game, but I hate it when people surrender at the end of turn 2 because they "think" it's over.

And I think FIRST TURN should be decided not by a dice roll (or drops), but by BIDDING. Each player secretely bids some Command points. Then both reveal how many Command points they were bidding. The highest takes First turn and loses the Command points. The other one goes second.

 Nym wrote:
I really like the pace of the game, but I hate it when people surrender at the end of turn 2 because they "think" it's over.

And I think FIRST TURN should be decided not by a dice roll (or drops), but by BIDDING. Each player secretely bids some Command points. Then both reveal how many Command points they were bidding. The highest takes First turn and loses the Command points. The other one goes second.

Agreed that players shouldn't give up. Lots of games I'm seeing have a real turning point where it's anyone's game on turn 3. Not 100% sure why, but I've seen a lot fewer "steamrolled" games in 8th than in 7th. Basement Collective just put up a Battle Report, and the same thing nearly happened, with a close game out of what looked heavily lopsided after turn 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussgonwm1TE

As for going first, what if both players bid the same amount of command points? I actually really like the dice roll (with the +1 bonus mechanic, as opposed to just auto-going first) because it makes it more interesting for choosing larger or smaller squads, and finding ways to speed up your deployment to get down sooner, though you "show your hand" so to speak sooner too. I love the current deployment method. Probably because deployment was one of my favourite things of 3rd edition.

I absolutely hate how trerrain is basically irrelevant for most things and armies that use to rely on terrain for saves are often just stuck with nothing to protect them. Use to be that having terrain could bog down infantry advances giving an advantage for units holding a piece of terrain so positioning so your not standing out in the open mattered as well as making outflanking useful to get shooting angles without terrain being in the way. Now terrain just is there to pretty up the board and give small units parked in a ruins a better armor save. All those sand bags, barriers, long + narrow terrain pieces, and small Los blocking terrain are basically useless as the terrain requirements makes it so you need to be in area terrain with the entire unit inside and 50% concealed (good luck getting that unless your a small unit of infantry) while anything sitting behind terrain better hope to be 100% blocked from vision or that terrain does basically nothing.

Lack of cover saves really hurts weak armor units while it also offers no layered defense against weapons that murder armor so something like a IG heavy weapons team or loota in cover still gets no save against plasma weapons as that -AP eats both the armor and cover bonus. Also giving high armor units a bigger benefit from cover that low armor units feels terrible as a terminator in cover is still sitting pretty with a 2+ armor save even against AP-1 but a loota in ruins gets guardsmen armor from that cover which given the abundance of -AP weapons means they are rarely getting a save.

I agree that the current adjustment to save just doesn't work. It's more valuable for high save models which are exactly the ones it ought to have the least effect for.

 Nym wrote:
I really like the pace of the game, but I hate it when people surrender at the end of turn 2 because they "think" it's over.

And I think FIRST TURN should be decided not by a dice roll (or drops), but by BIDDING. Each player secretely bids some Command points. Then both reveal how many Command points they were bidding. The highest takes First turn and loses the Command points. The other one goes second.

I like this as a way to balance games between armies with alpha-strike strategies, as it gives the defender a significant advantage and adds a strategic element to the first turn as players decide how many command points they need. However there are armies that can afford to basically go "all-in" because they don't make a whole lot of use out of CPs and others that can't muster enough points to bid. Also it probably won't work well in low-point games.

 Nym wrote:
I really like the pace of the game, but I hate it when people surrender at the end of turn 2 because they "think" it's over.

And I think FIRST TURN should be decided not by a dice roll (or drops), but by BIDDING. Each player secretely bids some Command points. Then both reveal how many Command points they were bidding. The highest takes First turn and loses the Command points. The other one goes second.

Bidding would be cool. so would command level bonus from your warlord.

I enjoy the speed of play, but only getting one turn of shooting before a cc focused opponent runs into your face is taking some getting used to.

It really makes me wonder why I bother playing.

The new 40K seems to... I dont know... It lacks something In particular any semblance of tactics or... I dont know, it just seems so dull and shallow, even when compared to the previous edition.
The lack of tactical depth really does not do it for me, and everything seems to come down to 'push models to the centre/place X and shoot' with the only thing stopping everything from becoming a game of pushing toy soldiers about making pewpew noises being the objectives which force you to move towards them. And even that is... Not interesting.

If all of your games have entire forces shot off the field turn 1, consider raising the points level. Lethality has gone way up, and unit upgrade costs have gone way down. Terrain saves are less important than LOS blockers. If you feel like melee forces are on you too soon, use screening units and chaff to protect your forces.

 greenterror88 wrote:
Terrain definitely makes or breaks this game. While the rules simplification and the reigning in of the Codex power creep (please GW do not bring this back) is refreshing in my opinion the game can feel like a shooting gallery if a table is not set up properly.

Generally I include one large LOS blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the board with some smaller LOS blocking terrain pieces somewhere outside of the deployment zones. I rarely have LOS blocking terrain inside a deployment zone because I feel it encourages games to devolve into two gunlines shooting back and forth.

Played a big 6000pt game yesterday and we agreed before hand that ALL ruins blocked LOS through them - this worked really well.

Codex Power Creep is already here.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The new 40K seems to... I dont know... It lacks something In particular any semblance of tactics or... I dont know, it just seems so dull and shallow, even when compared to the previous edition.
The lack of tactical depth really does not do it for me, and everything seems to come down to 'push models to the centre/place X and shoot' with the only thing stopping everything from becoming a game of pushing toy soldiers about making pewpew noises being the objectives which force you to move towards them. And even that is... Not interesting.

Only played a couple of games but been finidng it the opposite - I like the options of Fall Back and the Deep Strike without error, the table seems to be very fluid - but as i say only a couple of games under my belt !

 Mr Morden wrote:

Codex Power Creep is already here.

So C:GK is more powerful than C:SM/C:CSM?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Codex Power Creep is already here.

So C:GK is more powerful than C:SM/C:CSM?

Well Codex armies get Free Chapter Tacitics, relics, cut price Power Fists etc - Index armies don't.

It's amusing to me that people mentioned bidding since the very first game of 8th edition I played, we decided to do just that thing (secretly bidding CP to add to our roll-off for going first). I've played maybe 8-10 games of 8th edition and almost none of them have been without house-rules, custom scenarios or altered terrain rules.

8th edition is a good "start" to a rule set, but if you play the god-damn-awful boring usual scenarios...it's a huge bore.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Codex Power Creep is already here.

So C:GK is more powerful than C:SM/C:CSM?

Well Codex armies get Free Chapter Tacitics, relics, cut price Power Fists etc - Index armies don't.

So where's the creep? The codexes that have come out have all been fairly balanced against each other.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Codex Power Creep is already here.

So C:GK is more powerful than C:SM/C:CSM?

Well Codex armies get Free Chapter Tacitics, relics, cut price Power Fists etc - Index armies don't.

So Codex armies are more powerful than Index armies? Hardly a surprise. Also, there's no creep in that - as long as the codexes are relatively balanced against each other and they come out fairly promptly then no problem.

As you say They are more powerful so its power creep. How can it not be?

Some won't get them till next yeat - so its all great if you have an army with a shiny new Codex and Feth you if you have an Index army?

On a positive note they are moving more quickly than before - well especially if you are Marines - just the four dexes out, however its the inherent problem with the Codex system - you get the haves and the have nots and apparently the have nots should not complain becuase they are lucky they even get an Index and well they should just buy Marines.

The game does seem to play much more smoothly and quickly - just a shame we have to put up with the Codex imbalance system.

 Mr Morden wrote:

As you say They are more powerful so its power creep. How can it not be?

Some won't get them till next yeat - so its all great if you have an army with a shiny new Codex and Feth you if you have an Index army?

On a positive note they are moving more quickly than before - well especially if you are Marines - just the four dexes out, however its the inherent problem with the Codex system - you get the haves and the have nots and apparently the have nots should not complain becuase they are lucky they even get an Index and well they should just buy Marines.

The game does seem to play much more smoothly and quickly - just a shame we have to put up with the Codex imbalance system.

Creep is progressive. If all the codexes are roughly equal in power then there's no creep.

"Codex creep" is where each successive codex is more powerful than the codexes that came before. No codex creep so far but it's still pretty early.

Don't bother Scott-S6. People still believes GW is good enough at rule writting to do Power-creep.

Power-creep is a deliverate attempt to do the new hotness more powerfull, but that has been proven false edition after edition for GW games. Sometimes the new hotness is utterly crap, unusable and bottom tier, other times is balanced, other times is OP.

Yes - the whole "new models/codexes always get amazing rules" is hilarious. They get the complete opposite half of the time. If anything it demonstrated that they didn't understand the rules well enough to do that if they wanted to. (and FW certainly can't - see things like anti-aircraft missiles that are worse against aircraft than regular missiles)

On another note, anyone try homebrewed cover rules? I was thinking of trying to encorperate flanking rules for vehicles and units in cover for house rules. Do vehicles explode easily enough without vehicle facings?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also i think walkers should have rules to shoot stuff and move with no penalty to bs.

I feel like vehicles have become way more survivable. Others feel that way? You need so much anti-armor in concentration to knock out a vehicle.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I feel like vehicles have become way more survivable. Others feel that way? You need so much anti-armor in concentration to knock out a vehicle.

I do. I rarely see a vehicle killed in one turn unless there is a huge amount of fire-power poured into it and even then they require some lucky rolls. It makes me laugh when I see people complaining about "everything can hurt everything" like lasguns killing landraider because they never do. I mean you might get lucky with a last ditch effort to take the last wound off a land raider by rolling like 40 dice at it, but in fluff terms at the point the land raider is barely operational and it's hull is torn open and it's fuel reserves are leaking all over the place. A stray lasgun killing a land raider is like igniting the fiel after it's been torn open by lascannons or hitting the ammo storage because the doors have fallen off.

I can't remember if I posted in this thread but I will anyway, I like the new pace. I've always played balanced armies so I'm not having a lot of trouble adapting to the new style of play.

I guess the question I was passively asking was this: are vehicles too survivable?

With changes to the morale system, I feel like model counts in squads tend to decline more quickly as a result of casualties - which means an immediate reduction in firepower as well.

Vehicles, in comparison, seem much stronger. It's simply not possible to 1-shot a tank anymore, and most tanks require many, many shots to bring down. While it's true that vehicles lose accuracy as they take more damage, compared to the old crew stunned/shaken results that would severely gimp shooting on every glancing hit, vehicle damage output remains much higher throughout their longer lifespan. Make no mention of twin-linked weapons now simply doubling the number of shots.

The costs for many vehicles has gone up, but for others it hasn't really changed that much - despite vehicles being considerably more powerful.

I was tabled in 3 turns in 3 games at NOVA and my list had 3 baneblades (technically stormhammers) and 2 lesser vehicles. That means a baneblade plust 2/3rds of a lesser tank per turn of shooting.

I think tanks aren't too durable for the price they pay. They are very very expensive.

 argonak wrote:
I enjoy the speed of play, but only getting one turn of shooting before a cc focused opponent runs into your face is taking some getting used to.

It really makes me wonder why I bother playing.

Depends on how you play the game out. One of my very first games was a Dark Eldar wych cult list against an all khorne bezerkers/Kytans army and found that while the tactical makeup of slowing down an opponent had changed in that terrain mattered less, model placement mattered more. The biggest key is: Vehicles no longer have the ability to move through units as standard (no Tank Shock), and all pile-in moves (which includes Consolidate moves) are limited to moving towards the closest enemy unit. This is a lot of why flyers are such incredibly great utility units - it's very easy to completely halt the advance of a charging unit by moving a unit of fast chaff directly in front of them (blocking them during the movement phase and limiting them to charging just that unit) and then placing a flyer, which they physically can't assault, directly behind them such that it will be the closest enemy unit once they wipe out the chaff, effectively preventing that consolidation move entirely.

To use a video game analogy, keeping out of close combat has become somewhat less about kiting, and much more about including and using your crowd control abilities properly.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I feel like vehicles have become way more survivable. Others feel that way? You need so much anti-armor in concentration to knock out a vehicle.

I feel the opposite. I think elite infantry has probably taken the biggest hit this edition, but given the plentiful amount of multiple damage weapons vehicles (though better than in 6th and 7th) are not very survivable in comparison to hordes of infantry.

Pile-in / consolidate being towards the closest unit - this does mean that you can newly engage a unit in CC that wasn't previously engaged, correct?

E.G., in a way the sweeping advance from 3rd/4th edition is back? Of course, the difference now being that units engaged in CC can freely fall back on their movement phase (although they can't shoot/assault then).

Breng77 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I feel like vehicles have become way more survivable. Others feel that way? You need so much anti-armor in concentration to knock out a vehicle.

I feel the opposite. I think elite infantry has probably taken the biggest hit this edition, but given the plentiful amount of multiple damage weapons vehicles (though better than in 6th and 7th) are not very survivable in comparison to hordes of infantry.

This increased emphasis on hordes and artillerypieces in favor of most other options in the game is almost exactly what happened to WHFB during 8th edition. As GW continued to overcompensate with that game and add more powers designed to eliminate "big blocks," the game gradually slowly died off as it ultimately became about magic alphastrikes and throwing giant blocks of wound counters towards each other.

Why bother taking big monsters when they get attritioned down, or can be AT'd dead fast?