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.

 Mezmorki wrote:
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).

yes it does, with some key notes.

If you charged you can only attack things on which you declared a charge. If you consolidate into a unit it will get to attack you during that fight phase.

Then also as you not, units can fall back on their turn

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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?

Interesting.

I've been trying to understand how morale changes might be affecting the balance of the game - and I wonder if it has a more pronounced effect than we might realize?

In older editions, assuming you were playing for mission objectives, failing a morale check caused units to fallback, which can mean moving off of objectives. But at the same time, the falling back unit could still shoot. Since no extra models were removed for failing a morale test, the firepower of the unit was preserved better.

In 8th edition, you no longer fall back, but failing a test results in additions models being removed from the board. This disproportionately affects smaller units (particularly those with low leadership), lowering their firepower and making them easier to eliminate on a subsequent turn (less models, etc.). It's a positive feedback loop that results in units being whipped from the board more quickly. This was done, presumably - to speed up games? Less models, less movement, less LoS checking, less die rolling, etc.

Thus, horde armies / large model count units are able to whether these morale failures while still holding position.

This stuff is all obviously intertwined, making it hard to parse the relative balance of things in a vacuum.

Breng77 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
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).

yes it does, with some key notes.

If you charged you can only attack things on which you declared a charge. If you consolidate into a unit it will get to attack you during that fight phase.

Then also as you not, units can fall back on their turn

Mind you, the actual fighting in CQC isn't where it derives its power.

The strength of CQC lies in turning off shooting and decreasing movement opportunities, and just getting there is enough.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
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).

yes it does, with some key notes.

If you charged you can only attack things on which you declared a charge. If you consolidate into a unit it will get to attack you during that fight phase.

Then also as you not, units can fall back on their turn

Mind you, the actual fighting in CQC isn't where it derives its power.

The strength of CQC lies in turning off shooting and decreasing movement opportunities, and just getting there is enough.

It depends, it depends on the screening units etc. But yes limiting your opponents options is where I've had the most success with assault units.

 Mezmorki wrote:
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).

Yes, you can re-engage. However, the big drawback is that you don't get to fight a second time, and they do. This is fine if it's something like a vehicle that's unlikely to hurt you, but even a squad of tactical marines can cause a couple of extra wounds you wouldn't otherwise have taken if you consolidate into them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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?

Interesting.

I've been trying to understand how morale changes might be affecting the balance of the game - and I wonder if it has a more pronounced effect than we might realize?

In older editions, assuming you were playing for mission objectives, failing a morale check caused units to fallback, which can mean moving off of objectives. But at the same time, the falling back unit could still shoot. Since no extra models were removed for failing a morale test, the firepower of the unit was preserved better.

In 8th edition, you no longer fall back, but failing a test results in additions models being removed from the board. This disproportionately affects smaller units (particularly those with low leadership), lowering their firepower and making them easier to eliminate on a subsequent turn (less models, etc.). It's a positive feedback loop that results in units being whipped from the board more quickly. This was done, presumably - to speed up games? Less models, less movement, less LoS checking, less die rolling, etc.

Thus, horde armies / large model count units are able to whether these morale failures while still holding position.

This stuff is all obviously intertwined, making it hard to parse the relative balance of things in a vacuum.

If anything, the biggest flaw of the new morale system is that GW wasn't quite willing enough to follow through on making it universal.

Every problematic horde unit around today (Ork Boyz, Conscripts, Poxwalks if we start seeing them with the new codex, Genestealers with the GSC patriarch) is partially a problem because you can't stack up that critical-mass morale check to wipe them out.

If taking out 30 conscripts meant that the remaining 20 would up and run then they'd be a much easier threat to deal with than they are now.

Basically, old morale+sweeping advance was a rule that *in theory* was a big deal but *in practice* rarely ever applied, but was somewhat clunky and hard to keep track of, and new morale is a rule that *in theory* is a big deal but *in practice* rarely ever applies, but at least when it does it's pretty easy to keep track of...so...improvement, but I feel like if GW had followed through on some of their blustery "Morale is going to be IN THE GAME and only VERY RARELY is anyone going to fully ignore its effects!" from the early previews, we'd be in better shape.

Yarium wrote:

 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.

You could split the difference, number of CP committed is added as a bonus to roll-off. So if equal commitment, becomes a straight roll-off (or still keep the +1 for the person who finished deploying first.

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.

Use Transports to engage units and keep them from engaging your shooters; one of the many things that makes transports so much more viable is their value as screening units. With Transports being so much more survivable, your opponent will have to concentrate a lot of dakka or cc on the transport to get to the center of the tootsie pop.

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.

Yes. Especially when the dice gods are on your side and it take 3 units 2 turns to destroy a Ravager that only had 1 wound left when at the start of said 2 turns

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.

Really? I feel like the game has more or less exactly the same tactical weight of the last edition, maybe a little better. And if you really want something tactical, try some of the narrative missions, they're actually super fun. Although we did discover they need a bit of tweaking, and don't necessarily lend themselves well to perfectly points balanced lists. Like, I played a game with a friend using one of the fortified defender/exposed attack scenarios at 1250 pts, with sustained assault, and still ended up both feeling that with the value of sustained assault, the game might have played more fairly if he, as the defender had had an extra 250 or so points.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

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.

Really? I feel like the game has more or less exactly the same tactical weight of the last edition, maybe a little better. And if you really want something tactical, try some of the narrative missions, they're actually super fun. Although we did discover they need a bit of tweaking, and don't necessarily lend themselves well to perfectly points balanced lists. Like, I played a game with a friend using one of the fortified defender/exposed attack scenarios at 1250 pts, with sustained assault, and still ended up both feeling that with the value of sustained assault, the game might have played more fairly if he, as the defender had had an extra 250 or so points.

From what i'm seeing many are mixing up "cirect counter" for "tactics" before we had many units that would be flat out immune to some weaponry, others completely able to destroy something.

Over all the game is the game, its still Kill your opponent using the best Rock, Paper, Scissor unit you can, and if you can, then mass number of attacks will do, while trying to get objectives.

But for some players having a direct Rock/paper/scissor unit to counter someone else idea of tactics is kinda gone (but not really) a T13 Walker can no longer charge an IG blog and ignore the damage they do while holding them down for a turn, now that same Dreadnought will take some damage from the IG.. but again nothing actually changed, the IG blob still wont kill in melee and will just fall back like before.

This also goes for the Psychic phase, many feel is less but its not any less just different.

I just see players "perceiving" less tactics when IMO there are MUCH more tactics.

1) Deployment YGIG is a new tactic/strategy to the game
2) Psychic you pick your powers and they can still change the game into your favour, Smite on everything now gives more tactics for you and your opponent (they can try counter it with a trash unit via good placement)
3) Characters matter now and there are way to deal with them
4) Mortal wounds, you no longer can have a 2++/5+++ and dont care about taking damage. (something that doesnt take damage isnt tactics its lack of tactics)
5) DSing.. OH MAN this is a big change, always place where you want is very nice (outside of 9 that is) this added a solid tactic now that it isnt random
6) Consolidate into melee
7) The 1" = melee and pile ins shenanigans
8 ) Command Points... this along added a large amount to the game


Out of everything i'd say Psychic is the one phase that took a small hit in tactics, but its in a good way IMO.

I love 8th speed of the game, but just like any 40k it really depends on the 2 players. Ive had 7th gmaes that last 8hrs and other that lasted 1hr, both times going to turn 6. Some players just are slower, rules lawyer, play heavy summoning, dont know the rules etc.. Then you have players that been playing for years, knows all the rules dont need to argue with each other, just come in roll some dice and have fun.

The Speed of 8th is a bit faster for sure compare to 6th and 7th, i'd so tho its about the same as an 1850pts 5th game and we are playing 2k.

1) Alternating deployments were back in 3rd and 4th, where players deployed based on FOC, with HS deploying first and DA deploying last. 5th added "deploy first go first, unless seized", which actually made for meaningful tradeoffs. In fact, the combo of getting an advantageous deployment as well as getting to cap objectives on the end turn, combined with generally reduced firepower meant there were many times when it was preferable to go second, while such an option is hardly as attractive in 8th.
2) You have far less Psychic Powers, period, and the internal balance is still not there. If you pick Infernal Gaze over Warptime, or Eadbang over Da Jump, then you could write rules for GW. 5th had the same issue too, as there was a dramatic difference between picking Smite or Avenger versus picking Null Zone. You also have Psychic Focus, eliminating the ability to scale Psychic Powers, and also reducing most Psychic builds to Smitespam, with Forgeworld Malefic Lord Smitespam being the current most point-efficient option.
3) Characters have mattered in most every edition. This is the first edition where a character can fail to reach melee that nearby units made it to. Somehow I doubt that's how Kharn the Betrayer earned his title.
4) This was a notable problem. Introducing a D analogue was not the solution. Reducing the prevalence of 2++s is. Unless you're Draigo in which case, congrats if you take him.
5) Conscriptwalls can create giant deadzones of overlapping no-DS. Scatter was a calculated risk. Plus there were scatter-mitigator effects anyway. Inversely, you cannot reserve units unless they explicitly have that ability. Players not thinking to put stuff in Reserve is one of the circumstances that made Leafblower so infamous in 5th, only they outright removed that option. Is there a wonder that Guard players love their Basilisks in 8th?
6 & 7) 3rd and 4th, removed in 5th. Arguably removed because it made it way too easy to roll up gunlines.
8) I've mostly seen CP used as a reroll or dpt buff, with the non-regenerating nature of it combined with no spending caps resulting in it being just another way to frontload damage in a turn. Adding more alphastrike statbuffs doesn't exactly strike me as particularly strategic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

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?

Interesting.

I've been trying to understand how morale changes might be affecting the balance of the game - and I wonder if it has a more pronounced effect than we might realize?

In older editions, assuming you were playing for mission objectives, failing a morale check caused units to fallback, which can mean moving off of objectives. But at the same time, the falling back unit could still shoot. Since no extra models were removed for failing a morale test, the firepower of the unit was preserved better.

In 8th edition, you no longer fall back, but failing a test results in additions models being removed from the board. This disproportionately affects smaller units (particularly those with low leadership), lowering their firepower and making them easier to eliminate on a subsequent turn (less models, etc.). It's a positive feedback loop that results in units being whipped from the board more quickly. This was done, presumably - to speed up games? Less models, less movement, less LoS checking, less die rolling, etc.

Thus, horde armies / large model count units are able to whether these morale failures while still holding position.

This stuff is all obviously intertwined, making it hard to parse the relative balance of things in a vacuum.

More interesting, is that since the defender allocates *all* casualties, from shooting, battleshock, etc, you can have a unit plop on an objective and stay until its wiped out. This, combined with removal of any "move the enemy effects" (be it Tank Shock or Forgeworld shenanigans), and melee pile-in being optional on a model basis, all serves to make the game far more "attrition" rather than "maneuver."

@MagicJugglerMade

Totally hypothetical question for you ... but do you think it would be possible to use 8th Edition as a base but give it a massive house-rule overhaul that brings some things back to more 5th-like gameplay?

Long story short, I have a big giant google sheet I'm working on that compares specific game mechanics across editions (mostly 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th - since I have the rulebooks for those). I'm interested, purely for my own enjoyment and play, in making a "Hybrid Hammer" that's a mash-up of various rulesets.

So for example, using 8th edition as a base, but then:
- Make area terrain block LoS (ala 4th edition)
- Switch back to fixed cover saves, but apply on a model by model basis
- Shooting through intervening models provides a cover save (or hit modifier, TBD)
- Use blast markers to determine number of hits (instead of D3/D6) and then role to hit per 8th edition
- Remove pre-measuring ranges (optional)
- Reintroduce go-to-ground
- Melee charges less variable...somehow
- +1 attack on melee charge, but defending units in cover strike simultaneous with charging units
- Restore vehicle weapon firing arcs
- Toughness penalty for shooting vehicles in the rear arc
- Possibly re-do morale system to old-school fallback style instead of removing models.
- Maybe do something different with how vehicles take damage.
- Rework reserves and deployment rules.

Obviously this will need a lot of careful thought. I feel like somewhere between all these editions is a solid game system, but the balance always just swings around too much to settle in a nice position.

I really do like the simplification of 8th E in many ways (and the index's are pretty excellent). It feels like a good very clean base to build on. Many of my above tweaks would add to the complexity and game length, but if it adds to tactical depth, in particular making terrain and maneuver more important with less potential for alpha strikes, I think that's a fine price to pay.

I think it would work. There were things about 5th that I still don't remember as fondly (Independent Characters count as their own unit in CC, but sergeants don't, 50% cover for large units, torrent of fire aka "what do you mean those Kroot in the open get a 3+ cover save?" etc) but overall 5th did do a lot right, being a good middle ground in its own way. Generally, I tend to prefer when a game favors "midfield pushes" and maneuvering taking a few turns to plan out, rather than "static gunlines", or "bubblewrap+piece trading."

I've been mostly working on scratch-building my own system, that's Alt Activation but uses Tactical Points (aka Command Points) to alter turn order rather than for Stratagem statboosts. Since TP are on a 'per turn' basis, it's easier to balance them to be less alphastrike-ish, and the fact they're also the resource you spend to bring in Reserves means that by nature, alphastrike/null armies are going to be more chaotic/less coordinated than just simply starting on the table. But the biggest thing I'm doing is adding a Magic-like 'stack' mechanic for Interrupts, to minimize downtime between players getting to do stuff.

- Make area terrain block LoS (ala 4th edition)
We do that - works fine

- Switch back to fixed cover saves, but apply on a model by model basis
Prefer current system

- Shooting through intervening models provides a cover save (or hit modifier, TBD)
Seems fine

- Use blast markers to determine number of hits (instead of D3/D6) and then role to hit per 8th edition
Not a fan as balst markers are a bit of pain and slow the game down

- Remove pre-measuring ranges (optional)
Urgh no - Pre -measuring is IMO essential.

- Reintroduce go-to-ground
not bothered either way

- Melee charges less variable...somehow
Just go with Move +d6, no more than 12" if you prefer.

- +1 attack on melee charge, but defending units in cover strike simultaneous with charging units
Not bothered - happy with it as is

- Restore vehicle weapon firing arcs
Prefer not to

- Toughness penalty for shooting vehicles in the rear arc
Not needed I donlt think and assume it would not apply to all vehicles?

- Possibly re-do morale system to old-school fallback style instead of removing models.
Happy with as is

- Maybe do something different with how vehicles take damage.
Why?

- Rework reserves and deployment rules.
Why?

In what ways do people think units not being able to move through other friendly models (or vehicles charging through e.g. Tank shock) affects the game balance and tactical dynamics?

 Mezmorki wrote:
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.

aside from weapons that really abused the HP mechanics (like 7E multilaser spam vs AV10-12 units), actually most vehicles should have lower lifespans and require fewer shots on average to kill than they did before. They cant be one shotted, but their wounds can be chewed through with much greater efficiency.

Some of that comes from weapons, others come from some vehicles being translated very poorly into the new paradigm. Lascannons for instance required about 14 BS4 shots to HP out a Russ from the front, with any single shot having a 1/54 chance to kill it in 7E, but in 8E you need fewer shots, 9 or 10 on average, because despite having far more "wounds" and a save, it's wounded twice as often and each successful wound can strip up to 6 wounds, not to mention being vulnerable to small arms now.

The thing is though, in prior editions - especially going back to 4th - a hit that didn't destroy the vehicle still impacted its performance a lot. Getting crew stunned on a glancing was enough to prevent it from firing some or all of its main weapons a single penetrating hit had more than 50% chance to knock out a major gun, immobilize it, or destroy it outright. In close combat, multiple attacks with a power first or equivalent would seriously hinder a vehicle.

Granted, vehicles may have been too weak back then outside of their transport role - and transports were a lot cheaper then too because it was assumed that it was going to explode pretty quickly.

Just did the math for 8th edition. Requires 12.3 lascannon shots to kill a Leman Russ on average. Not a huge decline, and on average is going to take as fair number of shots being the wounds stack up enough for it to start loosing speed and BS.

I hated 5th....... I like modifiers more, i hated vehicle rules (especially skimmers), i hated No pre-measure, i hate templates too.

I love the melee in 8th also, its sooo good to me.

8th is for sure my fav.

PS: Your talking about lets say a 200pts tank, should a 30pt weapon kill a 200pt tank? No... should 200pts of that weapon kill it? it more likely it should be able to.

So when we talk about killing vehicles, i hate the idea that a couple Las cannons should kill a tank, honestly it shouldnt.

Edit: I think you did your math wrong on that 12.5 shots, b.c you only need 4 wounds to go through and on average for 4D6 is enough to kill it, that means you need like 9 shots. if is 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound, with command points you can get a much more average number on the damage.

I used a 4+ to hit.

What do you like so much about melee in 8th?

 Mezmorki wrote:
I used a 4+ to hit.

What do you like so much about melee in 8th?

B.c we dont need to be base to base, and we can pile in "around" much easier now, we can use that to help block other models and units.

I like that pistols can be used in melee (been asking for this since 5th ed)

I like we can consolidate into other units

I think MWG did a bit about all the different things you can do in melee (I havent watch it yet but i'm told its really good).

It just has so much more strategies than in any other edition.

Edit: Spelling

AnFéasógMór wrote:

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.

Use Transports to engage units and keep them from engaging your shooters; one of the many things that makes transports so much more viable is their value as screening units. With Transports being so much more survivable, your opponent will have to concentrate a lot of dakka or cc on the transport to get to the center of the tootsie pop.

Yeah I need to get better at that. My guard force doesn't have a problem, because mentally its easy to guardsmen as chaff, and then fall back and shoot the crap out of the opponent. I have a tougher time doing that with my marines, not the least of which because I have far fewer units on the field.

I like most of the rules in 8th. Not a huge fan of mortal wounds, but I can see a need for a little bit of it in the game, just not as much as some factions seem to be getting.

The terrain rules need some work, which is easy enough to accomplish without over-complicating things.

Not a huge fan of the rule of 1 on psychic powers, but don't know if that's needed for balance.

Other than those two things, I think the basic rules are pretty good. Some units need some work and the Stratagems are mostly boring copy and paste so far.

Melee combat is interesting and it takes a bit of decision making to use it well. Vehicles are good for the first time since 2nd edition (a couple too good as always). Morale is, well morale I guess. I was always a fan of units breaking and being destroyed if they got caught, but this is a decent compromise when it actually matters. I also love them getting rid of template weapons, though certain armies need some adjustments since their templates made up for horrible BS (Orkz).

I'd like them to introduce an ally limit of one army and 20% of points like they did for AoS which certain armies only able to ally with certain others.

Overall, I think this edition has the potential to be the best I've played since 2nd (though 2nd had some really clunky and unfun rules too).

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

I don't think Mr Morden actually understands what power creep is.

If the house rules enhance the game then definately try to get the community involved and maybe give feedback to GW. The whole point of 8th supposedly is to be a living ruleset. I love some of the ideas you have, and figured that some of those changes should make it back into the new edition. A general guideline I found when making house rules is that if a rule takes more than 1 clause or trigger to trigger, then it is generally a poorly designed rule and that you should avoid that pitfall. Rules triggering in 7th requiring complex triggers to go off to apply complex results was part of why 7th was such a mess.

Anyways, why couldnt they just have kept rules with the same effect with the same name? Why does "hatred" have at least 2 different names?

 Mezmorki wrote:
@MagicJugglerMade

Totally hypothetical question for you ... but do you think it would be possible to use 8th Edition as a base but give it a massive house-rule overhaul that brings some things back to more 5th-like gameplay?

Long story short, I have a big giant google sheet I'm working on that compares specific game mechanics across editions (mostly 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th - since I have the rulebooks for those). I'm interested, purely for my own enjoyment and play, in making a "Hybrid Hammer" that's a mash-up of various rulesets.

So for example, using 8th edition as a base, but then:
- Make area terrain block LoS (ala 4th edition)
- Switch back to fixed cover saves, but apply on a model by model basis
- Shooting through intervening models provides a cover save (or hit modifier, TBD)
- Use blast markers to determine number of hits (instead of D3/D6) and then role to hit per 8th edition
- Remove pre-measuring ranges (optional)
- Reintroduce go-to-ground
- Melee charges less variable...somehow
- +1 attack on melee charge, but defending units in cover strike simultaneous with charging units
- Restore vehicle weapon firing arcs
- Toughness penalty for shooting vehicles in the rear arc
- Possibly re-do morale system to old-school fallback style instead of removing models.
- Maybe do something different with how vehicles take damage.
- Rework reserves and deployment rules.

Obviously this will need a lot of careful thought. I feel like somewhere between all these editions is a solid game system, but the balance always just swings around too much to settle in a nice position.

I really do like the simplification of 8th E in many ways (and the index's are pretty excellent). It feels like a good very clean base to build on. Many of my above tweaks would add to the complexity and game length, but if it adds to tactical depth, in particular making terrain and maneuver more important with less potential for alpha strikes, I think that's a fine price to pay.

Overall I like it.

Taking wounds from the direction of fire was a neat idea, but it was tedious and it completely crippled armies like orks. I never had a single ork unit get to melee with me under those rules.

I like the changes to cover, though it does make LOS blocking terrain even more important. It didn't make sense that cover would replace your armor and not be affected by guns.

I could see having cover provide you with a secondary save like it did in previous editions, but let AP apply to it. ex: Guardsman with his 5+ is sitting in some heavy wall cover that gives a 3+ save. He gets shot with a heavy bolter and gets to make a 4+ cover save. That would be more realistic and also benefit low armor units.

macluvin wrote:
If the house rules enhance the game then definately try to get the community involved and maybe give feedback to GW. The whole point of 8th supposedly is to be a living ruleset. I love some of the ideas you have, and figured that some of those changes should make it back into the new edition. A general guideline I found when making house rules is that if a rule takes more than 1 clause or trigger to trigger, then it is generally a poorly designed rule and that you should avoid that pitfall. Rules triggering in 7th requiring complex triggers to go off to apply complex results was part of why 7th was such a mess.

Yeup, agree. I am a published boardgame designer (as in an actual publisher, not self-published) - so I have some confidence in being able to craft clear rules that strike a balance between adding depth vs. adding unnecessary overhead. We'll see where it goes.

cmspano wrote:
Overall I like it.

Taking wounds from the direction of fire was a neat idea, but it was tedious and it completely crippled armies like orks. I never had a single ork unit get to melee with me under those rules.

I like the changes to cover, though it does make LOS blocking terrain even more important. It didn't make sense that cover would replace your armor and not be affected by guns.

I could see having cover provide you with a secondary save like it did in previous editions, but let AP apply to it. ex: Guardsman with his 5+ is sitting in some heavy wall cover that gives a 3+ save. He gets shot with a heavy bolter and gets to make a 4+ cover save. That would be more realistic and also benefit low armor units.

I was contemplating the "direction of fire" aspect and was pondering about a compromise for the rules. The defender allocates wounds, within range and line of sight, and you cannot allocate casualties to models if there are any interposing models from the same unit in the way. Or something along those lines. A "middle ground" that would allow for some flanking or limited objective-clearing, but wouldn't lead to oddities like Scatbikes in a line perpendicular to the Gravcannon they wished to snipe out, or so.

I at the beginning of 8th loved the pace, now I find myself burnt out. I've found in our games 1st turn wins 99% of the time and everybody just brings an alpha strike army. it's become extremely bland and boring. and with lack of diversity in rules and gameplay We've since moved to Inq28mm campaign in the hopes that necromunda's re-release will bring some excitement back to the universe.

8th edition is not balanced. The lack of balance is wearing me a bit thin. I also find certain rules, like character targeting, get in the way, more than they make an interesting game.

In a non-competitive environment, the game is balanced just fine, but so was 7th. Except the psychic phase. Even in casual games, the 7th psychic phase was borked.

Played a game this weekend that was like 80% infantry, without horde cheese. It was fun and went to turn 5, and actually had tactical depth.

Id have to say 8th is far more balanced as an edition than any edition they have made so far. Also MSU is kinda against horde so I have no idea what your trying to say there.

8th has some pretty bad internal balances in the various armies, but the game overall has a damn fine balance.

You're right, I had half of a thought in that sentence and messed it up while cleaning it up. I was referencing two things I find OP, but I don't want to call out the names. Anyway, i've corrected the post.

All 3 games I've played have been pretty close and no clear victor until round 3 or 4. I really do like the pace.

Alpha strike to victory is not much fun. There should be an advantage to going first. Just not so much with 3 ravens breathing down your neck and deep strikers in your backfield.

The reality is you're either alpha striking or building a list to deal with alpha striking.