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.

To OP: keep in mind that the Dakka community is INCREDIBLY fond of hyperbole and only the most cut-throat level of competitivness is worth discussing.

No playing for fun or fluff allowed.

I'm enjoying 8th myself. More so than 6th or 7th Edition.

Hoodwink wrote:
in fact I enjoy having [mortal wounds]. They create a situation where you can't put all of your trust into a single suped up unit to kill everything. Obviously there are downsides, especially with low count elite style armies but overall I like having them.

This is a more than legitimate point of view, but it creates imbalances toward hordes IMHO.
Truth to be told, GW seems to intervene in balancing stuff quickly so who knows.

Mortal Wounds are basically "Not-D" that trade deathblows for ignoring invulnerables. Given that vehicles and monsters get more wounds, that's fine and dandy,
(arguably not, but that's another issue) but for "elite infantry" with bad wound-to-point ratios, it leaves them out to dry.

Likewise, making TL "double shots" instead of reroll means more anti-infantry dakka (especially since it can stack with reroll auras), and likewise, the flatlined AP rules reduce the advantage of having a good save versus being cheap.

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

I hated 5th...... IMO the worst one for me so far.

"I vehicle, i moved you hit me on 4+ OH i skimmer you hit me on 6+"
"Me 35pt Rhino, you 200pt unit takes 5 turns to kill Rhino b.c you didnt roll a 6+"
"Oh you a Bike? Want to go over this white picket fence that weighs 5lbs? Rolled a 1 "You died!"
"Oh a skimmer with transport? Want to land on this terrain? Its random, oh you miss, You DIED!"
"Oh instead of AT guns that cost my unit 180pts, i will just use this 60pt unit of girls to kill your tank in 1 go"
"You want to shoot me with a blast?" you have to guess!"
"Want to charge? You have to Guess!"

Belasko wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

To be fair, Tyranids have consistently suffered from the problem that "small units kill infantry, big units kill everything." This wasn't as noticeable in 3rd and 4th when vehicles were deathtraps (Ordnance Penetrating Hits, anyone?) but 5th really stretched 4E Tyranids thin afterwards. That said, the fact that Rune Priests (especially Njal) could shut down Tyranids hard didn't help.

Heck, I don't remember too many people griping about how a Psychic Hood/Rune Staff in 5e could be used infinite times in a 24" radius, and from the safety of a Rhino. Which sucks when your Elite AT becomes "Zoanthropes or Hive Guard?"

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I hated 5th...... IMO the worst one for me so far.

"I vehicle, i moved you hit me on 4+ OH i skimmer you hit me on 6+"
"Me 35pt Rhino, you 200pt unit takes 5 turns to kill Rhino b.c you didnt roll a 6+"
"Oh you a Bike? Want to go over this white picket fence that weighs 5lbs? Rolled a 1 "You died!"
"Oh a skimmer with transport? Want to land on this terrain? Its random, oh you miss, You DIED!"
"Oh instead of AT guns that cost my unit 180pts, i will just use this 60pt unit of girls to kill your tank in 1 go"
"You want to shoot me with a blast?" you have to guess!"
"Want to charge? You have to Guess!"

Maybe I'm weird, but I kinda liked the range guessing in older editions. It ended up being a skill all in its own.

Hoodwink wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I hated 5th...... IMO the worst one for me so far.

"I vehicle, i moved you hit me on 4+ OH i skimmer you hit me on 6+"
"Me 35pt Rhino, you 200pt unit takes 5 turns to kill Rhino b.c you didnt roll a 6+"
"Oh you a Bike? Want to go over this white picket fence that weighs 5lbs? Rolled a 1 "You died!"
"Oh a skimmer with transport? Want to land on this terrain? Its random, oh you miss, You DIED!"
"Oh instead of AT guns that cost my unit 180pts, i will just use this 60pt unit of girls to kill your tank in 1 go"
"You want to shoot me with a blast?" you have to guess!"
"Want to charge? You have to Guess!"

Maybe I'm weird, but I kinda liked the range guessing in older editions. It ended up being a skill all in its own.

If by "skill" you mean a scrappy mechanic that encouraged slow-play as people ran mental math extrapolation with regards to ensuring their units were within squad coherency, just to extrapolate the range to their opponents...

Hoodwink wrote:


Maybe I'm weird, but I kinda liked the range guessing in older editions. It ended up being a skill all in its own.

Yea...for the people who knew how to exploit no pre-measuring.

I just didn't play games with people who were cheese mongers. It's really no different than doom and gloom of Smite spam. I just don't play people who run the max Malefic Lords they can as a cheese FotM army.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Belasko wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

To be fair, Tyranids have consistently suffered from the problem that "small units kill infantry, big units kill everything." This wasn't as noticeable in 3rd and 4th when vehicles were deathtraps (Ordnance Penetrating Hits, anyone?) but 5th really stretched 4E Tyranids thin afterwards. That said, the fact that Rune Priests (especially Njal) could shut down Tyranids hard didn't help.

Heck, I don't remember too many people griping about how a Psychic Hood/Rune Staff in 5e could be used infinite times in a 24" radius, and from the safety of a Rhino. Which sucks when your Elite AT becomes "Zoanthropes or Hive Guard?"

In 4th CC was too brutal vs some armies. I wasn't a fan of Nidzilla myself (carnifex put in elite slots was too much). But 4th had a fantastic ability to customize your nids and I wished that concept had been kept in the later editions - mutable/adaptable tyranids. Since then 5th ed onwards GW has not IMO known what to do with nids and have messed up much of the army. I haven't played enough 8th to make a good verdict though it seems too much was removed. I will wait to see what the 8th ed tyranid codex brings to see if I enjoy playing tyranids again.

 Belasko wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Belasko wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

To be fair, Tyranids have consistently suffered from the problem that "small units kill infantry, big units kill everything." This wasn't as noticeable in 3rd and 4th when vehicles were deathtraps (Ordnance Penetrating Hits, anyone?) but 5th really stretched 4E Tyranids thin afterwards. That said, the fact that Rune Priests (especially Njal) could shut down Tyranids hard didn't help.

Heck, I don't remember too many people griping about how a Psychic Hood/Rune Staff in 5e could be used infinite times in a 24" radius, and from the safety of a Rhino. Which sucks when your Elite AT becomes "Zoanthropes or Hive Guard?"

In 4th CC was too brutal vs some armies. I wasn't a fan of Nidzilla myself (carnifex put in elite slots was too much). But 4th had a fantastic ability to customize your nids and I wished that concept had been kept in the later editions - mutable/adaptable tyranids. Since then %th ed onwards GW has not IMO known what to do with nids and have messed up much of the army. I haven't played enough 8th to make a good verdict though it seems too much was removed. I will wait to see what the 8th ed tyranid codex brings to see if I enjoy playing tyranids again.

Nids really need a "Combat Drugs" type of mechanic. They are supposedly learning from every encounter and adapting. You would think there would be some way of showing this in the game like slightly altering stats before you start a game.

 Belasko wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Belasko wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

To be fair, Tyranids have consistently suffered from the problem that "small units kill infantry, big units kill everything." This wasn't as noticeable in 3rd and 4th when vehicles were deathtraps (Ordnance Penetrating Hits, anyone?) but 5th really stretched 4E Tyranids thin afterwards. That said, the fact that Rune Priests (especially Njal) could shut down Tyranids hard didn't help.

Heck, I don't remember too many people griping about how a Psychic Hood/Rune Staff in 5e could be used infinite times in a 24" radius, and from the safety of a Rhino. Which sucks when your Elite AT becomes "Zoanthropes or Hive Guard?"

In 4th CC was too brutal vs some armies. I wasn't a fan of Nidzilla myself (carnifex put in elite slots was too much). But 4th had a fantastic ability to customize your nids and I wished that concept had been kept in the later editions - mutable/adaptable tyranids. Since then %th ed onwards GW has not IMO known what to do with nids and have messed up much of the army. I haven't played enough 8th to make a good verdict though it seems too much was removed. I will wait to see what the 8th ed tyranid codex brings to see if I enjoy playing tyranids again.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy customization as much as the next guy, but only when the options are relevant. It's one thing to be able to load out a Carnifex with all sorts of cool mutations, but when the majority of builds have the Heavy Support as "3 Carnifexen with Venom Cannon and Barbed Strangler, and defensive upgrades", then is that really variety?

The 5th codex "did" (I say this with strong reservation) add some variety to how the core list was built, by allowing for "Null" nids, a semi-viable Stealer Shock (with proper support, of course), or so. Plus, it "did" give Warriors proper Power Weapons...shame they couldn't actually get into melee.

Of course, with both the 5e and 6e books, it's obvious Cruddace is a hack writer. The Pyrovore is the most infamous example, with the 6e RAW being particularly hilarious:

If a Pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a S3 AP - hit for each model (excluding other Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore.

Even then, there were so many shoddy options. If you took TL Deathspitters instead of Brainleech Devourers, if you have your Carnifexen Bioplasma, etc. Imagine: "Gee, I could spend 140 points on a model to fire a 12" small blast. Or for 30 points more, I get an extra wound, extra BS, and the ability to fire a large blast or 6 single shots. Hmmmmm". Now, if the base meleefex was cheaper, and Bioplasma was a Template, things get somewhat more interesting...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I hated 5th...... IMO the worst one for me so far.

"I vehicle, i moved you hit me on 4+ OH i skimmer you hit me on 6+"
"Me 35pt Rhino, you 200pt unit takes 5 turns to kill Rhino b.c you didnt roll a 6+"
"Oh you a Bike? Want to go over this white picket fence that weighs 5lbs? Rolled a 1 "You died!"
"Oh a skimmer with transport? Want to land on this terrain? Its random, oh you miss, You DIED!"
"Oh instead of AT guns that cost my unit 180pts, i will just use this 60pt unit of girls to kill your tank in 1 go"
"You want to shoot me with a blast?" you have to guess!"
"Want to charge? You have to Guess!"

you're mixing elements of 3 editions here. Actual guessing for blast weapons was 3E only (they just carried on the name for a while). Skimmers only being hit on 6's was 3E and 4E.

To be fair, with respect to the rest of it, you can find similarly awkward things in every edition.

5th was not a perfect edition. I find myself continually surprised that its the one I keep wanting to go back to, but at its most basic, it was probably the best (before we get into codex issues at least). Kill Points, Wound Allocation, vehicle defensive weapons shooting rules, etc and more were all garbage, but overall it was probably the *least bad* edition.

 Belasko wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

I would agree with this except as a Nid player 5th sucked as well (terrible codex in comparison to those around it). If the Nid dex had got the same treatment as IG, SW, BA, DE, etc 5th would have been a good edition for me.

Definitely, Nids were in a rut then. I can definitely see how that would take the edge off the enjoyment for that edition. I'm an IG player, so Guard were pretty solid all the way through, even after the likes of GK and Crons dropped.

Plus I could run powerblobs back then.

I still that 5th with some tweaks would provide the best edition. Fix wound allocation for multi-wound models, merge the vehicles and MCs like in 8th, but add in a little more depth to their interactions, and obviously a balance pass.

This edition feels very strongly of one step forward, one step back, maybe even one and a half steps back. I like the changes GW are doing as a company, but its the usual good intentions marred by poor execution.

after a couple more games, I am convinced its not just the worst edition of 40k, but the worst miniature game currently on the market.

 thekingofkings wrote:
after a couple more games, I am convinced its not just the worst edition of 40k, but the worst miniature game currently on the market.

That's quite the indictment.

Martel732 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
after a couple more games, I am convinced its not just the worst edition of 40k, but the worst miniature game currently on the market.

That's quite the indictment.

there may be some games out there that i havent played yet, but out of the dozens i have, yeah its that bad. made worse by the fact that gw is more than capable of putting out far better.

to each their own, i'm liking it alot, there are some games (War and Hordes for an example) that i wont even play given a free army.

Its not bad. Its fun. But as a wargame yeah its like AOS... one step removed from a board game and magic the gathering deckbuilding with models.

If you want a wargame, 40k will be a disappointment.

To be fair 40k was never that deep of a game. You really can't be when the core system relies on so many dice rolls. Fantasy (at least in it's earlier incarnation) had to put in a lot of chance mitigation and still it was just about one or two steps up from a glorified board game.

 TheSilo wrote:
I was an on-again off-again casual player for 6th and 7th edition, but I haven't played at all since 8th edition dropped. I liked some of the ideas that they were floating around, but looking at the new codexes, I'm not sure that 8th addressed any of the issues that turned me off from 7th. Basically, I felt like the game's rules regularly got in the way of fun game-play by enabling gimmickry and exploits, lacking intra/inter-army balance, and just generally having an overly complicated rule-set. So what is the verdict on 8th edition, has it improved your gameplay experience?

New rules, same people playing. So it is not any better than it was in that sense.

I really like 8th. I feel 7th was the worst edition I've ever played from a mechanics point of view. All the of the convoluted rules of 2nd, but without any of it's soul. 8th plays better and is much more enjoyable to play to me. Now, I'm looking for a fun experience and spending time with my friends. I'm not looking to test my manhood, or take the game too seriously. Find people that want the same kind of game you do, and you'll have a good time.

While I have only played a few games of 8th, those and the games I have watched in person or watched as video batreps or talked with friends about - the game seems very brutal now - especially shooting. So many games are decided turn 1/2.

While I agree with others comments that the game has never been balanced and it is difficult to do so, having the game decided on turn 1/2 is over the top. Yes it is a dice game and yes 40k will never be a serious wargame but that seems a little much for me. Someone with a strong shooty army who goes first can seriously destroy a large amount of the opposing force before they ever get to go.

So while I will play more and await the tyranid codex in November to get a better feel for 8th - the way the game seems to play does give me pause.

The First Turn Problem is the worst thing about 8th in my opinion. It can be mitigated with LoS-blocking terrain, but it'd be a better game if massive amounts of terrain were optional, not required.

That said, the game flows much better than 7th, and you can get more games in during a day of gaming. I feel the balance is better than in 7th, not that that's high praise. It's a fairly fun casual game, especially if you work together with your opponent to make it a pleasurable experience.

 Cream Tea wrote:
The First Turn Problem is the worst thing about 8th in my opinion. It can be mitigated with LoS-blocking terrain, but it'd be a better game if massive amounts of terrain were optional, not required.

That said, the game flows much better than 7th, and you can get more games in during a day of gaming. I feel the balance is better than in 7th, not that that's high praise. It's a fairly fun casual game, especially if you work together with your opponent to make it a pleasurable experience.

That's a bummer about the 1st turn win. That was one of the things that turned me off, as IG I would roflstomp most marine army back lines on turn one and then tarpit their deep-strikers. Eldar and Tau would obliterate everything I had and that would be it.

I hate to sound like a broken record on these forums, but I really do feel like 3rd was the best edition among the ones I played (3, 6, 7). The force org chart would limit any shenanigans, since there were no carnifex squadrons, basilisk squadrons, or whatever else, you'd max out at 3 and that was it. Options were limited, but meaningful. And the missions were designed so that you needed a balanced list. If you rolled the wrong mission then suddenly your OP heavy support units are stuck in reserves until turn 4, or you would have no infantry to actually C4 the objective, things like that. Just fundamental rules that required you to take more balanced army lists.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
I was an on-again off-again casual player for 6th and 7th edition, but I haven't played at all since 8th edition dropped. I liked some of the ideas that they were floating around, but looking at the new codexes, I'm not sure that 8th addressed any of the issues that turned me off from 7th. Basically, I felt like the game's rules regularly got in the way of fun game-play by enabling gimmickry and exploits, lacking intra/inter-army balance, and just generally having an overly complicated rule-set. So what is the verdict on 8th edition, has it improved your gameplay experience?

New rules, same people playing. So it is not any better than it was in that sense.

I really like 8th. I feel 7th was the worst edition I've ever played from a mechanics point of view. All the of the convoluted rules of 2nd, but without any of it's soul. 8th plays better and is much more enjoyable to play to me. Now, I'm looking for a fun experience and spending time with my friends. I'm not looking to test my manhood, or take the game too seriously. Find people that want the same kind of game you do, and you'll have a good time.

Good post!

I started in 2nd and walked away from 7th. Now, 8th has me having the most tabletop fun since the 90s. I like big-smash up games and I like tournaments. So far for me, 8th is working great!

I have played all sorts of wargames and use them in my professional life (where they are plenty less fun), and 40K is just fine as a wargame.

It's a much faster game - 5th and 6th had a problem with certain units being to hard to kill but in 8th - things die real quick. Most games are over by turn 3 as a result of tableing. I think it's a better game for sure. Worth getting into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cream Tea wrote:
The First Turn Problem is the worst thing about 8th in my opinion. It can be mitigated with LoS-blocking terrain, but it'd be a better game if massive amounts of terrain were optional, not required.

That said, the game flows much better than 7th, and you can get more games in during a day of gaming. I feel the balance is better than in 7th, not that that's high praise. It's a fairly fun casual game, especially if you work together with your opponent to make it a pleasurable experience.

Easily the biggest problem. Terrain also benefits some armies and hurts others. LOS blocking terrain is certainly important though - I'd say each army needs to be able to safely hide half of their army from LOS for a table to be fair.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
The First Turn Problem is the worst thing about 8th in my opinion. It can be mitigated with LoS-blocking terrain, but it'd be a better game if massive amounts of terrain were optional, not required.

That said, the game flows much better than 7th, and you can get more games in during a day of gaming. I feel the balance is better than in 7th, not that that's high praise. It's a fairly fun casual game, especially if you work together with your opponent to make it a pleasurable experience.

That's a bummer about the 1st turn win. That was one of the things that turned me off, as IG I would roflstomp most marine army back lines on turn one and then tarpit their deep-strikers. Eldar and Tau would obliterate everything I had and that would be it.

I hate to sound like a broken record on these forums, but I really do feel like 3rd was the best edition among the ones I played (3, 6, 7). The force org chart would limit any shenanigans, since there were no carnifex squadrons, basilisk squadrons, or whatever else, you'd max out at 3 and that was it. Options were limited, but meaningful. And the missions were designed so that you needed a balanced list. If you rolled the wrong mission then suddenly your OP heavy support units are stuck in reserves until turn 4, or you would have no infantry to actually C4 the objective, things like that. Just fundamental rules that required you to take more balanced army lists.

I have to agree with you on 3rd. I think some way to limit some of this would hinder shenanigans at least.

I think it's biggest improvement is ease of getting into. I have an easier time with new and inexperienced players and I can go without the rules for a single model being on 5-6 different pages in 3 books.

 Blacksails wrote:
Better than 6th/7th, worse than 5th is where I'd slot it.

Pretty much this.
Except for kill points, I actually enjoyed having several mechanized squads in transports, balancing your choices between movement towards objectives and/or killing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
The First Turn Problem is the worst thing about 8th in my opinion. It can be mitigated with LoS-blocking terrain, but it'd be a better game if massive amounts of terrain were optional, not required.

That said, the game flows much better than 7th, and you can get more games in during a day of gaming. I feel the balance is better than in 7th, not that that's high praise. It's a fairly fun casual game, especially if you work together with your opponent to make it a pleasurable experience.

That's a bummer about the 1st turn win. That was one of the things that turned me off, as IG I would roflstomp most marine army back lines on turn one and then tarpit their deep-strikers. Eldar and Tau would obliterate everything I had and that would be it.

I hate to sound like a broken record on these forums, but I really do feel like 3rd was the best edition among the ones I played (3, 6, 7). The force org chart would limit any shenanigans, since there were no carnifex squadrons, basilisk squadrons, or whatever else, you'd max out at 3 and that was it. Options were limited, but meaningful. And the missions were designed so that you needed a balanced list. If you rolled the wrong mission then suddenly your OP heavy support units are stuck in reserves until turn 4, or you would have no infantry to actually C4 the objective, things like that. Just fundamental rules that required you to take more balanced army lists.

I have to agree with you on 3rd. I think some way to limit some of this would hinder shenanigans at least.

Except all armies got screwed over, having acces to no shenanigans, only to get anally rushed by shenanigan armies like CSM, Eldars and BA.