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.

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.

Me too. Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
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.

Exactly why I am in no hurry to actually play.
Don't really need to after three decades in the hobby it is easy enough to see the mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
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.

I am gonna disagree here.

I don't think that dice rolls preclude 40k from being a deep game. After all, XCOM is one of the best turn-based tactical games of all time and that requires tons of RNG rolls.

One of my issues is that 40k tends to lack tactical depth. In my recent experience, the game is 80% determined before the first move based on who gamed the rules in their army list the best. Unlike XCOM, where a flanking shot will double your chance to hit, there are few rewards in 40k for flanking, taking cover, seizing high ground, etc. In 7th there were still a lot of situations where cover made absolutely no difference, assaulting an enemy unit in the flank just meant they all got to pile in and strike any way, morale was a non-issue for most units, and high ground conferred little advantage.

I think stripping these small tactical choices of their benefits/costs cumulatively made the game much shallower, instead favoring a melee mosh-pit or a static firing line.

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't think that dice rolls preclude 40k from being a deep game. After all, XCOM is one of the best turn-based tactical games of all time and that requires tons of RNG rolls.

One of my issues is that 40k tends to lack tactical depth. In my recent experience, the game is 80% determined before the first move based on who gamed the rules in their army list the best. Unlike XCOM, where a flanking shot will double your chance to hit, there are few rewards in 40k for flanking, taking cover, seizing high ground, etc. In 7th there were still a lot of situations where cover made absolutely no difference, assaulting an enemy unit in the flank just meant they all got to pile in and strike any way, morale was a non-issue for most units, and high ground conferred little advantage.

I think stripping these small tactical choices of their benefits/costs cumulatively made the game much shallower, instead favoring a melee mosh-pit or a static firing line.

Exactly this. When you compound the size of the board with the range of the weapons and charge/movement distances, its no wonder the game turned out the way it is. Most deeper games I play ensure that either you're out of range for a good turn or three, or suffer so many negative modifiers until you get closer, that it forces you and your opponent to actually maneuver for good terrain positions, flanking maneuvers, crossfires, and maximizing your own cover while limiting your opponent's.

When you can shoot halfway across the board with a basic infantry weapon, of course the game will devolve into a combination gunline or mad dash to run across no-man's land.

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't think that dice rolls preclude 40k from being a deep game. After all, XCOM is one of the best turn-based tactical games of all time and that requires tons of RNG rolls.

One of my issues is that 40k tends to lack tactical depth. In my recent experience, the game is 80% determined before the first move based on who gamed the rules in their army list the best. Unlike XCOM, where a flanking shot will double your chance to hit, there are few rewards in 40k for flanking, taking cover, seizing high ground, etc. In 7th there were still a lot of situations where cover made absolutely no difference, assaulting an enemy unit in the flank just meant they all got to pile in and strike any way, morale was a non-issue for most units, and high ground conferred little advantage.

I think stripping these small tactical choices of their benefits/costs cumulatively made the game much shallower, instead favoring a melee mosh-pit or a static firing line.

Having dice rolls don't preclude something from having depth, but far too many of 40k's mechanics depend on dice rolls and randomness that it saps much of the tactical decisions you can make in other similar games. 8th edition has been better about it with modifiers being more plentiful and rerolls being more abundant, significantly cutting down on some of the randomness, but it is still completely possible to blunder through a game with a "weak" list simply because the dice gods favoured you.

This is part of the reason I'm on the fence about the suggestion that "you should auto-fail on a 1" and "auto pass on a 6", as this is a rubber banding mechanic more at home on a board game (however I do see the merit of it in 40k, which is again why I'm on the fence).

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't think that dice rolls preclude 40k from being a deep game. After all, XCOM is one of the best turn-based tactical games of all time and that requires tons of RNG rolls.

One of my issues is that 40k tends to lack tactical depth. In my recent experience, the game is 80% determined before the first move based on who gamed the rules in their army list the best. Unlike XCOM, where a flanking shot will double your chance to hit, there are few rewards in 40k for flanking, taking cover, seizing high ground, etc. In 7th there were still a lot of situations where cover made absolutely no difference, assaulting an enemy unit in the flank just meant they all got to pile in and strike any way, morale was a non-issue for most units, and high ground conferred little advantage.

I think stripping these small tactical choices of their benefits/costs cumulatively made the game much shallower, instead favoring a melee mosh-pit or a static firing line.

I assume you mean the remake instead of the original? X-Com had a...funny ballistic resolution system, where accuracy affected how much a shot deviated from a straight path, and you could "miss successfully" as a result.

As far as flanking, in 7th, casualties were "closest model first" (the same system as 2nd, more or less) and casualties had to be in range and sight. Cover didn't matter as much if you were Marines, or were up against Tau, but you could "make" your own cover by running units/vehicles in formation (not Formations), and it still wasn't as silly as 8th: "One model is not standing on the forest base, so the unit doesn't get cover, even though I'm shooting through four windows." And pile-ins were mandatory until 8th; given assault/react/consolidate moves were still subject to normal restrictions ("must remain in coherency, cannot move within 1 inch of a unit you do not intend to assault" and such), flanking could in game an assault. In fact, if you go back into the archives of dakka, you can find dashofpepper's (hilarious if outdated and arguably trollish) Necron Tactica, where he discusses using the Deceiver to "force-kite" enemy units off objectives.

So sure, there may not have been "explicit" bonuses to flanking, like Epic's "the enemy suffers -1 to save and an extra disruption marker" but the core rules did allow for position to matter to some minor degree.

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't think that dice rolls preclude 40k from being a deep game. After all, XCOM is one of the best turn-based tactical games of all time and that requires tons of RNG rolls.

One of my issues is that 40k tends to lack tactical depth. In my recent experience, the game is 80% determined before the first move based on who gamed the rules in their army list the best. Unlike XCOM, where a flanking shot will double your chance to hit, there are few rewards in 40k for flanking, taking cover, seizing high ground, etc. In 7th there were still a lot of situations where cover made absolutely no difference, assaulting an enemy unit in the flank just meant they all got to pile in and strike any way, morale was a non-issue for most units, and high ground conferred little advantage.

I think stripping these small tactical choices of their benefits/costs cumulatively made the game much shallower, instead favoring a melee mosh-pit or a static firing line.

Exactly this. When you compound the size of the board with the range of the weapons and charge/movement distances, its no wonder the game turned out the way it is. Most deeper games I play ensure that either you're out of range for a good turn or three, or suffer so many negative modifiers until you get closer, that it forces you and your opponent to actually maneuver for good terrain positions, flanking maneuvers, crossfires, and maximizing your own cover while limiting your opponent's.

When you can shoot halfway across the board with a basic infantry weapon, of course the game will devolve into a combination gunline or mad dash to run across no-man's land.

That's another big problem I noticed. I would have liked to see a BS penalty when shooting over half your range (except perhaps for assault weapons and sniper rifles), or a reduction in overall ranges. Positioning would have been so much more important if lascannons had 36" range instead of being able to cover most of the table at 48". Then high-ground positioning could eliminate the range penalty and/or reduce cover saves. In realistic terms, it was always silly that my Leman Russ Demolisher only had 24" range, but in game terms that really forced me to take risks and push up with infantry to guard the tank. A good tactical game encourages that risk/reward mentality, rather than a sit-back-and-shoot mentality.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Having dice rolls don't preclude something from having depth, but far too many of 40k's mechanics depend on dice rolls and randomness that it saps much of the tactical decisions you can make in other similar games. 8th edition has been better about it with modifiers being more plentiful and rerolls being more abundant, significantly cutting down on some of the randomness, but it is still completely possible to blunder through a game with a "weak" list simply because the dice gods favoured you.

This is part of the reason I'm on the fence about the suggestion that "you should auto-fail on a 1" and "auto pass on a 6", as this is a rubber banding mechanic more at home on a board game (however I do see the merit of it in 40k, which is again why I'm on the fence).

Dice rolling can be as much for "averages" as it is for "calculated risk." Something like a Ratling Gun ("do you want to keep rolling dice for shots?") is a sort of random where the player makes a meaningful choics. Random that doesn't impact player choices is just filler/bloat. So Daemon Warpstorms=annoying game mechanics. Ditto Soul Blaze: Lots of rolling rolling for little effect. Arguably, so is a unit of Conscripts firing Overwatch with Bobby G. 60 shots, about 70 rolls with rerolling 1, so 12 hits max. Of which 4 wound, maybe 5.8. So almost 100 dice rolled for a "free action" that kills...2 tacmarines on average (but always with the potential to "roll hot" or load dice for a larger range of damage variability)...

A curious thing is much of the mechanics the community want (except for alternate activations) were available in WHFB. Some got implimented (like AP being a reduction rather than an all or nothing deal) while others were, for some unfathomable reason, ignored (cover and range being a penalty to BS). Even more curious is that the half range thing was in shadow wars, so it's not like they weren't aware of it (or they just CP'd the entire necromunda book without even proofreading).

As for the stupid ranges, that's a result of the game's scale creep. A long time ago a 10 point model would be seen as a Swarm model, a space marine would be 18 points if you gave it grenades but nothing else, and an "army" generally consisted of 2 squads, a character, an elite unit, and maybe one or two vehicles if you were lucky. Now it's not uncommon to see half a dozen vehicles supported by at least 4-5 squads of troops at the same points value.

 TheSilo wrote:


That's another big problem I noticed. I would have liked to see a BS penalty when shooting over half your range (except perhaps for assault weapons and sniper rifles), or a reduction in overall ranges. Positioning would have been so much more important if lascannons had 36" range instead of being able to cover most of the table at 48". Then high-ground positioning could eliminate the range penalty and/or reduce cover saves. In realistic terms, it was always silly that my Leman Russ Demolisher only had 24" range, but in game terms that really forced me to take risks and push up with infantry to guard the tank. A good tactical game encourages that risk/reward mentality, rather than a sit-back-and-shoot mentality.

I played a more modern 28mm ruleset many years ago that had been roughly adapted to 40k models. We used predominantly shooting armies/models (Tau vs IG) and the general idea was that heavy weapons had effectively unlimited range, but anything further than their optimal range would reduce their accuracy for every certain range increment. Infantry weapons had a long max range, but a much shorter optimal range and also suffered for every range increment past the optimal. Cover and morale were deeper too, where it was hard to fully wipe a squad, as 'hits' were abstracted as fire close enough to cause pinning and so on. Of course modifiers would scale up or down whether the unit suffered something mild like being pinned or was routed or outright destroyed.

It was a blast. It helped that we played with a force that would be more typical of a 28mm game; this instance was a small platoon of Guard backed by a Russ, while the Tau were a hammerhead, a squad of crisis suits, and a squad of firewarriors. We played on a bigger table, and the amount of space actually meant you could move around and find cover and advance from cover to cover.

It's... good. For WH40K.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but after trying other games it's hard to go back to WH40K for the rules. The models and fluff are still lovely, of course.

IGOUGO is one of the main flaws, of course, but there are a bunch more of those, mainly the game itself not really knowing what it wants to do.

I think the game knows what it wants to do. It wants to be a very loose and casual framework for creating narrative cinematic games.

When people try to make it become a tightly balanced competitive experience, thats when it flies off the rails.

 auticus wrote:
I think the game knows what it wants to do. It wants to be a very loose and casual framework for creating narrative cinematic games.

When people try to make it become a tightly balanced competitive experience, thats when it flies off the rails.

This WAS true in times of 2nd, 6th and 7th, but I honestly don't know what 8th tries to be anymore. It lacks details needed for cinematic experience and has an awfull lot of oversimplified mechanics (one example - no more "late game spike of courage of lone survivor of decimated Guardians squad, fleeing for most of the game just to tip the tide of battle by being at the right place when he was most needed" kind of Morale effects). 8th is "the new 3rd" and has all of the same anti-climatic reduction in personality... I get it, it is better for fast pick-up games and somewhat tries to acknowledge it's use for tournaments, but it's hard to "make along" proper narrative when supersonic jets occupy ground space and can be engaged in CC...

I'd argue that 6th and 7th equally didn't know what they wanted to be. Model by model interactions combined with unit by unit interactions. You could throw individual grenades and the shape of your melee weapon mattered, but giant monsters and vehicles were unchanged from no damage to barely being alive. The scale of the battles was completely out to lunch (still is) and had no benefits to either being a tournament based competitive game or a narrative oriented campaign based game.

Shadeseraph wrote:
It's... good. For WH40K.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but after trying other games it's hard to go back to WH40K for the rules. The models and fluff are still lovely, of course.

IGOUGO is one of the main flaws, of course, but there are a bunch more of those, mainly the game itself not really knowing what it wants to do.

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I was hoping 8th edition would change my mind, but after about 4 games of 8th I just went back to other games. I still pay attention, hence why I come here and cruise around on Dakka, because I *want* 40k to be a great game again. I really wish GW would come at it with a new mindset, because let's face it, the "New GW" mentality just isn't real. They have the resources to make the game incredible again, but I think their relentless pursuit of more $$$ at the cost of everything else will stop it from ever happening.

IronNerd wrote:

Shadeseraph wrote:
It's... good. For WH40K.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but after trying other games it's hard to go back to WH40K for the rules. The models and fluff are still lovely, of course.

IGOUGO is one of the main flaws, of course, but there are a bunch more of those, mainly the game itself not really knowing what it wants to do.

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I was hoping 8th edition would change my mind, but after about 4 games of 8th I just went back to other games. I still pay attention, hence why I come here and cruise around on Dakka, because I *want* 40k to be a great game again. I really wish GW would come at it with a new mindset, because let's face it, the "New GW" mentality just isn't real. They have the resources to make the game incredible again, but I think their relentless pursuit of more $$$ at the cost of everything else will stop it from ever happening.

8th commits the biggest crime a game can in that it just is not fun, win or lose by the 2nd or 3rd turn it's just a chore playing.

You could simulate a game of 40k by both players chucking a bucket of dice with whomever rolls the most 6's winning as ultimately that is all that matters, what happens on the table is largely irrelevant as the players choices other than at the list building stage have minimal impact.

In fact most of the time it's the player who can ignore/subvert or break the rules who wins at the tournement level of play. This is exactly the same as what happened with AoS although 40k marginally edges it's sibling out asbgw did not go full AoS with 40k so small mercies and all that.

Its appealing to the most people. Most people don't want complex games. You're right in that GW is going after what is going to make them the most $$$ and the wider audience doesn't want a traditional wargame.

By and large they want the boardgame that is one step removed from a collectible card game.

Thats what sells.

To a company that has stockholders to appease, that is what makes sense for them to go after.

I'm not a great fan of it either but I started seeing almost ten years ago that the kind of games that I came up on and really love became niche and then have slowly started their final death rattle not so long ago.

Blob up. Aura-hammer. Boring. Books getting nerfs within days of release. Rules changing at a breakneck pace.

Crowdsourced rules by "tourney" players go figure!

IronNerd wrote:

Shadeseraph wrote:
It's... good. For WH40K.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but after trying other games it's hard to go back to WH40K for the rules. The models and fluff are still lovely, of course.

IGOUGO is one of the main flaws, of course, but there are a bunch more of those, mainly the game itself not really knowing what it wants to do.

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I was hoping 8th edition would change my mind, but after about 4 games of 8th I just went back to other games. I still pay attention, hence why I come here and cruise around on Dakka, because I *want* 40k to be a great game again. I really wish GW would come at it with a new mindset, because let's face it, the "New GW" mentality just isn't real. They have the resources to make the game incredible again, but I think their relentless pursuit of more $$$ at the cost of everything else will stop it from ever happening.

I think this will always be the fundamental problem. They will never have the incentive to cut or nerf overpowered units, nor cut back the scale of the game since bigger battles and more models just makes them more money. You see this all the time with card games and board games which start off fun and then through expansions and power inflation they just turn into an unholy mess. There's an appeal in adding depth and nuance to a game, but over time the changes just get clunkier.

SeanDrake wrote:

8th commits the biggest crime a game can in that it just is not fun, win or lose by the 2nd or 3rd turn it's just a chore playing.

You could simulate a game of 40k by both players chucking a bucket of dice with whomever rolls the most 6's winning as ultimately that is all that matters, what happens on the table is largely irrelevant as the players choices other than at the list building stage have minimal impact.

In fact most of the time it's the player who can ignore/subvert or break the rules who wins at the tournement level of play. This is exactly the same as what happened with AoS although 40k marginally edges it's sibling out asbgw did not go full AoS with 40k so small mercies and all that.

I have to disagree here. I used your exact words to desribe 7th edition but I think 8th edition really has become a game where you can actually do something to change the game. Stratagems and the CC phase are really nice tools. While in 7th edition after a game I was like: "Hmm, there's nothing CSM can do against decurion Necrons." or "hmm, without rolling invisibility at the start of the game I would have lost", now in 8th things have changed for me. There's actual tactics involved that can be discussed afterwards, I can see where I did mistakes in positioning or in target choice. It's not on the level of lotr, and the balance also has a long way to go (and that way seems to become longer with the Codizes ), but I think there were some good decisions. If you ask me they should have taken even more from lotr, as that's still the best game GW produced. At least there's something like alternating activation in the CC phase, they probably should have transferred that to movement and shooting as well. There's still too much time where you just sit and wait to make your safes.
If 8th dition isn't fun for you, buy the open war cards or use the narrative scenarios (or both). These could help.

 TheSilo wrote:

IronNerd wrote:

Shadeseraph wrote:
It's... good. For WH40K.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but after trying other games it's hard to go back to WH40K for the rules. The models and fluff are still lovely, of course.

IGOUGO is one of the main flaws, of course, but there are a bunch more of those, mainly the game itself not really knowing what it wants to do.

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I was hoping 8th edition would change my mind, but after about 4 games of 8th I just went back to other games. I still pay attention, hence why I come here and cruise around on Dakka, because I *want* 40k to be a great game again. I really wish GW would come at it with a new mindset, because let's face it, the "New GW" mentality just isn't real. They have the resources to make the game incredible again, but I think their relentless pursuit of more $$$ at the cost of everything else will stop it from ever happening.

I think this will always be the fundamental problem. They will never have the incentive to cut or nerf overpowered units, nor cut back the scale of the game since bigger battles and more models just makes them more money. You see this all the time with card games and board games which start off fun and then through expansions and power inflation they just turn into an unholy mess. There's an appeal in adding depth and nuance to a game, but over time the changes just get clunkier.

40k isn't actually that complicated. It's actually rather simple for most intents and purposes. It's when certain rules or combinations violate those rules that things fall apart. Like how Warp Spiders broke the fundamental rule of "if you can see an enemy, you can shoot it", or how Ordnance Tyrant armies could shoot into close combat.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

8th commits the biggest crime a game can in that it just is not fun, win or lose by the 2nd or 3rd turn it's just a chore playing.

You could simulate a game of 40k by both players chucking a bucket of dice with whomever rolls the most 6's winning as ultimately that is all that matters, what happens on the table is largely irrelevant as the players choices other than at the list building stage have minimal impact.

In fact most of the time it's the player who can ignore/subvert or break the rules who wins at the tournement level of play. This is exactly the same as what happened with AoS although 40k marginally edges it's sibling out asbgw did not go full AoS with 40k so small mercies and all that.

While in 7th edition after a game I was like: "Hmm, there's nothing CSM can do against decurion Necrons." or "hmm, without rolling invisibility at the start of the game I would have lost", now in 8th things have changed for me.

I dunno about you, but playing Chaos in 7th, I take issue against saying that those builds were autolose. While there were *some* changes to certain units in 8th that were for the better (Berzerkers and Noise Marines), other changes gutted other units wholesale. Losing Dirge Casters hurt. Terminators are even worse than in 7th, where you could at least occasionally argue for Plasma Termicide. The changes to Spell Familiars mean that Chaos Sorcerers are "exact equals" of Marine Psykers, not that it matters since you want cheaper Smite Vectors instead. Spawn went from being a fast disruption/beater unit to a "slow melee brute", making them akin to Mutilators that trade Deepstrike for a different set of random tables. Yes, it's "nice" that Obliterators got doubleshots and a stratagem that lets them fire-twice, but removing the whole "choose your gun" aspect defeats the whole purpose of them as a unit! The Heldrake is...weird, as now it works better as a substitute sniper rifle than crowd control. And the fact that 8th came out so shortly after Traitor Legions added full-fledged Legion Tactics, a whole table of Warlord Traits and Relics per Legion (this general reduction of army-specific options reminds me of the same "streamlining" that helped kill off WHFB), and the 8e fluff now has "Iron Warriors of Tzeentch", and...*breathes slowly*

Yeah. Anyway, I had mentioned in another post that my issue with the 8e "traits" is that for many of them, optimal use involves flying directly in the face of established lore.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And the fact that 8th came out so shortly after Traitor Legions added full-fledged Legion Tactics, a whole table of Warlord Traits and Relics per Legion (this general reduction of army-specific options reminds me of the same "streamlining" that helped kill off WHFB), and the 8e fluff now has "Iron Warriors of Tzeentch", and...*breathes slowly*

Yeah. Anyway, I had mentioned in another post that my issue with the 8e "traits" is that for many of them, optimal use involves flying directly in the face of established lore.

Yeah having only recently been able to skim the surface of the traitor legions book, it's actually pretty damn interesting. Too bad it had about a week shelf life.

Pancakey wrote:
Blob up. Aura-hammer. Boring. Books getting nerfs within days of release. Rules changing at a breakneck pace.

Crowdsourced rules by "tourney" players go figure!

it would help is GW actuallly cared what the playtesters said. GW sent the AM coded to the printers before even getting any feedback from their playtesters

 CrownAxe wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Blob up. Aura-hammer. Boring. Books getting nerfs within days of release. Rules changing at a breakneck pace.

Crowdsourced rules by "tourney" players go figure!

it would help is GW actuallly cared what the playtesters said. GW sent the AM coded to the printers before even getting any feedback from their playtesters

We dont know that fully, they could be doing multi-years worth things at once (99% all business do this) they could be doing 1st runs to get rules out the door then take the feedback from testers and players, wait to see how bad it really is to get a clear view then in a year make changes via Chapter Approve Books.

We dont know that for sure tho. Having written a business manuals and procedures for a business i worked for, i can tell you sometimes its better to see the actual fires before fire proofing, your never truly are ready and a small burn with the promise of fixes is better than one major fire.

The amount of rules, testing, paperwork that is going into 40k right now is just mind blowing

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Maybe both sides start with only 50% of units (or points) on the table? Rest comes on in turn 2?

One other big issue is the huge tactical disadvantage of setting up first and going second and the converse huge tactical advantage of setting up second and moving first. This should NEVER, ever happen. Being able to set up in response to your opponents set up and then going first should be an automatic win pretty much every time.

T

I hate that vehicles are so expensive and how transports as a whole seem meh. My old army style just doesn't work in this edition.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I hate that vehicles are so expensive and how transports as a whole seem meh. My old army style just doesn't work in this edition.

Agreed, I also hate how elite infantry are a joke and an edition that traded complexity and depth for speed and ease of play incentivized massive model count armies.

Elite infantry have been bad for a long time, now. 5th began the trend, with drop pods being a necessary crutch.

Martel732 wrote:
Elite infantry have been bad for a long time, now. 5th began the trend, with drop pods being a necessary crutch.

That got exponentially worse with the advent of weapons causing multiple wounds per shot and an ap system so poorly implemented that it makes power armor a joke.

I don't think so. 5th ed plasma/melta spam and 6th/7th grav/scatterlaser spam already made the unplayable against solid foes.

I found the basic game and the indexes to be pretty decent with a few flaws.

Now that the codex production is in full swing, it's depressing to see the same old mistakes repeated. This is likely to be the _most_ imbalanced edition, though admittedly on the subfaction level instead of the codex level.