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.

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

Yes and no. Terminators have been bad for a long time, but basic marines were ok, scouts were/are awesome and my rhino's used to do their jobs perfectly, being a cheap but just durable enough shield to get my guys across the field. Now armor is kinda of joke, cover is pointless and since enough grout shots can kill anything vehicles finally having the proper amount of wounds is bunk.

Armor is far from a joke. It's better than it ever has been. You WANT people shooting stupid stuff at your vehicles. The problem is how close range and assault units interact with chaff units.

Basic marines have been bad for a long time competitively. So there's nothing new there.

I prefer for my space marines to have a 4+ save 40% of the time and a 3+ 50% of the time, with a 6+save 10% of the time, instead of 6-7th edition... 0 armour save 90% of the time.

The same goes for Terminators. And sorry but 8th editions is the first edition where my Dreadnoughts end the game alive. Normally with 1-3 wounds, but still. Vehicles have never been toughther.

No, you got PLENTY of armor saves in 7th. It was just 50 of them from 80 scatter laser shots.

Except for cover rules I like it as a whole.

I don't wan't to play 40k as a simulation but as a fun / narative game, so simple rules are good by me. Of course it has more then a few flaws.

But to me the major fix would be with cover benefits. By improving the way you gain cover and units in cover survability a bit, first turn would be less brutal and the game more enjoyable to me. And you would have a (little) bit more tactical depth without making the game more complex.

I would like a proper wargame.

It doesn't have to be strictly simulation but it needs to be taken back to closer to wargame and less boardgame IMO.

The lack of terrain rules and the encouragement to spam mortal wounds and throw shovels of dice at each other irks me.

So in my local group 8th has certainly divided it up.

Around 7-8 swear by 8th, and 11-12 of them swear by Horus Heresy (Mainly because of the lore behind it, but it being 7th was a big factor.

I'm lucky that I use my Horus Heresy era World Eater force in 40k and enjoy both games.

8th I certainly couldn't play week in and out, it's pretty bland with everything being a template of each other, lack of terrain rules and the general copy and pasting everywhere (From everyone deep striking exact same way to the same chapter traits everywhere).

It is however fun, quick and great to play every not and then for a casual game.

 auticus wrote:

The encouragement to...throw shovels of dice at each other irks me.

This is literally all 40k has ever been about.

Nah, he has a point.

The amount of dice, and worse, the amount of re-rolling of said dice is an order of magnitude higher than it has been in older editions (namely 2nd, 3rd etc.).

I'll be honest, I don't even take units which can roll more than say 20 dice as I simply don't want to roll that many dice and it feels gamey/cheesy as hell. It is, without question, rather silly when a single unit needs to resolve attacks using 30-40 dice and gets to re-roll those, etc. It becomes almost comical.

It is 40K though in its current state and sadly the expectation is kill all the things, and if you're not rolling 10 dice per model..you suck apparently, etc. It is a bizarre state of affairs. I think the general killy-ness of the game is aimed at sweeping more models off the table - thus selling more models by allowing larger and progressively larger games.

One round of shooting of an AM army (with several Leman Russes) could go like this:

''Okay, my tank chain can see your tank chain and so I can shoot you.
Moreover, my tank (LR) hasnt moved too far and so I can shoot you twice.''

Rules like this simplify the game but make it uninteresting to a certain extent.

That is precisely why you don't use rules like that. I understand the consternation of tournament players, but this edition really relies on the players taking the game and making it their own - it's not that tough really. Heck we're going to be trying randomized activation soon.

As a strictly written game? It's a bit pants. As a chassis on which to create a fun gaming experience? It's plenty.

 Elbows wrote:
That is precisely why you don't use rules like that. I understand the consternation of tournament players, but this edition really relies on the players taking the game and making it their own - it's not that tough really. Heck we're going to be trying randomized activation soon.

As a strictly written game? It's a bit pants. As a chassis on which to create a fun gaming experience? It's plenty.

Its not a very good chassis either.

 Elbows wrote:
this edition really relies on the players taking the game and making it their own

Was there ever any edition that didn't? It seems to me GW always write incomplete rulesets that rely massively on deciphering intent and fixing stuff that doesn't work.

 Elbows wrote:
Nah, he has a point.

The amount of dice, and worse, the amount of re-rolling of said dice is an order of magnitude higher than it has been in older editions (namely 2nd, 3rd etc.).

I'll be honest, I don't even take units which can roll more than say 20 dice as I simply don't want to roll that many dice and it feels gamey/cheesy as hell. It is, without question, rather silly when a single unit needs to resolve attacks using 30-40 dice and gets to re-roll those, etc. It becomes almost comical.

It is 40K though in its current state and sadly the expectation is kill all the things, and if you're not rolling 10 dice per model..you suck apparently, etc. It is a bizarre state of affairs. I think the general killy-ness of the game is aimed at sweeping more models off the table - thus selling more models by allowing larger and progressively larger games.

Rolling so many dice has a good spin to it, specially with d6 dices. They make games much more averaged, and much less based on luck. When you roll so many dice, the average is gonna be much better in the game. Yeah, everyone remembers "If he didn't rolled that six in the last turn, he wouldn't have kill my last unit and stealed me the relic, so I should have won!" but people forgot ALL those other times in the same game where you have had luck with your dice.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That is precisely why you don't use rules like that. I understand the consternation of tournament players, but this edition really relies on the players taking the game and making it their own - it's not that tough really. Heck we're going to be trying randomized activation soon.

As a strictly written game? It's a bit pants. As a chassis on which to create a fun gaming experience? It's plenty.

Its not a very good chassis either.

Okay? So don't play it. Problem solved. Carry on. I thought 7th was unbridled gak...so I didn't play it.

honestly, I loved it at the beginning but with codex coming out now you can see that the power creep is very real. Was hoping this edition would make much more balanced forces and GW did a good job of it at the beginning... I feel like we're back to where we started

Also, as it's already been stated: Games are kind of bland and stale. I can usually tell before the game begins who will win, and typically a game never goes more than 2 turns with a very one sided victory. No intricate rules or things that make armies much different now. at least in 7th is someone decided to bring rowboat girlyman I had a few options for trying to beat him, in this edition none of my armies stand that same chance.

with all that said, I will still play the game when friends ask me but personally I'm much more interested in Necromunda at the moment... We'll see how much GW dumbs it down tho

 Elbows wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
That is precisely why you don't use rules like that. I understand the consternation of tournament players, but this edition really relies on the players taking the game and making it their own - it's not that tough really. Heck we're going to be trying randomized activation soon.

As a strictly written game? It's a bit pants. As a chassis on which to create a fun gaming experience? It's plenty.

Its not a very good chassis either.

Okay? So don't play it. Problem solved. Carry on. I thought 7th was unbridled gak...so I didn't play it.

I thought 7th was gak too, and it just so happened that I didn't play much of it either. Unfortunately for me though, if I want to push models around a table with like minded folks, my options are 40k 8th, or AoS. So like it or not, I'm stuck with it if I want to use my models.

My point was simply that your claim that 8th is a good chassis isn't really true either. That's all. If you want to discuss why you think it makes a good chassis, then by all means, I'm happy to discuss why I don't think so.

But I appreciate that you took the time to explain to me an option I never ever possibly considered.

 Galas wrote:


The same goes for Terminators. And sorry but 8th editions is the first edition where my Dreadnoughts end the game alive. Normally with 1-3 wounds, but still. Vehicles have never been toughther.

if your opponent is bringing actual AT weapons, this shouldnt be the case. If you were used to just having fields of scatterlasers plink stuff to death, ok, but against something like a Lascannon? They should go down easier than ever. They dot have the chance to die in one hit, but require fewer shots to kill on average, meaning an opponent doesnt need to invest as much to kill each vehicle typically.

Looking at a Dread, what took 9 BS4 Lascannons on average in 5E took 7 on average in 7E and 6 BS3+ on average in 8E. Looking at a Russ tank, what took 27 BS4 Lascannons in 5E took 14 in 7E and 9 BS3+ Lascannons in 8E.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:


The same goes for Terminators. And sorry but 8th editions is the first edition where my Dreadnoughts end the game alive. Normally with 1-3 wounds, but still. Vehicles have never been toughther.

if your opponent is bringing actual AT weapons, this shouldnt be the case. If you were used to just having fields of scatterlasers plink stuff to death, ok, but against something like a Lascannon? They should go down easier than ever. They dot have the chance to die in one hit, but require fewer shots to kill on average, meaning an opponent doesnt need to invest as much to kill each vehicle typically.

Looking at a Dread, what took 9 BS4 Lascannons on average in 5E took 7 on average in 7E and 6 BS3+ on average in 8E. Looking at a Russ tank, what took 27 BS4 Lascannons in 5E took 14 in 7E and 9 BS3+ Lascannons in 8E.

And this is a totally dishonest argument to make. Lascannons where trash in past editions for a reason. Nobody used them, because they wheren't capable of doing their job. The problem was how vehicles where destroyed by NON-Anti tank weaponry.

In 8th Lasscannons are USEFULL at last. And vehicles are much toughter agaisn't mid-strenght weapons like Scater Lassers.

So yeah, vehicles aren't as durable agaisn't Anti-Tank weaponry that was totally useless in past editions. And are more durable agaisn't normal weaponry. So I'll keep my opinion: In 8th vehicles work better than in past editions.

 Elbows wrote:
Nah, he has a point.

The amount of dice, and worse, the amount of re-rolling of said dice is an order of magnitude higher than it has been in older editions (namely 2nd, 3rd etc.).

I'll be honest, I don't even take units which can roll more than say 20 dice as I simply don't want to roll that many dice and it feels gamey/cheesy as hell. It is, without question, rather silly when a single unit needs to resolve attacks using 30-40 dice and gets to re-roll those, etc. It becomes almost comical.

It is 40K though in its current state and sadly the expectation is kill all the things, and if you're not rolling 10 dice per model..you suck apparently, etc. It is a bizarre state of affairs. I think the general killy-ness of the game is aimed at sweeping more models off the table - thus selling more models by allowing larger and progressively larger games.

Just 30? Try getting charged by 30 sluggaboyz. Took about 15 minutes to resolve all 120 dice...

Regarding dice: At the start of 8th, there was The Flock. 10 Razorwing Flocks were 70 points. They threw out 80 dice to hit (on 5+), rerolling on 5+ if a Beastmaster was nearby They usually wounded on 5s or 6s, but Doom let them reroll wounds. So an absolute worst-case scenario could be rolling 320 dice before saves to resolve the attacks of 70 points worth of models. 205 is a more realistic average (80 attacks and 52.8 rerolls for about 42.3 hits, which reroll to wound). For about 24 wounds vs t3, 12 vs t4+. So...4 Marines dead. Even after the point adjustment, this is the sort of thing where too many rolls kills a game (especially when it is contentious which dice are cocked or not).

Regarding vehicles: Galas is more correct on this one. Hull Points weren't the issue so much as lack of HP combined with a relatively forgiving damage chart. For all the complaints that vehicles were one-shot exploding deathtraps, the truth of the matter was that it was easier to kill vehicles by stripping their HP down with mid-strength weapons (Scatter Lasers and such) rather than using supposedly "dedicated" AT.

However, while 8th does the "damage" side of this nominally better, there are assorted components that were arguably lost in translation. Yes, you can assault from transports, but said transports are always static (except Valkyries and such). You no longer get the extra movement from "Assault Ramp" or Open-Topped Transports. You no longer have Fire Points. Tank Shock is gone. You can "stop" a Land Raider in its tracks by surrounding it with a small unit of Hormagaunts. Heck, if so much as one Hormagaunt makes melee with your Land Raider, Russ, any non-Fly, non-Baneblade vehicle...that vehicle ain't shooting for a turn. Flyers are Schroedinger's Aircraft, where you can't "move past them" since they "block the ground" but you can't assault them because they're "in the air."

 Galas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:


The same goes for Terminators. And sorry but 8th editions is the first edition where my Dreadnoughts end the game alive. Normally with 1-3 wounds, but still. Vehicles have never been toughther.

if your opponent is bringing actual AT weapons, this shouldnt be the case. If you were used to just having fields of scatterlasers plink stuff to death, ok, but against something like a Lascannon? They should go down easier than ever. They dot have the chance to die in one hit, but require fewer shots to kill on average, meaning an opponent doesnt need to invest as much to kill each vehicle typically.

Looking at a Dread, what took 9 BS4 Lascannons on average in 5E took 7 on average in 7E and 6 BS3+ on average in 8E. Looking at a Russ tank, what took 27 BS4 Lascannons in 5E took 14 in 7E and 9 BS3+ Lascannons in 8E.

And this is a totally dishonest argument to make.

Wat?
I took a common anti tank weapon thats been available in literally every edition of the game, that has been available to a wide variety of armies, and showed the expected averages over multiple editions

That's "dishonest".

Ok...um....not sure what to say to that.

Lascannons where trash in past editions for a reason. Nobody used them, because they wheren't capable of doing their job. The problem was how vehicles where destroyed by NON-Anti tank weaponry.

This was pretty much exclusive to 6E/7E and they still saw use even there. Lascannons were all the rage in 3E and 4E, and were quite popular in 5E. They werent completely absent from 7E tables either. Some armies more than others, usually depending on cost issues, but theyve been a constant presence.

No, Lascannons were not trash on all past editions by any means.

In 8th Lasscannons are USEFULL at last. And vehicles are much toughter agaisn't mid-strenght weapons like Scater Lassers.

which was pretty much an element of two editions (the two shortest lived editions thus far), and are also now vulnerable to much weaker attacks in ways they never were.

Scatterlasers also werent capable of hurting everything in 7E either, they were wayyyyyy too powerful against light armor, but couldnt touch AV13/14, which they can now. A Russ didn't care squat all about a Scatterlaser in 7E for example.

So yeah, vehicles aren't as durable agaisn't Anti-Tank weaponry that was totally useless in past editions. And are more durable agaisn't normal weaponry. So I'll keep my opinion: In 8th vehicles work better than in past editions.

this pretty much only holds true of we're talking 7th to 8th, and only under some circumstances, not "vehicles have *never* been tougher".

This is not me defending 7E. 7E was a complete disaster and by far the worst edition 40k has ever had, followed closy by 6E. However tanks and vehicles have been awward and funky in every edition, and vehicle resiliency has many of its own weird issues in 8E, especially comparativr resiliency between vehicles, many were poorly translated into 8E's paradigm.

Lascannons were crazy dangerous in 2nd, just VERY expensive. They got worse in the 3rd ed paradigm, but also became more accessible in greater numbers.

They didn't truly become trash until popular MCs could survive dozens of shots.

Martel732 wrote:
They didn't truly become trash until popular MCs could survive dozens of shots.

QFT



Hull pointing out with s7 and s8 added to the issue that lascannons had which was often justifying their cost. They still got plenty of work done in 7th.

Yeah, the S6-7 chip out technique hurt them a lot, too. The AP 2 nerf was the little cherry on top. But vehicles need some kind of buff, but not vs low AP. They needed is vs being HPed out. They should have doubled all HPs and not nerfed the penetration table.

What I imagine should have been done, at least for 7th is:

-Vehicles gain +2 HP, period.
-Modifiers to vehicle damage start at AP 3.
-Tank Hunters lets you adjust damage rolls by +-1, instead of it being used to reroll penetration. This makes Tank Hunters more useful for weapons that are more likely to penetrate in the first place, and also lets you do some shenanigans like "immobilize" rather than "explode' an enemy vehicle.
-Vehicle Destroyed: Explodes, and Instant Death are consolidated into "Massive Damage." An extra D3 hits/HP with no saves/FNP/etc allowed. If a vehicle loses its last HP as part of a batch of attacks that causes Massive Damage, it explodes.
-Grav is simply "Concussive" versus vehicles, rather than Immobilizing.

And work from there, at least regarding Monsters.

All of these changes shift the weight of AT from fast-firing "mid-strength" weapons (Scatter Lasers, Hi-Yield Missile Pods, etc) and more towards "hi-power" ones like Dark Lances/Railguns, while mitigating stuff like losing a Land Raider to a lucky lascannon. Plus it lets you start getting rid of fanwanky rules like "Assured Destruction" for Fire Dragons (they're not just Tank Hunters), and such.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What I imagine should have been done, at least for 7th is:

-Vehicles gain +2 HP, period.
-Modifiers to vehicle damage start at AP 3.
-Tank Hunters lets you adjust damage rolls by +-1, instead of it beinf used to reroll penetration. This makes Tank Hunters more useful for weapons that are more likely to penetrate in the first place, and also lets you do some shenanigans like "immobilize" rather than "explode' an enemy vehicle.
-Vehicle Destroyed: Explodes, and Instant Death are consolidated into "Massive Damage." An extra D3 hits/HP with no saves/FNP/etc allowed. If a vehicle loses its last HP as part of a batch of attacks that causes Massive Damage, it explodes.
-Grav is simply "Concussive" versus vehicles, rather than Immobilizing.

And work from there, at least regarding Monsters.

All of these changes shift the weight of AT from fast-firing "mid-strength" weapons (Scatter Lasers, Hi-Yield Missile Pods, etc) and more towards "hi-power" ones like Dark Lances/Railguns, while mitigating stuff like losing a Land Raider to a lucky lascannon. Plus it lets you start getting rid of fanwanky rules like "Assured Destruction" for Fire Dragons (they're not just Tank Hunters), and such.

Those are all fine changes.The real headache are the monsters. I think 8th ed did fine with the fix for this.

I might be in a weird camp but I never liked that my tanks could be destroyed by one lucky shot. Always felt anti-fun, especially when monstrous creatures never had that problem.

 Red_Five wrote:
I might be in a weird camp but I never liked that my tanks could be destroyed by one lucky shot. Always felt anti-fun, especially when monstrous creatures never had that problem.

Nothing about losing a unit ever seems too fun. I will agree though that there should have been an equivalent possibility on the mc side of things. I also always felt more shooting attacks should have a chance to stagger or slow mc's.

I love 8th edition. No edition is perfect, but this one is just fun.

7th was getting to a point for me where I was going to do something I never thought I'd do and that's quit 40k.

2++ Re-rolling, Riptide/Surge Spam/ Eldar Jetbike spam/Invis spam. Guard, Tyranids, Grey knight armies all NEVER standing a chance against others. Death stars, D weapons

No thank you. I'll keep my beastly 3++ Shield Dreads, Bjorn having more than 3 bloody hullpoints at the cost of Wulfen and calvary nerfed. Thank you!