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.

Cowards. They have amazing codices.

We prefer the term "Eldar". But "Your betters" works in a pinch.

Coward space faeries who hide behind GW's favor and lack of mathematical prowess. And Phil Kelly fanboism.

Martel732 wrote:
Coward space faeries who hide behind GW's favor and lack of mathematical prowess. And Phil Kelly fanboism.

Taste the rainbow, mon'keigh.

 vaklor4 wrote:
As far as people asking what specifically bothers them, believe it or not they actually find it MORE complicated...im chalking this up to not reading the damn book.

They think cover is BS, they think deepstriking is BS, they dont like vehicles being simplified, and they think stratagems and CP is not as good as formations.

I don't disagree with them.
I think cover is bs
Deepstriking is bs, way to accurate.
Vehicles ugh i hate the lack of archs so much. The "abstract" firing is bs. But i like the degradation and wounds.
Formations were a mixed bag of imbalance and awesome. From a lore/fluff standpoint i miss them, on table.
The lack of a codex is the major irritating factor with CP and stratagems. Over all they look better but they currently only highlight the imbalance of the codex/index meta.
The translation of template weapons was poorly done in some cases.
Auto hitting weapons and overwatch should not be a thing. Heck auto hitting in general should not be a thing make it 2+ that cannot be modified or rerolled. Yes i use hemlocks, rng 16 pow 12 auto hitting is BS, great fun but BS.

All those grievances aside, and knowing 8th is a flawed over simplified game. It is still worth giving it a honest shot. You cannot take the game seriously. So kick back toss a few buckets of dice and write a narrative for yourselves. Because we are stuck with this game. Bad suggestion time - Unless you want your community to revert back to 7th or 30k, then house rule things. Heck house rule 8th toss things like archs back in locally we do.

Your local community is more important than a perfect game system (house rules can help). Heck try a different game, shadespire, bloodbowl, infinity, warmachine, guildball all offer a different experience. Worry more about trying to reasonably keep the community together. If these two have their heads planted firmly up their posterior's so be it.

There needs to be a subforum: Human interaction 101 where these weekly "how do I deal with people" threads can go.

 MarsNZ wrote:
There needs to be a subforum: Human interaction 101 where these weekly "how do I deal with people" threads can go.

They can go with all the QQing over IG :p

I know the passion I have for 40k has greatly diminished with 8th because the game just isn't fun. I enjoy the more complex rules and the niche mechanics that made 7th a bloated mess but it was a fun bloated mess. So many of the changes in 8th over simplified a lot of the weapons and rules to the point that so many things are similar and with too few niche uses that it feels like the illusion of choice and tactics has been greatly reduced. In particular the hamfisted changes to blast weapons made it so a lot of weapons either suck or worse don't serve a meaningful role on the battlefield because there are multiple other things that do something quite similar. As a person who likes finding those cool things to try out and trying to make less than optimal things work, it feels really deflating to see everything is rounded down removing the frequencies for edge cases (for a lack of a better word) to crop up which create variety.

6/7th's vehicle rules where a colossal dumpster fire of poor balance BUT the whole AV system, firing arcs, fire ports, etc made them feel interesting and quite cool (in particular being immune to small arms fire but bigger guns posed more of a threat). Vehicles now just feel like rolling meat boxes which are just more wounds and toughness than an infantryman.

Cover to me is the deal breaker because 8th feels like most games are on planet bowling ball due to how hamfisted and particular the cover rules are now. Makes tactical play much less interesting because it feels like your just walking through open fields unless you can fit the entire infantry squad inside the "area" of area terrain. Good luck getting a cover save for a 30 boy squad because its incredibly difficult and unlikely that boyz on the move will end up entirely inside a ruin, forest, etc. If your not infantry then you also need to be 50% obscured so once again good luck being in terrain and half obscured. If your a squad of non infantry then everyone in your squad needs to fulfill the fitting in and being obscured by 50%. In 7th having stuff in between the shooter and the target gave some cover so it meant that screening wasn't just for dealing with assault units but also useful with helping protect your further back units. Top it off with how if you have low armor (Ork boy) and your sitting in some ruins, you go from a 6+ to a 5+ save. Mr Space Marine with a plasma gun don't give a squig and will happily blast your face off with 100% of wounds going through because ruins don't stop big bad plasma anymore. Of course if your rocking some 2+ armor then you get even better armor that takes even more AP to shred. Low armor models that relied on cover in 7th are now just basically naked because guns with AP wipe the floor with them. Going back to weapon choices, the guns with good AP are good against most everything so there isn't much of a niche for weapons that ignore cover but sucked at getting through armor or those weapons that murder armor but lack the means to effectively deal with solid cover.

Note that none of this has to do with codex balance or anything because it doesn't matter if the game is balanced or not when the game itself isn't very fun for me to play. The game lacks the flavor and details that made it compelling for me and instead it just seems bland and boring. I still love 40k but its not this edition. Lately I've gone back to playing 7th and its been a breathe of fresh air to play some actual 40k instead of Age of Gulliman or whatever you want to call 8th. I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

The point of this small rant? People have the right to be upset about 8th and it doesn't mean they are WAAC or salty over losing their OP units/rules. Some people find 8th to be a bad bit of game design and with that the game isn't enjoyable. With a hobby like 40k its very difficult to just pack your thing up and not play because of the massive amount of time and money spent on these miniatures. It sucks for us that don't like what GW did and having a community that seems to want to denounce those who aren't happy with what GW is shoveling at us.

somewhat similar to Vankrakens idea, but not everyone thinks 8th edition is good, I personally consider it the worst miniature game currently on the market, so I certainly wont play it. I still will play 7th, not a great fan, but certainly consider it vastly superior to 8th. I do not agree with the idea that newer is always better. A lot of the newer games (the "streamlined" and "simplified") to be utter garbage so I can see them not wanting to trade the game they do like for one they dont. Your best bet is to just go play 8th with people who actually like it.

There's a lot I like about 8th, but I still think 4th/5th were the best editions of 40k ever. Struck a fine balance between simple/playable and detailed/fun. 7th messed everything up, and in trying to fix it, GW threw the baby out with the bath water.

Re-introducing Damage and Armor Save modifiers was nice though.

 Vankraken wrote:
I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

Do you really need rules for taking your orks off the table and put them into your case?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

Do you really need rules for taking your orks off the table and put them into your case?

As an ork player I can honestly say that anyone who can’t win with orks in 7th aren’t playing there army right, everyone was to set on doing what everyone in the tournaments did that they never stopped and tried anything new, it was always the same lists with the same wasted wargear. 90% of my games with my orks I win (I only play 7th, will not touch 8th) and it boggles my mind how dumb people have been with their armies especially orks. Also different point limits benefit different armies, playing 1850 is stupid because it only benefits those armies everyone claims where op, play more reasonable points like 3000-5000 and the armies balance themselves out just fine.

“8th edition, because tournament organisers moaned about all these things and then wrote the rules themselves to give players everything they said they didn’t want”

“Oh 7th has too much random, here’s random dice rolls for almost all the weapons in the game”

“Oh 7th edition has too much ignores cover, here’s cover rules that may as well not exist and an ap system that further makes cover redundant”

I could go on

 Vankraken wrote:
I know the passion I have for 40k has greatly diminished with 8th because the game just isn't fun. I enjoy the more complex rules and the niche mechanics that made 7th a bloated mess but it was a fun bloated mess. So many of the changes in 8th over simplified a lot of the weapons and rules to the point that so many things are similar and with too few niche uses that it feels like the illusion of choice and tactics has been greatly reduced. In particular the hamfisted changes to blast weapons made it so a lot of weapons either suck or worse don't serve a meaningful role on the battlefield because there are multiple other things that do something quite similar. As a person who likes finding those cool things to try out and trying to make less than optimal things work, it feels really deflating to see everything is rounded down removing the frequencies for edge cases (for a lack of a better word) to crop up which create variety.

6/7th's vehicle rules where a colossal dumpster fire of poor balance BUT the whole AV system, firing arcs, fire ports, etc made them feel interesting and quite cool (in particular being immune to small arms fire but bigger guns posed more of a threat). Vehicles now just feel like rolling meat boxes which are just more wounds and toughness than an infantryman.

Cover to me is the deal breaker because 8th feels like most games are on planet bowling ball due to how hamfisted and particular the cover rules are now. Makes tactical play much less interesting because it feels like your just walking through open fields unless you can fit the entire infantry squad inside the "area" of area terrain. Good luck getting a cover save for a 30 boy squad because its incredibly difficult and unlikely that boyz on the move will end up entirely inside a ruin, forest, etc. If your not infantry then you also need to be 50% obscured so once again good luck being in terrain and half obscured. If your a squad of non infantry then everyone in your squad needs to fulfill the fitting in and being obscured by 50%. In 7th having stuff in between the shooter and the target gave some cover so it meant that screening wasn't just for dealing with assault units but also useful with helping protect your further back units. Top it off with how if you have low armor (Ork boy) and your sitting in some ruins, you go from a 6+ to a 5+ save. Mr Space Marine with a plasma gun don't give a squig and will happily blast your face off with 100% of wounds going through because ruins don't stop big bad plasma anymore. Of course if your rocking some 2+ armor then you get even better armor that takes even more AP to shred. Low armor models that relied on cover in 7th are now just basically naked because guns with AP wipe the floor with them. Going back to weapon choices, the guns with good AP are good against most everything so there isn't much of a niche for weapons that ignore cover but sucked at getting through armor or those weapons that murder armor but lack the means to effectively deal with solid cover.

Note that none of this has to do with codex balance or anything because it doesn't matter if the game is balanced or not when the game itself isn't very fun for me to play. The game lacks the flavor and details that made it compelling for me and instead it just seems bland and boring. I still love 40k but its not this edition. Lately I've gone back to playing 7th and its been a breathe of fresh air to play some actual 40k instead of Age of Gulliman or whatever you want to call 8th. I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

The point of this small rant? People have the right to be upset about 8th and it doesn't mean they are WAAC or salty over losing their OP units/rules. Some people find 8th to be a bad bit of game design and with that the game isn't enjoyable. With a hobby like 40k its very difficult to just pack your thing up and not play because of the massive amount of time and money spent on these miniatures. It sucks for us that don't like what GW did and having a community that seems to want to denounce those who aren't happy with what GW is shoveling at us.

[Quoted to bootstrap on most adequate post here]

I've started in 2nd and loved levels of detail 2nd ed had. Then I quit half a year into 3rd, never even made to 3.5, because of all that oversimplification... Came back in 7th and again, this was a "large enough not-boardgame" for my taste. Our group's solution to imballances was to rewrite codex entries, modify 7th as we saw fit and ADD what we needed. We have entire fandexes for it. I played roughly 100 games of 7th in about 1.5 year - not a few or a dozen random encounters with strangers over a year or two, but a huge amount of time spent with just few close friends on a weekly basis. We could do what we wanted, I know, that this is a luxury almost no one on this forum has. Because of that, by the time 8th hit we had 7th so "tailor made" that 8th felt even more dumbed down and simply unnaceptably shallow. We would have to rewrite all our ideas for 8th, reintroduce great many things into 8th that were threwn out or grotesquely twisted (cover rules, flyers and vechicles are biggest offenders here) with just really few new ideas being attractive to us (some of which, like stratagems, already existed in things like planetstrike or in form of 2nd ed strategy cards we utilised). So instead of switching to "modernised and streamlined alpha-strike buff-bubble Age of Guilliman" we went our separate way.

The point of this post is - maybe, just maybe those two guys would simply be happier within a group like ours and not having no option but to "adapt or die" to an edition, that just feels completely unappealing to them? Not every 7th ed fan is WAAC TFG that cries at nights about his lost deathstars and riptides. Sadly for them, they seem to have three options only - either play only with themselves and maybe try to start a group like ours, adapt to 8th as it is and have larger group of opponents or quit like I did in 3rd. Most certainly 9th ed will bring back some lost stuff back as it's been with 4th and 5th ed, introduce new twists like 6th did, grow into "unwieldy mess of accumulated codices and suplements" as 8th already started to do in eyes of some "index only" fans.

To the OP: don't forget that GW games are not "rules of law" that you simply have to obey or be punished. It's a "social contract based on some pre-written chasis" that can and should be modified to suit your fun. If those two ruin your experience, then don't play with them. If you care for them, because they are your friends, then try to understand them and only then try to help them adapt to changes, or play with them by 7th ed rules and play everyone else by 8th ed rules.

Sidenote: some 8th ed rules simply do not acknowledge how the game is used by some people. You cannot simply "base your terrain pieces" if you play on dioramas or modular tables that relied on true LoS for cover with only a couple of definable "area terrain" features "built in", designed and made for detailed cover rules and small squads. Paradigm shift of entire edition being "buff-bubble blobs" combined with 8th ed "by the book" cover rules demand totally different tables to work well. For some this is effort not worth switching editions only because GW decided to scrap two decades of history and listen to tournament crowd.

@nou: Sounds like you were already playing an 8th editon.One of your own making and that's great for you. But it doesn't mean you think 7th is better than 8th. It means your 8th is better for you than GW's 8th.

Terrain rules are really sparse right now I'll agree, but I wonder how many people use more than the basic or bother with creating their own pieces. Most setpieces I see in battle reports have too small (not a typo here, it's not big enough) LoS blocking terrain. Your pieces need be big enough to hide a unit with some space leftover. And I know GW terrain is too expensive but please, I can (and have) use the bi-weekly paper bin to have a good base to start from.

I understand you can't base terrain on a diorama but can't you agree on a clear border at least? That reeks of laziness to me.

Earth127 wrote:
@nou: Sounds like you were already playing an 8th editon.One of your own making and that's great for you. But it doesn't mean you think 7th is better than 8th. It means your 8th is better for you than GW's 8th.

Terrain rules are really sparse right now I'll agree, but I wonder how many people use more than the basic or bother with creating their own pieces. Most setpieces I see in battle reports have too small (not a typo here, it's not big enough) LoS blocking terrain. Your pieces need be big enough to hide a unit with some space leftover. And I know GW terrain is too expensive but please, I can (and have) use the bi-weekly paper bin to have a good base to start from.

I understand you can't base terrain on a diorama but can't you agree on a clear border at least? That reeks of laziness to me.

You're right about "my 8th" vs "official 8th" - the point was to simply show, that there is no "obviously better" direction with changes made to any game system. Some people like simplifying and streamlining, some crave more detail, complexity and nuances. And those two OP "offenders" may fall into this latter category...

As to terrain - it is not as much about not being able to agree on clear borders, as it is about "even after agreeing on every border we could have clearly name this complete terrain set of XPS boards and matching scatter terrain pieces do not meet demands on how 8th ed terrain should work like". I like to play on sets of terrain, not randomly mix-matched bits of spray painted scenery... Our group is house-based, not FLGS based, so we only have as much terrain as we make ourselves. Time and money spent on making new terrain to fit 8th is a time and money drawn away from preparing new models and playing actual games. Time is a precious resource unfortunately. And if "stock" 8th ed on what we have generates less pleasurable time than "our" 8th on what we have, then why bother?

Again, all my input into this thread is to show that not everyone thinks 8th is better than alternatives, be it house-ed, "stock" 7th or other options and not everyone not happy with 8th is TFG crying about lost ways to curb-stomp people. There are other, perfectly valid resons to not want to change. They may not apply to OP situation, but they do apply to general discussion about "clear superiority" of 8th ed.

It's really too bad that 40k isn't larger than it is. I mean there is no law that says "You must use the most current ruleset only!" and if more people were into 40k, then people would be able to find others playing whichever edition they enjoyed most. Heck, many people would probably play 3rd ed one week, 7th ed another and still 8th ed on another weekend. (Whew that's a lot of rules to keep straight)

nou wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
@nou: Sounds like you were already playing an 8th editon.One of your own making and that's great for you. But it doesn't mean you think 7th is better than 8th. It means your 8th is better for you than GW's 8th.

Terrain rules are really sparse right now I'll agree, but I wonder how many people use more than the basic or bother with creating their own pieces. Most setpieces I see in battle reports have too small (not a typo here, it's not big enough) LoS blocking terrain. Your pieces need be big enough to hide a unit with some space leftover. And I know GW terrain is too expensive but please, I can (and have) use the bi-weekly paper bin to have a good base to start from.

I understand you can't base terrain on a diorama but can't you agree on a clear border at least? That reeks of laziness to me.

You're right about "my 8th" vs "official 8th" - the point was to simply show, that there is no "obviously better" direction with changes made to any game system. Some people like simplifying and streamlining, some crave more detail, complexity and nuances. And those two OP "offenders" may fall into this latter category...

As to terrain - it is not as much about not being able to agree on clear borders, as it is about "even after agreeing on every border we could have clearly name this complete terrain set of XPS boards and matching scatter terrain pieces do not meet demands on how 8th ed terrain should work like". I like to play on sets of terrain, not randomly mix-matched bits of spray painted scenery... Our group is house-based, not FLGS based, so we only have as much terrain as we make ourselves. Time and money spent on making new terrain to fit 8th is a time and money drawn away from preparing new models and playing actual games. Time is a precious resource unfortunately. And if "stock" 8th ed on what we have generates less pleasurable time than "our" 8th on what we have, then why bother?

Again, all my input into this thread is to show that not everyone thinks 8th is better than alternatives, be it house-ed, "stock" 7th or other options and not everyone not happy with 8th is TFG crying about lost ways to curb-stomp people. There are other, perfectly valid resons to not want to change. They may not apply to OP situation, but they do apply to general discussion about "clear superiority" of 8th ed.

One thing to add on my part - if I were to return to this hobby now and not two years ago, I would probably liked 8th ed at first, then gradually add more on top of it to achieve similiar things I've done with "my 7th". But as I've already done so much and spent so much time I don't really see why repeat all of that. People proficient with 7th ed gameplay may feel the same with just having to "work their way up again" with stock 8th. From what I see, most people on dakka content with 8th are those who liked 3rd or 5th and played rather rarily if ever during 6th or 7th (barring all that sworn tournament folks that will find pleasure in "cracking" any and every edition or even "flavour of the month army" that is played at any given moment).

As someone who still plays Fantasy and Ninth Age over the...vastly different game of AoS I can say very strongly that you shouldn't ever be upset with people don't appreciate the new rules. It might not be because they are 'salty' and it might not be because 'they are unwilling to learn', it might be because the game genuinely has lost some appeal to them.

Dark Eldar in 8th? Boring as all gak. Hardly a definingly powerful unique special rule between them, all the HQ's done wrong, a grand total of perhaps 3 different weapon stat-lines in a competitive army. I can't stand to play my 8th edition Dark Eldar.

8th has problems, maybe not as many as 7th had on the higher end of the competitive spectrum, but it still has them. And a lot of those problems aren't due to bloat but core design mechanics. My Harlequins don't interact with non-LoS blocking cover *at all*, summoning is just a boring and variable form of deepstrike, there are a total of 3 Warlord traits in the core rules.

The difference between 7th and 8th isn't any where near as drastic as that between WHFB and AoS, so I doubt players will be as alienated and it should be possible to discuss what they like or don't like about the edition, maybe you don't like parts as well, and work to home rule away the gak.

nou wrote:

nou wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
@nou: Sounds like you were already playing an 8th editon.One of your own making and that's great for you. But it doesn't mean you think 7th is better than 8th. It means your 8th is better for you than GW's 8th.

Terrain rules are really sparse right now I'll agree, but I wonder how many people use more than the basic or bother with creating their own pieces. Most setpieces I see in battle reports have too small (not a typo here, it's not big enough) LoS blocking terrain. Your pieces need be big enough to hide a unit with some space leftover. And I know GW terrain is too expensive but please, I can (and have) use the bi-weekly paper bin to have a good base to start from.

I understand you can't base terrain on a diorama but can't you agree on a clear border at least? That reeks of laziness to me.

You're right about "my 8th" vs "official 8th" - the point was to simply show, that there is no "obviously better" direction with changes made to any game system. Some people like simplifying and streamlining, some crave more detail, complexity and nuances. And those two OP "offenders" may fall into this latter category...

As to terrain - it is not as much about not being able to agree on clear borders, as it is about "even after agreeing on every border we could have clearly name this complete terrain set of XPS boards and matching scatter terrain pieces do not meet demands on how 8th ed terrain should work like". I like to play on sets of terrain, not randomly mix-matched bits of spray painted scenery... Our group is house-based, not FLGS based, so we only have as much terrain as we make ourselves. Time and money spent on making new terrain to fit 8th is a time and money drawn away from preparing new models and playing actual games. Time is a precious resource unfortunately. And if "stock" 8th ed on what we have generates less pleasurable time than "our" 8th on what we have, then why bother?

Again, all my input into this thread is to show that not everyone thinks 8th is better than alternatives, be it house-ed, "stock" 7th or other options and not everyone not happy with 8th is TFG crying about lost ways to curb-stomp people. There are other, perfectly valid resons to not want to change. They may not apply to OP situation, but they do apply to general discussion about "clear superiority" of 8th ed.

One thing to add on my part - if I were to return to this hobby now and not two years ago, I would probably liked 8th ed at first, then gradually add more on top of it to achieve similiar things I've done with "my 7th". But as I've already done so much and spent so much time I don't really see why repeat all of that. People proficient with 7th ed gameplay may feel the same with just having to "work their way up again" with stock 8th. From what I see, most people on dakka content with 8th are those who liked 3rd or 5th and played rather rarily if ever during 6th or 7th (barring all that sworn tournament folks that will find pleasure in "cracking" any and every edition or even "flavour of the month army" that is played at any given moment).

I'm pretty much in the same boat as nou. If you look at most of my posting history, at least 50% of my "started topics" are related to Proposed Rules, usually less in terms of "Buff my army, nerf everyone else, metametameta," but more in terms of adding general options/interaction to the whole thing. Among other things:

-Allowing Death or Glory against Vector Strikes (aka "Home Run" versus Heldrakes, etc).
-Cleaning up Psyker rules as a whole.
-Redoing Stomp to be a "controlled" set of blasts (more stomps=weaker overall), rather than "D3 blasts each doing a random thing on a d3," while fixing the Wave Motion Gun glitch.
-Allowing more Characters access to Relics.
-Removing Venerable Dreadnought squadrons, allowing one Dreadnought in a Squadron to become Venerable, gaining the (Character) subtype.
-Pistols as a whole getting a 5-point discount. As who pays 15 points for a Plasma Pistol?

One thing I would have worked on afterwards would have been a 2nd-ed-esque set of rules for letting certain characters "pilot" vehicles. And assorted RAW cleanups, USR consolidation, etc.

Of course, I figure it's now just easier to write my own game at this rate.

I like to post my ideas in Proposed Rules, but never really sees play.

Our FLGS has some houserules (the +1 to rolloff instead of auto-go-first, for instance), but not many.

I suggested "6s always hit" last night. Some people looked at me dirty, then said it would only really benefit my CWE (exactly the opposite of what i was thinking, but I haven't stacked negatives yet anyways). We don't do major overhauls, but things like 2+ rerollables becomming 2+/4+ in last edition.

Too many houserules fragment the hobby, but too few kills it too (GW seems better, but still not good, at rules writing).

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
As an ork player I can honestly say that anyone who can’t win with orks in 7th aren’t playing there army right, everyone was to set on doing what everyone in the tournaments did that they never stopped and tried anything new, it was always the same lists with the same wasted wargear. 90% of my games with my orks I win (I only play 7th, will not touch 8th) and it boggles my mind how dumb people have been with their armies especially orks. Also different point limits benefit different armies, playing 1850 is stupid because it only benefits those armies everyone claims where op, play more reasonable points like 3000-5000 and the armies balance themselves out just fine.

Wait, so you're saying all other ork players are stupid and terrible players, because they were not playing at 3000+ points?

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

Do you really need rules for taking your orks off the table and put them into your case?

As an ork player I can honestly say that anyone who can’t win with orks in 7th aren’t playing there army right, everyone was to set on doing what everyone in the tournaments did that they never stopped and tried anything new, it was always the same lists with the same wasted wargear. 90% of my games with my orks I win (I only play 7th, will not touch 8th) and it boggles my mind how dumb people have been with their armies especially orks. Also different point limits benefit different armies, playing 1850 is stupid because it only benefits those armies everyone claims where op, play more reasonable points like 3000-5000 and the armies balance themselves out just fine.

“8th edition, because tournament organisers moaned about all these things and then wrote the rules themselves to give players everything they said they didn’t want”

“Oh 7th has too much random, here’s random dice rolls for almost all the weapons in the game”

“Oh 7th edition has too much ignores cover, here’s cover rules that may as well not exist and an ap system that further makes cover redundant”

I could go on

Some people dont have the damn time to play 3000+ games

We have a player that refuses to move to 8th. He's very vocal about his dislike of 8th. so we don't play 8th with him He like 30K which is still 7th and I haven't played but 1 game of 30K this year my self. I like 8th well enough but would prefer to play 2nd or 4th if I had the option to, which I don't.
My friend is struggling to find games. For what ever reasons gamers just move on to new editions. Some time the change is good some times it 3'rd, 5th, 6th and 7th edition.
All jokes aside 7th wouldn't have been that bad if every codex had been good.

The only time Orks were arguably thought out as a proper faction IMO would be 3rd edition, when they had the right mix of shooting, melee, functional anti-tank, and "utility" shenanigans to deal with most threats. Be it the fact that Zzap Guns were auto-hit and rolled 2d6 for armor penetration, Ammo Runts could be used by *any* nearby models, Turbo-boostas allowed for movement in the shooting phase (back when most vehicles did not have that option), or Stikkbomb Chukkas allowed vehicles to Tank Shock (including, humorously enough, Deff Dreads and Killa Kanz), Orks could actually loot vehicles from other codexes, or the fact that *any* Mek could take a KFF, there was a surprising amount of depth for such a straightforward codex.

In 4th, sure, Boyz got cheaper, but 5th came and anti-tank boiled down to "Lootas and Deffrollas, final Destination." In 7th, Tankbustas and Kannons. In 8th, Weirdboysmitespam, and maybe some Kannons, pray your opponent isn't rocking hit mods.

 warhead01 wrote:

All jokes aside 7th wouldn't have been that bad if every codex had been good.

Some truth to it, but it's a lot nicer having shorter games that play way faster.

I feel like for every step 8th took forward, there's something holding it back:

1. 7th edition psychic was abysmal. So they took a step forward and really streamlined it. Now, however, a lot of powers are totally crap, some armies are entirely hosed in psychic by bad powers, and frankly, 30 and 40 point models exist that can smite just as good as 200 point psykers. So 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Net improvement but a lot wrong with the psychic phase.

2. Shooting dominated melee. In 7th it was near impossible to get your guys upfield and engage without being obliterated. So in 8th they give all kinds of mobility boosts and charging from deep strike. However, they allow people to simply leave melee with no penalty, and the rest of the army can now shoot the unit that charged, and shoot it off the table really. So, two steps forward, 1 step back. Melee lists aren't viable except for a few niche armies and tricks, just like in 7th, but melee is viable in *casual* games.

3. They wanted to disrupt the concept of overpowered units like scatbikes, riptides, etc. So they nerfed those, but in the same breath gave you massively boosted dark reapers, soulbursting on demand, and commander spam. So, one type of cheese is replaced wholly by another. Granted, there's more overall balance, but there's still problematic units in every army. So, two steps forward, 1 step back. And then, of course, you have imperial guard, which is just a freaking joke, they're more broken than any army in 7th, so another step back here.

GW is trying and I give them credit. 8th is fun if you play it with the right people. I've found tournaments to be a collection of ThatGuys running the most abusive lists imaginable, with fuzzy and bended rules. I think the game should be balanced with competitive play in mind.

I don't agree with you there Marmatag because not everyone has the disposable income/ is williong to compromise. You don't want to balance everything around a few fringe cases you don't consider your main audience.

If they only look at the top competitive scene they'd have no real way of knowing most of the interactions of their game. tournament results also skew towards the percieved balance and/or last tournaments meta rather then the current.

Back on topic: I really think you can't force someone to learn a game they have no interest in. But neither should they force you in the other direction. I'm afraid since I don't know the people involved I don't have much more usefull advice bedsides: Try and talk it out.

Earth127 wrote:
I don't agree with you there Marmatag because not everyone has the disposable income/ is williong to compromise. You don't want to balance everything around a few fringe cases you don't consider your main audience.

If they only look at the top competitive scene they'd have no real way of knowing most of the interactions of their game. tournament results also skew towards the percieved balance and/or last tournaments meta rather then the current.

Multiple games have proven that a healthy competitive scene tends to makes gaming on casual levels better as well.

"Healthy" in the WH40k terms would mean that around four to five lists have an almost equal chance of winning tournaments, with roughly twice the amount actually showing up in top tens regularly. Best case, all those lists are from different codices.
This would already require a big amount of units, stratagems, relics, psychic powers and sub-factions to be tuned properly.
No matter how well you tune your game, realistically there will always be a few top choices dominating competitive gaming. Even if you try to buff everything to the same level, the new best thing will push the least best thing out of the competitive scope.
Still, if the process continues to nerf lists that are too powerful, and buff lists that are too weak(preferably from codices that currently underrepresented in competitive games), you will eventually reach a point where top tier and mid tier are not very far apart anymore.
Of course, GW still needs to have an eye on things that are frustrating to casual gamers and react to those. A perfectly balanced army that is no fun to play or play against is only marginally better than an imbalanced one.

The other part which WH40k requires to be a good game is internal balance for codices. For all of the larger factions there should be multiple ways to build an army from the codex, and none of the choice should be vastly more or less powerful than other choices.
For example, if Flash Gits were the most competitive shooting choice from the ork codex, tournament players would only ever consider flash gits for their lists. If lootaz, mek guns, big gunz and tank bustaz are only slightly behind Flash Gits, in casual games you probably won't even be able to tell the difference - and most likely someone will create a threat about how flash gits aren't all that good on dakkadakka and it will turn into a 17-page long flame fest.

Now, if you plug these two balance acts (competitive lists and internal codex balance) together you get a game where one or two choices are what competitive players will be running, and nothing else. However, all other choices are only a little behind - little enough to not actually feel the difference unless you are playing lots of highly competitive games.

Also, you can further introduce varsity by using incomparables.

When you got incomparables you can have cases of "no obvious best", "depends on what else you got" and "depends on what you are facing", rarely even "depends on the table"

What are incomparables?
Things you can't directly compare to each other, despite being seemingly similar.

For example, two identical CC oriented units, with the only exception is that unit A is slightly faster, while unit B hits slightly harder is a basic incomparablity, as the two have a difference that can't be directly calculated who's better in a void.
True incomparablity comes from doing things that are completely out there.
You got three guns with the same base stat, one has 50% more shots, the other applies a debuff to the target's cc defense, the third reduce the target's movement speed. Now you got a real choice, as running the numbers on the second gun really depends on what is you CC offensive, and the third gun math doesn't even apply any more.

 warhead01 wrote:
We have a player that refuses to move to 8th. He's very vocal about his dislike of 8th. so we don't play 8th with him He like 30K which is still 7th and I haven't played but 1 game of 30K this year my self. I like 8th well enough but would prefer to play 2nd or 4th if I had the option to, which I don't.
My friend is struggling to find games. For what ever reasons gamers just move on to new editions. Some time the change is good some times it 3'rd, 5th, 6th and 7th edition.
All jokes aside 7th wouldn't have been that bad if every codex had been good.

It wasn't just a problem with the codexes though. Vehicles were weak to the point of being useless and the traditional high-S, high-AP that were many armies primary option for powerful weapons were absolutely inferior to the multi-shot mid-S weapons that only some armies had in quantity against vehicles, monsters and elite infantry.

To fix that via the codex would have required a complete re-design of the weapon profiles (multi-shot on everything powerful).

If you don't like 8th. Play 7th.

If you don't like 7th. Play 8th.

I don't this idea where both sides are trying to prove one is the better game, who cares?