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.

 chimeara wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
You should play more than two games before you throw your hands into the air.

personally my rule is 10 games, and at least 3 different armies (if practical) to really decide if I like a game or not. Why 10? gets through the "beginner's luck/badluck" and lets me see more options and styles.

I just got my 10th game in last night. I lost again. So far in 8th I've had 1 victory and it was barely. I still feel good about the game as I've been trying new tactics. I've learned a ton since coming here to Dakka. We'll see how the next 10 games go. I'm hoping to start picking up some good wins soon. That death guard army is nasty, I'm hoping that next league night I go to I can play against someone else.

In my estimation, you are in a good spot, you have played 10 AND are looking forward to your next, so I would say on the whole, this game is good for you. winning and losing is not so much important as how you win or lose, I would rather lose a tight close fight than win a blowout personally. you will start winning games so I wouldnt stress it. I won 9 of my 10 with the black templars but found the game after that last win to be not fun, at all. So mostly sticking to 30k and occasional "friend really wants to do 8th, give em a game".

The game is way different than it was in the last edition, let alone, five editions ago.

I mean no offense when I ask this but do you know what you and your opponent are capable of?

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

 RedCommander wrote:
The game is way different than it was in the last edition, let alone, five editions ago.

I mean no offense when I ask this but do you know what you and your opponent are capable of?

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Man, it just got real in here lol. Pulling out the Sun Tzu !

 chimeara wrote:

 RedCommander wrote:
The game is way different than it was in the last edition, let alone, five editions ago.

I mean no offense when I ask this but do you know what you and your opponent are capable of?

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Man, it just got real in here lol. Pulling out the Sun Tzu !

Yeah, that was the joke. Laugh it up.

 chimeara wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
You should play more than two games before you throw your hands into the air.

personally my rule is 10 games, and at least 3 different armies (if practical) to really decide if I like a game or not. Why 10? gets through the "beginner's luck/badluck" and lets me see more options and styles.

I just got my 10th game in last night. I lost again. So far in 8th I've had 1 victory and it was barely. I still feel good about the game as I've been trying new tactics. I've learned a ton since coming here to Dakka. We'll see how the next 10 games go. I'm hoping to start picking up some good wins soon. That death guard army is nasty, I'm hoping that next league night I go to I can play against someone else.

How about an army list? Would be easier to help out.

My first piece of advice, before everything, is scale down. a lot.

The list you wrote is HUGE for first game, then you piled up a doubles game on top of it.

You probably didn't follow quite what was going on, you couldn't have-and as such you naturally had no chance of planning ahead or getting clever.

You basically tried learning four armies at once-nids, tzeentch, AM and you own marines. this is NOT a path for success.

Try MUCH smaller next time. slowly build up.
Start with something along the lines of 500-800 points, forget the repulser-its FAR too "big" for a learning match-you first matches should be about learning the basics of tactics and the general gist of how your army works. with only one other army on the field at a time you can more effectively learn both what you are capable of, and what your opponent is.

Such "starter matches" should probably also keep a rather simple unit rooster on both sides. nothing too weird like advance psykers (ahriman versus a beginner!?) or named characters (AHRIMAN?!), no multi-army shenanigans, and maybe even without the detachment rules (and stratagems, "chapter tactic variants" etc that stem from it)

There is a reason why the "getting started" kits are mostly the same concept-a commander, a basic troop, and something big (or several mediums) signify the faction. its not always like that-but that's the direction.

Once you got the grip of small games, and experimented a bit with different units to see how they function (and introduced the detachment rules at some point if you started without them), THEN move into medium scale games and start thinking of big toys like the repulser. and by medium I talk about 1000-1500 games.

You really should not even THINK about 2000 points, let alone 3000 point doubles before you have a dozen or so games under your belt.


Really, that's all there is too it. you took a huge bite that you could not possibly swallow at one go. no one can.

8th edition is super broken. GW is doubling down on winning the game at the list building phase.

The game is only going to get worse as it goes down the "magic the gathering" rework path.

Complexity of the game is way up and depth of gameplay has been reduced to almost nothing.

my 40k gaming group has been destroyed by 8th edition. Nobody wants to play with how trashy the rules are now!

Welcome to IGOUGO. Until that is removed 40k will never be fair or fun.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Welcome to IGOUGO. Until that is removed 40k will never be fair or fun.

That's just hyperbole. I enjoyed plenty of games of 40k. You can have a perfectly nice time with IGOUGO.

The game is basically fine as long as you aren't playing with WAAC jerks. (Not all players that like that style are jerks, just don't play with jerks is what I mean). To echo the above, here are some ways to make sure the game is fun.

1. Discuss what kind of game you want with your opponent. Tell them what you are trying to do (learn the game).
2. PLAY SMALL GAMES! Do NOT play in a multi player or huge games to start with. Play a 500 or, at the most, 1000 point game to start to learn your army and theirs. At those point levels a 4x4 board is plenty.
3. Expect to lose a little. It happens, just remember the point of playing a game is to have fun. If it isn't fun, change something.

The biggest issue I find with many 40k players is they have the Warmachine mentality of min maxing everything they can get their hands on. Find people, or explain to the people you have, that style of play doesn't interest you. Maybe set up a narrative game with predetermined lists. Tell them you have no interest in a smash your face tourney list and if they wouldn't mind throwing together a small fluffy list just to help you out.

Most people are decent and if you explain what you want from a game they will be happy to help you have a good time. If they don't, find someone more pleasant to play with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Welcome to IGOUGO. Until that is removed 40k will never be fair or fun.

Some of my friends have bought heavily into Bolt Action over the last few months. Having seen the initiative system in that game I would much prefer the IGOUGO system any day.

I did wonder whether 8th edition would use the AoS system of rolling each turn to see who has the initiative and I often wonder whether that would make a difference under 8th.

500 points on a 4x4 is an excellent suggestion. Also, you may want to play through all the game content in the main rulebook in order. There are great scenarios in there and fun things to try out.

40k is meant to appeal to a variety of player types. And to give allow for that variety of players to get different things out of the game. While it may seem obvious that a new person wouldn't really know how to get what they want out of it, it happens to experienced players as well. Often they'll be some sort of social norm that is set in terms of how the game should be played. How armies should be belt and what the overall goal is.

Playing smaller games and going through the different game and scenario types in the rulebook and the chapter approved book is a great way to figure out exactly what you want out of a game of 40k. And it might allow your opponents who are more experienced than you to discover something amazing they didn't even know they wanted to do.

is simple.... most wh40k matches are decided in the moment you make the list,,,period... i played in national competitive enviroment (italian ETC) and i can show you the kind of spam ridicolous lists you must play to be competitive, there is nothing more to say, 8th edition system is totally broken. If you want enjoyable game you must stay away from highly competitive players.

Will someone shut these "8th is broken hur dur dur" people once and for all, in every thread?

Competetive players playing differently and far more brutally from the casual player applies to EVERY FREAKING GAME EVER. You are not giving any useful information or advice by telling people to "avoid competetive players".
Avoiding a challenge is not getting better, its staying in your comfort zone.

Yes, list building matters. Learning how to build lists is part id the game, and there is no "one right list" as some of these knuckles try to present, but many ways, and counters, and evolving counters, and local metas that differ from one another and one can only read his own meta and adapt according.
And that's ignoring the many choices made after the game already started but before deployment, like warlord traits, psyker powers, etc. Or the many things happening in the board.

Claiming the game is decided on list building is idiotic. Full stop.
Yea, a poorly written list will have an uphill battle, and an optimized one has an edge, but besides edge cases of very poor lists (that any player with minimal experience can easily avoid making if he wants to),, it's far from being the end all be all of the game.

Now get out, and let the people actually trying to HELP THE GUY have some fun and success give ACTUAL advice.

 blackmage wrote:
is simple.... most wh40k matches are decided in the moment you make the list,,,period... i played in national competitive enviroment (italian ETC) and i can show you the kind of spam ridicolous lists you must play to be competitive, there is nothing more to say, 8th edition system is totally broken. If you want enjoyable game you must stay away from highly competitive players.

To be fair Italian ETC looked even worse with 7th, 8th sees a lot of spam in there but it is still looking much better.

@OP: That game you played was really skewed in scenario, lists and experience at the table. Keep playing, we are enjoying a good edition right now with a decent balance for once among factions. Sure, there is always a layer of lists that are too much above the level of the other lists, but in 8th you actively need to want one to have one, it is no longer 7th edition were "I play eldar and you play Adeptus, I win".

Play with other noobs and learn with them. If there are no new players make it clear at the start of the game you're a new player and that you don't want to just get wiped by turn 2.

You'd think the experienced players would have the decency to not bring their strongest lists or at least tailor their play style to suit your inexperience. It's no wonder this hobby has so few players when we go about crushing those who are interested in joining.

Spoletta wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
is simple.... most wh40k matches are decided in the moment you make the list,,,period... i played in national competitive enviroment (italian ETC) and i can show you the kind of spam ridicolous lists you must play to be competitive, there is nothing more to say, 8th edition system is totally broken. If you want enjoyable game you must stay away from highly competitive players.

To be fair Italian ETC looked even worse with 7th, 8th sees a lot of spam in there but it is still looking much better.

@OP: That game you played was really skewed in scenario, lists and experience at the table. Keep playing, we are enjoying a good edition right now with a decent balance for once among factions. Sure, there is always a layer of lists that are too much above the level of the other lists, but in 8th you actively need to want one to have one, it is no longer 7th edition were "I play eldar and you play Adeptus, I win".

it is still spam X units as much as you can.

To be fair Italian ETC looked even worse with 7th, 8th sees a lot of spam in there but it is still looking much better.

ETC is an event which rules very different from normal games.

Go for matched play and plan each turn in advance.
Knowing the enemy is one of the most important principles in 40k.

 blackmage wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
is simple.... most wh40k matches are decided in the moment you make the list,,,period... i played in national competitive enviroment (italian ETC) and i can show you the kind of spam ridicolous lists you must play to be competitive, there is nothing more to say, 8th edition system is totally broken. If you want enjoyable game you must stay away from highly competitive players.

To be fair Italian ETC looked even worse with 7th, 8th sees a lot of spam in there but it is still looking much better.

@OP: That game you played was really skewed in scenario, lists and experience at the table. Keep playing, we are enjoying a good edition right now with a decent balance for once among factions. Sure, there is always a layer of lists that are too much above the level of the other lists, but in 8th you actively need to want one to have one, it is no longer 7th edition were "I play eldar and you play Adeptus, I win".

it is still spam X units as much as you can.

It is a little odd to see the complaint that mixed, everything-goes soup lists are ruining the game, while also seeing the complaint that spam is ruining the game.


A typical competitive list you see these days is generally something like:

-Some guardsmen
-Some commanders
-some taurox primes
-a couple basilisks, a couple manticores
-a few mortar HWTs
-Some scion squads
-maybe a culexus assassin or two (possibly removed with new beta change)
-some psykers
-maybe saint celestine/some other allies

or on the chaos side

-Magnus
-Mortarion
-brimstone horrors
-daemon princes
-some of the stronger Death Guard stuff
-Khorne Bezerkers
-Changeling
-Malefic Lords (RIP in peace sweet crappy guardsmen with sticks conversions)
-Exalted Flamers

There's a lot of powerful combos going around, but not actually a ton of what I'd call "spam" at the top tables, and most of the lists that we've seen that you would call 100% spam have been hit with targeted nerfs (stormraven spam, malefic lord spam, conscript spam, etc). You've got meta combos and relatively dominant archetypes but also several different kinds of countermeta lists popping up on top tables.

The unhealthiest thing about the current meta is that so many factions are still sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting for codexes. If I were in charge, I'd have released Space Marines, CSM, Guard, Tyranid and Eldar first right out of the gate, but with each of them I would have included generic stratagems, traits etc available to all Marine, Chaos, Non-Marine Imperium, Tyranid/GSC, and Eldar armies to use, then sort out the rest of the major factions before moving on to stuff like Gray Knights, Dark Angels, Death Guard etc.

Once Chaos Daemons have their codex in january, over 75% of Chaos and Imperium codexes will have been released and only 25% of the xenos codexes. But if they change gears and get a solid two months of xenos releases to get Orks, Necrons, Dark Eldar and Tau in codexes, the meta should be in a pretty solid spot.

the_scotsman wrote:


It is a little odd to see the complaint that mixed, everything-goes soup lists are ruining the game, while also seeing the complaint that spam is ruining the game.

Mmmhh, spam soup. A staple of any nutritious diet.

8th edition meta is list building. You can easily lose the game at the list building phase.

It's always been this way , but 8th is doubling down on this concept.

Remeber 8th ed is the MOST play tested version ever and the game WE asked for.

Pancakey wrote:
8th edition meta is list building. You can easily lose the game at the list building phase.

It's always been this way , but 8th is doubling down on this concept.

Remeber 8th ed is the MOST play tested version ever and the game WE asked for.

Well, at least the game is not decided when rolling for invisibility on the telepathy table. Small steps...

-AM doesn't have to spam - all their units are good. Typically though they are spamming manticores and infantry and mortors.
-Choas doesn't have to spam - their good units are too expensive to spam. It's more like Magnus/Morty and the best units to support him.
-Admech competitive is spamming robots around cawl
Space marine competitive doesn't really exist...but it's spam heavy weapons around Guilliman.
-Eldar competitive is spam Reapers/Shinning spears
-Blood angels have a cookie cutter build. SG/DC/Libby dread as core of every army...rest is probably spamming LC devs or preds.
- Dark angels is same as space marines except sub Guilliman for Azreal.
- Nids primary stratgey is to spam geenstealers with some fire support.

Spam is a sign of poor internal balance within a codex. This is the easiest kind of balance to have too - which is sad.

pismakron wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
8th edition meta is list building. You can easily lose the game at the list building phase.

It's always been this way , but 8th is doubling down on this concept.

Remeber 8th ed is the MOST play tested version ever and the game WE asked for.

Well, at least the game is not decided when rolling for invisibility on the telepathy table. Small steps...

It's easier just to not take invis than to fix the raging pyre that 8th is becoming only 6 months after release.

8th has serious core gameplay issue that cannot be easily resolved. Things like auras, blobs, soup, smite, and CP are at the core of the game design and cannot be circumvented.

Pancakey wrote:
8th has serious core gameplay issue that cannot be easily resolved. Things like auras, blobs, soup, smite, and CP are at the core of the game design and cannot be circumvented.

So basically you want to go back to 7th, but keep the new vehicle rules? I mean, in the other thread you started about this your argument basically came down to aesthetics, has it evolved to something more quantifiable?

I absolutely love stratagems, they are an amazing force multiplier and definitely change the tenor of the game. Love auras, it actually forces your commander to support your troops rather than just being a LD vehicle or only good to beat down special targets.

Soup is an issue that can be fixed over time as other factions are provided more to soup with.

Smite's been nerfed into non-existence, so that argument's going nowhere.

I guess I just have to disagree with you, since the new rules were actually what brought me back to the game after almost 10 years.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
8th has serious core gameplay issue that cannot be easily resolved. Things like auras, blobs, soup, smite, and CP are at the core of the game design and cannot be circumvented.

So basically you want to go back to 7th, but keep the new vehicle rules? I mean, in the other thread you started about this your argument basically came down to aesthetics, has it evolved to something more quantifiable?

I absolutely love stratagems, they are an amazing force multiplier and definitely change the tenor of the game. Love auras, it actually forces your commander to support your troops rather than just being a LD vehicle or only good to beat down special targets.

Soup is an issue that can be fixed over time as other factions are provided more to soup with.

Smite's been nerfed into non-existence, so that argument's going nowhere.

I guess I just have to disagree with you, since the new rules were actually what brought me back to the game after almost 10 years.

I don't like the new vehicle rules ethier.

Generally speaking, 8h edition has raised the complexity of the game while reducing the depth of play.

Pancakey wrote:
Generally speaking, 8h edition has raised the complexity of the game while reducing the depth of play.

That's practically an oxymoron. I guess more accurately it's a paradox, since it could be true, but just doesn't sound like it should be true.

So basically you want to go back to 7th. Got it.

I disagree, since you provide no further evidence for your argument, that's about all I'm required to do. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Complexity and depth are not the same thing.

Like in 8th edition there are at least 13 different rules that let you "deep strike".

Having 13 different explanations for the same rule actually increases the complexity of the game but does not increase its depth.

8th removed a lot of depth and replaced it with complexity.

Pancakey wrote:
Complexity and depth are not the same thing.

Like in 8th edition there are at least 13 different rules that lets you "deep strike".

Having 13 different explanations for the same rule actually increases the complexity of the game but does not increase its depth.

8th removed a lot of depth and replaced it with complexity.

So your complaint here is that they gave you fluff for your deep strike rules rather than just saying "put this unit where you want, just not too close"? I'm not understanding your complaint.

The various forms of deep strike all have their own limitations or benefits that put them on a spectrum of deep strike from "requires a lot of mechanisms to put it in play" to "they jump out of that bush behind you". These are all variables in the construction of an army, again, I'm just not seeing where it adds complexity, but not depth. What are you defining as depth?

Pancakey wrote:
Complexity and depth are not the same thing.

Like in 8th edition there are at least 13 different rules that let you "deep strike".

Having 13 different explanations for the same rule actually increases the complexity of the game but does not increase its depth.

8th removed a lot of depth and replaced it with complexity.

Except that calling a rule one thing or another does not increase the complexity of the rule, it just changes the name. I know that "jump pack assault" and "Manta strike" are both deep strike, because I have eyes and can read. Increased complexity in rules is, for instance, having a system by which each psyker rolls a number of dice equal to their mastery level on any one of a dozen or more tables that they have access to in order to generate the spells they cast via an army-wide warp charge pool but only 3-4 of the results in 3-4 of the tables are ever really worth having and because of the pool mechanic psykers are only worth using if you have a dozen of them all with their own set of randomly rolled-for powers that you have to keep track of every game.

THAT'S worthless complexity. No new player is going to read "Sooper Spooky Sneak-Strike: the mandrakes can be set up in Aerlindrach, deploy them over 9" away at the end of your movement phase" and go "Oh man, I had a handle on how Jump Pack Assault worked but I'm TOTALLY confused right now, this other rule is really weird and different, how does THIS work?"

Gameplay depth at a competitive level is essentially identical. Shooting and gunline play is the same point-and-click snoozefest it's always been. Assault actually has much more tactical depth with how the new pile in/fall back rules work. Who you declare as a target/where you move your models throughout the assault phase/which models get removed/what order you activate in are all important decisions that just didn't work before, assault in 7th was just a complex auto-resolve that the players had to run through. Spacing models vs teplates is gone, which would be a loss...if templates had any impact of consequence at all in 7th. Every anti-tank blast pretty much just auto-hit its single target, every anti-infantry blast weapon of consequence just removed a squad and took a really long time figuring out if that wyvern got 25 hits or 28. Psychic phase depth went down, arguably replaced as an army-wide mechanic with Command Points and Stratagems, which I personally like better because it's a mechanic all armies get access to and it's not just a giant mess of stuff that all armies get that completely breaks some armies and hoses others (See: Who's got access to Telepathy??)

Saying the game has gone further into just list building...you know, I think you might want to look into symptoms of short-term memory loss or something, I just don't know what to say here. Formations and Decurions had a gigantic influence on army strength in 7th, and a huge chunk of tournament play was squeezing the most busted spam list out of the most busted formation benefits. How you structured your army list could change a unit's rules completely. The presence of completely unrelated units in your list could make a unit cost 0 points, or charge after deep strike, or shoot twice rerolling everything.