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.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

IOW, the problem is the game. A good game doesn't get broken just because the players use optimal strategies.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists for stuff like that. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

There is also the penchant for tournaments to last only 3-4 turns instead of the full 5-7, meaning that building an army designed to endure alpha strikes and outlast the enemy, which really starts running on all cylinders after the enemy has shot his bolt, tend to get shoved aside in favor of "FRONTLOAD ALL THE DAMAGE".

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

hobojebus wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

I would love to see some of these tables... I'm sure they'd be a sight to behold.

hobojebus wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

I only play casual games with friends and I've not only seen games won turn one I've had my own armies so gutted I called it without moving a mini.

Igougo is an old antiquated system utterly unsuitable now they've made things so lethal, should of had alternative activation.

I play mostly casual and iv seen games decided on turn one and games that go to 7.

nither happen soo much that its actually a problem. some times gak happens that no one can possibly have expected it.

The handful of games I've played of 8th edition so far have made me love it more than 6th and definitely more than 7th. The rules flow better, the balance is a lot better, everything can kill everything.

And, to top it all off, even with less overall special rules and such, there still seems to be plenty of flavor to each unit. Then, top it off with Stratagems that bring back old abilities or allow for neat things during the course of the battle, and the fact that you have sub-faction tactics (a big deal for a Necron player, let me tell ya).

I'm loving 8th so much, that this is the only time I've preordered a collectors edition codex. And I don't regret it.

odin wrote:
I would not mind GW making a 8.1 rulesbook (just rules no gak like CA pls) that would consolodate all the faq's and rules updates into the rulebook

That's almost exactly what GW did for 4E and 5E. 5E is literally 4E + FAQs

So far 8th is the best I've played since 5th edition

I just choose to ignore the butched Primarch / Primarus Marines fluff.

I joined in 5th edition, and I really enjoyed it, 6th and 7th were poor. 8th is better than 6th or 7th. I've yet to feel like I was in a game where I did not have a fighting chance, and I play marines and until this week, index necrons.

Joined in 5th. Enjoyed it then. 6th and 7th just got too bloated and mentally exhausting.

Thoroughly enjoy 8th. Only problems co.e when we start over thinking things because of carry over from 6th and 7th ed nonsense.
Great edition for the casual gamer who like to get with friends, have drinks, eat pizza and roll some dice.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

The problem is the people making the game not seeing how easily it can be broken. Seriously, most of the competitive builds come about after about 10 minutes of a competitive player reading a new codex. That's what makes the rock,paper,scissors aspect so dumb. Spam the best unit with the best buff HQ......Profit!!!!

Seriously, I'm all for having an enjoyable game over beer/pretzels but at least have some hardcore competitive minds look at the new rules to see how it can be abused.

Peregrine wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
tl:dr - the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game.

IOW, the problem is the game. A good game doesn't get broken just because the players use optimal strategies.

I don't normally find myself in a position to agree with you, but this time it feels GOOD that I do...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I much prefer 8ed.

I do agree that there's an offensive power problem, but this only really occurs when people are using 'optimised' lists. While people tend to be winning tournaments based on whoever gets first turn, games at my local club seem to all last a good amount of turns, and feel a lot more flexible and tactical in-game than 7ed ever did.

tl:dr - As always, the problem isn't the game, it's people breaking the game

The problem is the people making the game not seeing how easily it can be broken. Seriously, most of the competitive builds come about after about 10 minutes of a competitive player reading a new codex. That's what makes the rock,paper,scissors aspect so dumb. Spam the best unit with the best buff HQ......Profit!!!!

Seriously, I'm all for having an enjoyable game over beer/pretzels but at least have some hardcore competitive minds look at the new rules to see how it can be abused.

I think that was a bit of the problem when the likes of Alessio Cavatiore (SP!?!?!?!?) and Andy Chambers left. They sort of lost the tourney minded games developers. Then you had Jervis left with his CAAC gaming outlook and Ward with..., well, being Ward. Not much else necessary there. Haines' books suffered from a lack of a logical mind reeling him in. In the newer editions, it's the entire GAME that suffers.


I'm seriously wondering if they playtest at all...

This is without a doubt the most successful edition GW has ever done. Even those that HATE it can't stop talking about it.

By that metric, Trump is the most successful president the US has ever had!
Let that sink in a bit...

I love 8th. I quit during 6th and a lot of the BS that came with it, especially in the beginning with allies and all that crap, and broken half-***ed rules. I wish I hadn't sold all my stuff during that time, I had a lot , and with the new Necrons and Dark Eldar it especially stings (I had full armies of both, plus Blood angels and Demons).

Ah well, live and learn. Even though Demons and Chaos aren't as fluffy and awesome as the newer codices, I'm noticing that as GW adjusts to this new edition, the armies just keep getting better, and players are happier with each release. Look at the noticable difference in tone from players starting with Codex: CSM and leading to Drukhari.

I just hope that GW now goes back and fixes all the gak they messed up with earlier codices, which I do feel they will.

I still prefer 5th over 8th, probably because that edition was when I started, rose tinted glasses and all that.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
By that metric, Trump is the most successful president the US has ever had!
Let that sink in a bit...

Bad logic. The contrapositive does not work.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I joined in 5th edition, and I really enjoyed it, 6th and 7th were poor. 8th is better than 6th or 7th. I've yet to feel like I was in a game where I did not have a fighting chance, and I play marines and until this week, index necrons.

The greatest thing about the early editions was that more often than not they went to the 6th turn and were decided by the last assault and saving throws. First strike wasn't a big deal, and any army with a little luck could still fare well against the latest power creep if you knew your army well.

Now people are just using batteries to power stratagems for super units and 9 out of 10 games are decided by turn 2. 8th is an improvement from 6th and 7th but 'living rules system' isn't fixing the correct problems IMO. increasing and decreasing points is a bandage over the problem and not a cure.

I started playing 40k 2nd edition, it was very much toward a skirmish game with big ideas.
3rd was when I really got into the game in-depth.
4th was pretty much getting all the changes and add-ons into it from 3rd.
5th was pretty much the same thing and power creep became a strong complaint (more-so than before).
6th... I really tried to like it. Rules were a bit of a mess. Positioning of models became so critical, it seemed to slow the game to a crawl. Was painful to try to keep up on the updates, I think I stopped buying White Dwarf then. Oh yes, and the unholy allies list.
7th... Similar to 6th, they seemed to try to clean it up a bit but the core 6th edition mechanics made it rather ponderous and the multitude sources of rules was almost impossible to legally own (first time I did not get all the codex's EVER).

Around 6th edition I got side-tracked by "Bolt-Action", I honestly thought this is what 40k should have been, then I saw who designed the game: some of the old GW rules writers.

8th edition: Borrowed a whole lot from Bolt-Action, I oddly do not miss the templates and deviation dice anymore.
I feel it is missing one key feature: some kind of alternating unit activation: I think this is the #1 glaring flaw in the game.
It is vastly better than what came before in my opinion.
It even has a hope of being able to play competitively again.
The simplistic cover rules and all weapons able to fire from any point on the model can get some "realism" folks upset but it sure kills a bunch of arguments.

It really is an opinion and it can typically boil down to what you are used to.
The acid test for me is playing with good friends and the game flowed, stuff was happening, lots of models died, buckets of dice were thrown, surprises were had and no huge arguments over rules: it simply worked.
This result is very much unlike prior editions, even my well liked 3rd-4th editions.