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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
People were declaring the game awful and dead like 3 months into the new edition and it will continue for the rest of 8th. When 9th comes out people will start declaring THAT the worst edition ever and holding up 8th as a great edition. And so the cycle will continue.

It is only partially true. There is often rose tinted nostalgia about old edition, this is undeniable, however in that particular case, even poeple who dislike and go hard on critics tend to agree that 6/7th was trash.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

No, 8th just has soup and spamming different lists. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that GW is getting it right. Just ignore whatever you have to ignore, and call it unwarranted because you don't want to see flaws.

While I don't currently agree with much of what you say (or how you say it) I believe this statement is key to the health of the hobby.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I am dismissing your unhappiness because it isn't warranted. 8th is far better than the cluster feth that was 7th with constant super friends and spamming lists and ridiculous formations.

No, 8th just has soup and spamming different lists. But go ahead, bury your head in the sand and pretend that GW is getting it right. Just ignore whatever you have to ignore, and call it unwarranted because you don't want to see flaws.

While I don't currently agree with much of what you say (or how you say it) I believe this statement is key to the health of the hobby.

You say that like Taudar and spam wasn't a thing in 7th.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Seems a bit much to say they're doing their best to make the game good considering 8th is a great example of why GW sucks at rules and balance.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yep, they really are superficial.

Rule of 3 is a half-assed attempt at fixing the problem. It eliminates particular spam elements but does nothing to address the fundamental issue with list construction: abandoning the classic FOC in favor of "take what you want" nonsense. And it doesn't even do a complete job of imposing the limit because similar units exist. For example, as an IG player I can take 9 LRBTs (in three squadrons for FOC purposes), 3 tank commanders, and Pask, and that's without even getting into FW units with names that are just different enough to count as a different unit. It was a positive step, of course, but GW took the very smallest step instead of a comprehensive overhaul.

They're taking incremental steps, which is the best scenario in my opinion. Dip your toe in the water and revisit in 6 months. That said I haven't seen a lot of tank spam broadly speaking.

The tactical reserves changes are, again, just a partial reversion to a previous (and superior) rule but they don't go anywhere near far enough. The change mitigates turn-1 alpha strikes and makes it so that deploying in reserve is no longer the automatic correct choice 100% of the time, but it still leaves zero-risk perfect-accuracy deep strike as part of the game. Using reserve rules is still nearly automatic because the option is too powerful and has too few drawbacks. GW could have done a more comprehensive overhaul of a bad mechanic, but instead they made a small change to fix only the most obvious abuse.

Yea, again, small changes are best. Revisiting old rules is irrelevant, because lots of other aspects of the game have changed. I don't agree that rando-deepstrike is an enjoyable or useful mechanic.

Smite fixes one problem but doesn't address the broken state of pyschic powers in general. Again, it was a very small change to one specific thing instead of addressing the question of why people were taking smite spam. And it does so with an awkward special-case ruling to make one specific power work differently from everything else.

I don't see how spells are broken in general. Smite got a special rule, because it's a special spell.

I like 8th edition. If they flesh out terrain rules more I'll be happy. Everything else I'd like to see are mostly minor aspects, like firepoints on vehicles or rules for some larger vehicles to fall back and shoot. Or points adjustments. But these things are obviousely dealt with in the chapter approved.

The one thing that sucks about 8th edition is that Fly is the only universal special rule (and a pretty good one at that). It wouldn't have been hard to call 30 ways of deep striking "deep strike".

Other than that, in a casual setting balance is very good, in a tournament setting it will never be perfect but it seems to be much better than 7th still. Yes, there's soup, but the ingredients of the soup seem to differ a lot aside from the obligatory Imperial guard battallion.

 wuestenfux wrote:
''The game has improved'' means in my terms ''the game is now more a board game''.
Less maneuvering than before.

Moreover, the character of the game has changed.
Now we see more deep strikers 9'' away from the enemy.
GW has mitigated deep striking shifting it to 2nd turn.
Nevertheless, the former game has lived from approaching the enemy.
Now you are more under pressure as the enemy might arrive early in the game.

Well shooting was way overpowered, its about time that CC was equalled. Shooting armies just have to suck it up.

8th edition is almost as bad as 7th edition was, just in the complete opposite direction.

They had some good ideas like armour modifiers, stats over 10, movement values. But for the most part there are gaping flaws in the 8th edition system simply because they were trying too hard to dumb it down.

Instead of just attempting to mash a couple half baked, ill proposed rules into 12 pages, why not just use the number of pages required to make the game work seamlessly?

Now we have FAQ's scattered everywhere which are basically just extra pages of rules that should have been part of the game to begin with, but now you have to actively search for them. I can't build a legal army without searching through pages and pages of FAQ's to find out what I can and cannot take. It's a giant disorganized mess.

There is no excuse for writing rules this sloppily. I guarantee there are people on this forum that could write a better system than the people who get payed to do it at GW.

AoS was the test bed for 8th ed 40K and is one of the most abysmally bad rules systems ever devised, even people who play it dislike a lot of the elements of the game, but they doubled down on that failure with 40K. I don't understand it at all.

You'll see complaints about 8th (both founded and unfounded) for the duration of its existence. I'm fine with that, I don't enjoy a game based on whether or not other people do. We also house-rule a lot here (in fact we're shifting over to mostly token-activation play which is much more enjoyable).

What makes me laugh though, genuinely, is people who believe 7th was a well designed game system. If you want to complain about 8th, go nuts...but don't for one second attempt to convince people that 7th edition was a good alternative.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
8th edition is almost as bad as 7th edition was, just in the complete opposite direction.

They had some good ideas like armour modifiers, stats over 10, movement values. But for the most part there are gaping flaws in the 8th edition system simply because they were trying too hard to dumb it down.

Instead of just attempting to mash a couple half baked, ill proposed rules into 12 pages, why not just use the number of pages required to make the game work seamlessly?

Now we have FAQ's scattered everywhere which are basically just extra pages of rules that should have been part of the game to begin with, but now you have to actively search for them. I can't build a legal army without searching through pages and pages of FAQ's to find out what I can and cannot take. It's a giant disorganized mess.

There is no excuse for writing rules this sloppily. I guarantee there are people on this forum that could write a better system than the people who get payed to do it at GW.

AoS was the test bed for 8th ed 40K and is one of the most abysmally bad rules systems ever devised, even people who play it dislike a lot of the elements of the game, but they doubled down on that failure with 40K. I don't understand it at all.

You said a lot without saying much at all. Could you elaborate on specifics?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

tneva82 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

This is pretty much where we are at.

Moaners gonna moan.

No matter what happens, no matter how subjectively good something can be to most people, it's going to happen.

And they have the right to complain. And you have the right to ignore them and not give a damn about their subjective analysis of why they're unhappy (probably because they aren't eating enough happy pills).

In the end, people whine all the time and try to find "logical", "justified" reasons for being unhappy, when in reality, being unhappy is a fact that needs no further justification.

If the unhappy people could just focus on the fact that they're unhappy rather than trying to tell us they're right to be unhappy, maybe they'd be happier. It's not like being right to be unhappy is going to feel so much better anyway.



I, for one, am really happy about 8th edition, it's simpler, it plays faster and is immensely more forgiving of people like me who don't play all the time.

I'd like to see some smarter costing and stat lines for my apoc units, mostly titans, but that's about it.

Other than that, I'm so fething stoked that GW has finally fixed their plastic production problems and is now vomitting obscene amounts of new kits regularly. I can smell the plastic aspect warriors from here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
You'll see complaints about 8th (both founded and unfounded) for the duration of its existence

I think it started before 8th edition was released, and I'm 100% sure it'll go on for years after it stops being current. Maybe that's what you meant by its existence though.

8th is better than 7th, but that doesn't mean its good. 7th was an out of control dumpster fire, 8th is a smaller, cleaner fire. I kind of started that analogy not knowing where I was going, so work with me.

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

The balance between codices is still off, less so than 7th, but more so than prior editions.

As fas as I'm concerned, for every step in the right direction, they took 3/4 of a step in the wrong direction.

 Blacksails wrote:

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

I can get behind random damage to an extend, but random shots just seems moronic to me.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

The random everything in 8th is a massive turn off. Stupid decision for GW to go that route, and it reeks of a combination of laziness and/or incompetency.

I can get behind random damage to an extend, but random shots just seems moronic to me.

I've seen some ideas tossed around, and I think it was Peregrine who suggested old blast weapons should be random shot, auto-hit, with the max amount capped at the model count in the target unit. Definitely a compromise I can get behind, especially if the spread of the roll is brought in a little, like changing D6s to 2D3s.

For those moaning that the moaning started to moan before 8th landed; to be fair, some problems were readily obvious. I mean, who didn't expect faction traits and stratagems to be another metric that would be very difficult for GW to balance?

I enjoy 8th edition and think there’s been a lot of improvement in general. GW could give away free minis and people would still complain.

Worst terrain rules? Check.
Shooting is still overpowered compared to CC? Check.
Imperium still gets the lion's share of attention, while Xenos get nothing? Check.

Nothing has changed about GW.

The fact that they need so many FAQ's and sweeping rules changes (rule of 3, new reserves rule, etc) to address core gameplay issues - it's an edition that was shoveled out the door.

I don't see how people can get upset at the fact that melee finally has a CHANCE (2d6, 9+) to have a good alpha-strike; where-as shooting ALWAYS has it's alpha-strikes.

Meanwhile, falling back out of CC and then just shooting the newly arrived unit is still a thing.

People who bought in on the "latest and greatest" edition are just trying to justify their purchases.

fe40k wrote:


People who bought in on the "latest and greatest" edition are just trying to justify their purchases.

Good to know. I'll stop playing the game I enjoy because apparently I don't know my own mind.

8th is not without it's flaws. It's very rare to hear someone say it's not an improvement over 7th, and I recognize that's not saying much.

But to call it a dumpster fire or trash is an overreaction. Sure, Codex creep is happening, but it's happening alongside a number of very positive developments in the game itself. Specifically:

1) GW is actively monitoring the state of the game and improving the rules as they go. We are no longer stuck with a static ruleset that we have to live with for years until the next edition comes out.

2) GW has committed to a schedule for improvements. Sure, they are not perfect on sticking to it, but at least it's there.

3) Overall, armies appear to be more balanced and competitive than before. I mean this in a very specific way. There are no longer any death stars, there are no longer any D weapons, and the game is no longer permeated with undercosted units (sure, some exist, but not on the scale they did before.)

4) Overall, there's more tactical depth with the introduction of Stratagems, and more options for building armies based on the rules around detachments. While I realize people don't universally look at this as a strength, detachments and keywords address serious downsides to the FOC system that are often overlooked. For the most part, you don't have to pay for units that are simply there to fill out a FOC slot, which makes armies more efficient as a whole.

I totally recognize there's a great deal of of homogeneity in competitive lists and it's irksome to see so many Marine lists that have to set aside a lot of points for a Guard detachment to have a chance. That's a real downside to 8th edition, but is it really a reason to trash it?

I think not. I try to categorize the complaints players have with the game, and find there's not as many issues with the mechanics as there are with the lore. Here's how I unpack the moaning that I hear:

1) Grey Knights Suck - yes, they do. They had the misfortune of being one of the first Codexes in this new edition. GW has stated their plans to return to them and find ways to improve them once all other Codexes are out, and FW is doing their part to provide some additional options. So this might be an issue, but GKs are in a better position than, say, CSMs were in 6th, where you were waiting until the end of 7th for incremental improvements. We will see where it ends up.

2) Soup - which is a really funny, nebulous complaint. Originally, I understood soup to mean detachments based on the Imperial, Chaos, or Xenos keyword, where someone was taking the best units from any army and sticking them in a single detachment. That definition has expanded to include armies that use detachments drawing from different Codexes. The original definition has been addressed by FAQ, which should dramatically cut down on the opportunity to exploit keywords to only run the best units. The second definition, I'm not sure that's a problem. Allies have always been a part of the game, the fact there's a streamlined way to use them should not really be considered a bad thing.

3) Power Armor versus Chaff - In general, 8th edition overvalues MEQ / TEQ armor and undervalues wounds. It's hard to make the case that 10x CSMs have the same tactical worth as 30 Cultists based on points, or that Terminators are worth what they cost compared to their offensive output. I fault GW for not seeing this in game design, but give them credit for implementing uniformly across most armies. Since it was done that way, it means improvements can be implemented across the board.

4) Shooting is Better than CC - This dynamic really came into play with 6th edition, where shooty armies had the edge over melee armies in ways they hadn't in previous editions. It's a legitimate complaint with no simple solution. I just wonder if it's worth moaning about. Everyone knows the way this works by now, good players adjust to the meta.

5) Soup is Better than Fluff - New rules for detachments mean players can build more efficient armies by drawing from multiple Codexes. Some people consider this a major drawback for 8th edition. I don't want to dismiss their complaints entirely, and understand the expectation a Codex should include everything you need to field an army. But... that's a dated expectation. Datasheets are what drive what you can include in your army, and the strongest competitive lists often draw from multiple Codexes. It's fine to be upset about it, but these complaints often sound like nostalgia for the past more than a legitimate criticism of the mechanics of 8th edition. If you really want to go back to the old single Codex, single FOC days - fine, that's great you feel that way. But you are overlooking all the problems that went along with it and I really doubt it would be more satisfying for people as a whole.

I realize there are other complaints about 8th edition, but these are the ones I hear about most. I could on about some others, but these seem to be the top 5 that come up most frequently. Taken together, all I have to say is: really? This is what the community of players has to complain about? Players are much better off than they were a year ago due to incremental updates, the removal of death stars / d weapons, the lack of Stratagems, static FOCs, complex rules for allies, etc.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. I'm looking forward to the game becoming good-enough-er over time.

Just got back from the Citadel opening here in Texas. Despite the construction delays and it being held in a hotel there had to have been at least 700 people in line. I had to get there at 630am just to guarantee I would get all the founder merchandise.

My point is for 3 hours in line people did nothing but talk about how excited they were for 8th and how its reinvigorated their groups. GW is releasing amazing codexes every other week, balance changes more frequently than ever and sales are through the roof (i saw one guy drop 3g on models alone I'm not sure if people in the back of the line will even have merchandise left to buy).

All of this makes me think the constant whiners about 8th are probably mad at how successful it is and really mad that they know that this type of success will keep them going in this direction for a long time

The best kind of 8th/GW edition critic is the one that thinks of himself as some superior intelectual being and believes everybody has fallen under their marketing, or worse, compares them with beaten up wives, with sthockolm syndrome, like arbitrator does.
Such a good way to convince people

Other people just still lives in 5th edition, as Peregrine, and everything that it is not like how it was, it is just trash.

Asmodios wrote:
Just got back from the Citadel opening here in Texas. Despite the construction delays and it being held in a hotel there had to have been at least 700 people in line. I had to get there at 630am just to guarantee I would get all the founder merchandise.

My point is for 3 hours in line people did nothing but talk about how excited they were for 8th and how its reinvigorated their groups. GW is releasing amazing codexes every other week, balance changes more frequently than ever and sales are through the roof (i saw one guy drop 3g on models alone I'm not sure if people in the back of the line will even have merchandise left to buy).

All of this makes me think the constant whiners about 8th are probably mad at how successful it is and really mad that they know that this type of success will keep them going in this direction for a long time

This is something that always bugs me.

Just because something is popular, doesn’t means it’s good, just because something is successful, doesn’t mean it’s good and of course... it doesn’t mean it’s bad either.

That must be very exciting to be at the grand opening - well worth the wait IMO.

 Blacksails wrote:

I've seen some ideas tossed around, and I think it was Peregrine who suggested old blast weapons should be random shot, auto-hit, with the max amount capped at the model count in the target unit. Definitely a compromise I can get behind, especially if the spread of the roll is brought in a little, like changing D6s to 2D3s.

I don't think auto-hit is the way to go for blast weapons. Maybe they should get more shots against larger units?

I think autohit works for flamers but for blasts I would go for differing shots depending on target size. Like 2 shots but 4 if the target unit has 20+ models for example.

 Galas wrote:
The best kind of 8th/GW edition critic is the one that thinks of himself as some superior intelectual being and believes everybody has fallen under their marketing, or worse, compares them with beaten up wives, with sthockolm syndrome, like arbitrator does.
Such a good way to convince people

Other people just still lives in 5th edition, as Peregrine, and everything that it is not like how it was, it is just trash.

The most ridiculous thing about that all moaning issue is actually that some people whine like little child against another group that whines that they whine and are stupid beczuse they MUST like it. Yes Kant stated that an aesthetic judgement implies we consider that all others should rightfully bow to our opinion but that's not an excuse to go about sending childish insults to one another like ye is a sheep who fall prey to marketin and you is naugthy grumpy gak blowing your own trumpets. They ARE people who do make constructive criticism. Stop debating the poeple and get to the subject - the edition, please.

pm713 wrote:
I think autohit works for flamers but for blasts I would go for differing shots depending on target size. Like 2 shots but 4 if the target unit has 20+ models for example.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe +1 shots for every 5 models in the target, up to a maximum of +4 or something like that.

tneva82 wrote:

Only thing gw has changed is more smoke and mirror. If you fall for it fair enough but in terms of rule quality, balance and logic game is as bad and even worse than before.

Only thing gw has improved is marketing.

Another substanceless post.