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.

You kind of have to remember that this 'codex creep' is only because of the rules evolving and becoming more fleshed out.

Grey knights is the worst codex, yeah, but most of it was written before 8th even came out. Same with CSM and SM. Then when Tyranids rolled around, the rules team had a large playtest audience and created a good and varied codex that is by no means 'broken' but actually mostly balanced(apart from flyrant spam)

Also, we should be damn glad about how quickly codex's and faq's have been coming out- in previous editions it could take years.

There are some issues with list building, but nothing like 7e formation cancer.

8th is a long shot better than 7th, IMO. If I were to go back to 7th it would be awful- playing TS, my psychic phase was horribly confusing.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also I still don't understand why people are holding up Soup as an exclusively 8th problem. Everyone is so quick to forget Taudar?

Of course we remember Taudar. Apparently GW doesn't though, because instead of learning from the Taudar mistake and going back to a single 5th edition FOC with no allies they made Imperial soup.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

As a TS player, its very much NOT point and click with no thought necessary.
You need to pick what spells you give who, you need to position properly (as quite a few spells are NON targetable, you automatically hit the nearest target), and you need to cast in the right order, because it matter a LOT. then you need to decide if the spell is even worth the peril risk-because sometimes its really not.
Sure, its mindless if you got a single psyker who knows one or two spells, but anyone who dedicates even a bit into it, it becomes deep enough. even with the "simplified" version, its by far my longest phase in a turn. adding power/dispel dice would only drag it futher (I remember 7th "fondly" where a single psyker phase for me could take half an hour...)
Its basically like saying the assault phase is mindless when you are tau (who I also am to be honest), or shooting phase is mindless when you play khorne.

I have to be honest, the 40k psychic phase really isn't overloaded with tactical depth. And I have to raise my eyebrow at the idea of 'perils risk', given that Perils is little more than a light tickle for most psykers, even before we get into all the ones with some means of protection from it.

That said, I think it's still one of the better iterations of the psychic phase and certainly infinitely preferable to the complete mess in 7th edition.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Except it causes an odd case of unit jumping that makes no sense at all with the old rule.
all your chars jumping from one squad to the other, despite said squads being practically at the same place, and transferring the "command abilities" when they make the arbitrary change made no sense.

That's debatable, to be fair. Leading a single squad is very different to trying to lead several different ones. In the first scenario, you can take full command and direct that particular squad much more accurately. In the second scenario, you're basically stuck just giving them strategic directions and leaving it up to the squad sergeant to interpret them. The former is more likely to grant a bonus to that specific squad, whilst the second is more useful in terms of overall strategy (but is unlikely to directly benefit any particular squad).

 BoomWolf wrote:

Guys that should be great leaders are now actually leading their army, rather than a random squad-and with wider effects the game allows less powerful buffs to still mean something.

I do like the idea - it's certainly nice to see non-psyker characters having a benefit beyond combat. However, I don't think it was very well implemented.

We have some very strange choices for aura abilities. For example, Dark Eldar characters have no mobility, and so are basically stuck riding in transports. But, even though their transports are open-topped, the auras don't even work on their passengers. What's more, they're so split into subfactions and subsubfactions that the auras barely affect anyone. Could the Archon, the overall army leader, not at least buff the 3 mercenary units?

Then you've got the Necron Destroyer Lord - a melee character who is only able to buff a medium-range shooting unit, which has no interest in closing with the enemy.

And the character targeting rules are just abysmal. I can get behind not being able to target a specific infantry model when he's surrounded by a mass of similar infantry. That's fine. However, you can be unable to target a character because you're unable to pick him out from the infantry unit behind you, in the opposite direction. Or because there's another unit that you can't see somewhere closer. And that's before we even get into the nonsense of Guilliman hiding behind guardsmen or space marines. Stormtroopers could pick that guy out. Or when we can freely target carnifexex behind gaunts... except for one specific carnifex. Or the fact that a Annihilation Barge can easily be picked out from behind Necron Warriors, yet the Catacomb Command Barge (virtually identical in size and profile) is easily able to hide behind the warriors it's hovering over.

Again, I can get behind the idea, but the execution is beyond abysmal and just makes it completely nonsensical.

 BoomWolf wrote:
That's...not true. anyone can gain cover from a ruin given that they are 50% obscured.

Nope. You can get cover from a ruin if you are inside the ruin. If you are merely standing behind the ruin, with only the tip of one finger visible to the shooter, you can be shot with zero penalty as if the ruin wasn't there. This makes terrain barely relevant because it only provides its bonus in a small fraction of the area that it used to cover.

but the gradually harder smite rule works, it makes smite spamming an akward path and sticks psykers as tactical toolboxes they are meant to be.

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

Not every flyer has the same rules, and its call future-proofing. they now CAN do flyers that are similar yet not identical.
Same goes for USRs. the fact each unit has their "own version" means they can (and at some point probably will) have units that have not-quite-identical rules, like how many units got different range "scout moves", or the possibility of different-range "infiltrate" etc.

This is exactly the problem! Having a bunch of rules that are all the same, except that one that isn't quite identical, is terrible design. The minor difference is unlikely to matter much, and it's likely that people will assume that the rule is the same as all other instances and be surprised by it mid-game when someone points it out. Having USRs eliminates the problem by standardizing everything into a single version of the rule, with any divergent rules being explicitly stated and obvious. You can now just memorize the USRs and immediately know what a unit with those USRs does, without having to carefully read every word of text to make sure that GW hasn't given the unit something very similar but not quite identical to what you would expect on first glance.

And you can still make similar-but-not-identical units. For example, you could give the new flyer the Flyer USR and then a unit-specific rule that it ignores the normal -1 penalty to hit models with the Flyer USR. This makes the change obvious and explicit and avoids the problem of people failing to notice the missing -1 penalty or seeing it but assuming that its absence is a typo by GW instead of a deliberate choice. And it also gives an elegant way to make a reference to all of those similar-but-not-identical units at once. For example, an AA weapon can have a rule that it ignores the -1 hit penalty against units with the Flyer USR. No worrying about missing a unit that calls its "flyer" rule something different, no trying to figure out a non-awkward way to refer to that category of units and their various "flyer" rules, you just reference the USR. The whole concept of similar-but-not-identical units just works better overall.

(Yes, the USR system does potentially need to be generalized more, doing things like Deep Strike (X") instead of Deep Strike with the 9" rule in the rules text. But that's an easy solution that doesn't require dumping the core mechanic.)

It also removes the need for having a dictionary of rules around when everything you need is spelled out on the unit itself

Uh, what? If you have rules printed on the unit you have more pages of text than before because of all of the duplicated material. You're still going to carry the same number of books, since you always bring the core rules, now you've just moved those pages of text into the codex and increased the total page count of all of your books.

USRs are very much NOT a "clean, organized way of making the game work.

And yet virtually every other game uses them for common rules. GW is the lone exception. Which do you think is more likely, that GW is leading a revolution in game design or that they're the one company getting this wrong while everyone else understands the obvious correct answer?

That would require yet another major overhaul of the game, as doing IGOUGO on phases would mean player 2 would be overpowering (just move things out of range/sight after player 1 committed his moves) and doing it per unit doesn't really work when you have insane varaity of army compositions ranging from 5 or less units to 25 or more units as viable option in the same matchup.

Per-unit activation works just fine in other games with a large difference in unit value. Plenty of games are able to cope with having both small cheap units and expensive powerful units, and lists that could have any combination of them. There is a natural tradeoff between powerful single activations and large numbers of weaker activations and the typical list will contain a mix of unit types.

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
You kind of have to remember that this 'codex creep' is only because of the rules evolving and becoming more fleshed out.

Grey knights is the worst codex, yeah, but most of it was written before 8th even came out. Same with CSM and SM. Then when Tyranids rolled around, the rules team had a large playtest audience and created a good and varied codex that is by no means 'broken' but actually mostly balanced(apart from flyrant spam)

Also, we should be damn glad about how quickly codex's and faq's have been coming out- in previous editions it could take years.

There are some issues with list building, but nothing like 7e formation cancer.

8th is a long shot better than 7th, IMO. If I were to go back to 7th it would be awful- playing TS, my psychic phase was horribly confusing.

Well, the solution regarding this is to not change edition and to re do the very first codices only. But this means no new edition, less new books, less sells, and I'm am suspicious that GW won't go that way, although we can't know for now. It worked with Bolt Action just making a v2 German Army book to upgrade them and give them new army rules, because it was the very first one out. Without modifying other nations, it works wonderfully.

However it's a set of rules that is already balanced, logic and effective by itself. Not all moaning is about codex creep - the core rules are controversial as well, and that won't change with only the codices even though a better balance, even around a core set that is less pleasant to someone, should let him have already way more fun and challenge.

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Yeah, all psychic powers with weapon profiles were useless in 7th. edition as they were simply worse shooting attacks with more dice rolling to go through.
I have to say I'm really confident with how psykers work in 8th. A simple system you can build a list around if you want to and if you don't it's just a little support option for your army. And trying to defend against powers is not as futile as it was in 7th. The only downside is that all powers are for free, which always creates problems. It's also not well thought out that all chapter tactics, relics and warlord traits are for free, as there'll always be that one power/relic/warlord trait that's better than others and if all cost the same becomes an auto-include.

But as I said earlier, these are all minor aspects, overall 8th edition is fine. It could be great with some kind of unit activation system or different turn structure, but if you stick to IGOUGO I'd say it's the best 40K edition so far.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

WTF? I quoted every single word of your post.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why did you take one part of my post and quote it out of context in order to start an argument?

WTF? I quoted every single word of your post.

Except for the parts I was replying to which provided context to why I said what I said.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except for the parts I was replying to which provided context to why I said what I said.

And what context is that? You claimed that not dealing mortal wounds makes psykers a bad lascannon, as if psykers are just a different gun with a whole separate phase for their shooting attacks. If the only value you see in a librarian is dealing D3 mortal wounds then GW has completely screwed up with psykers.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

I'm not following your logic. You seem to think that a versatile, force-multiplier should also be far better at being a weapon than an actual, dedicated weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

I'm not following your logic. You seem to think that a versatile, force-multiplier should also be far better at being a weapon than an actual, dedicated weapon.

Am I imagining vipoids post or something?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Am I imagining vipoids post or something?

What does the bolded section add to the context that isn't already covered? Using a weapon template doesn't make psykers useless. Aside from the fact that "weapon template" can include a whole range of stuff, including weapons that are far better than lascannons, being a lascannon is not the primary role of a librarian. A librarian isn't bad just because their shooting attack is weaker than a lascannon if the primary role of the librarian is to hand out buffs and the shooting attack is just a minor last-resort option for when all your buff targets are dead or you absolutely need to throw every possible shot into a key target. It's like complaining that assault marines are useless because their bolt pistols aren't as good as a titan's main gun.

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
I see no reason to shut down criticism of GW. The only way they are ever going to get better is if we tell them how. And the only way they'll actually listen is if we moan loud enough to wake the primordial demon of discord and greed they keep locked in the forbidden sublevels of their headquarters.

Agree in principal, but more than half the criticism is baseless. And almost always steeped in absolutes and nostalgia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What would be the point in psychic powers if any pleb could save them? Why take a librarian when a lascannon can do the same job for cheaper?

Because psykers provide buffs and utility powers and such? This is exactly the problem, you're assuming that psykers are just there to be a different gun that needs a whole separate phase for its shooting attacks. If a psyker is just a bad lascannon then something is seriously wrong with the design for psykers.

Psykers don't just do buffs. Psykers aren't like bad lascannons. That's why they do mortal wounds, which was his point.

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

If psykers were meant to be tactical toolboxes then why did GW make a power, especially a default power, that is nothing but efficient damage? Smite was spammed because it was a design mistake, and GW's solution bans the spam without addressing the root cause of why people spammed it in the first place.

I also find it a bit weird that psychic attacks only ever do mortal wounds. Is there a reason they can't just use weapon templates like they used to?

Clumsy attempt to bypass invulnerable saves, problem is not all armies are equal so some can invalidate th/ss termies and similar units easier than others.

hobojebus wrote:

Clumsy attempt to bypass invulnerable saves, problem is not all armies are equal so some can invalidate th/ss termies and similar units easier than others.

Shooting does just fine invalidating terminators. In fact when terminator discussion threads come up smite is almost never referenced as the issue.

They could do with some inherent negative to taking allies and points tweaks but otherwise I think this is the best edition of 40k for a very long time.

I like how psykers are now. I always use at least one (Unless i'm playing Tau or Necrons), and being able to pick 2 powers before the battle start is just beautifull.

It all changes based in the army I'm facing, and normally I don't even use smite with my librarian. Sometimes I do, because there just no other option, but the psychic phase is fast, interesting, and offer a ton of tactical options.
Just this saturday, I lowered the BS, WS of a Guilliman to 5+ with three Dark Angel spells, his leadership to 6, and them nuked him with a Trepanation for 7 mortal wounds before killing him without a problem with two Company Champions in the third round.

Without needing to spend 40 minutes rolling dice. At last, in 8th edition, both effect spell and direct damage spells are usefull.

Blastaar wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8th is more popular.

Popular equals fun.

Fun equals good.

Because this is a hobby, not a professional scene, and we're here to have fun, not make money.

Good = fulfills purpose
Fun = the purpose
Popular = it's fun.

Therefore, if it's popular, it's fun, and if it's fun, it's good, therefore, since it's popular, it's good.

Taco Bell was voted the "most cherished Mexican Restaurant" in the US and Bud Light is the most popular in the US but would any beer drinker or fan of Mexican food consider bud light to be an actual good beer or Taco Bell to actually be proper Mexican Food? Sometimes the simple, easy, and available options are the most popular because it takes less effort to consume and enjoy them.

i think you hit the nail on the head there. 8th is more "fun" because it takes less effort to play. it's a strong trend in gaming right now, to make easy to play games to appeal to an audience accustomed to Twitter, Facebook and so forth, where things happen quickly and easily. But depth, decision making and the satisfaction of overcoming challenges- things that often are what make games truly great to play, are incompatible with this mindset.

“People are too stupid to enjoy complexity and depth.”

-modern game designer

I’ve made a conscious effort not to nitpick GWs newer games. You will drive yourself and others crazy. GW has never to my knowledge even tried to make a game with a tight, balanced ruleset that didn’t include massive bloat. 8th is no exception; my experience is that the game actually plays slower than previous editions. Indeed, the bloat seems to be an intentional feature that many players enjoy.

The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

I only have 2 real criticisms of 8th that genuinely make it hard for me to enjoy the game despite good intentions otherwise:

1) the RAW terrain rules. Just, dang. Yeah, they’re generally easy to apply, but they just don’t make sense narratively and contribute negatively to some of the issues the game has.

2) the inane amount of dice rolling, re rolling, more re rolling, etc... it’s really out of control.

Things like IGOUGO are interesting to talk about, but really... if it’s a show stopper for you why are you even trying to play 40k? It’s obviously GWs preferred system and isn’t going away.

dosiere wrote:


The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

.

I don't know maybe it is my low expiriance with the game, but when I am looking at the rules they make no sense to me. GW is overcosting melee stuff like twice or three times over, as if opponents just let you get in to melee or melee unit just started the game in melee range, when neither is ever the case. At the same time they have some arbitary points costs where a unit of dark reapers that can shot twice per turn costs less then a unit of termintors or power armored dudes, and it is impossible to even compare those to each other.

Also their core mechanics by design seem strange. First they put clear focus on some stuff like re-rolls on top of re-rolls, MW spam, flying trait being important etc And then they give those crucial to play options are randomly given to armies. Some get all 3, while others get 0.

This then drips to army books, there are melee units that can't do melee or shoting units that suck at shoting. And GW says, here play with those.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The psychic phase is abysmal. It's just point and click, no thought necessary. This has lead to the need for janky quick fixes for things like smite. If there was a risk/reward system in place like the use of power/dispel dice like old Fantasy used to have, with graduated levels of difficulty for spells I think this would clear up much of the abuse that the psychic phase has. Although, it is an improvement over 7th edition psychic phase which made my eyes bleed.

As a TS player, its very much NOT point and click with no thought necessary.
You need to pick what spells you give who, you need to position properly (as quite a few spells are NON targetable, you automatically hit the nearest target), and you need to cast in the right order, because it matter a LOT. then you need to decide if the spell is even worth the peril risk-because sometimes its really not.
Sure, its mindless if you got a single psyker who knows one or two spells, but anyone who dedicates even a bit into it, it becomes deep enough. even with the "simplified" version, its by far my longest phase in a turn. adding power/dispel dice would only drag it futher (I remember 7th "fondly" where a single psyker phase for me could take half an hour...)
Its basically like saying the assault phase is mindless when you are tau (who I also am to be honest), or shooting phase is mindless when you play khorne.

I have to be honest, the 40k psychic phase really isn't overloaded with tactical depth. And I have to raise my eyebrow at the idea of 'perils risk', given that Perils is little more than a light tickle for most psykers, even before we get into all the ones with some means of protection from it.

That said, I think it's still one of the better iterations of the psychic phase and certainly infinitely preferable to the complete mess in 7th edition.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Except it causes an odd case of unit jumping that makes no sense at all with the old rule.
all your chars jumping from one squad to the other, despite said squads being practically at the same place, and transferring the "command abilities" when they make the arbitrary change made no sense.

That's debatable, to be fair. Leading a single squad is very different to trying to lead several different ones. In the first scenario, you can take full command and direct that particular squad much more accurately. In the second scenario, you're basically stuck just giving them strategic directions and leaving it up to the squad sergeant to interpret them. The former is more likely to grant a bonus to that specific squad, whilst the second is more useful in terms of overall strategy (but is unlikely to directly benefit any particular squad).

 BoomWolf wrote:

Guys that should be great leaders are now actually leading their army, rather than a random squad-and with wider effects the game allows less powerful buffs to still mean something.

I do like the idea - it's certainly nice to see non-psyker characters having a benefit beyond combat. However, I don't think it was very well implemented.

We have some very strange choices for aura abilities. For example, Dark Eldar characters have no mobility, and so are basically stuck riding in transports. But, even though their transports are open-topped, the auras don't even work on their passengers. What's more, they're so split into subfactions and subsubfactions that the auras barely affect anyone. Could the Archon, the overall army leader, not at least buff the 3 mercenary units?

Then you've got the Necron Destroyer Lord - a melee character who is only able to buff a medium-range shooting unit, which has no interest in closing with the enemy.

And the character targeting rules are just abysmal. I can get behind not being able to target a specific infantry model when he's surrounded by a mass of similar infantry. That's fine. However, you can be unable to target a character because you're unable to pick him out from the infantry unit behind you, in the opposite direction. Or because there's another unit that you can't see somewhere closer. And that's before we even get into the nonsense of Guilliman hiding behind guardsmen or space marines. Stormtroopers could pick that guy out. Or when we can freely target carnifexex behind gaunts... except for one specific carnifex. Or the fact that a Annihilation Barge can easily be picked out from behind Necron Warriors, yet the Catacomb Command Barge (virtually identical in size and profile) is easily able to hide behind the warriors it's hovering over.

Again, I can get behind the idea, but the execution is beyond abysmal and just makes it completely nonsensical.

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

Karol wrote:

dosiere wrote:


The primary difference that I see in 8th is that at least 99% of the time the rules actually make sense and are at least playable if you have the data sheets in front of you.

.

I don't know maybe it is my low expiriance with the game, but when I am looking at the rules they make no sense to me. GW is overcosting melee stuff like twice or three times over, as if opponents just let you get in to melee or melee unit just started the game in melee range, when neither is ever the case. At the same time they have some arbitary points costs where a unit of dark reapers that can shot twice per turn costs less then a unit of termintors or power armored dudes, and it is impossible to even compare those to each other.

Also their core mechanics by design seem strange. First they put clear focus on some stuff like re-rolls on top of re-rolls, MW spam, flying trait being important etc And then they give those crucial to play options are randomly given to armies. Some get all 3, while others get 0.

This then drips to army books, there are melee units that can't do melee or shoting units that suck at shoting. And GW says, here play with those.

I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

The core rules don't seem to be much better then the codex ones. Can anyone explain to me while a termintors that touchs a wall is harder to hit then one that is half a milimeter away from it, and have his whole unit anihilated because someone can draw LoS to the tip of his halabard. I mean technicly one should model his model crawling or turning in to armadilos.

Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team

What makes this pertinent is that model kits have a 2 year development cycle, while codexes seem to have 3-6 month cycle. This means that GW did not anticipate a negative push back on 8th despite AoS demonstrating what they should have expected. It also means the new kits were implemented during the height of 7th, and that the explosion of subfaction codexes we got at the end of 7th were implemented after 8th was already set to print.

In effect, GW knew they were going to alienate their customer base, pushed out a number of subfaction codexes to boost model sales pre-8th to pad any drop off at launch in the hopes that 8th would catch on in time for the new kits. But that’s not what happened. Instead, in response to the negative feedback, they reverted back codex creep and are currently trapped in a decision cycle outside of their production cycle, which gave us an FAQ boosting CP just before a new codex that actively denies CP.

So here we are.

In my opinion, 7th was the edition of Greed, where GW realize that they could feed us anything and we would buy it. And 8th is the edition of Disconnect, where we’ve confirmed GW has no clue how to run their business.

So yes, I am one of those that thinks 7th was a dumpster fire and 8th isn’t much better. I vote with my wallet, though, and only recently have started sending feedback mail to promote positive change (one for GK, another for IK). I do feel that 8th can be a good core to a much better 9th edition, but at the moment 8th is a mess of bad business decisions and poor implementation. It is unethical of GW to charge us money for corrections in Chapter Approved. And GW needs to divorce themselves from Frontline Gaming, Reese’s crew of playtesters have poisoned the tournament scene, and the tournament scene drives GW to implement changes. ITC was a great force of change in 7th, but their biases going into 8th damaged the game in my opinion. No competent game company lets their playtesters compete in sponsored tournaments, it’s a conflict of interest and an unethical business practice.

SJ