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.

40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

 Galas wrote:
Faction balance is the best it has always been, for armies with a Codex.

The worst ones in the high end competitive scene are space marines and space marines-like armies, but in middle of the road tournaments every army, even some index ones, can absolutely compete.

I have not seen a single Grey Knight army listed in any large tournament top 32, and I really looked hard, because I wanted to see how good lists were. I came to this forum, because I couldn't find any and 4chan called me a slavfag, and wasn't really helpful.

Karol wrote:
I came to this forum, because I couldn't find any and 4chan called me a slavfag, and wasn't really helpful.

4chan can honestly be a vile bog filled with odious creatures as often as not. Sorry you had the misfortune of wading into that swamp.

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is the possibly paraphrased rule from the preview:



In 40K you could imagine this would be -1 to hit unless the model has 10 wounds or more, but I doubt it will become a thing in 40K with the prevalence of guns.

Yeah, this would just be a death sentence for all the non-monstrous characters.

That said, I don't understand why you'd need to tie it to them having 10+ wounds in the first place. Why not instead tie it to the [Monster] and [Vehicle] keywords?

As in, if you're a [Monster] or a [Vehicle] you can't hide behind [Infantry]. So, for example, Old One Eye can hide amongst Carnifexes and other big monsters, but not amongst gaunts.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

3rd ed was basically the last big rules change of 40k, it attempted to remove a lot of the clutter of 2nd and t succeeded quite well at that, but lost some of its charm, this is also when they were in the “pamphlet” codex stage, the rules were simple, the armies small by comparison to now, it was well supported with regulatar updates and rules in white dwarf in addition to FAQs, it also suffered from the “must have multiple books to play” issue 8th does, but all in all the design team were free to work on things, it just took a very long time.

4th: very Similar to 3rd but this is where the cracks started to show, it was the best edition in terms of army customisation, fairly regular updates and FAQs and codexs that contained good amounts of fluff, it’s also the editin they really nailed the fluff down in terms of theme, with 5th perfecting it. All in All a very solid system that allowed so much freedom but not overdoing it like 8th.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

The 7th edition rulebook was crap compared to 8th. edition. It was better than 6th because it cleared up some bad parts from there. Though basically 7th. edition was practically the Chapter approved of 6th. edition, so very similar but some things corrected (vehicle damage table).
Ap system, vehicle/monster rules, psychic phase, CC-phase, wound allocation, movement - those were all improved a lot from 7th. to 8th. Stratagems brought in a mechanic were you can actually influence the game, something totally lacking in 7th, which was more like watching a movie with hardly any tactical decisions.

Terrain rules have suffered, but they weren't good before, too. In 8th. edition your Land Raider gets stuck in some Grots, in 7th. edition it got stuck in a fallen tree. Or a skull.
Morale rules are still pretty useless due to most factions having abilities to ignore them, but at least they are simple now.

Honestly I feel like my friends and I have had more fun with 8th than previous editions. Our escalation league has never had as many people in it than it does now.

Is it perfect? No. But right now, at least in my area, it speaks for itself with the influx of new players and the amount of people playing it in the stores I frequent.

 Formosa wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Could you elaborate on 3rd to 4th, since I never played thel and don't see what you mean. (just being curious here)

3rd ed was basically the last big rules change of 40k, it attempted to remove a lot of the clutter of 2nd and t succeeded quite well at that, but lost some of its charm, this is also when they were in the “pamphlet” codex stage, the rules were simple, the armies small by comparison to now, it was well supported with regulatar updates and rules in white dwarf in addition to FAQs, it also suffered from the “must have multiple books to play” issue 8th does, but all in all the design team were free to work on things, it just took a very long time.

4th: very Similar to 3rd but this is where the cracks started to show, it was the best edition in terms of army customisation, fairly regular updates and FAQs and codexs that contained good amounts of fluff, it’s also the editin they really nailed the fluff down in terms of theme, with 5th perfecting it. All in All a very solid system that allowed so much freedom but not overdoing it like 8th.

Thanks man.

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Well, I disagree. 7th being better than 8th at any point is pretty funny to me. I'd bet you complained about it and 5th all the same at the time. It's the same people who never stop whinging

 ShredderShards wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 ShredderShards wrote:
40k has never been in a better state. Too much complaining on here.

Hasn’t it?

3rd, better state.

4th arguably better state

5th much better state, had codex issues

6th utter crap

7th better state, codexs ruined it

8th shifted the issues of 7th to different places and kept some of the same.

The 8th rulebook is worse than the 7th one, index’s were fairly good but quickly ruined by codexs, 8th is heading the same way 7th was but with a worse rulebook and ruleset (subjective)

Well, I disagree. 7th being better than 8th at any point is pretty funny to me. I'd bet you complained about it and 5th all the same at the time. It's the same people who never stop whinging

See the fistfight of whiner vs whiner-about-whiner go on again. Thanks for the showcase man.

My impression was that most of the Codex improved on the Index. Tyranids certainly have one of their best codex in a long while and there has been a clear effort to give armies more than one or two viable choices in the codex when it comes to army building.

They've also dropped the codex creep. Yes latter ones were improved over some of the earlier; but there was none of the more deliberate "this is the best army ever" attitude that has been almost a stable of previous codex for a long while.

It's closer to a drifting, which also has potential to be fixed through their far more regular updates.


Lets not forget 8th edition has ensured that everyone started with a viable index and in a few months every core army on the market will have a codex for them (barring Sisters of Battle who will appear next year). Ergo for the first time in a very very long time every faction will be up to date with the current rules. That in itself is a huge change for GW in how they approach the rules side of the game.

For a long while codex came every few months, often with a big miniature release too, but often as not armies could go years and even miss whole editions before they got a new codex.


It was kind of daft because it also meant that GW often had to basically re-launch armies because those that went so long without an update steadily became less and less popular and that meant less sales.


To my mind this is a massive step forward for GW and how they approach their game. Yes there are still issues but it seems that GW is far more walking along the right pathway.

 Overread wrote:
My impression was that most of the Codex improved on the Index. Tyranids certainly have one of their best codex in a long while and there has been a clear effort to give armies more than one or two viable choices in the codex when it comes to army building.

They've also dropped the codex creep. Yes latter ones were improved over some of the earlier; but there was none of the more deliberate "this is the best army ever" attitude that has been almost a stable of previous codex for a long while.

It's closer to a drifting, which also has potential to be fixed through their far more regular updates.


Lets not forget 8th edition has ensured that everyone started with a viable index and in a few months every core army on the market will have a codex for them (barring Sisters of Battle who will appear next year). Ergo for the first time in a very very long time every faction will be up to date with the current rules. That in itself is a huge change for GW in how they approach the rules side of the game.

For a long while codex came every few months, often with a big miniature release too, but often as not armies could go years and even miss whole editions before they got a new codex.


It was kind of daft because it also meant that GW often had to basically re-launch armies because those that went so long without an update steadily became less and less popular and that meant less sales.


To my mind this is a massive step forward for GW and how they approach their game. Yes there are still issues but it seems that GW is far more walking along the right pathway.

I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results/

Per the above link, on the last annual earnings statement, you can see the huge dip in earnings at the time of and just after 8th was launched, followed by a huge upswing to today’s numbers. Further breakdown shows that the upswing coincides with the release of new model kits and also correlates with new codex sales.

It’s not hard to read an earnings statement report.

SJ

There's a dip in shareholder return - there is zero evidence of a dip in sales because the figures are simply not provided in that level of detail.

I'm on the fence. Whilst some of 8th's changes are pretty good - and it feels nice to get a game under 4 hours for once - there are obvious holes where we could have done with better rules.

As for this:
"give GW a little time to get the game where it should be"

They've had over 30 years...

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

I think a big part of this is how GW moves forward from 8th edition and forward toward the 9th edition.

GW is built around editions of rules so we know a 9th edition release will come, the key is the format of that release. If its just a polishing of 8th edition coupled with releasing a new edition of the rules that reflect all the updates over the years, coupled with a Big Book that has updated lore and suchlike. Then we can well expect the codex to remain standing and end up acting like the Index with another flash release of more update codex reflecting a shifting change.

On the other hand GW could do a huge rules revision all over again. Personally I don't think they will, I think they will follow Sigmar and produce a new edition that continues to refine. Perhaps even teasing new game mechanics in through expansions (like hte magic for Sigmar); letting them be part of the main game, but if they fail they can be cut away without harming the core of the game mechanics themselves.



I do agree that GW hasn't dropped all their rules staff for a new system; however I think that with the change in attitude at their end and with more open discourse with players they might well be building solid foundations for the future.


Also I'd say that yes they've had 30years and lets be honest they've remained the biggest for most of those years. So even though the rules have never been perfect they've still be more than enough to build a powerful company. I think many of us saw GW abuse that aspect nearer the end of the Kirby era and I think the steady loss of sales and damage done then kicked GW somewhat in this new phase into respecting that, yes the rules are not everything but they are still a big part of the whole picture.

 Overread wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

I think a big part of this is how GW moves forward from 8th edition and forward toward the 9th edition.

GW is built around editions of rules so we know a 9th edition release will come, the key is the format of that release. If its just a polishing of 8th edition coupled with releasing a new edition of the rules that reflect all the updates over the years, coupled with a Big Book that has updated lore and suchlike. Then we can well expect the codex to remain standing and end up acting like the Index with another flash release of more update codex reflecting a shifting change.

On the other hand GW could do a huge rules revision all over again. Personally I don't think they will, I think they will follow Sigmar and produce a new edition that continues to refine. Perhaps even teasing new game mechanics in through expansions (like hte magic for Sigmar); letting them be part of the main game, but if they fail they can be cut away without harming the core of the game mechanics themselves.



I do agree that GW hasn't dropped all their rules staff for a new system; however I think that with the change in attitude at their end and with more open discourse with players they might well be building solid foundations for the future.


Also I'd say that yes they've had 30years and lets be honest they've remained the biggest for most of those years. So even though the rules have never been perfect they've still be more than enough to build a powerful company. I think many of us saw GW abuse that aspect nearer the end of the Kirby era and I think the steady loss of sales and damage done then kicked GW somewhat in this new phase into respecting that, yes the rules are not everything but they are still a big part of the whole picture.

I believe that if GW has hold up for so long despite being run like [insert french cursing] it's because of their universe and models all along. Poeple like their minis and their universes, and even though the game's been increasingly disappointing for many years, playing a game of Bolt Action is great - but hasn't the same feeling for lack of a narrative that is untertainting.

If they go on with the edition fomat, they will eventually end up overblaoting the game, as they will want not only to update but to "develop". They do need to develop don't get me wrong but for that you need a solid base. 8th, whhter you like it or not, ist undeniably flawed as of now. Whether they will just try to release a 9th edition that would be the updated version of 8th's, and that way shore it up, or whether they will go the same way they have been until now, I'm not able to foresee. But they need to at least brace it.

The issue will remain that the game has apperently been toned down and whilst it makes the game easier, and if it is true it will remain anyway and is dissapointing. Most games are easy and affordable while featuring tatical depth without arousing a sense of "just push the model to the center and throw a dice" that seems to not be universally recieved.

Also, as for the game being casual or competitve, as mentionned earlier by someone... IMO I think GW take themselves very seriously and they firmly believe their game is suited for tournament (after all, competitive players are the reference), but a game where lists are 90% of the strategy with such unbalanced armies, it can't be. So the game ends up becoming very casual at the same time to try and patch it up, which is hopefully allowed by the fact that it takes part in a "sandbox" universe.

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

I think that relates more to the change of skin that is very often underlined. They change the methods but it still isn't effective enough: nce again the lamentations around the GK codex kind of symbolises it, as the core issue is still extremely acute. I advocate they should re-upgrade the codices but it would imply that these folks would need to by a new book again.

Something remarkably common in expansion game design is a very timid first wave, followed by an aggressive second. A lot of this has to do with the first wave being very concerned with the appearance of power creep, and the second needing to feel like it adds something substantial to the experience. For ongoing games, it can be worse, because while you're adding a powerful new system to the game, doing it faction by faction means that you divide into haves and have nots pretty quickly. Warmachine saw something very similar in the rollout of theme forces, and really only started sailing smoothly when they bit the bullet and dumped them all out whether or not they were finished. Generally after those two early extremes the meta starts to show and the developers can build towards a real base powerline instead of a theoretical one. At this point we stand to gain way more from seeing GW go back and fix the GK codex than we do from watching them start a new edition with a blind sense of where the meta will wind up and make the same mistakes all over again.

Are we just talking about 8th Ed in terms of it's ruleset?

I always consider an edition in terms of it's releases, codexes and models.

As my earlier post the model releases for me have been really lacking this edition so far. All Imperium and Chaos Here's hoping my ladz get something new for me to spend my hard earned on.

Some things I luvery love about 8th edition:

1) No scatter (faster)
2) No armor facings (faster)
3) Simplified cover (faster)
4) No more rules bloat
5) No more death stars
6) WS2 !!!
7) Keywords
8) Datasheets

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Melee is actually pretty darn good and one of the most strategic parts of the game.

Except its not. Entire armies don't even use Melee at all. Tau, Imperial Guard, Ultramarines. All they do is buff shooting units and kill you from a distance. On the other hand, the pure Melee armies Orkz, Demons and Khorne suffer because they tend to lose too much before they get into CC.

My Smurfs assault every game.

May I ask how? I for example struggle to reach melee with my army.

I think he said that his local meta is assault heavy, if so then he might have oppertuniries to get locked in, sometimes it IS best to push a tac squad or intercessor squad into combat to finish an enemy off, if he's going to get into combat anyway and by doing so you deny them the charge. This is something we sometimes forget in our tactics discussions TBH, local meta and what your opponent brings will demand differant tactics. if your local meta consists of guys running world eaters trying to charge across the table from you, it's going to ahve a VERY VERY differant set of requirements from if your local meta consists of bike lists

That is not what I said.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

zerosignal wrote:
I'm on the fence. Whilst some of 8th's changes are pretty good - and it feels nice to get a game under 4 hours for once - there are obvious holes where we could have done with better rules.

As for this:
"give GW a little time to get the game where it should be"

They've had over 30 years...

As I always say, we're closer to actually making a tech cult on mars than gw is to balancing 40k in the last 30 years.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

3rd, better state.

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

4th arguably better state

Wrong.

 Formosa wrote:

5th much better state, had codex issues

Arguably was on par with 8th, but it was all thanks to efforts to one writer who was hounded out of company thanks to whiners who never opened 3rd edition book (otherwise they would see he just paraphrased what was already there) making noises louder than WAAAAGH over three tiny fluff blurbs...

 Formosa wrote:

6th utter crap

Funnily enough, I liked 6th ed ally system much better than garbage we had in 7th or current system. Alas, again, ruined by complainers who couldn't do broken combo X with Y "what do you mean it's not fluffy and doesn't make any sense, I want to ally superfriends, WAAAA!".

 Formosa wrote:

7th better state, codexs ruined it

Completely wrong, that bloated mess of pointless/useless USRs was in main rules. Garbage ally system, main rules. Invisibility, main rules. Zillion of other broken stuff, main rules. The fact it was paired with such OP as eldar and tau books was just top dump on already 55 layered shitcake.

Ouaiiiis! And yet again another whine about whine post that literally brings on even less than what he is trying to out argument and prove wrong. I think the OP is so biased he didn't even mention those whiners who are at least as poisonous. Seriously dude look at your post again, try to puck up some brain matter and gork samn elaborate if tou want to raost him bekoz iz whainy....

Primark, what you say you like, you're three first points more specifically, are (and you clearly marked it, no problem with that), completly subjective and do show that the game, if it is simpler, has been remade at the expense of depth. Which is what many player are upset about and I take the same stance: if the game has been that much toned down, it's more interesting to go play a game of Project Z and its extremely simple rukes while being cheap and balanced, than a fale with even less tactical depth that in afdition is ceippled by current bad army balance and utterly expensive. This it is not what you expect from 40k as far as many are concerned, yet again it is worth denouncing because i could litteraly have someone learn Bolt Action's rules who doesn''t know english, and the game is still greatly tactical.

Why counter someone by saying that things are subjective then go on to say a bunch of completely subjective things?

 Primark G wrote:
Some things I luvery love about 8th edition:

1) No scatter (faster)
2) No armor facings (faster)
3) Simplified cover (faster)
4) No more rules bloat
5) No more death stars
6) WS2 !!!
7) Keywords
8) Datasheets

1) yes! I did have enough of watching people argue for 20 minutes.
2) meh, i liked this... kinda promoted flanking. Wish it was in 8th edition as +1 save if you're shooting deadon.
3) meh, to some extent. But also +1 save has turned out to be highly unbalanced.
4) damm... i remember I had a cheat sheet and every time i even looked at a unit i had to run down and entire encyclopedia of rules to find out i can move an extra inch or something stupid. In 8th i never even look at my codex because it's so simple.
5) haha, oh yes... i remember them. Glad they are gone.
6) meh, not much to say about that but o get yah.
7) i don't know if keywords have done good or bad. People focus om them a lot but never payed much attention to them.
8) everything on the sheet like a game of mtg does make everything easier on the eyes.

All i all what have we learnt? All gw had to do to kake 40k good was to kake a normal okay game like everyone else? Seriously, we clap at them for figuring out basic stuff 20 years too lait... if a new game came out not bssed on anything and not by GW in the same state as 8th (with all the exsact same rules, units, ect...) we wouldn't even touch it.