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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
For me the reason I like vehicle facing is it forces you and your opponant to move more tactically. I find it really annoying that a Shadow sword can sit on it's board edge all game and shoot anything. Facings allowed you to at least move out of LoS and force thing to move. Unlike now, volcano cannon outta my.bavk track.

Imo 8th finally got vehicles right, aisde from facings. Transports how ever really need to be fixed. Forcing you to unload before your movement makes transports only use to not get the unit inside shot turn on. It now twkes two turns to effectively use a transport to actually transport units.

And multi targeting/split fire another good thing 8th brought.

One thing 8th does I think was bad and clearly has shown, is garunteed deep strike and being able to charge out of it. That has proven to be very potant and I was calling it day one.

I'm also not a fan of how boring spells are now. Psyker phase is one of the most boring phases now, 7th was dumb, but 8th is a bore.

Personally I liked the old wounding system better, it really was not that hard to remember.

Another thing I'm not a fan of, the amount of - you can stack to hit, if they just capped it at -2 to hit can't get any better that would help a lot.

Terminators are another problem, that's more personal because I have a deathwing army but they still suck ass.

I pray you will forgive me if I go point by point just to elaborate my thoughts?

1) "For me the reason I like vehicle facing is it forces you and your opponant to move more tactically. I find it really annoying that a Shadow sword can sit on it's board edge all game and shoot anything. Facings allowed you to at least move out of LoS and force thing to move. Unlike now, volcano cannon outta my.bavk track." I agree. However, I found it really annoying that a Riptide could sit on its board edge all game and shoot anything. Without facings, you couldn't move out of facing and force the thing to move - like now, it could shoot out of its left ankle. The only options were "make vehicles the same as everything" or "make everything the same as vehicles". Would you enjoy the game more if you had to, for example, manage the facings of every individual infantryman in your army? Of every monster? Of every paid-for fortification, cavalry unit, and literally anything else?

2) "Imo 8th finally got vehicles right, aisde from facings. Transports how ever really need to be fixed. Forcing you to unload before your movement makes transports only use to not get the unit inside shot turn on. It now twkes two turns to effectively use a transport to actually transport units." I don't know if I agree. Deploying after moving makes transports really amazing. I think they're kinda-sorta-useful but not really good now, but that's a preferable state of affairs to transports are now ridiculously OP and broken, thanks for playing.

3) "And multi targeting/split fire another good thing 8th brought." agree

4) "One thing 8th does I think was bad and clearly has shown, is garunteed deep strike and being able to charge out of it. That has proven to be very potant and I was calling it day one." I actually loved this change. It's risky and not too easy to pull off, and forces shooting armies to worry about melee alpha-strike. It's improved the game, imo.

5) "I'm also not a fan of how boring spells are now. Psyker phase is one of the most boring phases now, 7th was dumb, but 8th is a bore. " The problem is that "boring" spells have to kind of stay that way - they can't do anything groundbreaking. "Interesting" spells like the Geomancy ones at the end of 7th were bonkers OP. Current spells IMHO are fine and don't crack the game too badly while still being powerful enough to warrant bringing a psyker or two with most armies.

6) "Personally I liked the old wounding system better, it really was not that hard to remember. " This is a change I adore. Part of the problem with 40k was things not being able to hurt other things, and in some cases it got pretty extreme. As a tread-head, I thought I'd hate it (oh noes my tanks can die to bolters!). But I should have known better - Monstrous Creatures in earlier editions were generally not worried about small arms fire, and that's how tanks are now too. Yeah, sure, a lucky lasgun can kill a Land Raider, but that's ridiculously unlikely to the point of insanity. Even despite this ability, anti-tank weapons still kill tanks, and anti-infantry weapons generally don't, which means it's healthy.

7) "Another thing I'm not a fan of, the amount of - you can stack to hit, if they just capped it at -2 to hit can't get any better that would help a lot." yes. This is a problem. But it fits neatly, as you yourself mention, into the "just a few numbers that need tweaking to fix 8th edition" camp that I mentioned earlier. Just a number tweak.

8) "Terminators are another problem, that's more personal because I have a deathwing army but they still suck ass." Terminators are in a bad spot right now, I agree, but again, a few number tweaks should be able to fix them right up. The biggest issue for them is durability, I think - if they had something like a 1+ armor save (meaning they save against plasma on 4's and 1's still fail against small arms), then they'd be fine. Getting that instead of the invuln should be great.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh in no way do I think old eds were prefect each ahd their flaw. Imo 5th could have been the best Ed if they fixed the undying rino issues and buffed melee.

Yes, but I think "fixing the underlying rhino (by which I assume you mean vehicle) issue" isn't easily done - nor is buffing melee.

The problem is you can't make vehicles easier to kill, because gun tanks were already atrocious in 5th, since Crew Stunned meant they couldn't shoot at all. Vehicles weren't actually that great - just transports.

8th is just another attempt to iterate improvements, and imho, it has improved, because I find it more fun. I considered armour facings on vehicles a weakness of the 40k rule-set, not a strength, since facing didn't matter for anything else (so it just made the vehicle rules feel artificial and disconnected), and the targeting restrictions to be nonsense. Tanks in WWI literally engaged multiple targets - they even have guns pointing backwards! Why could units only engage a single target in 5ed? That's fixed with 8th.

Things 8th broke, for me, are mostly limited to issues which just juggling the numbers can largely fix. I don't have any specific problem with IGOUGO - I am not sure 40k is that well suited to it, but it's lower down on my list of things to fix beneath table size and lethality.

Have they not stated table sizes should be 8x4 for point levels above 2000?

I've been saying this for years.

Also, and I'll bang this drum forever, if needs be, lots of issues could be fixed simply by bringing back abstract terrain rules.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, in theory, a person or a small clique of people who vocally spend all day bashing anyone who voices any complaint about 8th, who sneer and ridicule anyone who liked anything about the game before and who just wish "the oldies" would go away WOULD be just as bad as a person or a clique of people who whine and moan about anything that's different from "when 40k was good" (usually whatever year they started playing) and drive people away by their constant extremely loud moping and woe-is-meing.

but guess which category of people I've never actually seen in real life, and which category I could easily rattle you off a dozen people from who show up and either play and give someone a terrible game or don't even bother playing and just wander from table to table shaking their head and saying "oh, I can't even BELIEVE that's what an army looks like now, that looks so broken, is THAT what a space marine looks like now, I'm thinking about ebaying my army..."

Quite so. I've had quite a few discussions with my groups about what I think could be improved in 8th, and haven't been driven away. It's not that people don't like anyone who thinks 8th is wrong - it's that they don't like people who do... well, basically this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Banville wrote:
Have they not stated table sizes should be 8x4 for point levels above 2000?

I've been saying this for years.

Also, and I'll bang this drum forever, if needs be, lots of issues could be fixed simply by bringing back abstract terrain rules.

I actually advocate a 12x8 for table size, though I recognize that's huge and impractical for most people. In the theoretical sense (and the actual sense, where practical), it's good for 40k, having played on a table that size numerous times.

And I actually think 8th is supposed to be pretty abstract - there's a lot of hemming and hawing about terrain, with tons of "talk to opponent" and the specific terrain rules are fairly short and barely cover anything. The problem is that people aren't willing to talk it over, and they want concise, clear, complete terrain rules that are also abstract. It's possible, yes, and I do pine for the days of 4th Edition's terrain levels, etc., but I don't think 8th is completely unworkably bad.

It is if you don't try, though.

Banville wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh in no way do I think old eds were prefect each ahd their flaw. Imo 5th could have been the best Ed if they fixed the undying rino issues and buffed melee.

Yes, but I think "fixing the underlying rhino (by which I assume you mean vehicle) issue" isn't easily done - nor is buffing melee.

The problem is you can't make vehicles easier to kill, because gun tanks were already atrocious in 5th, since Crew Stunned meant they couldn't shoot at all. Vehicles weren't actually that great - just transports.

8th is just another attempt to iterate improvements, and imho, it has improved, because I find it more fun. I considered armour facings on vehicles a weakness of the 40k rule-set, not a strength, since facing didn't matter for anything else (so it just made the vehicle rules feel artificial and disconnected), and the targeting restrictions to be nonsense. Tanks in WWI literally engaged multiple targets - they even have guns pointing backwards! Why could units only engage a single target in 5ed? That's fixed with 8th.

Things 8th broke, for me, are mostly limited to issues which just juggling the numbers can largely fix. I don't have any specific problem with IGOUGO - I am not sure 40k is that well suited to it, but it's lower down on my list of things to fix beneath table size and lethality.

Have they not stated table sizes should be 8x4 for point levels above 2000?

I've been saying this for years.

Also, and I'll bang this drum forever, if needs be, lots of issues could be fixed simply by bringing back abstract terrain rules.

Psst.

I'll tell you a secret.

Everything on the board is a Statue without the morale rule.

Fortunatly the thread has cooled down I see.

As for poeple not being over-positive IRL like we see on the internet and bashing those who don't agree with them, maybe that's because it is easier the bash sombody verbally with not much effort from your keyboard. In addition Im not sure that if somebody goes out to the store to play, he'll actually give a damn about wasting that time arguing and looking quite stupid in front of the audience whereas he can simply ignore whoever dislikes and carry on playing. Whereas on a forum poeple are there to... debate? And argue.

Just a hypothesis.

The one aspect of the game Id like changed is always hitting on 6's regardless of silly modifiers.

Mostly as a shout out to Ork Armies who sometimes just...can't do anything.

Vehicle arcs. Do people seriously want those back? Arguing. Taking out rulers and friggen protractors was terrible.

What I find is that for the most part, the internet feels like its a constant cycle of the stages of grief, except on the whole, the discussion never gets beyond anger/bargaining/depression steps. It's fine not to like something. It's important to talk about it and brainstorm things you might like better. It's also important to at some point to move on.

When I approach a game, I'll play, evaluate what I like and don't like, probably log some complaints, but ultimately come to the point where I decide whether or not to play again. If I do play again, its accepting that I am willing to put up with these things to experience the parts I enjoy. After the game, I may reevaluate and decide not to play again.

I like tinkering and fixing things as much/more than the next guy, but I try not to dwell on problems. If something's a dealbreaker, I'll probably mention it but for the most part, unless someone directly seeks my opinion, I'll just kind of let it be beyond the initial feedback. There's little accomplished by arguing about things I can't change with other people who don't have the power to change things. I don't need people to agree with the things I don't like. Ultimately, if I'm posting a criticism at all its in a "wouldn't it be neat if" kind of mindset, because I really don't need to convince anyone they shouldn't enjoy something; even if I absolutely hate it.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Vehicle arcs. Do people seriously want those back? Arguing. Taking out rulers and friggen protractors was terrible.

As Ash from the GMG channel put it, the game is now about "standing on points and preventing your opponent from standing on points".

I personally enjoyed the game more when maneuvering mattered.

Removal of vehicle facings is just one of many little things GW has done to make movement irrelevant. More impactful are the lack of any meaningful terrain and cover rules, absolutely absurd firepower on everything (hey, remember when a 6-man tactical squad with 1 lascannon and 1 plasma gun was a big deal people complained about spamming? meaningless in this edition when any random potato on a 60mm base outguns a Land Raider) and first turn charges and teleport charges.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
The one aspect of the game Id like changed is always hitting on 6's regardless of silly modifiers.

Mostly as a shout out to Ork Armies who sometimes just...can't do anything.

Vehicle arcs. Do people seriously want those back? Arguing. Taking out rulers and friggen protractors was terrible.

I like facing arcs when they make sense, but 40k vehicles don't have a good way of doing them consistently. Even then, turns should probably be considered a single fluid sequence. When my Blackstar shoots something behind it, I prefer to think of it more as having shot it as it fly overhead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Vehicle arcs. Do people seriously want those back? Arguing. Taking out rulers and friggen protractors was terrible.

As Ash from the GMG channel put it, the game is now about "standing on points and preventing your opponent from standing on points".

I personally enjoyed the game more when maneuvering mattered.

Removal of vehicle facings is just one of many little things GW has done to make movement irrelevant. More impactful are the lack of any meaningful terrain and cover rules, absolutely absurd firepower on everything (hey, remember when a 6-man tactical squad with 1 lascannon and 1 plasma gun was a big deal people complained about spamming? meaningless in this edition when any random potato on a 60mm base outguns a Land Raider) and first turn charges and teleport charges.

The terrain rules aren't bad with significantly large LOS blocking pieces and lots of rubble areas around them. I find the game starts to get legitimately interesting when there's enough stuff to essentially let armies essentially deploy where they can't see one another.

Forge the narrative! The tanker pulls the E brake, putting the tank into a power slide shooting behind it before spinning back forward into its final position. WOOOOOOO.

As for terrain I see far too few LoS blocking terrain. Looks good maybe. But doesn't do squat for game play.

Maneuvering would matter in this edition on a 12x8 table with tons of LOS blocking terrain.

But what do I know.

P.S. If the only maneuvering you did was to get different facings on tanks, then maneuvering only mattered in a bland, silly sense anyways, against a single unit type.

Want armies to have to maneuver? Make it so they're not automatically able to get locked down in CC/automatically in range starting the Top of Turn 1.

 LunarSol wrote:

The terrain rules aren't bad with significantly large LOS blocking pieces and lots of rubble areas around them. I find the game starts to get legitimately interesting when there's enough stuff to essentially let armies essentially deploy where they can't see one another.

When a board with lots of rubble piles, broken fences, bushes, road blocks, bombed out buildings, and trees plays out like planet bowling ball with only 2 or 3 large area terrain pieces for a +1 armor save, it really breaks the immersion and appeal of a busy battle field. Where as now the more "optimal" design is to just throw down some giant slabs of styrafoam blocks for LoS blocking terrain because the quality terrain that everyone has been using up until 8th (including the vast majority of GW terrain) is almost useless.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Forge the narrative! The tanker pulls the E brake, putting the tank into a power slide shooting behind it before spinning back forward into its final position. WOOOOOOO.

As for terrain I see far too few LoS blocking terrain. Looks good maybe. But doesn't do squat for game play.

And thats the problem. Forge the narrative boards are generally bad for gameplay in 8th while the bare minimum effort style terrain (cardboard box of poptarts, some beer cans, a stack of books, etc) works far better for the game than something that is trying to be realistic and visually representative of a proper battlefield. Something is wrong with that picture.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Maneuvering would matter in this edition on a 12x8 table with tons of LOS blocking terrain.

But what do I know.

Too bad 12x8 tables are rare, borderline impossible to use for many players even if they had one, and completely impractical in any kind of organized event. And good luck finding a host with enough terrain to fill that 12x8 table when most stores/events can't even fill 6x4 tables.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Maneuvering would matter in this edition on a 12x8 table with tons of LOS blocking terrain.

But what do I know.

Too bad 12x8 tables are rare, borderline impossible to use for many players even if they had one, and completely impractical in any kind of organized event. And good luck finding a host with enough terrain to fill that 12x8 table when most stores/events can't even fill 6x4 tables.

More like Mission: Impossible if you ask me. Shall us players bungee-cord in to move our minis around, while dodging our opponent's laser pointers?

Such a proposal self-destructed in 4th Ed. Apocalypse.

So one thing brought up I always feel the need to point out, is when people say, "firing archs and templates needed to go, it caused to many arguments." No, removing them does not solve that because the problem was not the template or the facing it was the player. The players wanted to argue that that still has not gone away, and it never will. Cheesy TFG's will always be in the game and removing mechanics does not fix that.

Another thing I want back that was removed because of "arguments" was true Loss needing to see 50% or more, because it find it to be really annoying that if the pinky of a guy or tip of a sword can be seen that unit can be shot, or the shooting model can fire everything out of the tip of a spear.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So one thing brought up I always feel the need to point out, is when people say, "firing archs and templates needed to go, it caused to many arguments." No, removing them does not solve that because the problem was not the template or the facing it was the player. The players wanted to argue that that still has not gone away, and it never will. Cheesy TFG's will always be in the game and removing mechanics does not fix that.

Another thing I want back that was removed because of "arguments" was true Loss needing to see 50% or more, because it find it to be really annoying that if the pinky of a guy or tip of a sword can be seen that unit can be shot, or the shooting model can fire everything out of the tip of a spear.

That isn't true at all. Arcs and templates caused arguments because two people could have legitimate disagreements on what answer was correct. TFGs would try to cheat with them, but even with honest players they caused a lot of arguments because it was often unclear whether a model was under a template or where an arc was. For example, where is the front vs. side arc line on an Eldar tank with no corners?

Still, 8x4 is pretty doable. I whole-heartedly agree that there's something wrong mechanically with a rules set when expensive, detailed terrain is effectively open ground because it has widows whereas a rock lifted from the garden adds immeasurably to the gameplay.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So one thing brought up I always feel the need to point out, is when people say, "firing archs and templates needed to go, it caused to many arguments." No, removing them does not solve that because the problem was not the template or the facing it was the player. The players wanted to argue that that still has not gone away, and it never will. Cheesy TFG's will always be in the game and removing mechanics does not fix that.

Another thing I want back that was removed because of "arguments" was true Loss needing to see 50% or more, because it find it to be really annoying that if the pinky of a guy or tip of a sword can be seen that unit can be shot, or the shooting model can fire everything out of the tip of a spear.

That isn't true at all. Arcs and templates caused arguments because two people could have legitimate disagreements on what answer was correct. TFGs would try to cheat with them, but even with honest players they caused a lot of arguments because it was often unclear whether a model was under a template or where an arc was. For example, where is the front vs. side arc line on an Eldar tank with no corners?

Front arc was 45 degrees left and 45 right fr the frot of the tank, it it had a base it was really easy to mark and not that hard people woule just be lazy or argue to argue.

LOS blockers just let the ig win with no effort. At least, that's what it seems.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So one thing brought up I always feel the need to point out, is when people say, "firing archs and templates needed to go, it caused to many arguments." No, removing them does not solve that because the problem was not the template or the facing it was the player. The players wanted to argue that that still has not gone away, and it never will. Cheesy TFG's will always be in the game and removing mechanics does not fix that.

Another thing I want back that was removed because of "arguments" was true Loss needing to see 50% or more, because it find it to be really annoying that if the pinky of a guy or tip of a sword can be seen that unit can be shot, or the shooting model can fire everything out of the tip of a spear.

That isn't true at all. Arcs and templates caused arguments because two people could have legitimate disagreements on what answer was correct. TFGs would try to cheat with them, but even with honest players they caused a lot of arguments because it was often unclear whether a model was under a template or where an arc was. For example, where is the front vs. side arc line on an Eldar tank with no corners?

Front arc was 45 degrees left and 45 right fr the frot of the tank, it it had a base it was really easy to mark and not that hard people woule just be lazy or argue to argue.

Yup, same with scatter dice. Some people were just too fething dumb to not realise the parallax effect that would occur when you didn't roll the dice next to the target. Roll it several feet away from it and watch the arguments ensue.

That right there was a fault of the players. Same with templates. I'm failing to see how someone cannot see what is under a see through perspex template so this is just ol' Perri pontificating again.

The issue is that if you open the door to players arguing they will.

Every time a model was 1mm under or out of the template you get a potential dispute. You wouldn't have thought this would happen often but it seemed to come up a lot - especially with the small blast template.

I'd have probably kept the flamer - which seemed to cause comparatively few arguments because you could place it as you wanted (so it could be manipulated until both players agreed on the result) and it had an iconic coolness to it. Changing blast to D3/D6 wasn't the worst idea - but these should have been flat hits and everything balanced accordingly. "DX" shots that you then have to hit with is a stupid mechanic and I'd love it to be taken out.

Tyel wrote:
The issue is that if you open the door to players arguing they will.

Every time a model was 1mm under or out of the template you get a potential dispute. You wouldn't have thought this would happen often but it seemed to come up a lot - especially with the small blast template.

I'd have probably kept the flamer - which seemed to cause comparatively few arguments because you could place it as you wanted (so it could be manipulated until both players agreed on the result) and it had an iconic coolness to it. Changing blast to D3/D6 wasn't the worst idea - but these should have been flat hits and everything balanced accordingly. "DX" shots that you then have to hit with is a stupid mechanic and I'd love it to be taken out.

Hold template over enemy models

“How many models are under there mate, can’t really see from my angle”

“About 3, possibly 4, lets call it 4”

“Ok bud”

99.999999% of games

The whole template argument thing is pure cods wallop, barely anyone ever actually argued about it, it’s internet hyperbole as usual

But meh, it’s gone, replaced by a system that hasn’t actually replaced it, thing is I liked the idea of the d6 multi shot, it just hasn’t worked, GW needs to resolve the issue.

guys wake up, times are changed now GW made a product for another "level" of targets, so anything is simplified and "yeah i like roll bucket of dice rerolling anyhting"... so that's what it will be, is just a marketing move.Most of who buy and play wh40k aren't tournament players so they targeting that kind of customers, they try (with doubt success) to fix matched rules but usually they fall short in a way or another. We can moan all day long, take or leave.

 Blndmage wrote:
What if those who dintblike 8th, and prefer other editions just play those?

I've been seriously considering getting a copy of 4th and the relevant codexes to play with.

I asked about that, was told that it is not legal to use books from editions before. So I don't think it would work.

Karol wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
What if those who dintblike 8th, and prefer other editions just play those?

I've been seriously considering getting a copy of 4th and the relevant codexes to play with.

I asked about that, was told that it is not legal to use books from editions before. So I don't think it would work.

Karol I think Blndmage is meaning getting a copy of the 4th edition rules and codex and playing a game of 4th edition.
Now granted your local GW store might not support this, fair is fair they want current product and game on display in their store when played; but some managers might be fine with it, esp if hte game is in an off-peek hour or suchlike (there might even be restrictions on that in their contract so it might not even be their call on this matter).


A 3rd party store would have less reason to defend the current rules edition; whilst a local club shouldn't have any problem if two players (or more) want to play a different edition.

But wouldn't most people not have a 4th ed optimised army? I don't know how much the rules between editions changed, but for example in the case of my army I don't know if GK even had a codex in 4th ed. Also people who already are having fun right now, won't be buying models just so that other can beat them, and have some fun.

Karol wrote:
But wouldn't most people not have a 4th ed optimised army? I don't know how much the rules between editions changed, but for example in the case of my army I don't know if GK even had a codex in 4th ed. Also people who already are having fun right now, won't be buying models just so that other can beat them, and have some fun.

True but some armies didn't evolve vast amounts between editions in terms of basic weapon choices. Though sure some armies are better than others (Tyranids tend to do poorer because of the fact that a lot of their units have multiple weapon choices which vary widely in what is present and legally allowed). Although one might do a few "counts as" so that some modern equivalents fit into older rules.

And yes some armies were not around then, so it would only work for those that were. Between friends there's nothing wrong in that; just because there's newer edition doesn't mean the old ones are not fun any more.

I don't understand the friends comment. Friends or strangers no one is going to let you play with an illegal list, otherwise may as well make cheating legal and ok.

 Formosa wrote:
I’ve played sparingly since chapter approved but that’s for several reasons.

Firstly: we are primarily a 30k group, it’s just the game we prefer using the rules we prefer.

Secondly: 8th to me is just too lacklustre, same as 7th 40k, as soon as the book dropped we all went over it and noticed a lack in key areas WE enjoyed, they still haven’t fixed the psy phase and have repeated the mistakes of editions passed with it, I remember leaving a long post about it to GW prior to 8th dropping, cover and movement took a big hit too, while they have recently tried to address this, it didn’t go far enough.

Lastly: I’m waiting, I don’t see 8th as a finished product but fully expect it to be relatively soon, I think it’s fair that I criticise Gw formissing some glaring issues but I don’t think it’s fair that I haven’t applauded them for Trying to resolve them.

I’ve never seen the appeal of 30k Space Marines vs Space Marines For days right? A lot of same builds too - Leviathan dreadnaught in a drop pod, Primarch of Praetor in Spartan with terminators or some elite melee unit, quad launchers with Phosphex shells, sergeants tanking Bolter Fire with artificer armor... just seems incredibly boring.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) "For me the reason I like vehicle facing is it forces you and your opponant to move more tactically. I find it really annoying that a Shadow sword can sit on it's board edge all game and shoot anything. Facings allowed you to at least move out of LoS and force thing to move. Unlike now, volcano cannon outta my.bavk track." I agree. However, I found it really annoying that a Riptide could sit on its board edge all game and shoot anything. Without facings, you couldn't move out of facing and force the thing to move - like now, it could shoot out of its left ankle. The only options were "make vehicles the same as everything" or "make everything the same as vehicles". Would you enjoy the game more if you had to, for example, manage the facings of every individual infantryman in your army? Of every monster? Of every paid-for fortification, cavalry unit, and literally anything else?

Yes, I would enjoy the game more if everything had firing arcs. And no, it doesn't need to be a per-model basis. MEDGe does it using squad leaders as the anchor point, and all other models in the unit must face the same way.

2) "Imo 8th finally got vehicles right, aisde from facings. Transports how ever really need to be fixed. Forcing you to unload before your movement makes transports only use to not get the unit inside shot turn on. It now twkes two turns to effectively use a transport to actually transport units." I don't know if I agree. Deploying after moving makes transports really amazing. I think they're kinda-sorta-useful but not really good now, but that's a preferable state of affairs to transports are now ridiculously OP and broken, thanks for playing.

Vehicles having toughness/wounds is fine, but I don't really agree with the other changes. The damage brackets are a nice idea conceptually, but implemented in an awkward fashion with each vehicle having its own unique chart, which means you have to keep glancing at the data sheet while you play. Something more universal, like the way MEDGe handles large models, would have been preferable.

3) "And multi targeting/split fire another good thing 8th brought." agree

Partially agree. The extent to which split-fire has been applied is too broad and should have been reserved for heavy weapons, so that the guy with a missile launcher in a tac squad, or mixed-weapon dev squads could actually do their thing. And it should be by weapon, not each individual model (potentially) firing at a different target.

4) "One thing 8th does I think was bad and clearly has shown, is garunteed deep strike and being able to charge out of it. That has proven to be very potant and I was calling it day one." I actually loved this change. It's risky and not too easy to pull off, and forces shooting armies to worry about melee alpha-strike. It's improved the game, imo.

What? Deep striking with no scatter is less risky and doesn't have the risk-reward factor it used to.

5) "I'm also not a fan of how boring spells are now. Psyker phase is one of the most boring phases now, 7th was dumb, but 8th is a bore. " The problem is that "boring" spells have to kind of stay that way - they can't do anything groundbreaking. "Interesting" spells like the Geomancy ones at the end of 7th were bonkers OP. Current spells IMHO are fine and don't crack the game too badly while still being powerful enough to warrant bringing a psyker or two with most armies.

Not Necessarily. Who says psychic powers have to be free? Being free, they can't all be balanced, at least not without being incredibly boring. GW should put points costs back on them.

6) "Personally I liked the old wounding system better, it really was not that hard to remember. " This is a change I adore. Part of the problem with 40k was things not being able to hurt other things, and in some cases it got pretty extreme. As a tread-head, I thought I'd hate it (oh noes my tanks can die to bolters!). But I should have known better - Monstrous Creatures in earlier editions were generally not worried about small arms fire, and that's how tanks are now too. Yeah, sure, a lucky lasgun can kill a Land Raider, but that's ridiculously unlikely to the point of insanity. Even despite this ability, anti-tank weapons still kill tanks, and anti-infantry weapons generally don't, which means it's healthy.

Everything hurting everything makes no sense in a game with units ranging from a grot to an IK or a titan. Even if GW were to remove super heavies/gargantuans and maybe fliers from non-apocalypse games I think there would still be too much variety in units and wargear for that mechanic to make sense or promote interesting gameplay.

7) "Another thing I'm not a fan of, the amount of - you can stack to hit, if they just capped it at -2 to hit can't get any better that would help a lot." yes. This is a problem. But it fits neatly, as you yourself mention, into the "just a few numbers that need tweaking to fix 8th edition" camp that I mentioned earlier. Just a number tweak.

40k needs more than just number tweaks- its biggest problems are the core rules- IGOUGO, the phases, and a passive ruleset that relies on +1/-1 or reroll mechanics instead of actually doing things during a game- 40k, and AOS as well, have an extremely narrow design space that doesn't allow for anything past models standing there and killing each other.

8) "Terminators are another problem, that's more personal because I have a deathwing army but they still suck ass." Terminators are in a bad spot right now, I agree, but again, a few number tweaks should be able to fix them right up. The biggest issue for them is durability, I think - if they had something like a 1+ armor save (meaning they save against plasma on 4's and 1's still fail against small arms), then they'd be fine. Getting that instead of the invuln should be great.

See above. Until 40k is a decision-based game and not a math hammer game, these kinds of issues will persist.