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.

Don't care. I'm paying them, not vice versa.

Martel732 wrote:
Don't care. I'm paying them, not vice versa.

Paying them to play their game, with models they've made.

If you disagree with GW's approaches and have so little care for them, why give them any money? If you think they're so bad, why bother?

My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

The models aren't the issue. They are artistically brilliant, but rules-wise they are morons.

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I think im one of the very few people who loves that templates were removed

No more hour-long movement phase as everyone measures out an exact maximum separation of guys and no more being the third party guy that has to go to every table and make sure people moved the template exactly right and settle arguments of whether or not that template touched somebody's toe or not.

Templates are a great thing in theory but at least all the groups ive ever played in they caused nothing but arguments

Martel732 wrote:
The models aren't the issue. They are artistically brilliant, but rules-wise they are morons.

We get it dude, you hate the game. No need to post it everywhere

I more hate the concept of bowing to GW's vision of anything.

Asmodios wrote:
No more hour-long movement phase as everyone measures out an exact maximum separation of guys and no more being the third party guy that has to go to every table and make sure people moved the template exactly right and settle arguments of whether or not that template touched somebody's toe or not.

I'm tempted to agree. I don't think the "D# attacks" is the best alternative they could have gone with, but while it removes some spectacle from the game it also removes a lot of arguments.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I think im one of the very few people who loves that templates were removed

No more hour-long movement phase as everyone measures out an exact maximum separation of guys and no more being the third party guy that has to go to every table and make sure people moved the template exactly right and settle arguments of whether or not that template touched somebody's toe or not.

Templates are a great thing in theory but at least all the groups ive ever played in they caused nothing but arguments

Most people didn't play that way.

Templates were bad when you had to 4+ the partially covered models. When they changed to touched in any way, they were a lot better.

If they had just scaled the old blast and templates with unit size, it probably would have been fine.

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.

In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.

But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

Terrain Cover is nto great - needs at a minimum to move to the city fo death version.
Armour / Ap is good - problem is more the amount on high Ap weapons
Flamer templates good - rest were just a way to start arguments.....
WS is fine - the "interactions" before were minimal - almost everyone hit on a 4+ - even the most highly skilled fighters in the galaxy were hitting Grtechin on a 3+
Psyker rules in 7th were soo tedious - especially if you didn't have any.

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I agree with all that. Furthermore - Heroic intervention is bad but it's better than challenges. Vehicals not being able to shoot if you touch them with a grot is also a terrible rule.

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I agree on the terrain being bad, and with templates and blasts I'm neutral (small blasts are basically better now).

However I gotta disagree on the AP system being worst. If we were on a D8 system system, the modifying system, rather than the old "all or nothing" was a huge issue regarding the viability of several weapons and units. Certain weapon relics were terribad because they would be stuck at AP3-4. Now as -1 or 2 they have better use.
Granted relics should have a price now rather than the current system for that.

If GW thought that template weapons are a problem then giving the weapons or at least the pure anti swarm ones flat number of hits would be much better. A flamer should be 6 auto hits on infantry, and by all the gods it should not auto hit air planes.

Karol wrote:
If GW thought that template weapons are a problem then giving the weapons or at least the pure anti swarm ones flat number of hits would be much better. A flamer should be 6 auto hits on infantry, and by all the gods it should not auto hit air planes.

In the far future of 40k mortars are able to pin point shoot at a low alltitude landing plane, flammer doing the same thing is about the least of your worries in regards to realism.


But i agree, that dedicated AA guns should be better then a freaking hellhound f.e.

Having returned to game from a few years hiatus I find all the rules of 8th to be a huge step forward in enjoying the game. Blast templates were funny but caused arguments and made the movement phase obnoxious, and I think the AP + armor interaction is brilliant.

Everything has been streamlined in a much more agreeable way for fun, as well as balance. I think its a win/win honestly.

There are some obnoxious things like units standing on top of buildings not being able to be charged and I do much prefer the cities of death terrain rules to standard. Also I think all tanks should be able to fall back from combat and still shoot, anything else just feels bad all around. It would also open up vehicles to having an interesting sort of tank shock/ramming dimension if you assaulted with them intentionally.

"There are some obnoxious things like units standing on top of buildings not being able to be charged "

ITC reverses this, btw.

My only reason issue with ITC is that their missions remove anything to help discourage extreme builds and, in fact, encourage them more since it's mostly all points for killing gak. lot of it I like.

What do you think of combined arms ITC?

I actually rather like the terrain rules, but they are designed for terrain that GW doesn't really produce. The rules work great with large solid objects that block LOS surrounded by large rubble templates. Unfortunately, GW mostly makes broken wall sections covered with windows.

I'd like to see templates change from d3 attack rolls that each cause a wound roll to 1 attack roll that causes d3 wounds when it hits. Maybe something additional like +1 to hit vs units or something.

Martel732 wrote:
What do you think of combined arms ITC?

To be honest, I never looked at them, everyone went to Champions when those came out.

Wayniac wrote:
That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

People fight it because "your army is overpowered and wins a lot of one-sided games, until you randomly hit the nerf mission where it auto-loses" is a fundamentally bad approach to balance.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

People fight it because "your army is overpowered and wins a lot of one-sided games, until you randomly hit the nerf mission where it auto-loses" is a fundamentally bad approach to balance.

Whether or not that is the case it appears to be how GW balances.

Your next line will be: Then they are incompetent buffoons who should be fired.

Yes. We know. But that still doesn't change that's what they are doing and NOT following suit skews things. It might skew it in an acceptable fashion, of course, but it still changes the game because you're not playing the way that they are balancing.

Not Online!!! 773029 10403909 wrote:

In the far future of 40k mortars are able to pin point shoot at a low alltitude landing plane, flammer doing the same thing is about the least of your worries in regards to realism.


But i agree, that dedicated AA guns should be better then a freaking hellhound f.e.

It has nothing to do with realism. It just blocks the design space, plus makes the possibily of an accidental flamer suddenly becoming a god AA gun possible.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
That is exactly the point of contention here. On both points. That seems to be GW's desired approach but people fight against it.

People fight it because "your army is overpowered and wins a lot of one-sided games, until you randomly hit the nerf mission where it auto-loses" is a fundamentally bad approach to balance.

Whether or not that is the case it appears to be how GW balances.

Your next line will be: Then they are incompetent buffoons who should be fired.

Yes. We know. But that still doesn't change that's what they are doing and NOT following suit skews things. It might skew it in an acceptable fashion, of course, but it still changes the game because you're not playing the way that they are balancing.

Ok, but GW idea of balance seems to be two people owning 20000 pts of probably 3-4 different armies. And of course the official GW terrain. And both adjust their list to what ever the opposing player wants to play, what scenario is played etc. As soon as the game is two people playing with 2000pts of the lists they own, and they can't change a thing, because those 2000 is what they bought, And they tried to buy the best 2000pts they could get, if suddenly a scenario screws one person over big time, they will just not play with such a rule.

Wayniac wrote:
Whether or not that is the case it appears to be how GW balances.

And that is why third-party missions are so popular, because GW refuses to publish better ones.

Your next line will be: Then they are incompetent buffoons who should be fired.

Yep. Add one more reason to the list.

Yes. We know. But that still doesn't change that's what they are doing and NOT following suit skews things. It might skew it in an acceptable fashion, of course, but it still changes the game because you're not playing the way that they are balancing.

Well yes, of course it's going to skew the game. Everything skews the game unless you exactly duplicate GW's armies and terrain setups. The question is if it changes the game in a good way, and eliminating GW's poor mission design is a good change.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I think im one of the very few people who loves that templates were removed

No more hour-long movement phase as everyone measures out an exact maximum separation of guys and no more being the third party guy that has to go to every table and make sure people moved the template exactly right and settle arguments of whether or not that template touched somebody's toe or not.

Templates are a great thing in theory but at least all the groups ive ever played in they caused nothing but arguments

Fair enough. Tho I feel like this could have been mitigated with a mandatory base-to-base coherency rule for movement, though that might come with issues of its own.

Maybe it was an improvement. I still dislike the change from a fun perspective. Though, that might be more because "random number of shots" is a terrible alternative.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I agree on the terrain being bad, and with templates and blasts I'm neutral (small blasts are basically better now).

However I gotta disagree on the AP system being worst. If we were on a D8 system system, the modifying system, rather than the old "all or nothing" was a huge issue regarding the viability of several weapons and units. Certain weapon relics were terribad because they would be stuck at AP3-4. Now as -1 or 2 they have better use.
Granted relics should have a price now rather than the current system for that.

The AP system is very problematic currently because the unit and weapon profiles were not originally designed with that system in mind. High armor units (MEQs and TEQs) would laugh off most of the anti infantry weapons because they generally ranges from AP6 to AP4 but those few specialist weapons like the hotshot lasgun where sorta scary to MEQ as it could bypass the armor. Good AP weapons took out the more heavily armored units but good cover really negated the effectiveness of those weapons while good AP weapons where overkill vs T shirt or flak (aka cardboard) armor as it was a huge waste of the weapons potential but those weak AP weapons could still chew through their weak armor. Most cover ignoring weapons where weak on AP as they are designed to chew through light armor infantry that rely on cover but aren't any more effective against high armor units that just take the armor save against weak AP attacks.

In 8th it's basically having more AP is better and it cuts through cover the same as it does armor. High AP weapons might overkill through weak armor (say plasma vs boyz) but even a guardsman in cover is not a waste of AP for a -3 AP weapons (which was the equivalent of AP3 or AP2 in past editions). Ignore cover weapons basically are a situational -1 AP modifer. Basically the specialty and niche value of a lot of weapons got reduced to a more bacis "this kills this much" end result that varies far less from situation to situation as those weapons did back in 7th. This combined with the IMO inferior str vs toughness setup, wound inflation, interveining cover, and general removal of all USRs, firing arcs, area effect weapons, closest casualty, etc has reduced a lot of critical thinking when it comes to the shooting phase.

 Vankraken wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
My opinion on 8th

Terrain/cover rules suck
Armor/AP rules suck
No templates sucks

Not a fan of WS no longer interacting, no Initiative, character rules, and invuls deciding the worth of a vehicle

2000 pt armies are ridiculous in size but that's not GW fault.


In fact most of what's changed from past editions is pretty poor to me.



But balance is better than ever at least so it's pprobably still a good edition. Also thank god for no formations, and psyker rules seem pretty fair... Although less fun imo.

I agree on the terrain being bad, and with templates and blasts I'm neutral (small blasts are basically better now).

However I gotta disagree on the AP system being worst. If we were on a D8 system system, the modifying system, rather than the old "all or nothing" was a huge issue regarding the viability of several weapons and units. Certain weapon relics were terribad because they would be stuck at AP3-4. Now as -1 or 2 they have better use.
Granted relics should have a price now rather than the current system for that.

The AP system is very problematic currently because the unit and weapon profiles were not originally designed with that system in mind. High armor units (MEQs and TEQs) would laugh off most of the anti infantry weapons because they generally ranges from AP6 to AP4 but those few specialist weapons like the hotshot lasgun where sorta scary to MEQ as it could bypass the armor. Good AP weapons took out the more heavily armored units but good cover really negated the effectiveness of those weapons while good AP weapons where overkill vs T shirt or flak (aka cardboard) armor as it was a huge waste of the weapons potential but those weak AP weapons could still chew through their weak armor. Most cover ignoring weapons where weak on AP as they are designed to chew through light armor infantry that rely on cover but aren't any more effective against high armor units that just take the armor save against weak AP attacks.

In 8th it's basically having more AP is better and it cuts through cover the same as it does armor. High AP weapons might overkill through weak armor (say plasma vs boyz) but even a guardsman in cover is not a waste of AP for a -3 AP weapons (which was the equivalent of AP3 or AP2 in past editions). Ignore cover weapons basically are a situational -1 AP modifer. Basically the specialty and niche value of a lot of weapons got reduced to a more bacis "this kills this much" end result that varies far less from situation to situation as those weapons did back in 7th. This combined with the IMO inferior str vs toughness setup, wound inflation, interveining cover, and general removal of all USRs, firing arcs, area effect weapons, closest casualty, etc has reduced a lot of critical thinking when it comes to the shooting phase.

That's why I'm for moving to a D8 system like I said. Modifiers simply make more sense and, with some exceptions of course, the modifiers are shockingly done okay.

D12 is superior to D8! Also easier to port from a D6 system.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
D12 is superior to D8! Also easier to port from a D6 system.

I hadn't thought about that idea to be honest. It isn't terrible, that's for sure.