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.
Or, if you prefer: it isn't the edition we need, it's the edition we deserve.
The bones to build a good game are there. But the flesh on them is a grotesque approximation of a strategical game.
That may be true but the question I am asking myself is how the players can tell GW in a meaningful way that 8th may have been a step in the right direction in very broad terms, but was still an overcorrection and that many aspects of older edition should not be thrown out, but refined. I know giving GW any feedback and hoping to be heard is VERY optimistic, but I fear if the community just lets them be we will eventually end up with some sort of 40k Age of Sigmar variant...completely devoid of the original aspects and charm of 40k (have I mentioned how much i loathe AoS).
8th got our group back into playing after we stopped in 6th/7th due to dissatisfaction with the rules. It has numerous flaws and is becoming bloated and confusing due to all the supplements and FAQ, but I think the core is good. Have strategy and tactics (other than list building which is always supreme) been dumbed down? - a bit, but worth the cost in my opinion to make the rules simpler to understand and faster to play.
If you are familiar with the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons, this is 40k's equivalent to 4th edition D&D.
Mark.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 10:57:22
I liked every single edition from 2nd till 8th. And as long as you don't have the most competitive scene you definitely can enjoy 8th too.
What I really miss are good terrain rules.
And I think missing the armour facings is more nostalgic than objective. We had so many problems with tank spam in 5th. I don't want it back. I like the fact that in 8th you can wound everything. I think you just have to get used to those changes...
I think 8th is pretty good, but not perfect. Some of the complaints in the original post I find interesting because they are largely something that could be better represented in 8th (they may not be but they could be) and did not feel fluffy at all in previous editions based on the reality of the mechanics.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.
Do you think removing the WS chart and replacing it with the current unit stats was ultimately the better desicion than tweaking it and making it matter more in combat? Something like the example I gave a couple of posts before. I am genuenly curious.
Yes because you cannot effectively do that without changing either how stats work (1-6 and use all values not higher values), or drop a D6 for a D10 or 12 (my preference have stats go from 1-10, use a D12, Take the difference of Your stat and your opponents , subtract it from 7, if you roll over that value it is a success. 1s always fail, 12s always succeed. Then recenter stats around 5/6 being the average/MEQ line. So if you are WS 5 and your opponent is WS 2, you hit on a 7-(5-2) = 4+ (Equivalent to a current 3+), if you are WS 3 and your opponent is WS 10 then 7 - (3-10) = 14+ so you would need a 12+ to hit.)
BS - was basically the same as it is now, you just needed to have a chart to tell you the value instead of just referring to the stat line. Sure BS 6-10 were slightly better than BS5, but were either so rare as to be irrelevant, or already getting re-rolls. IT also made little sense that the difference between BS4 and BS 5 was statistically more relevant (~17% improvement) than the difference between 5 and 10(14% improvement)
WS - you could never hit on a 2+, even if you were WS 10 and you were swinging at WS 2, never made sense, and almost everything hit on 3s or 4s
The stat comparison idea is a good idea, but in a D6 system you cannot really have stats go from 1-10 and have that comparison really feel meaningful
I've found 8th to be a good drink-n-pretzels edition and a good edition for newcomers to sink their teeth into the hobby.
That's about it.
I miss the actual strategy and tactics and maneuvering of previous editions- particularly for vehicles.
I believe 5th to be a good rule set but I didn't like the missions as they were heavily focused on killing. 6th, 7th and especially 8th now, have all stepped away from the killing focus of games and have some good missions. 8th just lacks that depth in the game itself to compliment that.
I do miss armour facings. The old system had flaws but the new system feels like vehicles are just tough infantry. I think there should be a separate system for wounding and damaging vehicles so they feel different to infantry.
That is about the one thing I do miss - vehicle armour and weapon facing. 8th does make things like flyers more useful, but it does feel a little weird that I can shoot stuff behind me with my front-mounted, forward-facing guns. And who didn't like deep-striking in behind a Land Raider with a bunch of melta guns???
You mean as opposed to deepstriking, in front of, or on the side of a land raider with melta guns, which had the exact same effect as dropping behind the vehicle? The problem with facings and vehicle rules is that they make vehicles function as worse than monsters, and in every edition their rules have either made them too good (5th) or not good (4th, 6th, 7th) I think they still have some problems in 8th, but that is largely due to random damage and multi-wound models.
Breng77 wrote: I think 8th is pretty good, but not perfect. Some of the complaints in the original post I find interesting because they are largely something that could be better represented in 8th (they may not be but they could be) and did not feel fluffy at all in previous editions based on the reality of the mechanics.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.
Do you think removing the WS chart and replacing it with the current unit stats was ultimately the better desicion than tweaking it and making it matter more in combat? Something like the example I gave a couple of posts before. I am genuenly curious.
Yes because you cannot effectively do that without changing either how stats work (1-6 and use all values not higher values), or drop a D6 for a D10 or 12 (my preference have stats go from 1-10, use a D12, Take the difference of Your stat and your opponents , subtract it from 7, if you roll over that value it is a success. 1s always fail, 12s always succeed. Then recenter stats around 5/6 being the average/MEQ line. So if you are WS 5 and your opponent is WS 2, you hit on a 7-(5-2) = 4+ (Equivalent to a current 3+), if you are WS 3 and your opponent is WS 10 then 7 - (3-10) = 14+ so you would need a 12+ to hit.)
BS - was basically the same as it is now, you just needed to have a chart to tell you the value instead of just referring to the stat line. Sure BS 6-10 were slightly better than BS5, but were either so rare as to be irrelevant, or already getting re-rolls. IT also made little sense that the difference between BS4 and BS 5 was statistically more relevant (~17% improvement) than the difference between 5 and 10(14% improvement)
WS - you could never hit on a 2+, even if you were WS 10 and you were swinging at WS 2, never made sense, and almost everything hit on 3s or 4s
The stat comparison idea is a good idea, but in a D6 system you cannot really have stats go from 1-10 and have that comparison really feel meaningful
Very interesting point. Like I said I agree that in previous editions the comparison between WS did not represent the fluff well, but 8th does a worse job in my opinion. The stat balancing from 1-10 with a d6 to hit is difficult, but you could make the comparison more meaningful if you expand the WS comparison table so you are actually able to hit on 2+ and adjust the stats of some units. In previous edition most units were in the 3-5 WS range and very few units made a huge jump to 8-10, which was mostly cosmetic. But if you make more use of the 5-7 WS range (not only for hero characters but normal units) you might get comparisons to be meaningful and more in concordance with the fluff.
So lets say a normal guardsman has WS 3, a space marine stays at WS 4, normal terminators and grey knights at WS5 and really elite stuff like harlequins and custodes get WS6 for the normal units, and a bloodthirster gets WS10. So with an expanded an tweaked WS-comparison table a normal guardsman would hit a bloodthister on 6s in melee if he gets no to-hit modifiers, which would kinda make sense. Now I dont presume that this would be the most awsome thing ever balance-wise, but I think the general idea would make unit stats more meaningful and interesting than just having a fixed to-hit value no matter what unit you face.
The removal of initiave has also not really been discussed up until now. In 8th it is really crucial who gets the charge. If you get the charge and have enough volume of attack dice, you can kill most things, which is kind of uninteresting. Now I think that you have to pay attention to charge ranges is a good thing, but if you would add initiative into the mix it would be more interesting.
Or other small things, like have a unit that is supposed to be good at guarding stuff in the fluff get some melee overwatch on 5s and 6s when they get charged while holding an objective.
I just feel like they had every opportunity to make small changes like that, that would have made things so much more interesting.
Edit: I just bring this up again because while I really like your D12/D10 idea, I have no hope that GW would ever adopt something like this unfortunately
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 12:45:56
Yes they would never adopt a different dice system.
I don't disagree with you on a different comparison chart, but I never liked having different S V T and WS v WS charts
I think they could have essentially gone to the S v T chart for the weaponskill comparison (just let 6s always hit, so there are not units that are immune).
As to initiative I have always felt that perhaps it should be like toughness and get swapped out for speed.
Then essentially have 1 chart that is offensive Stat vs Defensive stat, things that are faster are harder to hit, and larger things like vehicles, or Titans might have a lower stat in this area to represent being larger and easier to hit.
So to hit for shooting would be BS v Speed, to hit for melee would be WS vs either WS or Speed (this would let you make units that are evasive and hard to hit, but not good at fighting themselves, I think something Tau Drone might fall into this category, or something slow but good at fighting say a Great Unclean one)
This also allows more use of the stat range, which I would like to see, GW really sticks to 3s and 4s, we really should be using 1-10. I'd like to see them start with units that are the weakest in each category and make those Stats a 1. So if Grots are meant to be the least tough things, then they should be T1, if humans are 1 step up from that then they should be a 2 etc. If you have a 10 point scale but you only use 3-6 for most things, why bother having a 10 point scale.
I think initiative for deciding order of combat presents a lot of problems, so I like the idea of the unit that charges getting the first strike, faster units typically have better movement, and are more likely to get the charge, but allowing a slower unit to charge them when perhaps they are engaged and strike first adds tactics to the game. Perhaps initiative/speed should decide (to some extent) order of combat on non-charge turns. SO a faster unit is both more likely to get the charge, but also has that speed as a built in defense. SO say 50 guardsman get the charge on 10 Harlequins. If those harlequins are Ws6 or Speed 7, vs the Humans being WS 3. Then Maybe now they are hitting on 5s and wounding on 4s. So those 50 attacks (if they all get to swing) now kill only 4-5 Harlequins who have gotten swamped by the initial charge, If those remaining Harlequins are now hitting on 2s and wounding on 4s with 15 attacks kill 4 guardsman back, and then strike first in the second round killing another 4. The guardsmand still end up winning, in the end because there are so many, but I feel like you should be rewarded for getting the charge. It is also a balance of how good units compare in combat, and making use of the stats to make it such that bad melee units benefit from a charge, but it is still a desperation move. SO if guardsman are instead WS 2 and S2, and Harlies are WS 7, we end up with say Guardsman hitting on 6s and wounding on 5s, now that charge kills 2 harlequins, and the 8 strike back hitting on 2s and wounding on 3s with 24 attacks killing 9 guardsman, and more with morale, and then get to strike first in round 2 killing another 9. SO they may well have killed 25 guardsman. SO it really depends on how you work things within the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 13:48:36
Peregrine wrote: 8th edition is a bad game that only looks good in comparison to the unplayable disaster of 7th. IGOUGO still exists, terrain is a joke, positioning and movement are devalued, poorly skilled children are pandered to at every opportunity, excessive randomness is everywhere, dice optimization in list construction is by far the most important factor in who wins, soup has destroyed any concept of faction identity, and the CP/stratagem mechanic makes the game into even more of a CCG with really expensive "cards". In short, 8th edition has the strategic depth of a puddle while simultaneously having a higher word count than several other games combined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Van, similar question - what edition of 40K did you find tactically amazing? I'm curious.
5th edition was not the deepest game ever but it was still much better. Things like vehicle facings/arcs, only troops being able to score objectives, more LOS blocking terrain, and harsher penalties for mistakes made 5th edition a game with more interesting strategic choices. 8th edition plays much more like a CCG where you line up all of your "cards" and exchange attacks until someone runs out of HP.
Well shucks this about sums up all of my thoughts on the subject. 8th to me feels like attack of the blob edition. It's mindless and more like a magic the gathering card game with stratagems as real tactics and strategy have no effect. Both players just get a blob of units they shove across the table with pointless re-rolls and other nonsense dragging out game times. IMO ALL rerolls need to be canned out of the game as unnecessary nonsense, along with strats. All leaders should do is provider leadership buffs (y'know, lead), increase the potency of morale, add suppression tactics, smoke, shaken status, etc.
Frankly 8e is just trash. If you want a proper wargame you need to dustoff a copy of epic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 13:38:12
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Breng77 wrote: I think 8th is pretty good, but not perfect. Some of the complaints in the original post I find interesting because they are largely something that could be better represented in 8th (they may not be but they could be) and did not feel fluffy at all in previous editions based on the reality of the mechanics.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.
Do you think removing the WS chart and replacing it with the current unit stats was ultimately the better desicion than tweaking it and making it matter more in combat? Something like the example I gave a couple of posts before. I am genuenly curious.
Yes because you cannot effectively do that without changing either how stats work (1-6 and use all values not higher values), or drop a D6 for a D10 or 12 (my preference have stats go from 1-10, use a D12, Take the difference of Your stat and your opponents , subtract it from 7, if you roll over that value it is a success. 1s always fail, 12s always succeed. Then recenter stats around 5/6 being the average/MEQ line. So if you are WS 5 and your opponent is WS 2, you hit on a 7-(5-2) = 4+ (Equivalent to a current 3+), if you are WS 3 and your opponent is WS 10 then 7 - (3-10) = 14+ so you would need a 12+ to hit.)
BS - was basically the same as it is now, you just needed to have a chart to tell you the value instead of just referring to the stat line. Sure BS 6-10 were slightly better than BS5, but were either so rare as to be irrelevant, or already getting re-rolls. IT also made little sense that the difference between BS4 and BS 5 was statistically more relevant (~17% improvement) than the difference between 5 and 10(14% improvement)
WS - you could never hit on a 2+, even if you were WS 10 and you were swinging at WS 2, never made sense, and almost everything hit on 3s or 4s
The stat comparison idea is a good idea, but in a D6 system you cannot really have stats go from 1-10 and have that comparison really feel meaningful
Very interesting point. Like I said I agree that in previous editions the comparison between WS did not represent the fluff well, but 8th does a worse job in my opinion. The stat balancing from 1-10 with a d6 to hit is difficult, but you could make the comparison more meaningful if you expand the WS comparison table so you are actually able to hit on 2+ and adjust the stats of some units. In previous edition most units were in the 3-5 WS range and very few units made a huge jump to 8-10, which was mostly cosmetic. But if you make more use of the 5-7 WS range (not only for hero characters but normal units) you might get comparisons to be meaningful and more in concordance with the fluff.
So lets say a normal guardsman has WS 3, a space marine stays at WS 4, normal terminators and grey knights at WS5 and really elite stuff like harlequins and custodes get WS6 for the normal units, and a bloodthirster gets WS10. So with an expanded an tweaked WS-comparison table a normal guardsman would hit a bloodthister on 6s in melee if he gets no to-hit modifiers, which would kinda make sense. Now I dont presume that this would be the most awsome thing ever balance-wise, but I think the general idea would make unit stats more meaningful and interesting than just having a fixed to-hit value no matter what unit you face.
The removal of initiave has also not really been discussed up until now. In 8th it is really crucial who gets the charge. If you get the charge and have enough volume of attack dice, you can kill most things, which is kind of uninteresting. Now I think that you have to pay attention to charge ranges is a good thing, but if you would add initiative into the mix it would be more interesting.
Or other small things, like have a unit that is supposed to be good at guarding stuff in the fluff get some melee overwatch on 5s and 6s when they get charged while holding an objective.
I just feel like they had every opportunity to make small changes like that, that would have made things so much more interesting.
Edit: I just bring this up again because while I really like your D12/D10 idea, I have no hope that GW would ever adopt something like this unfortunately
In my opinion the 8th edition WS version is just a tweaking of the prior system. Yes, it got rid of a mechanic that makes you hit worse against some targets - but I wonder if that is even necessary. That aspect is already represented by the Toughness or attack value or by negatives to hit-modifiers that some units have.
In the same way Initiative isn't really lost, it has been transfered to the movement stat that is much more important and Eldar and other stuff that had I5 before (so always hit first) now have a rule that simply lets them hit first. Yes, Orks and Necrons don't hit last anymore and aren't overrun that easily, but it never really made sense for the Orks anyway and Necrons with their LD 10 didn't really care most of the time. Basically Initiative had the same problem as WS: 90% of the units had 3 or 4 and it usually only mattered if you were 1 point higher. Yes, for overrunning it also mattered, but morale had the same problem it has in 8th: It hardly ever mattered because everything where it could have been important had a way to be fearless or some other rule. The only change that has happened is that Chaos cult Marines aren't fearless anymore.
Peregrine wrote: 8th edition is a bad game that only looks good in comparison to the unplayable disaster of 7th. IGOUGO still exists, terrain is a joke, positioning and movement are devalued, poorly skilled children are pandered to at every opportunity, excessive randomness is everywhere, dice optimization in list construction is by far the most important factor in who wins, soup has destroyed any concept of faction identity, and the CP/stratagem mechanic makes the game into even more of a CCG with really expensive "cards". In short, 8th edition has the strategic depth of a puddle while simultaneously having a higher word count than several other games combined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Van, similar question - what edition of 40K did you find tactically amazing? I'm curious.
5th edition was not the deepest game ever but it was still much better. Things like vehicle facings/arcs, only troops being able to score objectives, more LOS blocking terrain, and harsher penalties for mistakes made 5th edition a game with more interesting strategic choices. 8th edition plays much more like a CCG where you line up all of your "cards" and exchange attacks until someone runs out of HP.
Well shucks this about sums up all of my thoughts on the subject. 8th to me feels like attack of the blob edition. It's mindless and more like a magic the gathering card game with stratagems as real tactics and strategy have no effect. Both players just get a blob of units they shove across the table with pointless re-rolls and other nonsense dragging out game times. IMO ALL rerolls need to be canned out of the game as unnecessary nonsense, along with strats. All leaders should do is provider leadership buffs (y'know, lead), increase the potency of morale, add suppression tactics, smoke, shaken status, etc.
Frankly 8e is just trash. If you want a proper wargame you need to dustoff a copy of epic.
Pretty much this from me too. 8th is okay from a non-competitive point of view, but you really need to go in with a "turn your brain off" mentality. If you're playing to watch cool thing happen then sure, I guess. If you want tactical depth, play an earlier edition, or a different system altogether. Hell, play Shadow War or something. If you want a strategic game, play Magic, Yugioh, Risk, Monopoly...
To put it another way, I don't use any of my 8th edition resources when I'm working on my own games. I'll reference 4th, 5th, Shadow War, ME and occasionally Warmahordes, but 8th stays on the shelf. I even reference 7th (though that's more on what not to do). It isn't that 8th is horrendously bad, it's just sort of bad / really mediocre.
My point is, there are better options for games that make you think. Honestly, there are better games just for scratching that 40K itch like 5th, 3rd, Necromunda or even Dawn of War if you're into that. Play 8th if you want, and if you enjoy it then that's great. But I can't think of an honest reason to recommend 8th because there's always a better alternative. Unless you're playing exclusively in a GW store, in which case you're gonna be playing 8th until 9th drops.
Pretre: OOOOHHHHH snap. That's like driving away from hitting a pedestrian.
Pacific:First person to Photoshop a GW store into the streets of Kabul wins the thread.
Selym: "Be true to thyself, play Chaos" - Jesus, Daemon Prince of Cegorach.
H.B.M.C: You can't lobotomise someone twice.
Breng77 wrote: I think 8th is pretty good, but not perfect. Some of the complaints in the original post I find interesting because they are largely something that could be better represented in 8th (they may not be but they could be) and did not feel fluffy at all in previous editions based on the reality of the mechanics.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The WS mechanic of prior editions was one of the best examples of the unnecessary rules bloat they suffered from. The way the profiles were written 90% of the units in the game had WS 3 or 4, with all other values being reserved for special characters, basically (and Tau with 2). The way the Chart worked meant that in 99% of cases you hit or were hit on 3+ or 4+. 8th Edition has a much wider spread. Prior editions had to move around the WS Chart by adding loads of USRs on every unit that was meant to be good in CC.
With the introduction of hull points the whole armor value mechanic fell apart as well. As vehicles didn't have an armor save they were ironically the only units that could be wounded automatically. And it meant that against an autocannon or similar weapons a Rhino died faster than a Marine. Firing arcs and movement shenanigans added to the fact that "Tank" actually meant "this is a very squishy unit that also suffers from a lot of negatives to its weapons", while Monsters having none of these downsides.
8th does it much better. Tanks now feel like tanks, and the WS value actually has a meaning.
Same goes for the AP chart. In prior editions the only important AP values were 3 -1. With 3 and one being a rare sight. Everything else either didn't penetrate most armors or getting a cover Safe of 4+ was that easy that AP 4/5 never mattered.
Do you think removing the WS chart and replacing it with the current unit stats was ultimately the better desicion than tweaking it and making it matter more in combat? Something like the example I gave a couple of posts before. I am genuenly curious.
Yes because you cannot effectively do that without changing either how stats work (1-6 and use all values not higher values), or drop a D6 for a D10 or 12 (my preference have stats go from 1-10, use a D12, Take the difference of Your stat and your opponents , subtract it from 7, if you roll over that value it is a success. 1s always fail, 12s always succeed. Then recenter stats around 5/6 being the average/MEQ line. So if you are WS 5 and your opponent is WS 2, you hit on a 7-(5-2) = 4+ (Equivalent to a current 3+), if you are WS 3 and your opponent is WS 10 then 7 - (3-10) = 14+ so you would need a 12+ to hit.)
BS - was basically the same as it is now, you just needed to have a chart to tell you the value instead of just referring to the stat line. Sure BS 6-10 were slightly better than BS5, but were either so rare as to be irrelevant, or already getting re-rolls. IT also made little sense that the difference between BS4 and BS 5 was statistically more relevant (~17% improvement) than the difference between 5 and 10(14% improvement)
WS - you could never hit on a 2+, even if you were WS 10 and you were swinging at WS 2, never made sense, and almost everything hit on 3s or 4s
The stat comparison idea is a good idea, but in a D6 system you cannot really have stats go from 1-10 and have that comparison really feel meaningful
Very interesting point. Like I said I agree that in previous editions the comparison between WS did not represent the fluff well, but 8th does a worse job in my opinion. The stat balancing from 1-10 with a d6 to hit is difficult, but you could make the comparison more meaningful if you expand the WS comparison table so you are actually able to hit on 2+ and adjust the stats of some units. In previous edition most units were in the 3-5 WS range and very few units made a huge jump to 8-10, which was mostly cosmetic. But if you make more use of the 5-7 WS range (not only for hero characters but normal units) you might get comparisons to be meaningful and more in concordance with the fluff.
So lets say a normal guardsman has WS 3, a space marine stays at WS 4, normal terminators and grey knights at WS5 and really elite stuff like harlequins and custodes get WS6 for the normal units, and a bloodthirster gets WS10. So with an expanded an tweaked WS-comparison table a normal guardsman would hit a bloodthister on 6s in melee if he gets no to-hit modifiers, which would kinda make sense. Now I dont presume that this would be the most awsome thing ever balance-wise, but I think the general idea would make unit stats more meaningful and interesting than just having a fixed to-hit value no matter what unit you face.
The removal of initiave has also not really been discussed up until now. In 8th it is really crucial who gets the charge. If you get the charge and have enough volume of attack dice, you can kill most things, which is kind of uninteresting. Now I think that you have to pay attention to charge ranges is a good thing, but if you would add initiative into the mix it would be more interesting.
Or other small things, like have a unit that is supposed to be good at guarding stuff in the fluff get some melee overwatch on 5s and 6s when they get charged while holding an objective.
I just feel like they had every opportunity to make small changes like that, that would have made things so much more interesting.
Edit: I just bring this up again because while I really like your D12/D10 idea, I have no hope that GW would ever adopt something like this unfortunately
In my opinion the 8th edition WS version is just a tweaking of the prior system. Yes, it got rid of a mechanic that makes you hit worse against some targets - but I wonder if that is even necessary. That aspect is already represented by the Toughness or attack value or by negatives to hit-modifiers that some units have.
In the same way Initiative isn't really lost, it has been transfered to the movement stat that is much more important and Eldar and other stuff that had I5 before (so always hit first) now have a rule that simply lets them hit first. Yes, Orks and Necrons don't hit last anymore and aren't overrun that easily, but it never really made sense for the Orks anyway and Necrons with their LD 10 didn't really care most of the time. Basically Initiative had the same problem as WS: 90% of the units had 3 or 4 and it usually only mattered if you were 1 point higher. Yes, for overrunning it also mattered, but morale had the same problem it has in 8th: It hardly ever mattered because everything where it could have been important had a way to be fearless or some other rule. The only change that has happened is that Chaos cult Marines aren't fearless anymore.
Comes down to what I've said before I think. Yes, I agree the WS comparison chart in earlier editions did not matter enough, but it could have been tweaked to be more engaging and matter more. On the point that the comparison is already taken care of in strength/toughness comparison: I can only speak for myself, but that is not enough for me. I like and want the different combat skills of units represented as well as how hard they hit in comparion on how tough the target is and 8th does only one of the two...which is a shame.
On the matter of initiative and movement: I say, why not both? Keep the engaging movements and charge mechanic as it is and add initiative for combat turns where the charge is over and they are in full on combat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 14:23:46
I largely approve of GW's latest "broken" game system but it has utility as my 40k "what if" war simulator.
OP, looking at your preferences I think 8th meets your needs.
I started in 2nd edition and it was more skirmish based which Kill-team and the new Necromunda try to fill that role nicely within the 8th edition framework.
8th seems to work best in the "Armageddon" type larger battles, my friends and I have large armies so it has fulfilled that need fairly well.
The formations help push for people to have more of a structure to their large armies all to dole-out the command points for getting those mentioned "stratagems".
The keeping track of rules is just a bit better than 6th/7th where we have the Codex, FAQ and then the Chapter Approved. We got some extra rules due to the campaign books.
It still seems easier than the multitude of supplements in prior editions or the dreaded formation rules for product on special order for that "pay to win" thing GW did.
I have even made use of the power level system for fast and dirty large game play, it works ok when playing with friends but we still lean toward points used where possible.
The terrain and cover values in general are not ideal, we started using some of the "City Fight" rules in the Chapter Approved to make it a bit more interesting.
I agree for interesting complexity, 5th edition was about the best GW got but it was a bit fussy compared to the relatively simple play of 8th.
I really like Bolt Action, it uses similar rules but it always seems to me how 40k should have been.
The I-go-you-go method is what I think really holds back the game.
It desperately needs a somewhat alternating unit activation, but this has been around since the beginning of the game.
I would say now the biggest draw is all the units you kept reading about in the fluff have models.
You can bring out big angry gods of war vehicles and critters to tear into each other or a handy squad.
The story has been furthered and 40k has been brought to the "2 minutes to midnight" edge where the grim-dark got a little darker.
I hope you enjoy it, GW as a company seems at this time to genuinely try to help the hobbyist get into the game with the least amount of pain and almost seem downright friendly... very shocking for us old cynical folk.
Considering their tabletop play is competing with the multitude of electronic gaming they need to be as accessible as possible.
Enjoy the game, I too stopped playing since 5th until 8th came out.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Can't say this enough. Compared with 6th edition and 7th edition, 8th edition is great.
I played 6th and basically boycotted 7th, it was like they took everything questionable from 6th and made it worse in 7th. The rules were too onerous and the differences in strength of various armies were way too extreme. My CSMs would lose to Eldar and Tau almost every game.
8th edition has the same problems, perhaps to a lesser degree, but there are ways to compensate. The differences between competitive Eldar and CSM lists are not as severe as they used to be, I have a reasonable chance of winning against any army. My army's weaknesses can be addressed by playing to mission objectives, there aren't as many scenarios that rely on kill points. Also, there's no single playstyle that trumps everything, my lists include a variety of units and I don't feel like I'm ever forced to take anything bad.
Wyzilla's point about this becoming a blob edition makes sense, but there's a fundamental mechanical issue that makes blob surpremacy possible. In terms of points, 8th edition overvalues defense and undervalues offense. What you have to pay for a power armor model compared to a Cultist or Guardsman is too much. You can't justify paying 3x as much for a unit for a better save unless you get 3x performance on the tabletop (which doesn't happen.) The best example of this is Grey Knights infantry, they are just so expensive compared to what they can do.
That said, I can live with the points discrepancies. Other mechanics like universal split fire, move + shoot heavy weapons, charge after deep strike, Stratagems, etc, make the game much more enjoyable.
I honestly envy everyone that can enjoy 8th. I seriously cannot enjoy the game and find it just boring to play. Jumping back into a game of 7th is fantastic fun so it's not a case of being burned out of 40k but 8th being what it is.
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
Ultimately, 8E is decidedely and markedly better than the preceding edition in almost every way, but tries to encompasse far more than is appropriate for its scale, resulting in a game that doesn't really know what it wants to be, allowing it to be anything without doing any of it particularly well.
Basically, its a framework for allowing people to use any plastic army man or toy tank GW makes, in whatever numbers they care to muster, trying to be able to do everything frm skirmish to epic scales in the same ruleset.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
There are a few things that GW took to far that if kept under control would have allowed this edition to shine even brighter.
My grievances are:
1. The AP system is out of control. Not every weapon needs to have a save modifier.
2. Stratagems. This whole concept should have been kept in check to be a more limited in its use and application.
3. Bespoke rules are out of control. Not everything needs to have 3+ abilities and special rules associated with it. While 8th edition's core rules may be more simplified the extended rules (i.e. Codexes and supplements) have made 8th edition the most rules heavy edition ever.
4. You need a fething library of books and documents to play. Get yourself a large backpack to haul the 5+ books and 6+ Errata printouts you'll need to play just ONE army.
GW has been trying to cram 2nd Ed. back into the rules since 5th, and it broke the game. 8th is them trying to bring it back again, but with CCG synergies/activations. That's about the size of it.
And I think if you look at the more emphatic supporters of this edition, they were also 2nd Ed. hardcores as well...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/06 16:18:13
8th is bad. It's an example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Everything being able to hurt everything basically destroys the concept and dare I say necessity of combined arms warfare. The climax of saving private ryan would be nonsensical with 8th ed's misguided everything hurting everything concept. "these may as well be spit-wads if they come at us with tanks, which is fine, because spit-wads hurt tanks now".
When you destroy the sometimes unforgiving hierarchy of weaponry, the next to go entirely is unit type. You basically only have 2 units in 8th, units that fly and units that don't. And there's basically no downside to the ones that fly, unlike past editions that would dare possibly require a difficult or dangerous terrain test.. the horror. Flying units get all the advantages of ignoring what little terrain there is an none of the disadvantages, plus other silly crap like how they deal with combat. To top that off, in a game that actually used to do a decent job of separating effective anti air weapons from the rest now sees flamethrowers being choice number one for anti-air... who designed this?
Amping up the firepower without proper contextual gradients like the every controversial "models having to be in range and or line of sight" destroyed any nuance to terrain and line of sight, either you're totally safe or seeing that one dude somehow screws the whole unit. Low cover is a bad joke, something apparently now exclusively relegated to kill team. -heavy sigh-
Instead of factions having to stand on their own, soup as always has made a mockery of any attempt at faction play. This started back in the day with in prior editions with allies and all the apoc crop and it never went away. You need a core game and then you need expansions and the expansions can have all the crazy crap. It needs to get back to a time where at skirmish level (1500 and below) stuff like super heavies just aren't possible. They want a game that works but somehow allows a knight at 500pts... trying to please everyone just destroys any standards.
The lack of usr's has not helped much, bespoke is just a nice way to spell bloat at this point. I don't want to play a damn card game, past editions are proof positive of how effective usr's can be to the effective function of the game. Instead you just want to sell cards and crap.
I go you go deployment... just no. Massive time waster and adds nothing.
Building alpha strikes into the game just made it much worse and also destroyed even having to purchase drop pods or similar units. I'd rather have some armies do it better than other but at a cost and with a real reserve system like past editions. No one enjoys every game being decided by turn 2.
Complete throwing out all vehicle rules instead of simply tweaking monstrous creature rules, again, baby with the bath water. Now you have a moronic system where valkyries can assault bastions and single grots can stop baneblades dead in their tracks. Worse still with the los system for weapons thrown out you can shoot all your weapons from an antenna... great
went from something like this
Spoiler:
to this...
Spoiler:
Flyers used to be frustrating but many of them were still easy to mitigate because of their limited fire arcs and angle of attack. That all went away in 8th, early 8th quickly saw silly lists with maxed out storm ravens.
God forbid you'd want to use maneuver to try and gain advantage against enemy armour, that's just silly says 8th.
I miss firing arcs. It made vehicles feel different than infantry which felt a bit more realistic than what we have now. A guardsmen with a lasgun can flip around a lot quicker than a tank or a fighter jet and the rules should reflect that.
The main problem was GW screwed up by giving MCs the best of both worlds and walkers the worst of both.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Everything hurting everything is a necessary part of the game when the game allows for extreme lists. As soon as the game allowed for armies with nothing but Titans, or nothing but T8 MC, or Nothing but tanks, everything hurting everything becomes a must. Essentially the less restrictive list building becomes the more necessary it is to account for skew lists. If I can build a list where you can realistically only hurt anything with 1 or 2 units, and I kill those 2 units the game ceases to be fun. As an example back in 5th Ed I played a 1k point Kill points game in a league with an army consisting of 2 tactical squads in Land raiders, and Sammiel in his AV 14 land speeder. My opponent had 1 or 2 melta guns ( cannot quite remember) in his army, and a bunch of plasma. Turn 1 I killed the only squads that could hurt my army, The rest of the game was entirely meaningless.
If a game forces you into balanced lists you can have some units that cannot hurt other units. If you can skew then all the sudden stopping it makes some games terrible.
I'm mostly ambivalent on which is better, myself, but given the amount of times GW has messed up, I'm not sure that's really helping your case.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
