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.

Whats your most hated 8th ed rule?

Reading another thread mine has to be the ability to kill models that are out of LoS. Really drives me up the wall. Whats the point in BloS at all

Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

there seems to be a need for out of LoS shoting. But I do think that terrain in the game seems wierd. Often it doesn't matter how it looks or if it even is on the table. It either has to be huge LoS blocking stuff or it is just a bother playing or ends with something wierd like a wing of eldar flyers or impulsors hovering over a single building.

now I don't know how to fix that. But I think terrain should work different. Maybe it is unfixable though.

 Ratius wrote:
Whats your most hated 8th ed rule?

Reading another thread mine has to be the ability to kill models that are out of LoS. Really drives me up the wall. Whats the point in BloS at all

Artillery has always been able to rain death outside of line of sight.
Worst 8th rule? Having to use the 8th ed rule book.

IGOUGO

The Archon's Shadowfield.

It's basically the same as it was in 3rd (a 2++ that stops working the first time it fails). Here's the thing - the game has moved on since then.

Back in 3rd, Invulnerable saves were few and far between (a 4++ would usually be a one-per-army relic). Most were 5++ at best and ones better than 4++ were all but nonexistant. The Shadowfield then was a much better save but one with an element of risk.

However, as the game progressed, invulnerable saves became both more and more common and also increasingly better. As it stands, there are whole swathes of units that have 4++ saves by default, and many more with access to 3++ saves. Not to mention that many units can now stack defences. In editions long past, a 4-wound Hive Tyrant might have had a 5++ in lieu of an armour save. Now, we have 24-wound Knights with 2+/4++ saves. We have high-toughness units that can stack 4++ saves with 5+++ FNP.

But amidst all that, the T3 Archon is still using the same defence from 3rd edition. There is still no consideration given to the escalation of saves for other models. The Shadowfield doesn't re-activate after a turn, nor even does it get reduced to a 5++. it just goes completely.

Not only that, but in the edition of rerolls, the Shadowfield stands alone as the only save that can never be rerolled for any reason. 3++ Storm Shields can be rerolled. 4++ saves on Knights can be rerolled. But not Shadowfields.

The Shadowfield reads like a relic of older editions that's been shoehorned wholesale into 8th. Because that's exactly what it is.

Moreover, 8th has so many better ways to represent Shadowfields. Why not have them be similar to the defences of Mandrakes and Venoms, and have them be a 5++ that also confers a -1 to hit? (Or maybe even a 4++ with -1 to hit, given how they're normally costed relative to standard saves.) Now it would both better fit the mechanics of this edition, and also be thematically similar to Mandrakes and Venoms, which both rely on similar means for protection.


I know this might sound like a minor complaint but bear in mind that Archons are the only HQ available to Kabals and the Shadowfield is the only defensive equipment available to them. There's no longer any option to take a Clone Field instead, nor (outside of a single Relic) any option to supplement the Shadowfield with something like Ghostplate Armour.

But more than anything I think it illustrates the complete lack of interest anyone on the design team has for DE. Just copy and paste the Shadowfield rules. Do they fit the mechanics of 8th? Who cares.? Is there a better way to represent them? Who cares? The rules are tiresome, tedious and force every Archon to play Russian Roulette. Who cares?

/rant

Terain. If you can see any of it you can see all of it? Thats stupid. And a -1 to hit would be better than +1 armor. It simplifies the game to the point where most of the battle is fought off the table in the list building phase.


Also IGOUGO is terrible.

Moving a heavy weapon gives -1 to hit. It's so stupid that that applies to vehicles. There is literally no faction where that rule makes sense.

Headlss wrote:
Terain. If you can see any of it you can see all of it? Thats stupid. And a -1 to hit would be better than +1 armor. It simplifies the game to the point where most of the battle is fought off the table in the list building phase.

and it kills so many terrains from being useful. too many doors/windows, is a forest. flat hill that doesn't reach the roof of the store? automaticly bad terrain. you practicaly have to build separate terrain just for w40k.

I would love to see something like some sort of fog of war, rule. your in terrain you get bonus cover, your behind it, your not seen unless your body is higher then the terrain. The stuff could get extre rules. Trenchs could be+2 to save, but you get nothing for standing behind them, or if you stick out of them. No +2 save castellans hidding in what would be a 25 cm ditch.

LOS to any part of the model (like a tiny piece of a spear tip for example). Makes terrain almost worthless unless very large.

Otherwise, I had a hard time thinking what I really don't like. I enjoy the game, so.....

Definitely IGOUGO.

Everything else is fine, even the fact that claiming a LoS block is ultra hard, but IGOUGO does not work in this kind of game.

Both Kill Team and Apoc show us how much better the game is with alternating activations. If it works well for the smallest end of the scale and for the largest end at the same time, i can make a guess that it would work well also for the middle of the scale.

If we're excluding IGOUGO (which is terrible), the answer for me is simple: re-rolls.

The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

We have Auxiliary Detachments as options, but I've never seen them used.
Why?
Because they actually penalize you for taking them, like it should be, and when mixing other factions in...and there's no real reason to do otherwise.

There never should have been a case where someone could say "i'M rUnNiNg bLoOd AnGeLs!1!!" and then have more Guard than Blood Angels in their army, even accounting for points.
It would have been passably acceptable if Platoons were still a thing and you got a minimum of 25 Guardsmen for a single Troops slot. But you don't get that anymore and it's not acceptable.

3+++++++++++++++++++

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

We have Auxiliary Detachments as options, but I've never seen them used.
Why?
Because they actually penalize you for taking them, like it should be, and when mixing other factions in...and there's no real reason to do otherwise.

There never should have been a case where someone could say "i'M rUnNiNg bLoOd AnGeLs!1!!" and then have more Guard than Blood Angels in their army, even accounting for points.
It would have been passably acceptable if Platoons were still a thing and you got a minimum of 25 Guardsmen for a single Troops slot. But you don't get that anymore and it's not acceptable.

In this case, the 6th edition Allies Matrix actually made some good sense and did work in a lot of instances. There were some bad interactions, granted (Taudar), but those little things don't really happen now in terms of allies. It's mostly just become a crutch because of poor internal balance.

Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

I can't stand that a vehicle has a 360 degree arc of fire with every single weapon it mounts.

Inconsistent application of whether rerolls/trigger-on-roll effects reference the roll before modifiers or after modifiers. Why can my Space Marines only reroll rolls of 1 or 2 in the Shooting phase (independent of what they actually hit on) but reroll 1s through 5s in Overwatch?

Morale phase. Between scenario rules, the autopass stratagem, faction rules and simply taking min squads it hardly ever plays a role or only in situations of heavy Malus-stacking (Nightlords, Eldar, Nurgle). In the end morale is one of the few things that seems as pointless as last Edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

It's the same thing with Marines, Combat Doctrines, Chapter Tactics and super doctrine all help pigeonhole armies into a single concept or thing when the fluff is so much broader than that. It's not that I wasn't spamming units before my codex came out because of balance inequities and because having a cohesive army that has a playstyle makes things work better, I just don't feel like I have the option of doing anything differently now. Orks you almost always see multiple klans, which in this one case is fluffy, but Deathskulls i pretty much the only generalist klan, with the other ones being bad for at least some units. I'm okay with Bad Moons Lootas being the only ones with shoot twice, but between shoot twice Strat, re-rolls 1s to hit for free, it is better by a huge marging compared to +1 M and +1 charge range. That's why I sub-factions should at least be generalist like Deathskulls. Catachans actually benefit quite a variety of units as well because it provides different buffs to different kinds of units, I'd love to see something like that for Novokh (melee Dynasty) to give some kind of buff to ranged units or Nephrekh (an Advance Dynasty) provide some kind of buff to Flyers that are never ever going to Advance. There are some of the mishaps as well with Craftworlds that are engineered to support a playstyle that doesn't fit with what the Craftworld's way of war is.

NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:3+++++++++++++++++++

This, which is usually followed by this:

Elbows wrote:re-rolls.

 Brother Castor wrote:

NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:3+++++++++++++++++++

This, which is usually followed by this:

Elbows wrote:re-rolls.

This. So much this.

 Elbows wrote:
If we're excluding IGOUGO (which is terrible), the answer for me is simple: re-rolls.

I am going to argue this point, for a long while, HQs for certain armies were not much more than a tax you paid to fill FOC. Now, there is an absolutely GOOD reason to take some support characters (Not all of them are beatsticks or psykers). I know it takes some RNG away, but it honestly FEELS good to reroll more than just twin-linked weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

It's the same thing with Marines, Combat Doctrines, Chapter Tactics and super doctrine all help pigeonhole armies into a single concept or thing when the fluff is so much broader than that. It's not that I wasn't spamming units before my codex came out because of balance inequities and because having a cohesive army that has a playstyle makes things work better, I just don't feel like I have the option of doing anything differently now. Orks you almost always see multiple klans, which in this one case is fluffy, but Deathskulls i pretty much the only generalist klan, with the other ones being bad for at least some units. I'm okay with Bad Moons Lootas being the only ones with shoot twice, but between shoot twice Strat, re-rolls 1s to hit for free, it is better by a huge marging compared to +1 M and +1 charge range. That's why I sub-factions should at least be generalist like Deathskulls. Catachans actually benefit quite a variety of units as well because it provides different buffs to different kinds of units, I'd love to see something like that for Novokh (melee Dynasty) to give some kind of buff to ranged units or Nephrekh (an Advance Dynasty) provide some kind of buff to Flyers that are never ever going to Advance. There are some of the mishaps as well with Craftworlds that are engineered to support a playstyle that doesn't fit with what the Craftworld's way of war is.

Well the Super Doctrines shouldn't exist in the first place, and GW could easily rectify the Doctrine issue by saying "yeah sure you can start in whatever Doctrine you want". They won't do that though because.

Some faction rules are just too bad.
E.g. FW indexes and grey knights.

Traits are also terrible implemented, as are stratagems .

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.

But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

And then we have yet more rules to allow armies unable to meet those requirements (e.g. Corsairs) to actually exist in some form.

The more logical solution would have been to simply revise the detachment system. But instead they just dumped more and more rules on top of it. First to "fix" the rules and then to fix the fixes.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.

But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

And then we have yet more rules to allow armies unable to meet those requirements (e.g. Corsairs) to actually exist in some form.

The more logical solution would have been to simply revise the detachment system. But instead they just dumped more and more rules on top of it. First to "fix" the rules and then to fix the fixes.

yeah this is doublky so as GW designed these rules to allow us to effectively take any army that was legal in 7th edition 40k. problem is.. some of those armies where broken and lead to stupid 8th edition ones. I mean... they need to just get rid of the supreme command detachment.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.
But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

Ignoring the turn structure, I feel that invulnerable saves don't fit the current AP system and are detrimental to balance.
Previously, AP would outright ignore armor, so a termie would have no save vs plasma; this was mitigated by invulns which created a step down where you go from a 2+ to a 5+ to prevent termies being too fragile to such weapons. In 8th, the plasma brings a termie to a 5+ save without the invuln. So the step down currently is already built into the system.

Of course, GW decided to hold on to invulns which creates a bit of a problem: high AP weapons are seriously affected while low AP weapons don't care. If I shoot a Knight with a melta, the 4++ completely neuters meltas primary advantage. But an autocannon is completely unaffected.

So, I'd delete invulns and replace them with increased sv, T, W and the occasional -1 to hit: Knight too fragile? Give it more wounds. Stormshield? Gives +1sv etc...