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.

Hey there, I haven't been on Dakka for ages, but I've uncovered my models recently and had an itch. I played all through 5th edition and quit shortly after 6th dropped. I've skimmed the new rulebook, but I'm less interested in the specifics of the rules and which armies are strong. Rather, I want to hear opinions on how the game feels to play. What are your most and least favourite parts of actually playing the game? When does it feel like the game is moving and being engaging, and when does it drag?

As I recall, 5th felt best when you could quicky use true line of sight and area terrain rules to make decisions. It was obvious what blocked line of sight, and how you could utilize it. You could set up firing lanes and flanking routes very easily. So when your army is mostly mechanized, you can quickly make meaningful choices about navigating the terrain and executing on your plan.

The parts that felt bad were basically anything involving moving infantry. There were a lot of blast templates, so you wanted to keep your infantry spaced 2" apart to minimize exposure. You ended up with strings of infantry stretched across the battlefield, which made measuring firing ranges difficult (so you'd fiddle with movement even more to get just the perfect positioning). God help you if you got into melee, since you'd have to fiddle with piling both squads in 6" and figure out who's within 2" of the models making base-to-base contact, keeping in mind sergeants and special characters.

How is the game now?

I think (and many of my friends do too) that 8th is the best edition we have played. We started in 5th.

These are opinions that we have pretty much agreed on in our mostly casual group:

The movement is simpler now, as you don't have to think about how to place your models in fear of blast markers.
Makes it a bit quicker too.

The fact that the vehicles now have wounds instead of armor values removes the fiddling with facing.
While shooting at a vehicle, there is no more arguments regarding which of the faces the shot hit.

Same with the removal of the scatter die on blast weapons: no need to quess the number of models the blast covers (I said quess, because usually the shooter and the opponent had different opinions).
Some people say that adding the roll for random shots slows down the game, but I think it's still faster than scattering.
Earthshakers and battle cannons can actually do something against big monsters in this edition.

Cover bonus is given to a unit only if all of the models are in cover.
It's maybe not very realistic, but makes checking for cover quicker, as it's really easy to check.
Depending on the terrain, we might house rule a cover bonus if the models are obscured rathee than standing in a terrain element.

All in all, the simplified rules make the game a tad faster.
At first I thought that simplifying the game eats out too many tactical choices, but after a couple of games I really started to enjoy it.

The stratagems and supplements add a little more complexity of course.

It's cool that different armies are updated even outside a new codex release.
The problem is the slight power creep: everyone is rerolling everything and cover is becoming pointless.
Still though, I like where the game is heading.

There is at least one thing I don't like:
Even though the stratagems are cool and really bring out the uniqueness of your army, many of the lists are built to maximize command points.
A battalion with two cheap HQs and thee MSU troops hardly feel like a thematically relevant choice.
It's a bit harder to create themed lists in my opinion.

A straight quote from a friend after the core rule set was released (before any sumplements) :
"it's like they sat down with a pint of beer and actually started thinking about the rules"

Your mileage may vary.

Edit: added some stuff

The core rules are solid, so a new player should enjoy it for a while.

Its a lot faster and easier to play than it ever has been once your group knows the rules you can knock a game out in about 2 hours. A bunch of people are about to come in and gak all over the game and say that the balance is terrible, there's too many books etc but as with any game its up to you and your group how deep and competitive you go. If you want to just get together with friends and have a laugh and throw some dice you'll have a great time. You don't really NEED all the books and documents BaconCatBug is about to tell you you do.and you can get by with the BRB and a codex.

I would recommend getting the CA2019 missions though. They're the best scenarios GW has ever put out and I've been playing since 2nd.

I find the game feels counterintuitive, frustrating, and uncinematic if you play LOS rules as-written (antenna-shoots-antenna, vehicles shooting fixed-forward weapons out their backsides), use stratagems as written (you spend a lot of time arguing about the exact timing of various effects), and either care too much about army composition (the percentage of units that are 'competitive' isn't much higher than in earlier editions and is lower than it was in 4th/5th) or too little about army composition (not paying attention to your auras will lead to some armies getting pretty quickly destroyed without doing much).

8e is best played in a broad-strokes narrative way where you use it as a baseline and then patch the rules until you get something entertaining, it's terrible if you care about winning without messing around with the rules or if you just want something you can pick up and play without needing to mess around with the rules.

I agree with everything so far. I would say though, that the game is very lethal compared to previous versions, so prepare for that.

Also in this edition, there are games that are meant to work together; Kill Team is Small Scale, and Apocalypse is bigger. If you are a campaign player, starting with KT and growing to a 40k army then to an apocalypse force is one of the most rewarding elements of the game. Campaign supplements and other types of expansions encourage using games of all scales together- there are missions in the most recent Chapter Approved that cycle through all 3 scales, and there's a special campaign system in Urban Conquest that provides even more details.

There's also a cool board game called Blackstone Fortress and every model ever released for the game also comes with 40k rules, so you can combine that with the other games too!

My favourite change is that EVERY army now has subfactions with unique rules that really set the various groups apart. Previously, this was only really available to Space Marines, though I think they gave half-hearted attempts to doing the same with various craftworlds. But now it's fully realized; Sisters of Battle Orders feel different from each other, as do the various Kabals, Cults and Covens of DE, as do the different Hive Fleets of the Tyranids or Dynasties of the Necrons.

White Dwarf is back to being a rules playground, with the best stuff being collected in Annuals every year. And campaign books use a narrative to bring updated content to each faction at a steady pace. It's true that marines do still outpace other armies in terms of the amount of new material being released, but it's closer than it's ever been. They've brought back really cool stuff that hasn't been a part of the game for a long time; you started in 5th, so the fact that we now have 3 different Rogue Traders, or that we finally have a model for the Dread Ambull, or the fact that Zoats are coming back may not be a big deal to you, but as a guy who played his first game in 1989, that's HUGE!

So yeah, I agree, best edition ever. I will warn you though, there is more material than there has ever been, so that means making real choices about what you do or do not include in your games. Some people see that as bloat, other people see it as a giant sandbox. I fall into the latter camp, and if you do too, You. Will. Love. This. Version. of the Game!

At the beginning, 8th felt ok. Better than the last couple editions although largely counter intuitive at times.

As time goes on, it has become a slog of unnecessary rules congestion and re-rolls.

If the game was designed to escalate properly within its own core rules it could be better managed with all the add ons, but it’s not. The core rules are horribly written, and lack of universal special rules has made navigating the game unmanageable.

Re-rolls up the ass have turned things into a slog, and endless amounts of command points have lead the game to becoming a strat fest. Strategems should be one use only per game.

The game is broken, please try again GW.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
At the beginning, 8th felt ok. Better than the last couple editions although largely counter intuitive at times.

As time goes on, it has become a slog of unnecessary rules congestion and re-rolls.

If the game was designed to escalate properly within its own core rules it could be better managed with all the add ons, but it’s not. The core rules are horribly written, and lack of universal special rules has made navigating the game unmanageable.

Re-rolls up the ass have turned things into a slog, and endless amounts of command points have lead the game to becoming a strat fest. Strategems should be one use only per game.

The game is broken, please try again GW.

This is the feel of a lot of people. A good core, a solid idea...but it's just been run into the ground with nonsense. 8th edition has been "getting worse", but that's pretty standard for many of GW's game timelines.

The worst part of 40K is the setup. Setting up the board, setting up the army, deciding the mission, etc.

Once the game gets underway, its fairly fun if you're playing someone of about equal skill and attitude.

Personally, I like smaller games (1000 pts), with no named characters or superheavies on the board, using just codex + BRB, but I'm pretty casual and don't play very often at all, so I just want a quick game that doesn't require a lot of rulebook flipping.

I really only played a little of 7th edition and a little bit of early 8th until more recently (the last 6 months or so) to playing full 40k. It is okay. If it didn't have Citadel models and 40k lore, I probably wouldn't be playing.

I find it kinda hard to get good match up between armies anymore, but when I do the game is pretty enjoyable. Most of the time one side steamrolls the other though. I think as the edition has gone on and on it is won or loss with stratagems. I didn't mind them when they kinda in the background, but now they seem so key to many armies success that they are way too much. I also think it is way too lethal for an IGOYOUGO game where a player can very easily lose 1/4 or more of their army with them not doing anything but get shot off the table. I also think 8th, which was always ranged focused, but has become more so to the point more and more armies are standing still and trading dice rolls at each other, and I just don't find that as interesting as move, shoot, maneuver, assault type games.

Most of the time I would much rather play Kill Team which I think GW did a pretty good job while still coloring within the lines of full 40k design-wise. I also have to say I prefer the way Age of Sigmar does a lot of things as that game system is pretty close to how 8th works but applied to differing army concepts like being largely melee focused with large units or large creautres instead of ranged. Age of Sigmar also severely limits what Command Points can be spent on as well as standardizing their generation making them important but not something hangs the win or loss to generally.

Just the same, I get the itch to break out models I don't get to use in Kill Team for that larger in scope type battles every now and again. It feels like an okay distraction when Kill Team starts feeling a little stale. Ultimately, it only takes a few games before I am kinda fed up with 8th edition though. Also, because I play so infrequently, I am starting to get fed up with all the rules fiddling. Chapter Approves, FAQ/Erratas and new supplements are starting to feel less like balance patches and more like shuffling things around for 'reasons' making it hard to even know how things work anymore. Eh, maybe I am reaching my tolerance for playing 40k again and should just go back to Kill Team/Age of Sigmar for a while. This post feels too cynical.

Compared to past editions it's very bare bones and a vapid experience. The core rules are so minimum that it leaves very little depth to the game and it tends to gameplay that's too close to theory hammer results. Stratagems are a bandaid to give depth but generally the whole game lacks complexity. The board is fairly useless outside of an all or nothing LoS system. Most thematic board layouts feel very "planet bowling ball" in practice as terrain in general lacks functionality unless it's giant area terrain (hurray +1 to a save if the entire unit is in it) or a solid piece of LoS blocking terrain.

Units and weapons generally lack mechanical depth so it fairly easily boils down to unit X deals on average Y damage and can take Z damage. It's not uncommon for units to just outclass other units because there isn't enough meaningful variety between what each unit does. Also the games lethality is through the roof and there is little being done to resolve that issue (as there isn't enough game mechanics to diversify gameplay so it again units become values mostly for their killing power, durability, or ability to buff other units killing or durability).

Some people like the edition which is what it is but for those who likes all the tiny details and clunky (but interesting) rules are out of luck as it's such a watered down experience.

The game is fine as long as you have the right mentality towards it. The problem becomes finding opponents. Unless you want to adopt a try-hard tournament mentality (i.e. zero-F's given to a mutually enjoyable play experience), you'll be hard pressed to find opponents.

Well. Since you asked....
With the removal of vehicle fire arcs, the abysmal terrain rules, the ability of everything to hurt everything, the stripping of options, a Goddamned reroll for just about everything you can imagine & some truly stupid stuff like being able to shoot you with my antena?
It feels they they dumbed the game down so that 5 year olds can handle it.

And then there's the constant stream of errata, FAQs, updates, & recommendations/suggestions (semi-rules that GW doesn't have the balls to say are now rules but that many latch on to with a death grip anyways) - wich anymore need their own FAQs & errata as soon as they arrive.

And this all gets lauded as the best rendition of the game to date.

I haven't played 8th, so that's how it feels for me. Like something with so little appeal I don't see the point in bothering. There are better games out there- and you can still use your 40k minis!

I like how it went from "best version ever" to "utter garbage fire" in twelve posts, and the intermediate posts are almost perfectly sorted between the two extremes.

Worst edition since 5th. Free fallback have turned elite melee lists into a joke (khorne demons, space wolf, WE).

Spam hard hitters and shoot to win. Can't wait to see this edition die.

becuase everything depends on what army you play and at which moment of 8th ed we are. If it was 12 months ago, and eldar player would say the game is good, his army isn't broken, people just need terrain and learn to play scenarios. Stuff could be better, like being able to take no special warlords for an Inari army, but in general 8th is good. If you go now and ask an eldar player hwo 8th is, he will start rambling how IH are destroying the game, and have to be fixed ASAP, there are no Inari player no more. etc

the rest is linked to what army you play too. I doubt the template stuff, is seen as good for people who struggle vs horde armies. And at the same time the spreading of units, seems to be seen as a good thing mainly by people with armies that run bucket loads of models.

I hate the fact that my characters or squad leaders can be hit because of long weapons or banners. I doubt it is a concern to a DA player who has more compact models.

Till PA4 came out playing GK were very unfun. Now it is not just more fun, but actualy fun to play with the army. And my army collection is far from perfect for GK.

Eh, if anyone posts an opinion, someone feels it is their righteous duty to counter it these days.

I think mostly that when it comes to GW games, familiarity breeds contempt. The more time you spend with it, thinking about it - the more apparent the warts become. Sooner or later, GW customers become ex-GW customers. I've seen that trend since the moment 40K 3E came out. So long as GW recruits new blood or the old blood's memory softens as to why they left and hop back in, GW wil be fine - and they seem to be doing that rather well of late.

This is a very sad thread to read.

It's a fun game, pretty simple with lots of optional rules to add to your taste.

I don't find it a good narrative experience, the lethality kind of kills that.

It probably plays less like the a "real" pitched battle than ever before and does not seem particularly fluffy even when picking a nice easy going TAC army.

Also the different play styles of different factions has largely been lost, again due to the lethality and lack of depth imo, just bring killiest things.

Depends what you're looking for really, I daresay you'll be happy with the lack of blast templates but not so happy with the LOS/terrain rules from what you brought up in the OP.

The Newman wrote:
I like how it went from "best version ever" to "utter garbage fire" in twelve posts, and the intermediate posts are almost perfectly sorted between the two extremes.

I'm a little impressed but, honestly, I'm not surprised. I love to complain about GW, even now. It's just a shame it was 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. It's great that GW finally opted for more timely updates, but I should have anticipated those rules would often be broken on arrival.

I'm left with this conundrum: I have an LGS, but this seems like an awful game to play pick-up matches. Alternatively, if I were to introduce some of my friends casually, it seems like an awful narrative game.

There's probably a sweet spot where your friend group plays armies that are intentionally competitive with each other, and you house rule out all the bad stuff.

There's probably a sweet spot where your friend group plays armies that are intentionally competitive with each other, and you house rule out all the bad stuff.

that sounds like orgenised play. everyone comes with at least functioning armies, you have to be nice or else you get kicked out of the event or worse banned, and then you have no where to play, and most events run some sort of house rules.

Now where I play, we use tournament rules in all games, but from what I have been told, not everyone plays that way at FLGS. A pick up game when one person asks another to play, only to find out that one has an harlequin army and another a infantry swarm RG list, can only end bad.

The game is fun. As long as you find some cool people to play with and ignore anything on dakka you'll most likely enjoy it.

I enjoy the game for what it is but it certainly is broken, balance wise.

I think the 2 main things which would insanely improve the experience and flow of the game are granting a universal amount of CP, to let every type of army be on even footing. And switch to alternate activation.

As others have said, too much hinges on list building to make use of insane amount of stratagems, and the game is far too deadly to be IGOUGO. It’s just devastating to watch 2 or 3 entire units or vehicles get shovelled off the table before you get to even move them about, especially after you spend months building and painting said models.

I think those couple of major changes would seriously freshen up the game, imo.

40k is a mess. And when playing it it's frustrating, slow, and a ton of rules that just seem to drag the whole experience out,

40k Apocalypse however is quick, more strategic, less rules, and a much more enjoyable experience. If you play apoc at around 100-150 Pl it's roughly equivalent to a 1500-2k point game of 40k in size and just a way more fun time.

Karol wrote:

There's probably a sweet spot where your friend group plays armies that are intentionally competitive with each other, and you house rule out all the bad stuff.

that sounds like orgenised play. everyone comes with at least functioning armies, you have to be nice or else you get kicked out of the event or worse banned, and then you have no where to play, and most events run some sort of house rules.

That's not Organized Play. OP is specifically your tourneys & leagues and such. At the extreme end you have the manufacturers themselves dictating how things WILL be done.
But you & your circle deciding upon a few house rules to fix some part of the game you collectively agree is a problem (EX: Shooting you with my areal) & expecting the other guy not to be an donkey-cave is how games are supposed to be played. It's how normal people play. If it wasn't these games wouldn't exist.

Karol wrote:
Now where I play, we use tournament rules in all games, but from what I have been told, not everyone plays that way at FLGS. A pick up game when one person asks another to play, only to find out that one has an harlequin army and another a infantry swarm RG list, can only end bad.

Well now, that depends who's bringing the Harlequin army (or similar). + the missions, victory conditions, & terrain used (even if you stick to only GWs piss poor terrain rules)

This is the best version of 40k to have existed, and this is coming from a hobbyist of 23 years. That's not to say that every aspects of it is outright better than what has come before.

It's easy to pick up, but there are lots of intricacies to master around certain phases.
The core rules are less about book keeping and more about play.

Well now, that depends who's bringing the Harlequin army (or similar). + the missions, victory conditions, & terrain used (even if you stick to only GWs piss poor terrain rules)

No it doesn't, unless you play with some sort of a wierd rule set, where the whole board is lava, and everything model that is not flying takes a str 8 d3 hit at the start of the turn. I played against a fair share of different armies, with different missions with pre PA4 GK, it never mattered.
Does it matter now what an Inari players mixs in his eldar list, specially when playing vs a good army?

heck if anything, the hallmark of a good w40k list is that it mostly ignores the core rules, and really good ones ignore what the opponent tries to do, by either being unkillable, or killing the opponent so fast they never get a chance to start playing out their game plan. And the realy top of the top do both things at the same time. Remembers unkillable eldar flyers, blastsing everyting that lives, ignoring LoS because of their flight stands and making it impossible for normal infantry to reach objectives, because of their gigantic bases?

Lets take the knight dominace era for example. Terrain? doesn't matter. objectives? don't matter the knight player will be swarming those and your stuff is going to be mostly dead end of turn 2-3 depending who starts and how luck played its part. victory conditions? well with a dead army your not going to be fullfiling any of yours, so they don't matter much either.

This is the best version of 40k to have existed, and this is coming from a hobbyist of 23 years.

now this is a scary thing to hear. Because if 8th was the best, then I can't imagine how bad GK had to be in 7th edition.

That's not Organized Play. OP is specifically your tourneys & leagues and such. At the extreme end you have the manufacturers themselves dictating how things WILL be done.
But you & your circle deciding upon a few house rules to fix some part of the game you collectively agree is a problem (EX: Shooting you with my areal) & expecting the other guy not to be an donkey-cave is how games are supposed to be played. It's how normal people play. If it wasn't these games wouldn't exist.

That is like expecting politicans to not hire their family or give hand outs in form of positions in state monopoly companies. If GK are the only army with back banners, why should anyone be interested to add rules that fix stuff just for them. now if something hurts everyone, like lets say how forests or walls with doors and widows work in 8th ed, then people are willing to agree. But if majority of players had armies that ignored terrain or LoS, they wouldn't be so willing to change stuff. Plus enforcment would be kind of a hard. A random game against the store owners friend would mean, he could enforce any rule he wants, else if you stir trouble you may get a ban on playing. But a random game between two people without social backing, or someone who has no friends at the store? how would they enforce a rule they want. Asking will just end with a no.

8th is pretty good initially. IME new players who have a decent grasp of the rules and a modest collection of models playing against each other will have a pretty enjoyable experience. The problems start to arise when a new player starts taking the game a bit more seriously and starts thinking a bit more deeply about their collection than just fielding whatever they own. I've seen it countless times in 8th that players either expand their army in the wrong way and start to lose constantly or go for the power combos and start steamrolling opponents who haven't done the same.

Ultimately that lack of balance and extreme lethality can cause problems especially with new players. Investment in terms of time and money can feel wasted if their stuff keeps getting blasted off the table in two turns because they chose to play the "wrong" army and the game is ultimately not a very satisfying experience for either player.

If you can find like-minded players the game is good but as a pick-up style of game where you can show up at your local FLGS and play it's not so great.

Nothing in 8th is even remotely close to as bad as 7th. being better than 7th does not make it good however.