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.

If you really really enjoyed 5th, I find most people have a hard time really enjoying 8th. They do it because of the huge community and knowing they always have games available but the game itself is built for a totally different breed of player than 5th edition was.

 auticus wrote:
If you really really enjoyed 5th, I find most people have a hard time really enjoying 8th. They do it because of the huge community and knowing they always have games available but the game itself is built for a totally different breed of player than 5th edition was.

errrrmmmmm not entirely sure I agree with this. I was around at 5th and enjoyed 5th.

Because of the wound system etc etc with 5th the game became VERY pay to win. Remember when Riptides came out with Tau codex in 5th? Dreadknights?

8th has made it so you can build an army with pretty much what you have and okay balance will always be an issue but at least I know I have a chance and vica verca opponents know they have a chance if I decide to stick my knight on the board.

8th isn't the best, but neither was 4th or 5th. or any of them, maybe just maybe editions can be just as good as each other but for different reasons and style of play.

I try not to compare the editions, what's done is done. I enjoyed 5th, I also enjoy 8th. Yes we can enjoy more than one edition and not compare, amazing I know.

is 8th perfect...no. Have any of the editions been perfect...no.

Is 8th incredibly fun to play and does it provide a Nigella Lawson's amount of flavour of ways to play...yes, yes it does. Not just in 40k, but with Kill team and Apoc. And the way's you have things in CA19 that actively encourage cross play. Have that kill team game have an effect on your main game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Likewise, I again suggest Apocalypse for your 1500-2k+ games. It just works better with more tactical depth, better terrain, better game.

Got to disagree here. Play the same forces in an Epic Armageddon game then do the 40k one. You will cry... GW made some very poor design decisions which from talking to an ex studio staffer who worked on them were because of the directive to have model arming options and referencing what units carried. The tactical depth was supposed to come from the cards and that meta game over what the units were doing.

Honestly you are better off even just using the epic A rules for the 40k units, that is a game where fire and manoeuvre makes a difference, it feels like a large scale battle and as it is already a GW ruleset is baffling why something like it wasn't used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Everyone needs the rule book. That's a given.

Lots of games have unit rules in the same book/pamphlet, so only one document required...

I'll second that. Epic Armageddon is pure awesome. It's a really great game.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

errrrmmmmm not entirely sure I agree with this. I was around at 5th and enjoyed 5th.

Because of the wound system etc etc with 5th the game became VERY pay to win.

Maybe I was an exception but I never had issues with the wound system in 5th. I'll freely admit that there were issues with it but it never felt like a major problem (let alone pay-to-win).

The only units I can recall being able to abuse it were Ork Nobz and GK Paladins. And, at least in my experience, neither of those were insurmountable. They were incredibly expensive and typically meant that the player would have a couple of really tough units . . . and nothing else. GK Paladins didn't even have much in the way of mobility, whist Nob Bikers had no invulnerable saves and so were fully reliant on Jink (or whatever it was called) to protect them. In both cases, I just spread my units out and gradually whittled them down. Frankly, their toughness never felt out of whack with their points and, if anything, I found them significantly easier to win against than other armies with those factions.

IMO 6th-7th was when the wounding mechanics went completely down the crapper.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Remember when Riptides came out with Tau codex in 5th? Dreadknights?

I could be misremembering but didn't the Riptide come out in 6th edition?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Because of the wound system etc etc with 5th the game became VERY pay to win. Remember when Riptides came out with Tau codex in 5th? Dreadknights?

Riptides were 6th edition.

5e suffered from a lot of codex creep but not because of the to-wound system (which was clunky though). There was simply little effort to match the prices between units across the edition.

 vipoid wrote:
The only units I can recall being able to abuse it were Ork Nobz and GK Paladins. And, at least in my experience, neither of those were insurmountable.

Sometimes I could shoot my entire army into Paladins and kill nothing. When large blasts are getting 3 hits and any wounds you do just get tanked by Draigo, things are broken. I had actually forgotten how much Draigo could tank until just now.

Thanks to the initial wave of folks who responded to my post; I better understand what people do and do not mean by bloat, which makes me feel better about discussing it.

Just a note though, waxing nostalgic about indexes IS being nostalgic about a time when there was no difference between an army from Aggripina and an army from Mars, or the Cult of the Twisted Helix and the Cult of the Four Armed Emperor. It was the lack of subfactions, fluff, artwork and photos that allowed them to cram 5 armies in a single book.

Regarding the setup maps from BRB and why they aren't in CA, the answer is because if they had been we would have paid for those same pages 4 times now, and that would be dakka's hate flavour of the month every time a ca dropped.

Regarding the multiple sourcebook angle on bloat, I do agree and concede the point. I do believe 2.0 dexes are on the way, and I think they'll consolidate some of the content. Not every faction will need a 2.0 dex, but some certainly have had enough EXTRA material that they do.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

8th has made it so you can build an army with pretty much what you have and okay balance will always be an issue but at least I know I have a chance and vica verca opponents know they have a chance if I decide to stick my knight on the board.

This was not different to 5th
Soros or Inquisition had their fair chance to win against Wolves or GK.

of course if you only played Killpoint missions it was different, but the same is for 8th.

7th sufferd more because of free points formations, but 5th was not worse than 8th regarding those points

Nurglitch wrote:
I'll second that. Epic Armageddon is pure awesome. It's a really great game.

Epic Armageddon is a game that has not had support for 7 years. I get that you enjoy the game you played from almost a decade ago but you have to recognize that telling players today, especially newer players of which there are many, that they should look up rules from, again, 7 years ago, and then try to hunt down a different scale of miniature through various 3rd party sources, while not getting to use their current collection, is just not going to happen.

In the meantime, Apocalypse exists now, with a box you can buy at the store with all the components for 2 players to play a game with the current model range.

 Lance845 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'll second that. Epic Armageddon is pure awesome. It's a really great game.

Epic Armageddon is a game that has not had support for 7 years. I get that you enjoy the game you played from almost a decade ago but you have to recognize that telling players today, especially newer players of which there are many, that they should look up rules from, again, 7 years ago, and then try to hunt down a different scale of miniature through various 3rd party sources, while not getting to use their current collection, is just not going to happen.

In the meantime, Apocalypse exists now, with a box you can buy at the store with all the components for 2 players to play a game with the current model range.

Epic Armageddon is very easily adaptable to 40k-scale stuff. Have the 15cm = 24" and you're good to go. The rules are easily found and available for free. Buying those nice new Epic unit trays to functions as coherent units is a good idea though, and keeps money flowing to GW.

Nurglitch wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'll second that. Epic Armageddon is pure awesome. It's a really great game.

Epic Armageddon is a game that has not had support for 7 years. I get that you enjoy the game you played from almost a decade ago but you have to recognize that telling players today, especially newer players of which there are many, that they should look up rules from, again, 7 years ago, and then try to hunt down a different scale of miniature through various 3rd party sources, while not getting to use their current collection, is just not going to happen.

In the meantime, Apocalypse exists now, with a box you can buy at the store with all the components for 2 players to play a game with the current model range.

Epic Armageddon is very easily adaptable to 40k-scale stuff. Have the 15cm = 24" and you're good to go. The rules are easily found and available for free. Buying those nice new Epic unit trays to functions as coherent units is a good idea though, and keeps money flowing to GW.

"Easy" isn't really a word I'd use when the actual Epic game had you driving around squadrons of Land Raiders and stomping Titans. The price point to achieve that experience is pretty high.

PenitentJake wrote:
Thanks to the initial wave of folks who responded to my post; I better understand what people do and do not mean by bloat, which makes me feel better about discussing it.

Just a note though, waxing nostalgic about indexes IS being nostalgic about a time when there was no difference between an army from Aggripina and an army from Mars, or the Cult of the Twisted Helix and the Cult of the Four Armed Emperor. It was the lack of subfactions, fluff, artwork and photos that allowed them to cram 5 armies in a single book.

Regarding the setup maps from BRB and why they aren't in CA, the answer is because if they had been we would have paid for those same pages 4 times now, and that would be dakka's hate flavour of the month every time a ca dropped.

Regarding the multiple sourcebook angle on bloat, I do agree and concede the point. I do believe 2.0 dexes are on the way, and I think they'll consolidate some of the content. Not every faction will need a 2.0 dex, but some certainly have had enough EXTRA material that they do.

The flavor is very skin deep and much of it is tied to strats which by their nature are like the kool aid of flavor, sweet but watery lacking real substance. The units lost a fair bit of their flair and flavor and had it replaced with temporarily gained gold dust so long as you sundew valley the farms to give them command points.

Indexes were very bland I think if we were honest we all thought that. However giving back much of the flavor in strats isn't what I had in mind for taste to come.

As well even if they 2.0 the dexes which I feel like we won't see anyways for a long while I feel like they'll just keep pumping out the bloat making it pretty much a hopeless venture and only add books onto the stack you'd need for one, and god forbid two factions used together.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Thanks to the initial wave of folks who responded to my post; I better understand what people do and do not mean by bloat, which makes me feel better about discussing it.

Just a note though, waxing nostalgic about indexes IS being nostalgic about a time when there was no difference between an army from Aggripina and an army from Mars, or the Cult of the Twisted Helix and the Cult of the Four Armed Emperor. It was the lack of subfactions, fluff, artwork and photos that allowed them to cram 5 armies in a single book.

Regarding the setup maps from BRB and why they aren't in CA, the answer is because if they had been we would have paid for those same pages 4 times now, and that would be dakka's hate flavour of the month every time a ca dropped.

Regarding the multiple sourcebook angle on bloat, I do agree and concede the point. I do believe 2.0 dexes are on the way, and I think they'll consolidate some of the content. Not every faction will need a 2.0 dex, but some certainly have had enough EXTRA material that they do.

The flavor is very skin deep and much of it is tied to strats which by their nature are like the kool aid of flavor, sweet but watery lacking real substance. The units lost a fair bit of their flair and flavor and had it replaced with temporarily gained gold dust so long as you sundew valley the farms to give them command points.

Indexes were very bland I think if we were honest we all thought that. However giving back much of the flavor in strats isn't what I had in mind for taste to come.

As well even if they 2.0 the dexes which I feel like we won't see anyways for a long while I feel like they'll just keep pumping out the bloat making it pretty much a hopeless venture and only add books onto the stack you'd need for one, and god forbid two factions used together.

Agreed on how getting flavor through strategems sucks. A faction shouldn't lose most of its uniqueness just because you don't have enough cp. It's especially frustrating when some factions don't have that problem because they have stronger faction traits that are "always on" while others have weak traits that rarely affect gameplay.

 Jidmah wrote:
I tell new players to not buy it. Mine has been sitting on the shelf for over a year now. It's really only good for the deployment types (why aren't those in CA?!) and narrative missions.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Lots of games have unit rules in the same book/pamphlet, so only one document required...

*sigh* Fine. Everyone needs the rules.

Y'all done splitting hairs now?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Thanks to the initial wave of folks who responded to my post; I better understand what people do and do not mean by bloat, which makes me feel better about discussing it.

Just a note though, waxing nostalgic about indexes IS being nostalgic about a time when there was no difference between an army from Aggripina and an army from Mars, or the Cult of the Twisted Helix and the Cult of the Four Armed Emperor. It was the lack of subfactions, fluff, artwork and photos that allowed them to cram 5 armies in a single book.

Regarding the setup maps from BRB and why they aren't in CA, the answer is because if they had been we would have paid for those same pages 4 times now, and that would be dakka's hate flavour of the month every time a ca dropped.

Regarding the multiple sourcebook angle on bloat, I do agree and concede the point. I do believe 2.0 dexes are on the way, and I think they'll consolidate some of the content. Not every faction will need a 2.0 dex, but some certainly have had enough EXTRA material that they do.

The flavor is very skin deep and much of it is tied to strats which by their nature are like the kool aid of flavor, sweet but watery lacking real substance. The units lost a fair bit of their flair and flavor and had it replaced with temporarily gained gold dust so long as you sundew valley the farms to give them command points.

Indexes were very bland I think if we were honest we all thought that. However giving back much of the flavor in strats isn't what I had in mind for taste to come.

As well even if they 2.0 the dexes which I feel like we won't see anyways for a long while I feel like they'll just keep pumping out the bloat making it pretty much a hopeless venture and only add books onto the stack you'd need for one, and god forbid two factions used together.

Agreed on how getting flavor through strategems sucks. A faction shouldn't lose most of its uniqueness just because you don't have enough cp. It's especially frustrating when some factions don't have that problem because they have stronger faction traits that are "always on" while others have weak traits that rarely affect gameplay.

Yeah, it feels wrong to me to lose your flavor when you run out of CP. Something about it I've never liked and won't like, now if you could eventually pay CPs to buff units for the whole game, kind of like buying more relics or upgrading marine captains but done with squads or groups of squads, then that would be a real good use for CP right there that could be limited yet give you utility in unit selection. Sort of like how they do the formations but it just buffs them straight as opposed to opening up even more strats for them. I know GW would just break it beyond all reason but it would be a great way to give units back flavor and not make cps just a snack of flavor like the flavor blasted gold fish of 40k.

Obviously for units that often are maligned or lost their place over the years. Would be an easy fix between codex runs and be actually cool as opposed to cool for awhile.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeah, it feels wrong to me to lose your flavor when you run out of CP. Something about it I've never liked and won't like, now if you could eventually pay CPs to buff units for the whole game, kind of like buying more relics or upgrading marine captains but done with squads or groups of squads, then that would be a real good use for CP right there that could be limited yet give you utility in unit selection. Sort of like how they do the formations but it just buffs them straight as opposed to opening up even more strats for them. I know GW would just break it beyond all reason but it would be a great way to give units back flavor and not make cps just a snack of flavor like the flavor blasted gold fish of 40k.

Obviously for units that often are maligned or lost their place over the years. Would be an easy fix between codex runs and be actually cool as opposed to cool for awhile.

Yeah I started a thread in Proposed Rules on giving factions unique units using existing models that would do just that. Though I'd prefer using points instead of cp.

I just figured it would be more uses for CP but yeah points would be good.

Cp works as well. I got the idea from strategems like veteran intercessors and Red Butchers.

Well see, that was a good idea, and why it hasn't become a common place thing ? GW hates good ideas and kills them without mercy.

 Lance845 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'll second that. Epic Armageddon is pure awesome. It's a really great game.

Epic Armageddon is a game that has not had support for 7 years. I get that you enjoy the game you played from almost a decade ago but you have to recognize that telling players today, especially newer players of which there are many, that they should look up rules from, again, 7 years ago, and then try to hunt down a different scale of miniature through various 3rd party sources, while not getting to use their current collection, is just not going to happen.

In the meantime, Apocalypse exists now, with a box you can buy at the store with all the components for 2 players to play a game with the current model range.

True. But look, here is the rules

And 7 years? I thought it was longer than that since they stopped selling the models?

The point is more that GW have rules in their catalogue that handle large model count battles well. Whats more a Chimera is very different to a Leman Russ and so on. They have proved they can do it, why did the Apocalypse game turn out so poorly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

"Easy" isn't really a word I'd use when the actual Epic game had you driving around squadrons of Land Raiders and stomping Titans. The price point to achieve that experience is pretty high.

Is that not literally the apocalypse experience everyone was after?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Lots of games have unit rules in the same book/pamphlet, so only one document required...

*sigh* Fine. Everyone needs the rules.

Y'all done splitting hairs now?

Very few wargames require 4+ documents for one army list (my guard currently run at rule book, chapter approved, codex, Vigulus, Pyskic awakening, white dwarf assassins and white dwarf inquisitors)...

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If you really really enjoyed 5th, I find most people have a hard time really enjoying 8th. They do it because of the huge community and knowing they always have games available but the game itself is built for a totally different breed of player than 5th edition was.

errrrmmmmm not entirely sure I agree with this. I was around at 5th and enjoyed 5th.

Because of the wound system etc etc with 5th the game became VERY pay to win. Remember when Riptides came out with Tau codex in 5th? Dreadknights?

8th has made it so you can build an army with pretty much what you have and okay balance will always be an issue but at least I know I have a chance and vica verca opponents know they have a chance if I decide to stick my knight on the board.

8th isn't the best, but neither was 4th or 5th. or any of them, maybe just maybe editions can be just as good as each other but for different reasons and style of play.

I try not to compare the editions, what's done is done. I enjoyed 5th, I also enjoy 8th. Yes we can enjoy more than one edition and not compare, amazing I know.

is 8th perfect...no. Have any of the editions been perfect...no.

Is 8th incredibly fun to play and does it provide a Nigella Lawson's amount of flavour of ways to play...yes, yes it does. Not just in 40k, but with Kill team and Apoc. And the way's you have things in CA19 that actively encourage cross play. Have that kill team game have an effect on your main game.

My group still prefers to play 5th edition over 8th for normal sized games. 5th wasn't perfect. there were rules removed or added here and there in 2nd/3rd/4th/6th and 7th that could have made 5th an even better edtion. (and we like to house rules those into 5th)

for example grenade throwing and CC weapons having AP values introduced in 6th would have been great in 5th. on the flip side the dice pool system from fantasy for psykers was a terrible system as the previous LD check /use it during the phase it applies in was far easier to use and more intuitive.

The codex creep issue has always been a thing for GW. it is part of thier marketing plan. they are still doing it in 8th but calling it by a differnt name.

5th was a far more tactical game than 8th because you had to bring the right gun/melee weapon to the right fight. things had less wounds but they were far more durable as their were overall better cover mechanics and far less shots being fired/swings being taken. the vehicle facings/weapon mount LOS or lack there of still breaks the immersion and bugs the hell out of me in 8th. how exactly am i shooting that vindicator cannon out of my right track?

Finally 5th was never pay to win. every codex that actually got a release in 5th was strong and had loads of options. the blood angels, space wolves, orks, and imperial guard had IMHO their best codexes of any edition both in performance and in fluff based rules.

 aphyon wrote:
Finally 5th was never pay to win.

You have to buy models to play with them. Every edition of 40k has been pay to win, to at least some degree. However, the term is pretty muh meaningless in 40k, as there is no baseline to compare to.

 Trickstick wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Finally 5th was never pay to win.

You have to buy models to play with them. Every edition of 40k has been pay to win, to at least some degree. However, the term is pretty muh meaningless in 40k, as there is no baseline to compare to.

i was referencing the codex creep comment. . yes most of the new codexes for 5th were "stronger/better" than thier 4th ed versions.....but they ALL were was my point.

you know I don't mind creep as much, as I mind the nerfs. Old or new armies, get more stuff then me, ain't making me happy, but it is acceptable. But getting your army rules nerfed, without any chance of a rebalance, just because GW did not test the mechanics of a new army or decided to change the core rules of an entire editions is not.

It is like doing sports.

 Trickstick wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Finally 5th was never pay to win.

You have to buy models to play with them. Every edition of 40k has been pay to win, to at least some degree. However, the term is pretty muh meaningless in 40k, as there is no baseline to compare to.

No, you don't have to.
You play without buying any models and just use printed paper markers

while needing to buy books for stronger upgrades is a thing that you cannot get legally around

 kodos wrote:
No, you don't have to.
You play without buying any models and just use printed paper markers

while needing to buy books for stronger upgrades is a thing that you cannot get legally around

You could just memorise a copy of the book if you want to.

The only way Warhammer 40k is going to remain so successful, and so widespread, is by pumping out content. I mean, isn't this what we wanted years ago when it was six months between codecies?

Nurglitch wrote:
The only way Warhammer 40k is going to remain so successful, and so widespread, is by pumping out content. I mean, isn't this what we wanted years ago when it was six months between codecies?

People wasn't asking for 3 new rules book for their armies every edition tho, there is a difference in wanting your armies rules in a timely manor and wanting updated points/mission rules compare to just endless stream of rules that has an endless stream of faqs, along with more and more imbalances every month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like to add, they can add more ways to play and sell new books and more models that way (like Apoc).

They could have a competition book that is 5 ways to play Comp (combat patrol, Battalion only like old FoC, Highlander, etc..) we don't need more army books for armies that already have books to continue to sell/buy new books/models.

Nurglitch wrote:
The only way Warhammer 40k is going to remain so successful, and so widespread, is by pumping out content. I mean, isn't this what we wanted years ago when it was six months between codecies?

The problem was that not every faction was updated together for the new edition. it created a power imbalance if you were stuck using 3rd or 4th ed codexes in 5th.

Some other game systems release everything together or very close together or even back compatible that it doesn't become such a problem.

A good example is what they did to DAs the 4th ed codex was super simplified and downpowered, then GW decided they didn't want to go in that direction so when 5th hit it took 2 years for GW to get around to allowing DA players to have storm shields with a 3+ invul save. as thier codex still had to old "4+ in CC only" rules. in an age when codex > BRB.


Aside from a few rules i dislike for HH that are carry-overs from 7th (fantasy dice pool for psykers/hull points/lack of hit modifiers for CC against fast moving vehicles AKA 4th...oh how i despise thee) the reason i like it so much is because it is very similar to 5th with some of the good rules added in and formations removed. it also sovled one of the biggest problems in all the previous editions- The troop "tax"

i had no problem with the 1 HQ/2 TROOP FOC requirement. what i had a problem with was in how lackluster the troop options were for some armies. in HH every troop option is good so you actually want to take them.