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.

 Tokhuah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


But 8th is pretty good.

Through my eyes this sentiment pretty much invalidates any opinion you have on the matter.

To each their own. And to be real, 6th for a Necron still means the 5th Edition Codex so my perception may be a bit warped in this regard. Currently there are so many great miniatures games and bootlegs like Grimdark are a more streamlined version of Kill Team so I pretty much buy a few GW models but do not pay for or play any of their content. This is sort of like treating GW as a model company but not a game company. If GW decides to work on a game worth my time I will consider it but not if 9th is 8th v2.0 because I am not bound to play a game just because I own the models.

What do you not like about 8th [and why does that invalidate my opinion]?

It is my opinion that my favorite past edition was 5th. The introduction of hull points in 6th was the first major step downhill, and then the introduction of the Riptide which was by all accounts a vehicle but was classed as a monstrous creature so that it would benefit from the vastly better MC ruleset really set things off. 6th also brought in Super Heavies in normal play, Allied Detachments, and nonstandard force organization charts for special snowflake factions. 7th then started the giving out of free rules for existing, going as far as to include free units.
5th's major flaw was wound shuffling, which I think could be solved by using the modern rule that says allocated wounds to wounded models first, and the Plasma Siphon, which at the very least shouldn't have applied to all Tau weapons and probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.
5th also brought me tank squadrons for my IG, which is something I of course, really like, and why I wouldn't want to go earlier.

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch. The bad parts are the Space Marine Supplements which hearken back to 7e Formations, sub faction rules in general, locking things in melee, the new AP system [and giving AP out of basic infantry], and the general lack of power in truly heavy vehicle weapons [which are no longer able to kill tanks, while rate of fire with midrange guns is an answer to everything].

We're still stuck with superheavies in standard play [as much as I love my Shadowsword and play it as often as I can because it's awesome] since Imperial Knights exist, and we're still stuck with nonstandard force orgs because Imperial Knights exist, and Allied Detachments are going to be a thing forevermore [which, to be fair, the addition of allies to 6e allowed me to start Sisters of Battle, but I also think that allies are a net detriment to the game]

I expect it to happen in 2-4 weeks, everything has been pushed back by corona.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

But at the same time, why not have one ready? It's not as if working from home stops you from doing an FAQ.

It's a sad, vicious circle. Too many can't play the game without GW constantly tweaking it & GW can't tweak the rules without seeing a tiny % (who most players will never know exist) play the game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

But at the same time, why not have one ready? It's not as if working from home stops you from doing an FAQ.

It's to do with who if anyone is technically declaired as working vrs not working while GW is/was closed, the goverment was/is paying some of companies wage bills during this pandemic, but only if the employees are not working at all.
So to produce your FAQ would have cost the company.

So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

Saga of the Beast KFF Meks are the biggest offender, along with Deathwatch having unnerfed Doctrines.

i just want a working command vox net.

And some interactions between enforcers and marauders.

Clarification on strategic discipline, when is during a phase ? DW has two strats which were changed. Necrons are the only faction which cannot disembark T1 from their transports.

I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Issue is more of GW not listening feedback.

Also doesn't help testing is basically hand out 2 army lists, told to play it and tell how it went.

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Their writing is based upon they way their team plays beerhammer, they are not competitive minded people and also even when the rules arn't clear they have the advantage od knowing what their intention was.
It also doesnt help that the guys writing the rules, competitive players and rules lawyers, veiw the game with very different goals.
Like GW's last nerf to marines was this is how GW tested the doctorines 1-2 turns of dev then tac then assualt, it was rummered they argued with playtesters about ironhands and Fists being broken.

Given the recent Deathmatch articles on Warhammer Community (Especially the "Middleweight" one) it seems the thing holding GW back from doing a proper FAQ is that without outside help they don't know the rules for their own game.

I'd think even working from home it should be possible to produce the regular FAQs for Saga of the Beast and the Deathwatch update though. Bit puzzled why they haven't been done.

I'd happily work as a contractor for them for a nominal £1 fee

Well, I dropped Customer Services an email on the 3rd suggesting (not demanding) that they at least pop an update on WHC regarding the Spring FAQ - got a response on Sunday saying they'd pass it on and see what they can do, but who knows what that'll mean.

Didn't playtesters repeatedly bring up how broken IH were and GW just completely ignored it?

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Please read all of my post correctly before trying to get a quick 1up on the internet.
In hours you cannot figure out every single interaction that army will have with all others.
Unless you have a team that’s thousands strong all attempting separate parts to gather all data, it’s impossible.

My post wasn’t just in regards to which units will be meta or bad.
It was about rules and how they interact.
We’ve seen it plenty in the past where a scenario comes up months after release that leads to a dead end or a broken rule.
Working out strong units is indeed quick.

Playtesting each and every rule against every possible conflicting rule however isn’t so quick.
Even thinking it is shows a severe lack of understanding to how rules integrate into an ongoing system.

No tournaments being played is not an excuse not to start mining away at the mountain of questions they get sent concerning rules disparities.

 Jidmah wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks. DDM is a strat that generates extra attacks. Therefore it would not trigger based on bonus attacks you already gained from the Goffs kultur, nor would DDM generate extra attacks due to Goff Kultur because it also says it does not generate bonus attacks.
7) Actually ambiguous wording! You're 1 for 7!
8) See 1

This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you. Two different abilities that both state "Bonus attacks generated by this ability do not generate additional bonus attacks" is crystal clear RAW, you'd just like one rule to be able to trigger bonus attacks from the other rule.

In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

the_scotsman wrote:

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks.

5 might not be question but whole entry is mess. The kff desperately needs faqing as as it is it's mess and whoever wrote it hasn't even read ork codex. Standard course for faq's.

In case you have been not reading faq's so far they actually do change rules they messed up. As is codex is beta test for players to do gw's job for free. It's not accident that books are messed up. Deliberate cash saving by gw.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks. DDM is a strat that generates extra attacks. Therefore it would not trigger based on bonus attacks you already gained from the Goffs kultur, nor would DDM generate extra attacks due to Goff Kultur because it also says it does not generate bonus attacks.
7) Actually ambiguous wording! You're 1 for 7!
8) See 1

This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you. Two different abilities that both state "Bonus attacks generated by this ability do not generate additional bonus attacks" is crystal clear RAW, you'd just like one rule to be able to trigger bonus attacks from the other rule.

Well, he did say that the RAW was clear on most of them.

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

the_scotsman wrote:
This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you.

RAW, there was nothing stopping Tyranids from giving an Adaptive Physiology to a named character, but then the subsequent FAQ forbade that.

RAW, you can place an entire squadron of 3 Leman Russes in ambush when playing as Tallarn, and this was called out as the correct ruling in the FAQ.

Yes, a lot of these questions are clear in regards to RAW- but when the RAW seems to conflict with RAI, people ask questions, and then the FAQ either confirms that the RAW is RAI, or erratas the RAW to match the RAI.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

....Not when the claim is how many models you put on the table....

My ork army is smaller in 8th than in 7th, and dies far, far faster

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

....Not when the claim is how many models you put on the table....

My ork army is smaller in 8th than in 7th, and dies far, far faster

And not not a points problem that they die faster, thats an 8th problem, 8th jacked up the damage by a HUGE amount, just removing real cover saves was big, then making twin linked x2 shots over re-rolls, on top of giving out insane amounts of re-rolls. Yeah things die faster.