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.

8th edition has changed the face of the game. What do you love about it. And what makes you want to pull your hair out?

Love: formations and ally abuse death stars are dead.

Hate: pretty much everything else about the dumpster fire of 8th.

Love:
- Changes to WS, BS, wounding
- Unified statline for everything
- Everything being able to hurt everything else
- The new FOC system
- Streamlined army lists

Hate:
- Zero impact of movement and terrain on gameplay
- Zero impact of mission objectives on gameplay
- Being tabled by turn 3
- Lack of facings, fire arcs
- Removal of casualties from out of LOS
- Points costs at the back of the book
- Bespoke rules for everything instead of USR
- Abuse of pile-in moves being a crucial part of tactics

Love: The core mechanics are tighter and better than ever, other than a couple minor curious quirks.

Hate:
The deployment rules are incredibly unfair, and the army books are varying degrees of dumpster-fire, ranging from 'Flat' to 'Broken'.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Hate:
- Zero impact of movement and terrain on gameplay

Um, terrain is actually really important and has a big impact on gameplay. Are you not using the terrain rules? They are found in the "advanced rules" section. Also, movement and proper positioning are a huge factor in victory.

- Zero impact of mission objectives on gameplay

I've played seven games of 8th edition now with my Craftworld Eldar, I've won all of them, and all but one of them were won on objectives. ... do you not play to the objectives? O.o

Love:
-The removal of unnecessary and impractical vehicle rules (Making all units use the same profile and those profiles not being capped at '10')
-The streamlining of the rules and faster mechanics.
-The 'clean slate' mentality of the edition and creating new rules for all units from the start. (Something that I think should have been done a long time ago)


Hate:
-The fact that the same old people are around trying desperately to pigeon hole things from the start and not allowing things to play out.
-The fact that Xenos will potentially taking a back seat to MARINES (again)!

Edited by RiTides - Be polite!

 Marsyas wrote:

Um, terrain is actually really important and has a big impact on gameplay. Are you not using the terrain rules? They are found in the "advanced rules" section. Also, movement and proper positioning are a huge factor in victory.

I've played seven games of 8th edition now with my Craftworld Eldar, I've won all of them, and all but one of them were won on objectives. ... do you not play to the objectives? O.o

No, terrain has no impact unless you're using solid cubes at least 12" wide. The +1 save barely matters and is only useful to small gunline units. Good luck fitting 30 gaunts anywhere. And I don't consider pile-in shenanigans and teleport bubble wrap tactical movement. There can be no tactical movement when everyone can see and shoot anywhere on the table all the time.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

No, terrain has no impact unless you're using solid cubes at least 12" wide. The +1 save barely matters and is only useful to small gunline units. Good luck fitting 30 gaunts anywhere. And I don't consider pile-in shenanigans and teleport bubble wrap tactical movement. There can be no tactical movement when everyone can see and shoot anywhere on the table all the time.

1. Okay, so you know how you pick which models die when you lose them? PIck models that are preventing your units from getting cover. For example: let's say you have 20 gaunts traipsing through some thick woods. Seven of them are not obscured by the trees. When your unit receives fire, assign the wounds to the seven who aren't in cover. Your unit is now in cover.

2. Make sure you are using a wide variety of terrain. Include barricades and craters, obstacles, battlescapes, and so on. Recognize which pieces of terrain are best against which enemies. Obstacles are awesome against melee armies. Barricades are a great place to hide a gun line. Infantry characters go in craters, and so on.

3. Why the hell aren't you using LoS blocking terrain? Uncle Sam wants you to use LoS blocking terrain. Reecius wants you to use LoS blocking terrain. Baby Jesus also wants you to use LoS blocking terrain. If you aren't using LoS blocking terrain, you are failing at 40k. If you lack LoS blocking terrain, Reecius over at Frontline has a solution for you:

"So, here is a practical solution to the LoS issue: Beer cans. Yup. Beer cans.

Step 1: Drink beers.
Step 2: Spray beer cans black.
Step 3: Tape diagonal lines on beer cans with painters tape.
Step 4: Spray beer cans yellow.
Step 5: Remove tape.
Step 6: Dry brush cans with metalic, add some red/brown spray for rust effects.
Step 7: Gorilla glue painted cans to a hardboard base in whatever configuration pleases you.
Step 8: Flock base.
Step 9: Place several of these LoS blocking terrain pieces on the table so that it is no longer a shooting gallery.
Step 10: Profit."

I think it is becoming clear that bigger, better, LOS blocking and large area terrain is needed for 8th edition. Which I love, I've always disliked the sparely populated boards of the past.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Marsyas wrote:

Um, terrain is actually really important and has a big impact on gameplay. Are you not using the terrain rules? They are found in the "advanced rules" section. Also, movement and proper positioning are a huge factor in victory.

I've played seven games of 8th edition now with my Craftworld Eldar, I've won all of them, and all but one of them were won on objectives. ... do you not play to the objectives? O.o

No, terrain has no impact unless you're using solid cubes at least 12" wide. The +1 save barely matters and is only useful to small gunline units. Good luck fitting 30 gaunts anywhere. And I don't consider pile-in shenanigans and teleport bubble wrap tactical movement. There can be no tactical movement when everyone can see and shoot anywhere on the table all the time.

If a 16% efficiency increase in your saves does not matter, what will?
Yes, terrain has become less powerful in comparison to 7th edition. However, someone who can use that +1 is still going to come out on top which means it does matter.

Hollow wrote:Hate:
-The fact that the same old 'neck-beard' idiots are around trying desperately to pigeon hole things from the start and not allowing things to play out.

Proving my point about the dumpster fire quite nicely there...

Pros:

- I've played four or five games now and I love it. It's so much better than 7th.

- 40k is really fun now and I enjoy playing it, and look forward to playing it. That wasn't really the case with 7th.

- Love the changes to charging and melee combat resolution in general

- Character ability auras and the way characters are handled in general

- Everybody split fires (if they want)

- Streamlining of terrain rules and their impact on movement

- Owning player removes casualties from target units

- New "Only War" scenario is surprisingly fun

- Open Play scenarios are fun too

- No more USRs! YAY! Best change of all for me.

- I like the way the indexes are organized and don't have any trouble using them, though calculating a points value for a list is a bit tedious

- Power Levels are actually pretty good

Cons:
- The lack of firing arcs for vehicles is a bit weird, though I appreciate the streamlining it represents

- The wound allocation rules can be a bit fiddly when units of multi-wound models are involved

- Games still tend to take a long time (at least now it's fun)

- No online army builder yet makes calculating a list cost with points rather onerous for many people (power levels are an easy workaround)

- Unclear how well factions are currently balanced, and whether any semblance of balance will remain once the codexes start coming out

Bottom line: for me, this is the best 40k ever. It's the 40k I wished I was playing way back when I started in the very early 90s. My kids and I are having a great time, as are my local gaming buddies.

DaPino wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Marsyas wrote:

Um, terrain is actually really important and has a big impact on gameplay. Are you not using the terrain rules? They are found in the "advanced rules" section. Also, movement and proper positioning are a huge factor in victory.

I've played seven games of 8th edition now with my Craftworld Eldar, I've won all of them, and all but one of them were won on objectives. ... do you not play to the objectives? O.o

No, terrain has no impact unless you're using solid cubes at least 12" wide. The +1 save barely matters and is only useful to small gunline units. Good luck fitting 30 gaunts anywhere. And I don't consider pile-in shenanigans and teleport bubble wrap tactical movement. There can be no tactical movement when everyone can see and shoot anywhere on the table all the time.

If a 16% efficiency increase in your saves does not matter, what will?
Yes, terrain has become less powerful in comparison to 7th edition. However, someone who can use that +1 is still going to come out on top which means it does matter.

Taking advantage of the cover is far, far harder now, the benefits are far lower, and for many units that used to rely on cover it now does practically nothing in many contexts, while units that are already tanky and hard to kill (And also much smaller, making it much easier to benefit from cover) get much larger benefits.
A 16% increase in save means a lot less when you go from 7+ to 6+ or 6+ to 5+, than when you go from 3+ to 2+. When you go from 3+ to 2+, your survivability doubles. When you go from 6+ to 5+, it only increases by a fifth. Also, if you've got a 7+ save against AP -1 or a 6+ save against Ap-2, the cover doesn't help in the slightest.
(Heck, Repentia and most Daemons literally can't use cover.)

It still technically does things, but in comparison to any previous edition I am familiar with the rules of (4th and on) the effect is minimal at best for units who would previously need it. Getting and taking advantage of terrain isn't useless, but it's hugeley disincentived unless you've got a static shooting unit with a good save.


Also: To anyone saying Power Levels are good... Power Levels are good if you were already playing casual games where both players had a gentleman's agreement not to use anything overpowered, cheesy, or that takes advantage of the rules. And if those ARE the games you were playing, well... Fair enough, but Power Level isn't what's making the games pretty good, its your opponents being chill. (In my opinion, they're a cheap wallpaper that only has to exist because GW came up with an incredibly user-unfriendly system for calculating points, so they implemented a tacky half-system so players didn't have to use it. It's two mediocre systems instead of a single competent one.)

Enjoying most of it.

Think the 1st-turn and CP mechanics may turn out breakable.

Only thing I dislike is Primaris Marines; I'm going to pretend they don't exist.

Oh and the faction/unit balance is *still* off (but is better than it was).

I really dislike the laziness of the 're-roll everything' characters (Rowboat, Cawl, Abaddon). I'd much rather they had some other type of bonus. Right now they just seem like auto-takes.

 Hollow wrote:
Love:
-The removal of unnecessary and impractical vehicle rules (Making all units use the same profile and those profiles not being capped at '10')
-The streamlining of the rules and faster mechanics.
-The 'clean slate' mentality of the edition and creating new rules for all units from the start. (Something that I think should have been done a long time ago)


Hate:
-The fact that the same old 'neck-beard' idiots are around trying desperately to pigeon hole things from the start and not allowing things to play out.
-The fact that Xenos will potentially taking a back seat to MARINES (again)!

I agree with a lot of this. Those guys keep complaining. "I want my -insert edition here- back! The good ole days! Oh this is the worst! The end! Guard is good? Pros are good? Nids are good? Better or just as good as my marines? What what what!"

Pros: Movement is a stat again.

Cons: Almost everything else in the core rules.

Like
* No more deathstars
* Streamlined statlines
* Formations are gone

Dislike
* Supreme command detachment
* Person who deploys first goes first

Hate: Weapon Skill, the amount of rules that seem lazy or unfitting in my army, the incredibly dumb way points are done, the fact the whole thing is just another rework rather than fixing what exists, Initiative, most of the new lore and there would probably be more if I thought on it longer.

Love: I can play Tyranids again.

Like: Changes to WS, re-addition of Movement as a stat, removal of unit types, the way points work, removal of USRs, elimination of deathstars, addition of modifiers to the game.

dislike: the terrain rules, failure to utilize new rules to create more variety in units and weapons.

Like: the simple playability of the new rules. Generally like the new stats and point costs, seems there are more viable options from my lists.

Dislike: the very gamey nature of the core rules. Shady pile in moves and micro management of models placement feels completely at odds with the casual new vibe. Like AoS it's fans call it tactics but I am not a fan of it.

Hate: terrain rules and the sheer number of things to track, from wounds to game states. There should absolutely be LoS blocking terrain that doesn't use true LoS, as bolt action does with dense terrain. People seem to be ok with the weird abstraction that are vehicle shooting rules but the idea that a giant building doesn't block LoS because you can slivers of a unit on the other side through a window apparently means it doesn't do anything. Really bothers me.

I hate that craftworld Eldar were deliberately designed to be bad.

I like how some people on here are just saying "l hate everything." Probably tau/elder/taudar players

Yeah I was really hoping cover would be -1 to hit, not +1 armor. a -1 to hit would have been equally useful to all armies. I thought it was dumb in past editions that it was way more useful to chaff vs elite, but I think this swings it a bit too far in the other direction. I think overall that it is better than it being a separate save, but -1 to hit would have been much better.

Love:
- Unified statline for everything
- Abstraction of vehicle facings
- Streamlined army lists
- Removal of overpowered deathstars
- Reduction of psychic shenanigans


Hate:
- Everything being able to hurt everything else (try throwing 100 pennies at a brick wall...)

- Near Zero impact of movement and terrain on gameplay

- Zero impact of shooting through either your own, or enemy units

- Zero impact of cover that doesn't completely block Line of Sight

- Cover serving as a huge boost to already good armoured models, and an afterthought to those with little armour (meaning, a model with a 3+ save doubles their survivability from being in cover, while a model with a 6+ save only sees a marginal (25%) boost. That's opposite what it should be. If your armour can deflect a tank-shell, hiding behind a barrel shouldn't mean that much. If you're naked, hiding behind a barrel is a huge improvement.

- Non-addition of range and size to-hit modifiers (what a lost opportunity)

- Flamers being able to hit aeroplanes

- Characters unable to join units, thereby losing their ability to charge with their friends.

- Reduction of impact of flamers/blast weapons. Part of what made these weapons good was that they would influence your opponent's spacing. A battlecannon would force marines to spread out. Now, it averages under one hit per shot. When tanks do more damage with their anti-personnel weapon than their main weapon, something failed in design.

- Lack of uniformity for many rules. Why did ork bikers (and only ork bikers) forget how to turbo-boost, for example...

I'm fairly neutral on most of the changes by now, generally just seeing it as "Oh that's interesting, I guess I'll have to adjust my list."

Full split fire is pretty nice though, brings a lot of flexibility to army composition and lets ablative wound models still shoot at something they can hurt.

For the two negative nancies here though, I think a more constructive exercise than jumping into every single thread to shout "EVERYTHING SUCKS! THE END IS NIGH!" would be to write up somewhere what you think the rules should be. I think that would be much more interesting to read.

Start with whichever edition was your favorite to save time, then write up whatever changes you would make to it in order to make it the best 40k that you can think of. Should be much more interesting than responding to every. single. rule. ever. with "NO! IT SUCKS!" With the sheer breadth of things that you hate, surely you must have some idea in your head of what the "right" rule would be? Write it down.

In its own thread of course.

Love-
Split fire
Move and fire heavy weapons
Most weapon changes
Owner choose casualties
Vehicles more durable

Hate-
Psychic powers too simple
No vehicle facing (weaker in rear, etc)
Simplified vehicle damage
New morale
Everything can wound everything
No WS comparisons
No more blast/template
Almost forgot flamers/mortars/etc attacking air craft

Love- that its playable

Hate- back and forth list building. not that its bad it just gets old quick. also the people that are looking at 8th in 7th tinted glasses.

Love: That the meele phase is now PART of the game instead of being just rolling dice with 0 player interaction.

Hate: The basic Cover Rules. I want better cover rules and the terrain to be more important.

dosiere wrote:

Dislike: the very gamey nature of the core rules. Shady pile in moves and micro management of models placement feels completely at odds with the casual new vibe. Like AoS it's fans call it tactics but I am not a fan of it.

I've seen this a few times, does anyone have any examples of this problem?

 ross-128 wrote:

For the two negative nancies here though, I think a more constructive exercise than jumping into every single thread to shout "EVERYTHING SUCKS! THE END IS NIGH!" would be to write up somewhere what you think the rules should be. I think that would be much more interesting to read.

Start with whichever edition was your favorite to save time, then write up whatever changes you would make to it in order to make it the best 40k that you can think of. Should be much more interesting than responding to every. single. rule. ever. with "NO! IT SUCKS!" With the sheer breadth of things that you hate, surely you must have some idea in your head of what the "right" rule would be? Write it down.

In its own thread of course.

A couple things:
Firstly, most people that I've seen complain (Myself included) (And I realize that 'Stuff I've seen' is not a universal or scientific standard to go by) are offering reasons for why the changes are bad. Sure, that's not an explicit, standardized 'Here would be a better alternative', but saying 'I think that the new terrain rules are bad, because [It doesn't impact movement] [The buffs are too weak for some unit types] [Line-of-sight blocking no longer matters unless it's completely blocked]', that's a pretty clear intention as to what that person would prefer.

Also, we are not the GW design team. We are not paid to write rules, and we are not expecting customers to pay for the rules that we write. I shouldn't have to come up with fixes for something that a paid design team broke.