8th edition blues

[9x19 Parabellum]

So, my regular gaming buddy and I happened upon a revelation last night, and I'm wondering if anyone else is there.

 

After about 30ish games, we are saying goodbye to 8th edition and going back to 7th.

 

It was fun and novel when it first got launched.

 

But the general summary-reason I would give for this is that I'm not finding 8th to be interesting.

I won't say that the games haven't been fun or...enjoyable would probably be a better word.  They have (for the most part). 

 

But they have not been interesting. I'm finding the strategic implications and requirements of 8th to be very light and, well, in some cases, non-existent.  I don't find the game to be in any way unlocking a mental challenge. What's the key to strategy? What do I need to do to stop that threat?

 

I'll continue to play pick-up games at FLGS with 8th, but my regular opponent, I think I'm moving back to 7th.

 

Anyone else experiencing something similar?

[Mileposter]

I've actually been finding the opposite feeling, humorously enough.

 

My experience with 7th was that it favored tactics far less and bowed entirely to mathhammer shot spam (see 7th Ed Tau shenanigans). In fairness, you could have games that relied on tactical play, but that almost entirely relied on you and your opponent agreeing that it was the point of your game rather than it being part of the system.

 

That's kinda what I like about 8th. With the movement values and other aspects being reworked the way they have, each unit has its role to play and mathhammer can only predict 'best' army lists up so far - because movement and battlefield position are emphasized far more now. I'm certain that Mathhammer folks will adapt and eventually come to a consensus about how lists work with optimal positioning, but for now I rather like the ambiguity.

 

You aren't the only one I've seen with some 'meh'-ness about 8th, though. I do wonder if that sense of... Fullness that you're lacking may come with the arrival of codices and the additional options they bring armies.

[Bukimimaru]

In the months since 8th was released, you are the first person I've seen who says they prefer 7th.

[Blindhamster]

yep, I'm firmly in the "prefers 8th ed" camp.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I totally get why it wouldn't work for everybody.  But my buddy and I have the ability to 'self-regulate' when it comes to codex abuses; we both know what the other player likes and doesn't like and we have a reasonable understanding of how to enjoy the game together.

 

8th edition has 'balance' at the sacrifice of a lot of crunch.  It just feels very 4th edition D&D to me.  It's a highly processed game to me.

7th edition sacrifices balance for crunchiness.  My buddy and I both prefer crunch and can reasonable well self-moderate balance, so I think it's probably the direction we'll be going.

[Prot]

I've actually been finding the opposite feeling, humorously enough.

 

My experience with 7th was that it favored tactics far less and bowed entirely to mathhammer shot spam (see 7th Ed Tau shenanigans). In fairness, you could have games that relied on tactical play, but that almost entirely relied on you and your opponent agreeing that it was the point of your game rather than it being part of the system.

 

Agreed. I don't miss 7th at all. For every 'plus' it had it felt like it had a 100 mess ups in it. So much disparity... amazing units, and terrible units. I feel the opposite of the OP as well... it feels far more strategic in 8th than 7th to me and my play group. But I do have far more than 30 games under my belt in 8th which might be a difference maker. The way I view my lists/gaming now compared to a month ago is significantly different.

 

On a side note I don't think this is the place.

[Ishagu]

Don't get it at all.

7th is a bloated, unfun mess. 8th is far from perfect but it's evolving on a monthly basis.

 

Literally the only way it wouldn't be interesting is if I was playing kill points on open terrain with the same forces over and over again.

 

It might be the missions you're playing. A lot of the complainers at my local were only doing kill points.

[D3L]

Of course 41k is light on tactics it's AoS in space with the same special rules.

 

To think its ever going to replace 40k is humorous or optimistic at best

[Frater Cornelius]

7th is gone. Good riddance. If that is what means to play 40k, then I won't be a part of it. 40k is meant to be fun above all else. 7th wasn't fun. 8th is fun. I won't be looking back.

 

Besides, the setting is more important to me. I like the 8th fluff and that account for far more than some rule set ever will.

[MoK]

I'm also not a fan of 8th. I have to say I'm bored. I like big, long games. I think all 7th needed was a bit of consolidation of rules bloat and a rewriting of all codexes to balance them out. But then I'm just miffed that Chaos Legions finally got some decent rules for the first time since 3.5 Codex, only to have them taken away a month later. I would play 30k, but I don't know anyone who plays it.

[Timur]

The fluff has been horribly, in finest Gdub tradition of 1-2 good writers and 10,000 jokaero on cogitators, horribly mangled.

 

The game has received additional: "tactical" and "crunchy" play in deployment, movement and assault, shooting, and command points.

 

It has lost: "crunchy" who can remember obscure rules/exploits.  Plus buy FW=win (coming soon to 8th). Conga lines. Scatter dice (you can burn them now! -       "kali maa shakti de" or die )  As well as the popular favorite, arguing over cover. 

 

I got my old dreadnoughts back!!! 

 

Reivers are neat.

 

I like 8th, we'll see what happens when the eldar (yeah eldar) get their codex =( , cause round here that's when the horrible net tourney lists show their ugly heads.

[Doghouse]

I'm waiting personally, going to give it maybe a year before I get back into playing it properly again.

 

I'm genuinely trying to get a couple of armies ready but I'm personally not keen on the public beta test state of 8th right now.

[sockwithaticket]

Probably need to wait 'til all the codices are out to get a fair assessment of how different armies interact and potentially make things more interesting. Most armies are still operating on fairly flavourless index lists aren't they?

[deathspectersgt7]

It is different strokes for Different folks I did not care to much for 7th and 8th I can take it or leave it. No enjoyment out of it will reconsider once all the books are out but I like SW better anyway. If you like 7th stay with it after all I know people who still play 2nd and will never leave it.

[Damo1701]

I'm bored out of my brain at never getting a 3rd turn.

 

8th has no finesse at all, and far too much that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It's a shame that GW took this direction, with far more abuse available and a much larger disparity between army types than I ever saw in 7th.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the option of staying with 7th edition... My regular opponent refuses to do so, mainly because his army is now set up for the current edition...

[Garreck]

I feel like, by flattening the "balance" curve, GW has actually made the game more tactical (and interesting) not less. There are still power builds that are clearly superior, but anecdotally speaking I find my wins and losses are more closely tied to tactical decisions I made than the army I brought to the table to begin with.

[Azekai]

I'm bored out of my brain at never getting a 3rd turn.

 

8th has no finesse at all, and far too much that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It's a shame that GW took this direction, with far more abuse available and a much larger disparity between army types than I ever saw in 7th.

 

It is things like this that make me wonder if we are even playing the same game.

 

In my experience 7th took far longer to play though than 8th does. Not getting a 3rd turn? What?

 

And while I have participated in a few stomps, most of my 8th games have come right down to the wire. I do not feel like huge disparities between armies exist and I am very happy about the end of D strength weapons.

[Captain_Krash]

As a IG player I love 8th and am never looking back. More balance, no rules bloat, waaaay more tactical, no cookie cutter I win because of my list, now every army has a fighting chance. If your not playing 8th now your doing yourself a disservice, it's just going to get better from here. GW is seriously back in the good graces of yesteryear. White Dwarf is back, specialist games is back, chapter approve is coming back it's all up from here. If you want 7th stick to Horus Hersey at least until that switches over.

 

Krash

[the jeske]

That probably depends on type of armies/lists you play. I personally do not get a new feel from 8th, comparing to 7th. Yes mechanics are different, and some armies did shift. But the way you make "the best" list stayed the same. That does not mean I like 7th more then 8th though. Plus do give an end judgment we need to see 2-3 more army books. Plus the 8th xp can depend a lot on how the imperial vs non imperial games feel, and how far the gap is between armies with codex and no codex.

In the months since 8th was released, you are the first person I've seen who says they prefer 7th.

That is rather easy to achive, just take a dip in to a tau forum.

 

 

Not getting a 3rd turn? What?

 

 

Alfa strike is super powerful in 8th. Plus some armies when they get initiative stolen on them crumble. And you get something like brims+magnus, G-man with re-rolls etc, some armies stump hard.

 

 

no cookie cutter I win because of my list

 

 

that is not true. in objective games your IG are impossible to beat for half the armies. Have you seen the lists that won few last big tournaments?

[Bulwyf]

If I could send a thank you card directly to the devs responsible for 8th I would do so. I have never enjoyed this game (exception of horus heresy) so much as I am now. I started playing in rogue trader days. I seem to remember some early units being literal pop out cardboards.

 

8th edition is the perfect balance between ease of play and tactical thinking. Movement and placement have never meant as much before as they do now. No more silly templates or having to know which crazy FNP rule comes into play on every combat phase.

 

Make mine 8th. My perfect scenario is Forgeworld finally putting out 8th rules to let HH armies be used again in 40k battles. That is how much I love 8th edition rules.

[Kassill]

The only thing I wish carried over from 8th was that the BRB was split into 3 separate volumes. Going back to one bloated book was a mistake. 

[Captain_Krash]

@the Jeske and did you see the IG armies that they were facing? Multiple knight list, and other spam list, people are still playing as if it's 7th edition I'm sorry armies don't have a "I win button anymore" seriously field more and larger amounts of troupes and you will see the difference guard play style hasn't changed from the Leaf blower days so it's not like Guard are doing anything different.

 

Krash

[Space Truckin]

It is different strokes for Different folks I did not care to much for 7th and 8th I can take it or leave it. No enjoyment out of it will reconsider once all the books are out but I like SW better anyway. If you like 7th stay with it after all I know people who still play 2nd and will never leave it.

 

Yeah SWA has me digging up 2nd edition books again.

Sure GW - you can take away my templates when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!

[ERJAK]

You're the only person on the planet who's had this problem. Try not to feel too self-conscious about how weird that is.

[D3L]

Most people I have met all agree any edition was better than 8th. It maybe different in the Americas, after all AoS was popular there, but in other places.... Not so much

 

Of course this is an anecdote and any other opinion is an anecdote too. Nobody is right or wrong.

 

What is objective truth is that it's been a mixed reception with regards to it's light on tactics methodology.

 

Some players crave depth and rules.

 

The post ed blues are going to come out, this is natural, every edition cycle the fixes were great but radical changes were never called for.