8th edition blues

[Kinstryfe]

In my area (metro Detroit, usa), people /seem/ to be looking 8th. I never actually played 7th at all, so my experience is kinda meant to be taken with some salt, but the most beneficial change seems to be that all armies were made "equal" with the edition change. The downside being that already, armies with codex seem to be at a benefit, but hopefully that will be sorted out quickly. I will say though that for myself, a simplification of rules was well received. I will fully admit 7th is the more in depth system, and for those wanting the most "realistic" system it's likely to be the best. But for me, the ability to join a league, or just show up to a store for a pickup game because the new simplified rule have created more players than I've seen since 5th edition WHFB more than makes up for any loss in "realism" in the rules. So I'll say I'm very happy with 8th as a whole, and hope it keeps on going strong in my area but, at the same time, I'll freely admit where 7th can appeal to certain players. I just don't happen to be one of them.

[CaptainMarsh]

40k was basically dead at my store before 8th. We would see maybe one or two games a month. It was all Warmachine and Hordes. Now it is 90% 8th edition.

[D3L]

. I will fully admit 7th is the more in depth system, and for those wanting the most "realistic" system it's likely to be the best. But for me, the ability to join a league, or just show up to a store for a pickup game because the new simplified rule have created more players than I've seen since 5th edition WHFB more than makes up for any loss in "realism" in the rules.

You touch on an interesting point, in the americas it does seem to be more competitive play, tournament style fast games. 

 

Clubs full of older dudes in the UK and in Asia seem to be more narrative driven, with maybe a yearly tournament, but no emphasis on fast play at all, more "have a cup of tea/beer with friends and a laugh", with less stress about "winning"

 

Could this be the reason for edition preferences? I'd wager so

[Frater Cornelius]

Where do those people who dislike 8th hide? We've got a really big hub of players here, both casual and competitive. I have yet to see one complaining about anything but vehicle facings (probably me being the only one).

 

Besides, I do not get this negative attitude. What do you get from hating on new stuff? Lamenting old things will not bring then back and all you do is dragging yourself down a dark hole.

[Damo1701]

Why do people who dislike the new edition face such ridicule from people in this thread?

 

There appears to be little discussion about the facets of the system people do not like, and either showing support for a fellow gamer with a situation they may not be able to change, or, walking somebody through something to try and help them see a different point of view.

 

1) Immersion/realistic gameplay:

 

Now, while no table top game can truly represent a battlefield, with the confusion, smoke, limited visibility, etc, 7th did a far better job of giving us an immersive gaming experience where certain thing would make sense.

 

If you were lucky with the dice, an AT weapon would neuter a vehicle for a battle. Whether that is total destruction, or leaving it as a salvageable wreck with a single shot. It's what those weapons were designed to do. So, funny they worked that way... on a similar note, it could be difficult to remove infantry, But, at least most weapons performed how they were described in the fluff.

 

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for 8th, where an infantry-killing bolter now bounces off the lightest of armour.

 

2) Tactical Play:

 

Without the vehicle facing from all previous editions, there is little reward for managing to get behind vehicles for the pyrotechnic result of pushing through their weakest armour.

 

With the penalty-free aspect for several armies/units, you cant even engage units in combat now to lower their effectiveness or to protect your assault units. All they'll do is fall back (or forwards) and hose you with gunfire.

 

The lack of templates in this edition is also a major issue. Weapons that fire once, with a large area of effect now fire multiple times. This penalises vehicles, as the most they were looking at was a single hit compared to the multiple hits.

 

There is also little benefit in taking these high toughness, high wound models that used to be vehicles, with the ability of the smallest weapons causing damage to the toughest of vehicles, and, short-ranged flame weapons being used as anti-air weapons increases the ridiculousness of the situation. Especially if you then claim that said target flyer doesn't block LoS because it's flying...

[MoK]

Well said Damo1701, my thoughts exactly. To add on to what you've said. It now feels too much like GW have simplified it solely to attract new players. I feel it doesn't have the depth and interest that 7th had. Part of the fun of 7th was rules discussions, I know sad, but true. Another part was narrative. Big games make narrative easier than games that are done in an hour. I don't want to spend an hour working out my army list, getting my models out, the inevitable repairs, setting everything up, just for the game to be over in an hour. I don't have the short attention span of the kids of today, I'm 38, so I want a game that will be involved, will take time to play, the shortest game I want is 2.5 hours, with my longest game lasting 6 hours at least. 7th did that, it just needed tidying up and ALL codexes updating.

[Perry]

I don't feel that 8th ed has been over simplified, it has some great tactical depth such as close combat order, unit placement and movement with stratagems being the cherry on top.

 

However what I would like returned are vehicle weapon arcs and detailed cover rules.

 

My local gaming group seems to be pretty happy with plenty of regular gaming and a successful tournament last weekend. Although we are planning a winter Horus Heresy campaign in the coming months so will be interesting to see how people feel after a return to HH 7th.

[Ishagu]

Lol @ people not getting a 3rd turn.

 

You're not playing with enough terrain or with sufficient screening units. Sounds like you've not adjusted to the new game and that's why you're getting tabled.

[MoK]

But the point is you shouldn't need screening units, if you are playing a standard space Marine company, no scouts, there are no screening units. The need for screening units shows sloppy rules writing.

[Captain_Krash]

You don't need screening units for SM Ishagu was just speaking generally(At least I think ) SM still have toughness 4 and a 3+ save their still a hardy bunch. But using terrain for LOS blocking and proper deployment, not "I'm going to place my drop pods withen 3 inches of you, force you to move away and then blast you to holy chaos turn two, nullifying your army and or chance to continue the game effectively" Oh yeah 7th was just a ball of fun...

 

Krash

[Ranwulf]

Well said Damo1701, my thoughts exactly. To add on to what you've said. It now feels too much like GW have simplified it solely to attract new players. I feel it doesn't have the depth and interest that 7th had. Part of the fun of 7th was rules discussions, I know sad, but true. Another part was narrative. Big games make narrative easier than games that are done in an hour. I don't want to spend an hour working out my army list, getting my models out, the inevitable repairs, setting everything up, just for the game to be over in an hour. I don't have the short attention span of the kids of today, I'm 38, so I want a game that will be involved, will take time to play, the shortest game I want is 2.5 hours, with my longest game lasting 6 hours at least. 7th did that, it just needed tidying up and ALL codexes updating.

Many of the people here are adults too, and the reason why I prefer 8th edition is EXACTLY because it doesnt take over 3 to 4 hours to play unless I go into a full 3000 point game. Its not short attention spam, its literally being too busy or not having all the energy to play such big games. In fact, the 7th edition discussions were one of the worst parts for me, it strained the game, the enjoyment out of it. But when you have to question rules, specially when its one that benefits your opponents, it can definitly cause a strain even if a small one. 

 

Its all in the list bulding anyway.

 

A very narrative based tank battle that I had, one that I face THREE super heavies and even won took 1 hour of play. In 7th edition, I would have most likely be obliterated out of the table but in this edition, I WON the game. Why? Because list building and the new rules for tanks work FAR better.

 

While another game where I faced a 3000 point force of Word bearers while I played with my friend took 3 to 4 hours.

 

And you know why? Because of list bulding, because in this new edition, its far less about "All the free tanks with this battle company now there is so much too kill", or "Lets make sure that every action you do takes three times longer, because you walk in this, and you can only shoot that, and close combat HAS to be stucked". 

 

If you want a long game, make lists with more points, play double games. Play Carnage. The options are there if you want.

[the jeske]

Lol @ people not getting a 3rd turn.

 

You're not playing with enough terrain or with sufficient screening units. Sounds like you've not adjusted to the new game and that's why you're getting tabled.

yeah, how do you get chaff in to hmm lets say a GK army or a DW army? Or do you mean that adjusting is going back to the good old 7th ed, faction "the empire" game play. There are ton of  reports about people saying that alfa strike is too strong in 8th ed. And saying that terrain is going to fix it, well it may fix it for marines, but it doesn't fix anything for orcs or tyranids. In fact dense terrain is skew for stuff like knights, and marines.  With enough terrain, specially of the impassible kind you can box an IG army in its deployment without it being able to shot you.

 

 

But using terrain for LOS blocking and proper deployment, not "I'm going to place may drop pods withen 3 inches of you, force you to move away and then blast you to holy chao turn two, nullifying your army and or chance to continue the game effectively" Oh yeah 7th was just a ball of fun..

 

 

Yes, because "this are my calidus which you have to target and your hiting them on a 6+ while the rest of my army is protected by them" is somehow different from what deathstars were doing in 7th ed,

[Damo1701]

Toughness 4/3+ still doesn't mean a very survivable army when faced with over 100 shots from a single unit...

 

Or facing units that have the ability to crush a marine, when logic and previous editions showed that that ability doesn't exist in the fluff or on the table on the scale it's happening.

 

Show me where, in the fluff, a flame weapon on the ground can reach, and damage a flyer that is screaming through the sky. Show me, in the fluff, where a basic human 1:1 can take a marine in a combat situation without a power weapon...

 

Show me, in the fluff, where a land raider can be destroyed by a lasgun...

 

Show me, in the fluff, a guard officer going toe to toe with a primarch with the ability to come off remotely well, and having the same combat skill.

 

Fixed WS doesn't work, everything hurting everything doesn't work, and even a squad of charging guardsmen wouldn't hit a squad of marines, who were firing overwatch, before the marines used those bolters as clubs, if they chose, to smear brains all around.

 

Sure, 7th had it's problems, chiefly, codex-creep. But, it made more sense than what we currently have.

 

Drop Pods are designed to land wherever they are targeted, on the enemy, for shock and awe, or just rapid deployment before the front line is reached.

 

Marines have never felt so sub-par, at least in my experience, than they do in this edition. A lot of what made marines the defenders of humanity is gone, is is going away.

 

5-10 marines should be able to hold an objective better than 20-50 conscripts, even if they are backed by a commissar... The only way to prevent marines from holding their objective should be to kill them, not remove them due to numbers...

 

The new versions of Ob-Sec are a joke, as they cancel each other back yo unit size...

 

How can you balance an army list, when you need twice the amount of anti-infantry, as well as decent anti-armour, when vehicles got their prices hiked severely, with little outward benefit.

 

Those shock and awe pods? More like meh and lolz pods. Basic bolter, bane of the lightly armoured? Bouncing off left, right, and centre.

 

So, yeah, there is plenty wrong with the new edition that wasn't with the old, and very little has been fixed, other than a punishment to remove the older marine line in the future, to replace it with the Primaris, who, from what I've seen, are rather lacklustre at the moment.

[Xwingt65]

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.

This is pretty useless "evidence". What is true in your small circle, might not be true in others.

[Ranwulf]

Toughness 4/3+ still doesn't mean a very survivable army when faced with over 100 shots from a single unit...

 

Or facing units that have the ability to crush a marine, when logic and previous editions showed that that ability doesn't exist in the fluff or on the table on the scale it's happening.

 

Show me where, in the fluff, a flame weapon on the ground can reach, and damage a flyer that is screaming through the sky. Show me, in the fluff, where a basic human 1:1 can take a marine in a combat situation without a power weapon...

 

Show me, in the fluff, where a land raider can be destroyed by a lasgun...

 

Show me, in the fluff, a guard officer going toe to toe with a primarch with the ability to come off remotely well, and having the same combat skill.

 

Fixed WS doesn't work, everything hurting everything doesn't work, and even a squad of charging guardsmen wouldn't hit a squad of marines, who were firing overwatch, before the marines used those bolters as clubs, if they chose, to smear brains all around.

 

Sure, 7th had it's problems, chiefly, codex-creep. But, it made more sense than what we currently have.

 

Drop Pods are designed to land wherever they are targeted, on the enemy, for shock and awe, or just rapid deployment before the front line is reached.

 

Marines have never felt so sub-par, at least in my experience, than they do in this edition. A lot of what made marines the defenders of humanity is gone, is is going away.

 

5-10 marines should be able to hold an objective better than 20-50 conscripts, even if they are backed by a commissar... The only way to prevent marines from holding their objective should be to kill them, not remove them due to numbers...

 

The new versions of Ob-Sec are a joke, as they cancel each other back yo unit size...

 

How can you balance an army list, when you need twice the amount of anti-infantry, as well as decent anti-armour, when vehicles got their prices hiked severely, with little outward benefit.

 

Those shock and awe pods? More like meh and lolz pods. Basic bolter, bane of the lightly armoured? Bouncing off left, right, and centre.

 

So, yeah, there is plenty wrong with the new edition that wasn't with the old, and very little has been fixed, other than a punishment to remove the older marine line in the future, to replace it with the Primaris, who, from what I've seen, are rather lacklustre at the moment.

If we are going to base the game purely on fluff, then people should just stop playing anything and let Marines win.

 

Ran

[Adeptus]

7th edition had me on the verge of selling my models and swearing completely off GW games for good. 

 

8th edition has me working on three new armies simultaneously, and terrain and superheavies to boot. 

 

It is so much a better game than 7th edition ever was that it's literally incomprehensible to me that someone would prefer 7th ed.

 

 

Some players crave depth and rules.

 

Those players will never be happy with 40K, in any edition.

[Damo1701]

7th edition had me on the verge of selling my models and swearing completely off GW games for good.

 

8th edition has me working on three new armies simultaneously, and terrain and superheavies to boot.

 

It is so much a better game than 7th edition ever was that it's literally incomprehensible to me that someone would prefer 7th ed.

 

 

 

Some players crave depth and rules.

Those players will never be happy with 40K, in any edition.

7th edition had the rules-depth that allowed for a very immersive experience.

 

Sure, there were aspects of it that were frustrating. But not nearly as many as there are in 8th.

 

8th suffers hugely from the "goldfish attention span" attitude that appears to be making inroads into the hobby.

 

Sure, we all suffer from shinyitis when new things are released that interest us, and, yes, this is an extremely addictive hobby.

 

However, what we are lacking now, are rules writers who appear to understand what many people are looking for, and seem to settle for what gets then paid the most for the least effort.

 

We only have to look at how awfully laid out Codexes and Indexes are, the ream of FAQs and Errata needing to be released, and the fact they have to release written "Designer's Notes" to the community to patch the system so soon.

 

There is something really simple that has been overlooked too.

 

This is not Warhammer 40,000. Warhammer 40,000 died with the Gathering Storm releases, and the return of some Primarchs.

 

First Edition: Dark Imperium/Age of Guilliman is a totally new gaming system, much like Age of Sigmar is a totally different system to Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

 

The mechanics are totally different, the units, while some bear the same name, work in different ways to their previous edition roles, and, for the large part, there are efforts to replace previous lines under way.

 

We were lied to as a community when we were told that the game would be recognisable as 40k, but we weren't lied to when they said games would be faster... 1-2 turns is definitely faster.

 

Gone are the days of decent games took long enough to get satisfaction out of.

 

I've yet to feel any form of satisfaction after a game of Age of Guilliman/Dark Imperium. I'm hoping to find some at a club I may have to opportunity to attend, But, otherwise, the game has fallen flat and hard.

 

List writing is more complex, and the differing rules between "game modes" and people refusing to play certain game-styles means others miss out on opportunities to explore what may work for them.

 

Having avoided using superheavies in a game, I can't overly comment on their use, aside from the fact they either look to do nothing, or are daftly powerful it's pointless facing them.

 

Unfortunately, the current gaming system has proven itself to be unenjoyable (personally) at best. One has to wonder whether that's by design for the removal of a faction, or just poor writing is open to discussion.

[civsmitty]

I'm in the "meh, 8th" camp.  I find that 8ed is..boring. The fluff is ham fisted, the rules are insultingly simple, and for every problem they solved another one popped up. 8ed feels like a board game that forgot to give you the game board. I'm not saying there isn't tactics and strategy, but there's strategy in RISK, so....

 

7ed wasn't perfect, by any means, but the problem is GW went too far in some areas and barely touched it in others. And Forge World proved you can fix 7ed with careful thought and playtesting of the faction army lists, so I don't think 8ed was even necessary. A complete re-configuring of the factions, yes; we simply had/have too many sub-armies.

 

Why do people who dislike the new edition face such ridicule from people in this thread?

The same reason people will vehemently defend their choice of gaming platform. If a person complains or has concerns about what you like, they may be right. And that means you may be wrong. So people will attack the messenger and try to dismiss them as "haters" rather than admit their choice may not be perfect.

[Lord Marshal]

It's going to be very interesting in six to twelve months what prevailing opinions are. The cracks have already begun to show and the "8th is the best thing ever, I never said a bad thing about daddy GW ever, I always loved them!" attitude has begun to teeter off a bit. The imbalances are becoming more apparent as they're getting exploited, GW's typically horrendous writing and lack of an editor is becoming clearer as more questions start getting raised than answers. This was always going to happen of course, but it's an amusing watch when not two months ago people were scurrying around convinced 8th was perfection.

 

Interestingly, most Xenos players I know are pretty "meh" to "it's awful" about it, whilst the Space Marines seem to love it. Everybody else has sat somewhere in the middle.

[Slave to Darkness]

Another here for the cant stand 8th crew.

[Perry]

Another here for the cant stand 8th crew.

Ok, why?

[Garreck]

"8th is the best thing ever, I never said a bad thing about daddy GW ever, I always loved them!"

This sort of hyperbole and putting words in mouths won't do the quality of discussion much good.

 

It's a huge leap from "I like 8th better than 7th" and what you've said there.  I, for one, miss templates.  I also think giving troop blobs obsec is generally "a bad idea."

 

I think Damo made a very keen observation regarding how the game has been tuned to removal of models from the table/shortening the game.  That's definitely been my observation (though perhaps not to an extreme degree...I find my games go about 25% faster.)  It was definitely intentional on GW's part.  I like that.  Others won't.

 

I don't think the game is less tactical.  I think the tactics have changed.  There's much greater emphasis on effective deployment and indeed deployment order (again, "in my experience"...someone rightly pointed out much of our discussion is inherently anecdotal).  I think there's greater emphasis on establishing/maintaining synergies with character auras on your own part while trying to disrupt your opponent's. Throw in objectives and that becomes even more interesting.  There's still great emphasis on positioning, just not in regards to "armor facings."  Now you're trying to keep your sub-10-wound characters optimally placed for auras and heroic intervention while protecting them from being valid targets for shooting.  I feel like effective shooting order is even more important.  Command points also bring an interesting wrinkle; when to attempt re-rolls, when to interrupt combat order, etc.

 

Parallels to AoS are strong and fair to point out.  I've yet to play AoS but there's an active presence at my local store and I enjoy watching games while waiting for a table to open.  I've even taken to calling our current implementation of AP "rend."

 

The game is definitely streamlined.  I get that some people won't like that.

 

I'm also interested in the 6 to 12 month outlook.  Community engagement from GW has been pretty amazing of late.  Very responsive and high turnaround on rules clarification or general "fixes."  That said...there's also been some frankly shocking oversights in the original published content, necessitating the community engagement and responsiveness.  I know I'd *rather* have the engagement and responsiveness than a perfect product out the gate (because it's never been perfect anyway) but I hope GW doesn't let community engagement and responsiveness become an excuse to frequently release poorly QC'd content.

[N1SB]

 

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

 

Just curious, would you consider moving to 30k, or are you already playing 30k?  It's not an either-or, you can of course play both 7th and 30k.

[Warhead01]

I've played 5 games of 8th edition so far. I like it a lot more than 7th,6th and 5th.  I like 4th and 2nd better (Kinda) 8th has been a really good time. 5th would have been good if not for the bad close combat mechanics. 
I can't figure out how a Space Marine army is suppose to win in 8th. (well I've only lost to them once so far.) 
I think I like AoS more than I like 8th edition but I haven't played in a few months now.

7th could have been good but GW is bipolar or Maniak or something involving not being able to make up their minds. The power levels between the armies were all over the place. 
USR's were poorly put together. Key words seems to have cleared that us for me. I don't have to figure out what rules are for who and when. I just need to look at the unit and there it is. 
I will say that my other larger issue with 7th was ans is the internet.  Threads like is this worth it. And everything to do with the competitive tournaments reported on, their army lists and all of that. Way too much like MtG with miniatures for me. 

 

Unfortunately I'll have to continue to suffer the 7th edition rules to play 30K.  I see more booze and less expectation of winning in my future...

At least the company will be good. (Did I mention the pizza?  There will be Pizza.) 

[Closet Skeleton]

I think it would be easier to be sympathetic if people were more specific. Out of context moaning just doesn't meant anything when metas can be so different.

 

7th ed was a good game when you didn't chase optimal lists and avoided the useless factions and 8th hasn't completely fixed those issues.

 

If people could mention the kind of lists they use and their regular opponents then they could actually have a discussion about how the edition change might have ruined/saved their hobby environment.

 

USRs were a mess. Nothing should have more than 3 special abilities but it was normal in 7th ed/heresy for the good stuff to have a laundry list of them. 8th ed seems to have over-reacted a lot, having super sonic on the data card in full was a good idea but surely it could have also been in the rulebook so it was easier to errata.

 

Anyone complaining about 8th ed having too many FAQs should actually look at the comparative FAQ lenths across editions. Of course this doesn't really work since 8th ed is new and the other editions are 'finished' but its not that 8th ed needs FAQs more than previous editions, just that its getting them faster.

 

There is something really simple that has been overlooked too.

This is not Warhammer 40,000. Warhammer 40,000 died with the Gathering Storm releases, and the return of some Primarchs.

First Edition: Dark Imperium/Age of Guilliman is a totally new gaming system, much like Age of Sigmar is a totally different system to Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

The mechanics are totally different, the units, while some bear the same name, work in different ways to their previous edition roles, and, for the large part, there are efforts to replace previous lines under way.

We were lied to as a community when we were told that the game would be recognisable as 40k, but we weren't lied to when they said games would be faster... 1-2 turns is definitely faster.
 

 

Nothing that couldn't have been said about the 2nd to 3rd ed change over that's what was advertised so no, nobody was 'lied' to.

 

7th ed wasn't exactly recognisable as 40k to me. 8th ed has heavy bolters and terminators being good and less dominating invincible flyers so its more 40k to me.

 

 

 

Why do people who dislike the new edition face such ridicule from people in this thread?

The same reason people will vehemently defend their choice of gaming platform. If a person complains or has concerns about what you like, they may be right. And that means you may be wrong. So people will attack the messenger and try to dismiss them as "haters" rather than admit their choice may not be perfect.

 

 

When people call rules 'insultingly simple' or reference lack of attention spans, then other people get defensive.