Split: What do you like/dislike about 8th?

[Damo1701]

@Damo : What is displeasing you with the 8th edition rules ?

Rather than fill up a thread talking about mistakes, I've created this one to address thus particular question.

 

So, with an open question, I'll try and address the things I've been finding that either need to be addressed somehow, or I feel don't work in my experience.

 

1) Morale: this whole mechanic is awful. However you try to justify it, removing models due to a poor morale roll (or two) does not fit the feel of Marine armies. It punishes us for taking 10-man squads, encourages min/maxing to avoid morale effects in an army that has little morale mitigation other than a reroll that could make things worse (had that happen twice...)

 

2) New psychic rules. Not having a limit on number of powers cast via a casting pool makes psyker-heavy armies overly powerful by spamming smite. Which rolls onto the next issue:

 

3) Mortal Wounds: stupid mechanic, finding them for Raven Guard without spamming sniper scouts seems to be rather difficult.

 

4) Bolters: going from a weapon designed to retake the galaxy, cutting through lightly armoured troops to one that bounces off light armour pushes the boundary a bit.

 

5) wound mechanic: utter daftness. While it is unlikely small arms will have significant effect on a large creature or "vehicle" the fact the possibility is there makes no sense. Likewise the degrading damage tables and profiles just seems to want to make everything a creature base, rather than differentiating between organic and inorganics.

 

6) Flyers - really, they are just too easy to hit and damage, especially when moving a high speed, and the fact flame based weapons still auto-hit them...

 

That's all for now, those are my biggest issues.

[GreyCrow]

Hehe, good initiative!

 

Just to clarify : I was asking you not searching for a philosophical debate or not, but to provide you with elements that might help you enjoy your hobby more or adapt better without sacrificing your values :) It's a big transition, and all the help is appreciated!

 

You are absolutely right that the streamlined statistical model used for the game reduces the need for combined arms and special weaponry, due to everything wounding everything and due to stat brackets being so close to one another.

Fun fact, it's actually closer to real life than one might think : damage is all about energy and transfer of energy versus different physical properties of the targeted object. They are trying to simulate that, with less ranges of variation in characteristics than what we see in real life :)

 

Please don't take me as dismissive, but what I see throughout your sentences is that your perceive core weaknesses of the army due to the new system :

1) Morale and larger squads, which you are right totally disincentivizes larger squads to be immune to it

2) Mortal Wounds being more accessible to different armies

3) Fliers being nerfed

 

And it's totally okay to feel like this, these are totally valid assessments your make.

 

__

 

Before going into analytics, allow me to give you some perspective from my own experience on each of these points. Perhaps you will find some redeeming qualities in it.

 

1) So, there is a secret tradeoff between Morale and Larger Squads, and it only depends on the buffing Strategems and Units that you are planning to use. Also, secret tradeoff between unit size (and therefore number of units), and Reserve deployment.

 

Long story short, you trade Morale Immunity/Resistance with making your CPs more effective when you cast buffs. Typical example with the Raven Guard's Strike From the Shadows, it costs you the same CP to infiltrate 5 or 10 models, but one squad will need wipeout to be affected by morale while the other one is going to be affected.

 

Typically, it's about progressive committing with the new deployment system.. You will want to commit low model count units early on, to minimize Morale effects because these guys will be shot at, and keep larger blobs for later one when you know you can commit them with less sensitivity to bullets in the face.

 

2) Mortal Wounds : Most armies relying on Mortal wounds have a tradeoff with lack of very significant shooting. Basically, for what it costs you to field Mortal Wounds (psykers), we can field more Lascannons and Heavy Bolters.

Squads with Mortal Wound capabilities like GK or TS pay a hefty premium in low model count.

 

3) Fliers : That, you are absolutely right. Effectively they are now 'just' vehicles, with -1 to Hit and less Toughness, with some faster speed. Functionally and mechanically, they function the same. So any specific flier strategy you had is effectively gone, silver lining is that you can use them as part of vehicles in vehicle strategies. That's about it, no silver lining there unfortunately, they did lose one of their flavour and mechanical differences.

 

__

 

Basically, 8th edition is a totally new system, and we have to think about its mechanics differently than the previous editions. It requires a different kind of abstraction that we were used to.

 

In a nutshell, in the current 8th edition, the 'how you wound' is much less important than 'the fact you wound'. I can assume with confidence that this was a design decision to make most minis available to play effectively when used properly.

Let's be fair, in previous editions, there were A LOT of units that would just not be worth it, just because of what they were versus cost.

 

Basically, the balancing mechanism comes from the cost versus the statistical system. Everything being able to wound everything means that you can compare, and cost accordingly, anything that wounds versus the base cost of a Marine's Boltgun, just due to probabilities. The team then factors in qualitative arbitrary factors (range, target priority, mortal vs non mortal), and this is exactly why they have a Chapter Approved mechanics to ensure feedback on qualitative things on a relevant sample.

 

__

 

One thing has truly changed in 8th edition, it's army design. Where before I feel that combined arms were more efficient, just because some things were just not able to deal with other things, now the metagame has been changed into finding a statistically synergetical system that supports itself.

 

At larger points games, it's not about variety, it's about scaling up the system. Now, you may or may not enjoy this and this is okay, but the ruleset of the game incentivizes this.

 

If, like me, you are an eclectic collector who likes very different armies rather than spam, then you will find great value in playing 500-750 points games.

 

The point level is so low that spamming will not be effective, and that will allow you to change your army from battle to battle to fit your collection, while taking natural advantages of the rulesystem's constraints :)

[Closet Skeleton]

 

@Damo : What is displeasing you with the 8th edition rules ?

Rather than fill up a thread talking about mistakes, I've created this one to address thus particular question.

 

So, with an open question, I'll try and address the things I've been finding that either need to be addressed somehow, or I feel don't work in my experience.

 

1) Morale: this whole mechanic is awful. However you try to justify it, removing models due to a poor morale roll (or two) does not fit the feel of Marine armies. It punishes us for taking 10-man squads, encourages min/maxing to avoid morale effects in an army that has little morale mitigation other than a reroll that could make things worse (had that happen twice...)

 

2) New psychic rules. Not having a limit on number of powers cast via a casting pool makes psyker-heavy armies overly powerful by spamming smite. Which rolls onto the next issue:

 

3) Mortal Wounds: stupid mechanic, finding them for Raven Guard without spamming sniper scouts seems to be rather difficult.

 

4) Bolters: going from a weapon designed to retake the galaxy, cutting through lightly armoured troops to one that bounces off light armour pushes the boundary a bit.

 

5) wound mechanic: utter daftness. While it is unlikely small arms will have significant effect on a large creature or "vehicle" the fact the possibility is there makes no sense. Likewise the degrading damage tables and profiles just seems to want to make everything a creature base, rather than differentiating between organic and inorganics.

 

6) Flyers - really, they are just too easy to hit and damage, especially when moving a high speed, and the fact flame based weapons still auto-hit them...

 

That's all for now, those are my biggest issues.

 

 

1. I can take or leave it, but taking away marines unique morale system is probably a good thing.

 

2. The 6th and 7th ed psychic rules were just as broken when you spammed psykers. Most psyker spam armies found the new rules to be a nerf. Smite Spam isn't that good.

 

3. Mortal wounds already existed in previous editions, they just didn't have a name and were rarer. Would you rather have Screamer stars back? Mortal wounds seem pretty balanced, armies are very imbalanced in their ability to access mortal wounds but that hasn't translated into the armies with lots of mortal wound options like Grey Knights and Tyranids dominating many metas while your Raven Guard are one of the two top tier Chapters. Certain Smite spam builds are definitely imbalanced and stuff like Biovores are very good but you shouldn't judge a mechanic based on one tournament build based around a broken forgeworld 'model'.

 

4. Bolters don't feel like they've changed at all, but that's because I was used to 5+ save stuff never leaving cover. Bolters are actually quite good in 8th when they're not on a points inefficient marine chassis.

 

5. Lasguns damaging tanks makes, lasguns are high power weapons and taking the odd single wound off a knight or landraider might as well be scratching the paintwork. Its not like lasguns being able to kill marines but not open topped ork buggies or landspeeders made sense either. As for boltguns killing tanks, you already complained about them not being good enough against infantry and now you're saying it makes no sense that they can hurt monsters. The only time in an actual game where a S3-S4 weapon will actually kill a vehicle is when that vehicle has already been damaged by higher power weapons so its armour will be smashed out of shape and full of holes. Did a 4 hull point vehicle that's survived 3 penetrating lascannon hits still being immune to lighter weapons actually make sense or were we just used to it?

 

6. Flyers die too easily despite Storm Ravens still being one of the best Space Marine units? They just weren't fun to fight against in 6th and 7th. Do people actually see flamer weapons bringing down planes that often? Flyers in 7th ed made me just want to pack up and not bother playing.

 

 

 

 

One thing has truly changed in 8th edition, it's army design. Where before I feel that combined arms were more efficient, just because some things were just not able to deal with other things, now the metagame has been changed into finding a statistically synergetical system that supports itself.

 

At larger points games, it's not about variety, it's about scaling up the system. Now, you may or may not enjoy this and this is okay, but the ruleset of the game incentivizes this.

 

If, like me, you are an eclectic collector who likes very different armies rather than spam, then you will find great value in playing 500-750 points games.

 

The point level is so low that spamming will not be effective, and that will allow you to change your army from battle to battle to fit your collection, while taking natural advantages of the rulesystem's constraints

That's just the competitive meta, 2000 point armies made up of a 'little bit of this, little bit of that' work a lot better in 8th ed than in 3rd-6th ed and in 7th ed it was only formation taxes that kept that kind of army viable. I've beaten more spam based lists with my 15 years in the making unoptimised Chaos collection, it just takes a little bit of luck.

 

The simplification of the deep strike rules makes those units have a much clearer role now. Dedicated anti-tank is still important, the stuff that's bringing down vehicles through weight of fire is stuff like assault cannons which did the same thing in previous editions.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Closet Skeleton

[Damo1701]

Hehe, good initiative!

 

Just to clarify : I was asking you not searching for a philosophical debate or not, but to provide you with elements that might help you enjoy your hobby more or adapt better without sacrificing your values :) It's a big transition, and all the help is appreciated!

 

You are absolutely right that the streamlined statistical model used for the game reduces the need for combined arms and special weaponry, due to everything wounding everything and due to stat brackets being so close to one another.

Fun fact, it's actually closer to real life than one might think : damage is all about energy and transfer of energy versus different physical properties of the targeted object. They are trying to simulate that, with less ranges of variation in characteristics than what we see in real life :)

 

Please don't take me as dismissive, but what I see throughout your sentences is that your perceive core weaknesses of the army due to the new system :

1) Morale and larger squads, which you are right totally disincentivizes larger squads to be immune to it

2) Mortal Wounds being more accessible to different armies

3) Fliers being nerfed

 

And it's totally okay to feel like this, these are totally valid assessments your make.

 

__

 

Before going into analytics, allow me to give you some perspective from my own experience on each of these points. Perhaps you will find some redeeming qualities in it.

 

1) So, there is a secret tradeoff between Morale and Larger Squads, and it only depends on the buffing Strategems and Units that you are planning to use. Also, secret tradeoff between unit size (and therefore number of units), and Reserve deployment.

 

Long story short, you trade Morale Immunity/Resistance with making your CPs more effective when you cast buffs. Typical example with the Raven Guard's Strike From the Shadows, it costs you the same CP to infiltrate 5 or 10 models, but one squad will need wipeout to be affected by morale while the other one is going to be affected.

 

Typically, it's about progressive committing with the new deployment system.. You will want to commit low model count units early on, to minimize Morale effects because these guys will be shot at, and keep larger blobs for later one when you know you can commit them with less sensitivity to bullets in the face.

 

2) Mortal Wounds : Most armies relying on Mortal wounds have a tradeoff with lack of very significant shooting. Basically, for what it costs you to field Mortal Wounds (psykers), we can field more Lascannons and Heavy Bolters.

Squads with Mortal Wound capabilities like GK or TS pay a hefty premium in low model count.

 

3) Fliers : That, you are absolutely right. Effectively they are now 'just' vehicles, with -1 to Hit and less Toughness, with some faster speed. Functionally and mechanically, they function the same. So any specific flier strategy you had is effectively gone, silver lining is that you can use them as part of vehicles in vehicle strategies. That's about it, no silver lining there unfortunately, they did lose one of their flavour and mechanical differences.

 

__

 

Basically, 8th edition is a totally new system, and we have to think about its mechanics differently than the previous editions. It requires a different kind of abstraction that we were used to.

 

In a nutshell, in the current 8th edition, the 'how you wound' is much less important than 'the fact you wound'. I can assume with confidence that this was a design decision to make most minis available to play effectively when used properly.

Let's be fair, in previous editions, there were A LOT of units that would just not be worth it, just because of what they were versus cost.

 

Basically, the balancing mechanism comes from the cost versus the statistical system. Everything being able to wound everything means that you can compare, and cost accordingly, anything that wounds versus the base cost of a Marine's Boltgun, just due to probabilities. The team then factors in qualitative arbitrary factors (range, target priority, mortal vs non mortal), and this is exactly why they have a Chapter Approved mechanics to ensure feedback on qualitative things on a relevant sample.

 

__

 

One thing has truly changed in 8th edition, it's army design. Where before I feel that combined arms were more efficient, just because some things were just not able to deal with other things, now the metagame has been changed into finding a statistically synergetical system that supports itself.

 

At larger points games, it's not about variety, it's about scaling up the system. Now, you may or may not enjoy this and this is okay, but the ruleset of the game incentivizes this.

 

If, like me, you are an eclectic collector who likes very different armies rather than spam, then you will find great value in playing 500-750 points games.

 

The point level is so low that spamming will not be effective, and that will allow you to change your army from battle to battle to fit your collection, while taking natural advantages of the rulesystem's constraints :)

A very insightful post here. Firstly, after looking at what I may or may not squeeze into small point games, compared to what I can face makes me less likely to wish to play at those levels.

 

My Raven Guard were born around the middle of 7th edition, once I had grown bored playing my Imperial Fists.

 

Once Angels of Death came out, I found exactly the right place for my Ravens. They were strong, but not OP, fun, without denying opponents fun.

 

This time around, However, I feel that there are situations where playing to all my strengths deny my opponent some fun, yet when they play to their strengths, my fun is removed.

 

I think there seems to be an awful lot of emphasis on creating situations that cannot be countered.

 

For example, I'm always moaned at when I do the following:

 

Strike from the Shadows:

 

Shrine, 10 Lightning Claw Vanguard, 5 Tartaros Terminators.

 

Deployed 9.1" away from their target if I get first turn, move 8"/6" to ensure I can't fail charges, then use strike to prevent overwatch, and swarm in with the vanguard/terminators.

 

In return, I generally face a speeding valkyre full of Bullgryns, zipping across the board and getting their change in because the they can exit after movement, then act normally themselves.

 

Neither situation is overly counterable once it begins, neither is overly fun to face, yet they are almost required in order to get past the first turn.

 

Now, while it can be annoying to face edition changes, they are generally followed by a period of fun in investigating the new edition, and what it can bring.

 

Unfortunately, I've not found that with this edition yet, most of the gaming has been trying to come to terms with a system that is largely unrecognizable as 40k. Which is a shame, seeing as it has been 40k that has been a passion for two decades, and something I introduced my family to.

 

Sure, the new system is a change, and one that may be bringing people to the game. However, I've seen more people trying to sell their armies since 8th landed than buying armies. Personally, I only have my Raven Guard left after having Imperial fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard and Chaos. With the Chaos force not really going anywhere and having lost interest in it since the drop of 8th.

 

I'll continue to give the system a chance, at least for a while, as I have begun attending a new gaming club. However, if I continue to find little to no joy in the system, and if I am unable to find players willing to play 7th edition, I am unsure as to the future the gaming scene will hold for me.

 

I don't know. I've wanted to enjoy the game, despite not liking the rules system, it's just been difficult to find the enjoyment.

[GreyCrow]

Totally understand where you're coming from!

 

Warfare is indeed about creating situations that can not be countered. Strategy, despite other definitions, is the search and exploitation of an unfair advantage. I can understand why you're moaned at, it's not fun to be on the receiving end of this :D

 

The system is totally different in 8th versus 7th and prior, because the rulesystem has changed drastically. If anything, it's closer to 2nd edition, at larger points values.

 

The other problem is that the 40k rulesets in generals do not support the fluff, and you have a high disconnect between fluff and crunch at a strategic (but not unit wise) level. Let's be honest, it's the fluff that drive us to get involved.

 

___

 

Maybe I can help, what do you like about the universe, so I can offer suggestions for army builds/playstyle? Maybe you'll find your enjoyment there! :D

[Damo1701]

Now, that's an incredibly interesting question.

 

One of the things that drew me to the Raven Guard, originally, was the way in which Corax was portrayed in Deliverance Lost.

 

That's partly why I've chosen a 30/31K era for my RG. Still with Heresy era tech, but getting some of the later pattern vehicles too.

 

I like the idea of stealth, misdirection, and covert infiltration.

 

Having a solid core of a Demi-Company to build around allows the adding of more esoteric units suited for specific purposes.

 

I've been toying with the idea of slapping a pair of Land Raiders alongside a Storm Raven to give something truly horrible to face, but the points are so difficult to justify with the massive increase in points.

 

As it stands, I'm somewhat happy with my list as base-tactics, I'll try and get a list uploaded at some point. I'm just having issues with reconciling the game with fluff. 7th edition was much closer, in my experience.

[GreyCrow]

Problem is fluff not being very clear on many specific points and being very misleading.

 

Example : Companies. The Marines maintain them, but I don't see they exclusively deploy in this fashion. They actually mix and match squads from different companies depending on the mission needs.

The Raptors deployed 4 companies on the Badab War, so they were probably mix and matching forces depending on operational scale for instance. That's also the reason why we have Reserve Companies. They are not independent operating forces, but resources to be deployed per need.

 

The Company is a responsive force at a very small scale, which is why it's maintained this way. It allows to field very small task force of varied response forces, but the situation might require escalation with squads from different companies, just because you need scale.

 

It's organization level for maintainance and logistics, not operation level :)

 

For example, I don't see the Captain of the 2nd Company just fielding tactical squads and asking for 20 Landspeeders of the 7th Reserve, without fielding his own Assault Squads and Devastators because operational situations dictate a better outcome of using the Landspeeder.

[Damo1701]

Way I see things working for the Marines is kind of how you have suggested.

 

Each battle company is fairly autonomous, having the tactical flexibility to handle almost any situation.

 

Outside the generalisations offered by the core, we have the reserve companies and First Company, plus the Forge with vehicles and aircraft outside of company transports and Thunderhawks/Stormbirds.

 

So, in an ideal situation, I would field 3x5 Tactial Squads, 1x5 Assault Squad, 1x5 Devastator Squad, captain, lieutenant. Then, I would build a specialist force from either the First company, as described earlier, or vehicle-heavy depending on what I see.

 

Now, when I try to do this on the table, the points don't allow the core and the expansion to be effective.

 

I'll knock up a list, to try and show you what I mean.

[GreyCrow]

But that's exactly what I was not saying :D

 

It's not because they have the ressource that they have to field it hehe :)

 

For example : A Battle Company can be fielded on the tactical level as :

- 6 Tactical Squads --> Very all rounder flexible formation

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Devastator Squads --> Defensive fire suppression

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Assault Squads --> Overwhelming defenses

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Dreadnoughts --> Flexible kind of assault

+ Variations/transports

+ Scouts

+ First Company

 

(BTW this is about 750 points)

 

They have the strategic capabilities to field all these configurations, depending on the needs. It's a strategic formation rather than a tactical formation.

 

Each configuration is good, purpose built and not dilluted. But there comes a point where the opposition size will require scale up of the formation rather than variety. Variety is good at a strategic level, scale is better at a Tactical level :)

In which case, they call on Reserve Companies firepower, just to scale up.

 

See where I was going at?

[jpwyrm]

You guys bring some very interesting insight into 8th edition. I'd like to pitch in later (on my phone in a waiting room ATM), but I just like to say that I threw a quick lost using Damo1701 base units. I took Issodon instead of a captain, 3 x 5 tacticals with heavy bolters, 1 x 5 man assault squad with jump packs, 1 x 5 man devastator squad with Lascannons alongside 2 x Stormhawks and a storm raven. Yeah, I love air support...

 

This adds up to 1429 pts, so enough to add some more boots on the ground or specialized units, either to get to the 7th ed staple of 1850 or 8th's 2000.

 

Looks like there is still a valid way of playing with a demi-company as core if you're so inclined.

[seriade]

The issue people are having with 8th is the fact that they have tried to take the game to a place where it is actually competitive.  The number of arguments of people regarding rules from previous editions was massive compared to what is occurring now, did they go a touch to far towards the simple probably but that is not necessarily a bad thing.  I know a lot of people are only interested in 40k due to the fact they don't like models from other games or have just spent a ton of money and this is what they are going to play.  But go to Privateer Press and try and find there rule book for warmachine on there site and read it as a source of comparison and you can clearly see influences between that and 8th.  When i stopped playing before coming back for 8th i can not remember the rule off hand but it had three distinct versions of itself yet all had the same rule name.  Talking to a few people i know refer to a lot of bloat in 7th regarding rules and the fact that making a list involved consulting 3-4 different books.

 

The problem with that is the tabletop game compared to the fluff is you need structure for the tabletop that would not be present in the state of the fluff.   The other problem of the 6 tactical 2 assault 2 heavy support kind of gets distorted with the shear number of other marine squads they have created.  Honestly if you asked everyone here to create a company of marines in general to cover their needs you would see a massive variance as well as a complete lack of support for the 6/2/2 setup that may drift as far as 3/4/3 or something to that effect.

[Damo1701]

But that's exactly what I was not saying

 

It's not because they have the ressource that they have to field it hehe

 

For example : A Battle Company can be fielded on the tactical level as :

- 6 Tactical Squads --> Very all rounder flexible formation

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Devastator Squads --> Defensive fire suppression

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Assault Squads --> Overwhelming defenses

- 3 Tactical Squads + 2 Dreadnoughts --> Flexible kind of assault

+ Variations/transports

+ Scouts

+ First Company

 

(BTW this is about 750 points)

 

They have the strategic capabilities to field all these configurations, depending on the needs. It's a strategic formation rather than a tactical formation.

 

Each configuration is good, purpose built and not dilluted. But there comes a point where the opposition size will require scale up of the formation rather than variety. Variety is good at a strategic level, scale is better at a Tactical level

In which case, they call on Reserve Companies firepower, just to scale up.

 

See where I was going at?

 

Here is a list I've knocked up:

 

Hidden Content

++ Vanguard Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [51 PL, 975pts] ++

 

+ HQ +

 

Kayvaan Shrike [8 PL, 150pts]

 

+ Elites +

 

Relic Sicarian Punisher Assault Tank [14 PL, 255pts]: Heavy Bolter, Punisher Rotary Cannon, Two Heavy Bolters

 

Tartaros Terminator Squad [13 PL, 270pts]

. Tartaros Sergeant: Chainfist, Plasma blaster

. Tartaros Terminator w/Heavy Weapon: Chainfist, Reaper autocannon

. 3x Tartaros Terminator w/LCs: 3x Lightning Claw (Pair)

 

Vanguard Veteran Squad [16 PL, 300pts]: Jump Pack

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Space Marine Veteran: 2x Lightning Claw

. Veteran Sergeant: 2x Lightning Claw

 

++ Battalion Detachment +3CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [57 PL, 1022pts] ++

 

+ HQ +

 

Captain [5 PL, 80pts]: Power sword, Storm bolter

 

Lieutenants [4 PL, 64pts]

. Lieutenant: Bolt pistol, Power maul

 

+ Troops +

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 93pts]

. 3x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Combi-plasma

. Space Marine w/Special Weapon: Plasma gun

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 73pts]

. 4x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Lightning Claw

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 73pts]

. 4x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Lightning Claw

 

+ Heavy Support +

 

Deimos Pattern Vindicator Laser Destroyer [10 PL, 185pts]: Storm bolter

 

Devastator Squad [8 PL, 180pts]

. Space Marine Sergeant: Combi-plasma

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

 

+ Flyer +

 

Stormraven Gunship [15 PL, 274pts]: Twin assault cannon, Twin heavy bolter, Two Hurricane Bolters, Two Stormstrike Missile Launchers

 

++ Total: [108 PL, 1997pts] ++

 

Created with BattleScribe (https://battlescribe.net)

 

The trouble with this list, as I see it, is that the Raven feels like it's wasted without a contemptor to drop from it, and, without being able to drop tactical marines after flight (or during) again gives me pause in taking one of my favourite models (I have 3!) in a list.

 

Hidden Content

++ Air Wing Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [49 PL, 1010pts] ++

 

+ No Force Org Slot +

 

**Chapter Selection**: Raven Guard

 

+ Flyer +

 

Fire Raptor Assault Gunship [19 PL, 418pts]: 2 Twin Hellstrike Launchers, 2x Quad heavy bolter, Twin avenger bolt cannon

 

Stormraven Gunship [15 PL, 274pts]: Twin assault cannon, Twin heavy bolter, Two Hurricane Bolters, Two Stormstrike Missile Launchers

 

Stormraven Gunship [15 PL, 318pts]: Twin lascannon, Twin multi-melta, Two Stormstrike Missile Launchers

 

++ Battalion Detachment +3CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [54 PL, 984pts] ++

 

+ HQ +

 

Captain [5 PL, 88pts]: Power fist, Storm bolter

 

Lieutenants [5 PL, 93pts]

. Lieutenant: Chainsword, Combi-plasma, Jump Pack, Teeth of Terra

 

+ Troops +

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 93pts]

. 3x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Combi-plasma

. Space Marine w/Special Weapon: Plasma gun

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 90pts]

. 3x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Lightning Claw

. Space Marine w/Special Weapon: Meltagun

 

Tactical Squad [5 PL, 90pts]

. 3x Space Marine

. Space Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Lightning Claw

. Space Marine w/Special Weapon: Meltagun

 

+ Elites +

 

Contemptor Dreadnought [8 PL, 165pts]: Combi-bolter, Dreadnought combat weapon, Kheres pattern assault cannon

 

Relic Contemptor Dreadnought [13 PL, 185pts]: Kheres pattern assault cannon, Kheres pattern assault cannon

 

+ Heavy Support +

 

Devastator Squad [8 PL, 180pts]

. Space Marine Sergeant: Combi-plasma

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Lascannon

 

++ Total: [103 PL, 1994pts] ++

 

Created with BattleScribe (https://battlescribe.net)

 

Interesting how this thread has led to some random lists being created, like the above one...  Any thoughts?

[GreyCrow]

Second one is awesome!

 

Drop the Devas for more bodies on the Ravens (you want 10 tacs in each). You have fire support as Fire Raptor :)

 

Put the Hurricane on the SR with the Lascannons to spread out your firepower in case one gets destroyed, and you should be good ;)

[Damo1701]

Second one is awesome!

 

Drop the Devas for more bodies on the Ravens (you want 10 tacs in each). You have fire support as Fire Raptor

 

Put the Hurricane on the SR with the Lascannons to spread out your firepower in case one gets destroyed, and you should be good

 

Devs in second list are backfield objective campers, and specialist Anti-armour/Anti-flyer snipers, seeing as the Ravens, for some reason, unless I read the rules incorrectly, are still -1 to hit other flyers.

 

Hurricanes are based on how the models are.  I never saw the point in 7th edition of mixing weapon types...

 

Though, I will be trialling this second list out next time I get the opportunity for a game.  Love the Fire Raptor model, as well as the Raven.

[GreyCrow]

Do you need backfield objective campers when you can place objectives though? :P

 

Just place them in one table half, baiting the enemy in selecting that table side. And just storm the place :P

[Mileposter]

This isn't the first spot I've seen you make your complaints against 8th Edition, Damo - and I'll apologize for not speaking up some before - but I must admit that when I did first see your complaint, I was entirely surprised. Given the threads in the RG subforum I had followed that you had been a part of, I had figured that the type of gameplay 8th allows would have you giddy. 8th supports a lot of the strategies and ideas I had seen you speak about previously more than earlier editions had. I, too, would greatly like to help you find your fun, if it can be allowed!

 

I want to babble a bit in general about 8th and mentality and tactics, not because I think that they specifically apply to you - but because I'm hoping that they help spark some ideas, and your reply to them is what would give me the insight to better help on the game-side of things. GreyCrow seems eager to help on the Fluff level, and to be fair, I'm not the most versed in it.

 

But before I babble, I wanted to poke at this bit:

For example, I'm always moaned at when I do the following:

 

Strike from the Shadows:

 

Shrine, 10 Lightning Claw Vanguard, 5 Tartaros Terminators.

 

Deployed 9.1" away from their target if I get first turn, move 8"/6" to ensure I can't fail charges, then use strike to prevent overwatch, and swarm in with the vanguard/terminators.

 

In return, I generally face a speeding valkyre full of Bullgryns, zipping across the board and getting their change in because the they can exit after movement, then act normally themselves.

 

Neither situation is overly counterable once it begins, neither is overly fun to face, yet they are almost required in order to get past the first turn.

This, right here, to me, is the most insightful part. It showcases that the trouble you're facing may not entirely be your own personal portion of 8th edition, but also that a good chunk of your disappointment might stem from your environment. Warhammer is, after all, a community game - and if the community portion sours, so too will the game.

If you're groaned at for doing some First Strike tactics, but the same player would smack you with the same tactic? That player is an expletive. That doesn't make a game enjoyable.

In addition, while it's true that neither of those tactics are 'counterable' in that you cannot stop them from happening - you can totally 'counter' them in that you can make them lose effectiveness or prevent them from reaching prime targets. I also argue that these tactics can be quite fun to face, because they are far from the deciding move of a game. Myself, for example, when I faced a similar Shrike user, I intentionally deployed most of my high-value units in one corner and left a small space specifically so that a small squad would be able to Deep Strike within range of them, but not a full force. My opponent took the bait, dropping Shrike and a 5-man Melee Terminator Squad in (wasn't enough room to get his Vets in). He hadn't paid attention to the fact that said LZ was within rapid fire range of my Combi-Plasma Toting Sternguard Squad. Popped an Auspex Scan stratagem and those Terminators were done for.

 

I'm not a fan of anecdotes all that much, but you said you were drawn to the Raven Guard penchant for misdirection - and that, to me, is one of the fine examples of being able to use misdirection to your advantage on the tabletop.

 

I think I've seen you mention somewhere before that you felt 7th was far more tactical than 8th. I believe that those I've seen hold this opinion relied too much on the rules to provide the tactics - some have said "But Formations were far more tactical!", and that's only true because they told you how to play. 8th takes the tactics out of the hands of the rules and puts it in the hands of the player. Differing movement values, unit specialties, phase bonuses, characters, and way it dissolves when it meets an enemy force... Tactics in 8th is about controlling how these things interact with your army and your opponent. I've seen many players only focus on the first part, thinking that just because you stack bonuses you have a better army. Mathhammer can never account for some good maneuvering and shenanigans on the tabletop.

 

Which is what brings me back to the theme of misdirection in regards to the Raven Guard - don't necessarily look only to the rules for your source of misdirection or subterfuge. You can bring that to the table. Part of what gives a Chapter it's feel in 8th isn't the abilities or weapons a model has, but in how you choose to use them.

 

And the same is true about vehicles! They are easier to damage in this edition than before, and some are easier to kill. You mention feeling like this is a negative in that you feel like everything is a creature in style now, but I'd like to argue that it also means you don't have to develop separate strategies for using your units cohesively. Simplest example being things such as remembering that vehicles get to use your Captain and Lieutenant rerolls (you'd be surprised how many players I run into that forget this). I haven't found that vehicles are "not worth the bloated price" as you've stated - I always run two dreadnoughts and two Stormtalon Gunships. I love my Stormtalon Gunships. They sometimes pull more weight than the rest of my army. It's true that they can't "tank" enemy fire for five turns like they used to, but they earn those points back in other ways. Some of them are worth the points for sheer firepower. Some balance out because they create opportunities for shenanigans. A few are just tough to crack - but only a few.

 

And in imagining or visualizing the 'wound table' mechanic... Did we always imagine 40k's vehicles functioning perfectly as it takes its multitude of beatings, and only has the one catastrophic failure at the end? For me, I like that the wound table somewhat simulates the imagery that can actually occur on the battlefield. "Main turret's damaged, it won't rotate!", "Alright Guardsman, you're aiming with the throttle, then! Get me two degrees right and line up that Helbrute, we still got fight in us yet!" or "Pilot, get a bead on that heavy weapons squad.", "Engine one is out, ser. I'm barely keeping her in the air as is!", "Then ram them if you have to - just get the guns lined up!". Adds some depth to the imagery when your damaged vehicles still manage to kill their target, or when a Techmarine repairs a vehicle up enough to bump into the next wound category.

 

And don't forget shenanigans! Did I mention I love shenanigans? An astute commander on the real battlefield is sometimes able to use mental tricks to turn a battle one way when it should have gone another - and there's no reason we Raven Guard shouldn't do the same! I have no specific pokes in this regard, except simply to keep an open mind for where you can take advantage of how your opponent is thinking about the game. My favorite example is one game in which I was playing an opponent who made the comment that Command Points are only useful for rerolls - not that the other stratagems were crap, but that the rerolls were inherently superior. So I told him, "Okay!". Strike from the Shadows twice, putting my Sternguard Veterans with Combi-Plasma along with a Captain up in Rapid Fire range in cover. The roll for who went first went my way, so I popped making the Captain a Chapter Master. Had the Sternguard fire both their bolters and overcharged plasma into his ranks, completely annihilating one flank of his forces. He spent the next two turns panicking and trying to dislodge them from their cover. The rest of my army was able to advance and overwhelm his position mostly unscathed - all because I gave him something to panic over rather than focusing on my larger force.

 

I could babble on and on and on about tactics on the field and how 8th helps us take advantage of them (You couldn't do a lot of these fun things in 7th!), but I've made this post long enough... I hope it helps spark your imagination a bit. If you want to poke more at it I'll be happy to babble again!

[Damo1701]

Do you need backfield objective campers when you can place objectives though?

 

Just place them in one table half, baiting the enemy in selecting that table side. And just storm the place

 

Lol, that's a good point.  Though, maybe some assault marines with plasma burting out would be fun too...

[Mileposter]

Do you need backfield objective campers when you can place objectives though?

 

Just place them in one table half, baiting the enemy in selecting that table side. And just storm the place

Primo Shenanigans!

[GreyCrow]

 

Do you need backfield objective campers when you can place objectives though?

 

Just place them in one table half, baiting the enemy in selecting that table side. And just storm the place

 

Lol, that's a good point.  Though, maybe some assault marines with plasma burting out would be fun too...

 

 

Trust me, more peeps in you transports

[Damo1701]

This isn't the first spot I've seen you make your complaints against 8th Edition, Damo - and I'll apologize for not speaking up some before - but I must admit that when I did first see your complaint, I was entirely surprised. Given the threads in the RG subforum I had followed that you had been a part of, I had figured that the type of gameplay 8th allows would have you giddy. 8th supports a lot of the strategies and ideas I had seen you speak about previously more than earlier editions had. I, too, would greatly like to help you find your fun, if it can be allowed!

 

I want to babble a bit in general about 8th and mentality and tactics, not because I think that they specifically apply to you - but because I'm hoping that they help spark some ideas, and your reply to them is what would give me the insight to better help on the game-side of things. GreyCrow seems eager to help on the Fluff level, and to be fair, I'm not the most versed in it.

 

But before I babble, I wanted to poke at this bit:

For example, I'm always moaned at when I do the following:

 

Strike from the Shadows:

 

Shrine, 10 Lightning Claw Vanguard, 5 Tartaros Terminators.

 

Deployed 9.1" away from their target if I get first turn, move 8"/6" to ensure I can't fail charges, then use strike to prevent overwatch, and swarm in with the vanguard/terminators.

 

In return, I generally face a speeding valkyre full of Bullgryns, zipping across the board and getting their change in because the they can exit after movement, then act normally themselves.

 

Neither situation is overly counterable once it begins, neither is overly fun to face, yet they are almost required in order to get past the first turn.

This, right here, to me, is the most insightful part. It showcases that the trouble you're facing may not entirely be your own personal portion of 8th edition, but also that a good chunk of your disappointment might stem from your environment. Warhammer is, after all, a community game - and if the community portion sours, so too will the game.

If you're groaned at for doing some First Strike tactics, but the same player would smack you with the same tactic? That player is an expletive. That doesn't make a game enjoyable.

In addition, while it's true that neither of those tactics are 'counterable' in that you cannot stop them from happening - you can totally 'counter' them in that you can make them lose effectiveness or prevent them from reaching prime targets. I also argue that these tactics can be quite fun to face, because they are far from the deciding move of a game. Myself, for example, when I faced a similar Shrike user, I intentionally deployed most of my high-value units in one corner and left a small space specifically so that a small squad would be able to Deep Strike within range of them, but not a full force. My opponent took the bait, dropping Shrike and a 5-man Melee Terminator Squad in (wasn't enough room to get his Vets in). He hadn't paid attention to the fact that said LZ was within rapid fire range of my Combi-Plasma Toting Sternguard Squad. Popped an Auspex Scan stratagem and those Terminators were done for.

 

I'm not a fan of anecdotes all that much, but you said you were drawn to the Raven Guard penchant for misdirection - and that, to me, is one of the fine examples of being able to use misdirection to your advantage on the tabletop.

 

I think I've seen you mention somewhere before that you felt 7th was far more tactical than 8th. I believe that those I've seen hold this opinion relied too much on the rules to provide the tactics - some have said "But Formations were far more tactical!", and that's only true because they told you how to play. 8th takes the tactics out of the hands of the rules and puts it in the hands of the player. Differing movement values, unit specialties, phase bonuses, characters, and way it dissolves when it meets an enemy force... Tactics in 8th is about controlling how these things interact with your army and your opponent. I've seen many players only focus on the first part, thinking that just because you stack bonuses you have a better army. Mathhammer can never account for some good maneuvering and shenanigans on the tabletop.

 

Which is what brings me back to the theme of misdirection in regards to the Raven Guard - don't necessarily look only to the rules for your source of misdirection or subterfuge. You can bring that to the table. Part of what gives a Chapter it's feel in 8th isn't the abilities or weapons a model has, but in how you choose to use them.

 

And the same is true about vehicles! They are easier to damage in this edition than before, and some are easier to kill. You mention feeling like this is a negative in that you feel like everything is a creature in style now, but I'd like to argue that it also means you don't have to develop separate strategies for using your units cohesively. Simplest example being things such as remembering that vehicles get to use your Captain and Lieutenant rerolls (you'd be surprised how many players I run into that forget this). I haven't found that vehicles are "not worth the bloated price" as you've stated - I always run two dreadnoughts and two Stormtalon Gunships. I love my Stormtalon Gunships. They sometimes pull more weight than the rest of my army. It's true that they can't "tank" enemy fire for five turns like they used to, but they earn those points back in other ways. Some of them are worth the points for sheer firepower. Some balance out because they create opportunities for shenanigans. A few are just tough to crack - but only a few.

 

And in imagining or visualizing the 'wound table' mechanic... Did we always imagine 40k's vehicles functioning perfectly as it takes its multitude of beatings, and only has the one catastrophic failure at the end? For me, I like that the wound table somewhat simulates the imagery that can actually occur on the battlefield. "Main turret's damaged, it won't rotate!", "Alright Guardsman, you're aiming with the throttle, then! Get me two degrees right and line up that Helbrute, we still got fight in us yet!" or "Pilot, get a bead on that heavy weapons squad.", "Engine one is out, ser. I'm barely keeping her in the air as is!", "Then ram them if you have to - just get the guns lined up!". Adds some depth to the imagery when your damaged vehicles still manage to kill their target, or when a Techmarine repairs a vehicle up enough to bump into the next wound category.

 

And don't forget shenanigans! Did I mention I love shenanigans? An astute commander on the real battlefield is sometimes able to use mental tricks to turn a battle one way when it should have gone another - and there's no reason we Raven Guard shouldn't do the same! I have no specific pokes in this regard, except simply to keep an open mind for where you can take advantage of how your opponent is thinking about the game. My favorite example is one game in which I was playing an opponent who made the comment that Command Points are only useful for rerolls - not that the other stratagems were crap, but that the rerolls were inherently superior. So I told him, "Okay!". Strike from the Shadows twice, putting my Sternguard Veterans with Combi-Plasma along with a Captain up in Rapid Fire range in cover. The roll for who went first went my way, so I popped making the Captain a Chapter Master. Had the Sternguard fire both their bolters and overcharged plasma into his ranks, completely annihilating one flank of his forces. He spent the next two turns panicking and trying to dislodge them from their cover. The rest of my army was able to advance and overwhelm his position mostly unscathed - all because I gave him something to panic over rather than focusing on my larger force.

 

I could babble on and on and on about tactics on the field and how 8th helps us take advantage of them (You couldn't do a lot of these fun things in 7th!), but I've made this post long enough... I hope it helps spark your imagination a bit. If you want to poke more at it I'll be happy to babble again!

 

 

You are more than welcome to join in :)

 

I think you could be right in that it was/could be the community or players that I was facing.  

 

When I've been thinking about tactics between 8th edition and previous editions, I've seen maneurverability as a key thing.  Getting to weaker armour beside or behind a vehicle.  Ensuring there is an escape route cut off for fleeing enemies, and ensuring their destruction.  Chasing down fleeing enemies in an attempt to butcher them after getting the drop on them in combat.  Ensuring your vehicles are positioned correctly to fire as you wish the to.

 

I've pointed out that SftS is easy to counter after the initial hammer hit, however, the fact that my usual list is somewhat balanced between anti-infantry and anti-armour, I'm slated for it on occasion, especially when I can prevent something I am in combat with from retreating.  Usually, I don't get the option to prevent being shot at, because of better unit placement, so, when I managed it, the game ended right there, because I had managed to prevent my hardest hitting combat unit from being shot to pieces on my opponent's first turn.

 

When I don't get first turn, there is very little moaning about SftS, unless I use it to ensure my devastators are deployed with the best views of enemy armour.  This is mainly because I deploy much more defensively.

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

Great topic, just wanted to write a short post saying I am in the process of gathering my thoughts to contribute to the topic at greater length.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Like: More viable units, no formations(too much bs to remember), less rules,  less random(deepstrike,reserves,warlord traits, psychic powers).

 

Dislike: Guilliman.  This guy is just too good for cost and will limit design space going forward.  New units for marines could easily get out of hand with Guilliman.  

 

Hate: Terminators still suck!  Too expensive, not durable.  At their current power level, THSS should be like 25 ppm not 50+.  For 50 points they gotta be like T5 with 3 wounds and not have that stupid -1 on thunderhammers.  

 

Confused: Primaris marines.  This is like a half assed truescale attempt.  If they slowly give primaris marines the same or similiar gear options as regular marines... they might have a place.  If intercessors could take special and heavy weapons I would probably use them.  A 5 man intercessor squad with a grav cannon for around 110-120 points would be pretty good.  

[MajorNese]

Like:

Degrading stats, vehicles and monsters aligned. It was just too frustrating, losing whatever expensive vehicle to a 6 on the damage chart, without being able to roll anything. Or immobilizing a LandRaider on some trees, or vindicators losing their gun at the first pen. MCs just soaked up anything with armour/cover/invul/FnP, and didn't get any weaker until finally dead. Now those big superheavies are less an all-or-nothing unit, with every unit being able to do something, and even wounding them (a lot) has an effect, although not the frustratingly random effect of the vehicle damage chart. The opposite of what made Tau so frustrating to play against in 7th, they just roll and roll and roll, and your stuff dies without any opportunity to do anything at all.

 

Dislike:

Mortal wounds spread. The MW system itself seems solid, less game-breaking than D-weapons of 7th. Some hits are just so devastating they come through, as even a fancy storm shield won't save 2 out of 3 times when getting hit by a crashing thunderhawk or something. Most MW sources are limited to 1 or D3, which is okay, considering high wound count on vehicles (D just killed everything, period). The only problem I see with the mechanic is how difficult it is for some codices to get it (Marines: mostly take certain units AND sacrifice CP), while others just hand it out like candy (looking at you, Eldar...again...).

 

Also, some combinations seem just extremely hard to counter. Most obvious in my case, Warp Time (or whatever psyker power lets you move twice too), where first turn charges, from one deployment zone to the other, while frying speedbump units before warptiming, are common. Deep Strike is okay, 9" bubble around every model means 110p scouts (or similar cheap units) can lock down most of the battle line, and there is no way through speedbump units.

[Claws and Effect]

Like: My Raven Guard play like I feel they should. I only have 3 games of experience thus far, but I learned a TON in those 3 games (I've always picked things up quickly).

 

Dislike: Smite spam. It's just really hard for a pure SM army to counter it. Our psykers are up to 10 times the cost of psykers you can get elsewhere (Astropath, I'm looking at YOU). One of my games was a ROFLstomp loss against Magnus and Brimstone spam. He was throwing out Smites like Oprah giving away prizes. Shrike died turn 2 because I didn't realize how far Magnus could move. 

 

Oh, and count Magnus as a dislike too. He seems just a little ​OP. I totally get why people use him in tournaments, but it's irritating walking in and seeing him on every other table. 

 

Thus far I'm ambivalent on vehicles. My Stormraven didn't survive a single game, but ​​my Fire Raptor survived 2 out of 3 (it was the last thing on the table when Magnus and friends crushed me, so it flew off unscathed). My first opponent made a huge tactical error in shooting down my Stormraven where he did. It didn't explode and every single dude inside it survived. So a Tactical squad climbed out of the wreckage directly onto an objective that he couldn't contest because his squad was down to 2 guys, my Company Vets with plasma guns climbed out with my Captain standing right next to them, and my Contemptor climbed out and moved within charge distance of his Repulsor the next turn. (the Vets killed it first :() 

 

I'll form more of an opinion on vehicles when I have some more games under my belt.