Is 8th edition tactical and strategic?

[allfatherstudios]

To be fair I've never played 8th. So far I've no interest. I keep seeing that people like 8th because everyone can play. Well sure if you're Ideologically possed that's great. More players.. But for those of us not drinking the cool-aid, and rather like complexity diversity, and competence where's the fun?

But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter. Army's don't appear to be flavorful. And I've noticed a huge decline in mature player base, 25 years old an up.

It seems that the same issues from older editions pop up. Power gamers are still here ruining peoples experience , and yet the rules most of which I and friends that started in 3rd are gone.

Perhaps someone that has played 8th for a while can tell me difference in tactical depth? Am I and my friends just stubborn, or is the trade off for inclusion, and streamlined games, made this edition banal and dull. People do claim 4th edition was the best. But often only have one or two issues with it. However I keep seeing multiple issues of concern from all over the community regarding 8th still. Still the same issues. Games I've seen take just as long if not longer. I'm not seeing a benefit to less complex rules. Infact I loved the complexity of older editions.

So much so that I see large swaths of older players dropping out of the game.

Not a troll post. Just wanted to know about 8th.

Very interested in the tactical depth of 8th vs older editions. Excluding 6th because that edition was a mess. 7th was better if you used the formations only in larger games, as they were first developed for apocalyps games where they would have less impact.

What's in it for me when I'm old school? When being streamlined doesn't factor into enjoyment.

Will the game continue to be less complex in future iterations more focus on less models and heroes?

Should I try other games or foster a group of people playing older editions?

Further more. Will I be able to share the game with my future children or even want to as a too? So that I can teach them strategic planning in a fun way. Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.

I loved the tactics making my own armies and keeping my guys alive. I feel that this game is built around families introducing thier children to the games.. None of it seemed to be about the heroes. My father never got excited about characters. It always seemed to be about maky your own guys yours tell a small part of the story. It just wasn't a thing in my day to care overly about characters. But as the overwatch fandom grew I noticed changes to games overall. Less emphasis on personal touch and more about cool people in interesting situations.

Are we seeing a shift because more inclusivity is being pushed in all types of games/media And how do you feel that effects 40k? Is 40k turning into a MOBA tables top? As an older player how do you feel about it?

Thanks for reading.

To conclude can someone lay out the tactical changes in 8th vs 7th and 4th edition?

[MARK0SIAN]

I do feel they stripped out too much depth (particularly around the tactical department) in order to streamline 8th edition. Mainly around the areas you mentioned such as line of sight, removing templates, armour facings, no armour values, the AP mechanic, positioning everyone in a blob around a source of rerolls etc.

 

However there are some elements of 8th that are unquestionably better from my point of view. Generally I think the rules around movement (particularly moving and shooting) are better, rules around when you can assault are better, the split fire rules are better, the lack of terrain tests that can cripple a tank are better and the changes to cover are better.

 

Personally I would prefer a mix of the two, something like 7.5 edition or something that took the improvements from the new one and merged them into the older edition.

 

Undoubtedly 8th is simpler than previous editions and I would say it is less tactical/strategic but that doesn’t mean it isn’t strategic or tactical :)

[Deathwalker]

1: Chess has pretty basic rules.

2: TTWG's are not Chess.

[Wargamer]

A few of my thoughts:

 

Save modifications are, and always were superior to the 3rd to 7th AP system.

 

Everything wounding everything and the change to wound rolls has meant that mass fire is valid vs all but the toughest of units. In a sense, it's kind of like Epic used to be.

 

The character rules suffer from bad writing. It's easy to see how they were intended to work, but as usual the power gamers ruined it for everyone and now it's a mess.

 

My issue right now is with terrain. We need old school area terrain back - ie: if you're inside the footprint of a ruin, wood or similar, you are in cover. Doesn't matter if the entire model is visible to the firer, you're in cover.

[Deathwalker]

"Power gamers"  do NOT create the flaws in a system, they merely highlight them, and that's acutally good for everyone.

The guy at the Tournament running 6 flyrants is making a better game when the Dev team pays attention, it just sucks to be used as the beatstick to prove ti.

[allfatherstudios]

"Power gamers"  do NOT create the flaws in a system, they merely highlight them, and that's acutally good for everyone.

The guy at the Tournament running 6 flyrants is making a better game when the Dev team pays attention, it just sucks to be used as the beatstick to prove ti.

Well I actually agree to some extent.  However there's something to be said about fair play good form and etiquette.  My seefu used to say when I started compete in martial arts.  That your community won't train with you if you're intentionally trying to injur them in match.   I know what someone might counter with; If it's true about martial arts Ergo it must be true of Table Top Wargames.   I would say that fosteing a fair game is rule number one.  It's a different story when you identify a major handicap and exploit it in a way that may show technical accumen with the system.  But it fly's in the face of fairness.   Still that's a bit off topic.  I was hoping to get a better feel for the tactical differences in each edition.  To decide if upgrading one of my armies to 8th would be worth it.  I have skipped editions in the past. 

[WarriorFish]

I've played since 2nd Edition and 8th is the best for me; smoother and quicker games, there's still strategic and tactical depth and for the record, nobody is Creed for just linking special rules together so the many rules of yesteryear were mostly bloat. Same way as mentioned you'll always have the poor sports, cheats and more - there's nothing 8th nor any previous edition did to stop that (same with any game) so I don't understand why that's a consideration as it's a problem with the player(s) in question, not the game.

 

Like most things the game is what you make of it; don't let these sweeping statements and generalisations hold you back. You could spend forever looking at all the bits you miss from previous editions. That you mention wanting to teach others the game should mean the more playing the hobby the better, so 8th being more accessible is great for that.

 

I remember teaching people 2nd and I remember how 4th played - peaks of the hobby they were not

[Closet Skeleton]

My issue right now is with terrain. We need old school area terrain back - ie: if you're inside the footprint of a ruin, wood or similar, you are in cover. Doesn't matter if the entire model is visible to the firer, you're in cover.

 

Area terrain is almost unchanged in 8th ed

 

 

But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter.

 Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.

 

 

Line of sight for infantry is identical to 7th ed.

 

A lot of 8th ed tournaments have custom terrain rules that increase line of sight blockingness. The actual rulebook also encourages you to tweak the terrain rules but most players don't seem to do that.

 

Plenty of armies don't use special characters and many of the popular ones in 8th ed have always been popular.

 

 

To decide if upgrading one of my armies to 8th would be worth it.  I have skipped editions in the past. 

 

Pre-8th armies in 8th do fine in casual games. I took a mix of models I bought in 7th, 3rd and 5th ed to a tournament yesturday and did okay (2 narrow wins 1 loss, while the non-optimised eldar player didn't win a single game).

[MARK0SIAN]

Line of sight for infantry is identical to 7th ed.

It’s not identical and this is one of my pet peeves with this edition.

 

In 7th, line of sight had to be drawn from the body/head of the model to the body/head of the target model. You ignored things like banners, cloaks, helmet plumes etc.

 

In 8th edition, line of sight can be drawn from literally any part of the model to literally any part of the target. So two models whose helmet plumes stick out over a wall can shoot at each other. Not only is it ludicrous but it makes avoiding line of sight really tricky and punished elaborate models.

[Panzer]

Line of sight isn't really the issue for the most part tbh. The issue is that you need to see only a tiny part of one model to be able to wipe out the whole unit. So it's the wound allocation, not the line of sight.

[DuskRaider]

True Line of Sight is a thing of the past and it's sad that it's gone and been dumbed down. So the short answer to OP's question: No. The long answer is also no, but explains that the game has been simplified to draw in younger players and make it easier to understand. 

[MARK0SIAN]

That is true to some extent but it’s already difficult to whittle down large horde units. It would be even worse if the wounds didn’t spill over to models you can’t see. Changing it to wound only those you can see would need several exemptions for what would be template or blast weapons and would also need some improvements to anti-horde weapons.

[allfatherstudios]

True Line of Sight is a thing of the past and it's sad that it's gone and been dumbed down. So the short answer to OP's question: No. The long answer is also no, but explains that the game has been simplified to draw in younger players and make it easier to understand.

 

I don't consider that a plus. I was younger once. I fully understood the rules even memorized them. Infact ALL of my friends understood the rules. I don't understand this argument 12 year olds can learn code. What the changes seem to be actually doing bringing in is the intellectually lazy of all ages. No offense. But I never once found the rules complex in any edition of the game. I could stand for more rules actually.

 

I'm also not convinced it's not simply the larger safety pencils.. I mean Primaris marines and marketing that are actually bringing people in, even the PC games. When I was younger I had no barriers not to understand the easy to understand rules. If something was contested seemed convoluted we just followed brule one. Flipping a coin. Problem solved.

 

Also how is bringing people that aren't competent enough to understand or memorize the rules, going to add anything to it?

 

Everyone fails to show me the plus side to this...

 

Sure more people more inclusivity? But did you have to turn it into magic the gathering? Why can't we just bring cards of the models now?

[Beams]

Honestly, I think 8th edition is miles better than any previous edition, especially 7th where if you were playing a lower tier army, you couldn't succeed. It used to take something like 400 heavily buffed (reroll misses, rend) Conscripts to just do one wound to a Iron Hands Deathstar. That was the least stretegic or tactical version of the game. Make a Deathstar, use geomancy/elctromancy to teleport, smash it into the opponents unita, rinse repeat while the opponent tries to avoid it desperately.

 

Now it's actually two armies fighting each other. And since you can wound everything with everyone (even if it's nearly impossible to do so) and saves are toned down, you always have a choice for what you want your unit to do.

[DuskRaider]

 

True Line of Sight is a thing of the past and it's sad that it's gone and been dumbed down. So the short answer to OP's question: No. The long answer is also no, but explains that the game has been simplified to draw in younger players and make it easier to understand.

I don't consider that a plus. I was younger once. I fully understood the rules even memorized them. I don't understand this argument 12 year olds can learn code. What it's actually bringing in is the intellectually lazy of all ages. No offense. But I never once found the rules complex in any edition of the game. I could stand for more rules actually.

 

Also how is bringing people that aren't competent enough to understand or memorize the rules, going to add anything to it?

 

Everyone fails to show me the plus side to this...

 

Sure more people more inclusivity? But did you have to turn it into magic the gathering? Why can't we just bring cards of the models now?

 

 

I never said it was a plus, it's actually not a good thing. My answer to "is 8th edition tactical and strategic" is no and also no but with more words.

[allfatherstudios]

Honestly, I think 8th edition is miles better than any previous edition, especially 7th where if you were playing a lower tier army, you couldn't succeed. It used to take something like 400 heavily buffed (reroll misses, rend) Conscripts to just do one wound to a Iron Hands Deathstar. That was the least stretegic or tactical version of the game. Make a Deathstar, use geomancy/elctromancy to teleport, smash it into the opponents unita, rinse repeat while the opponent tries to avoid it desperately.

Now it's actually two armies fighting each other. And since you can wound everything with everyone (even if it's nearly impossible to do so) and saves are toned down, you always have a choice for what you want your unit to do.

As we've discussed above. . Hoards vs flamers. Or ask a tau player how they compete now? We're still seeing similar issues, I've read hundreds of posts about it on multiple sites. People still exploit rules.

 

Most people seemed to hate formations. They're unbalanced well not if you're using them in larger games as they were originally made for apocalyps style games.

 

Perhaps we just can't win in any edition of the game. How do you Ballance war? Well you can mitigate losing to a superior force with tactical acumen. Such as cover, mobility, firing lines etc.. but if the rules don't consider them. You're basically playing glorified rock paper scissors.

 

You bring your titan hero I bring mine we roll dice and then go home. No need for tactical deployment, cover, rules. Just whom ever wins the toss.

 

I don't know I just still can't seem to get behind 8th. It's just so boring.

 

I will give you the death star comment. But our group never plays with that type of player unless we all agreed on it beforehand. For example I don't run the sky hammer anhilation force despite sinking money into it.. unless my opponent is also bringing something cheese.

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

I don't know I just still can't seem to get behind 8th. It's just so boring.

Then don't worry about 8th. Stick with 7th and enjoy the games you play with that edition.

[Mileposter]

I like 8th over 7th and find it more tactical because it's less about rules lawyer and more about actual tactics on the table. Mathhammer is still relevant, and always will be, but actual gameplay on the table with tactics can fly in the face of mathhammer more now than it used to.

 

In short, I like that 8th helps force people out of the rulebook and into the gameplay.

[apologist]

Hey AFS, I've broken your post down into a few points to help drive my post; hope that's cool, and that the thoughts of someone of similar 'gaming vintage' is useful to you :)

 

[1] for those of us [who] rather like complexity diversity, and competence where's the fun?

[2] But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter. Army's don't appear to be flavorful. [...]

[3] What's in it for me when I'm old school? When being streamlined doesn't factor into enjoyment.

[4] Will the game continue to be less complex in future iterations more focus on less models and heroes?

[5] Should I try other games or foster a group of people playing older editions?

[6] Further more. Will I be able to share the game with my future children or even want to as a too? So that I can teach them strategic planning in a fun way. Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.

I loved the tactics making my own armies and keeping my guys alive. I feel that this game is built around families introducing thier children to the games.. None of it seemed to be about the heroes. My father never got excited about characters. It always seemed to be about maky your own guys yours tell a small part of the story. It just wasn't a thing in my day to care overly about characters. But as the overwatch fandom grew I noticed changes to games overall. Less emphasis on personal touch and more about cool people in interesting situations.

[7] Are we seeing a shift because more inclusivity is being pushed in all types of games/media And how do you feel that effects 40k? Is 40k turning into a MOBA tables top? As an older player how do you feel about it?

 

[1] for those of us [who] rather like complexity diversity, and competence where's the fun?

Fun is always going to be subjective. If you enjoy granularity, then I'd agree 8th won't offer you as much as (say) 2nd edition. However, I don't think that decreased complexity necessarily means the result is less strategic. In fact, I'd argue that 8th has done a good job of getting rid of complication – bad, duplicated or awkward mechanics – without reducing the complexity.

 

Effectively, 40k has always tried to balance simulation – which wants as much complexity as possible for the most accurate result – and abstraction – which streamlines and declutters the ruleset to provide speed and accessibility. In my experience, those who prefer simulation tend to like details and micro-differences between similar models/weapons; whereas those who prefer abstraction prefer broader groupings for similar models/weapons.

 

In essence, simulation emphasises a ground-level tactical experience – individual soldiers running out of ammunition, tiny differences in kit being of occasional relevance – while abstraction seeks to create a god's-eye view strategic experience – with the details being less important. Typically, successful simulation games are slower and smaller in scale; while successful abstracted games are faster and can support larger forces. 

 

+++

[All this has happened before]

The change between Space Marine 2nd edition and Epic: 40,000 is the best equivalent to the change from 7th to 8th ed. 40k that I can think of. 

Epic: 40,000 was a ground-up re-write (much like 8th) that stripped out a huge amount of redundancy in order to provided a system that allowed a more intuitive experience. The balance of that was that (by and large) all weaponry was reduced to a single statistic – an abstract firepower characteristic – so there was no mechanical difference between the boltguns of a Space Marine stand and the guns on a Predator beyond the amount of firepower. 

 

Like you, I initially decried the abstraction as reducing the diversity – i.e. the flavour – of the game. However, the experience of actually playing the game was hugely improved – I could remember everything I needed because it was so simple; which meant less consultation of rulebooks and tables, fewer discussions about exceptional cases, and a much greater flow to the game. There was also less pre-game knowledge required, which means that games weren't decided by 'tricks', such as a new model that did something mechanically out of the scope of the original game.

 

Because I wasn't being distracted by minutiae, I was able to concentrate on the grand sweep of my plan. The system reduced the complication without reducing the complexity. I regard Epic: 40,000 (and its progeny, Epic: Armageddon) as what really improved my enjoyment of gaming.

 

+++

[Enough waffling, what about 8th?]

I think 8th has done a good job of providing a more abstracted experience, which I think makes for a better tabletop game. Tabletop wargames are a social experience, one that is spoiled somewhat by continual reference to rulesbooks, or the need to reference expansion tables etc. For this reason, I think simulation works better for computer games – where the machine can instantly take account of all the variables and provide a result – whereas tabletop games require at least some level abstraction.

 

[2] But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter. Army's don't appear to be flavorful. [...]

I won't argue 8th is perfect; but I always regard these specific examples as sacrifices I'm happy to make within the rules set. I can see that they seem to cause a lot of heartache online; but I just haven't had those experiences personally.

[On line of sight]  Line of sight has been a point of grumbling since Rogue Trader – whatever mechanic is used, odd things happen. The permissive line of sight mechanic in 8th rewards social interaction and compromise – making a better experience – rather than specialist knowledge and lawyeristic wrangling.

[On armour facings] This is a good example of a legacy rule that, on the face of things, is an odd exclusion. We're so used to vehicles operating differently, that it's weird when they don't. However, by treating vehicles differently in previous editions, we ended up with weird equivalences – why was a Dreadnought a vehicle, and a Wraithlord not? Why did Carnifexes and Riptides not have facings? 8th has simply abstracted everything to a common set of rules. I don't personally miss armour facings, because I think the granular damage table is a much more interesting mechanic that makes for fewer false equivalences.

[On flavour]  This, I think, is down to taste. Personally, the common mechanics for different armies is something that I'm quite familiar with from Epic: Armageddon, and I'm perfectly happy with how it translates mechanically. 

 

For me, the command point/stratagems add a level of 'command-level' interest missing from 7th. Having the power to influence, but not control, the 

results of many events is what adds tension, which is why the random distances are to my taste. I can't absolutely rely on my troops to do a certain things (like get into combat), but I can weigh things in their favour by getting closer than absolutely necessary, or using a re-roll. As the game goes on, and my command point pool runs low, I'm forced to make tough decisions – it also neatly simulates the breakdown of communication between high-command and ground level troops. A good general takes that into account. 

 

 

[3] What's in it for me when I'm old school? When being streamlined doesn't factor into enjoyment.

The benefit of an abstracted system is that you can introduce complexity if you prefer. 8th is a great framework around which you can hang as much complexity as you and your group wish; whereas with something as complicated as 7th, it's harder to strip back unwanted complication. If you miss armour facings, perhaps it's something you can introduce with your friends. One benefit of being old school is that you'll have a group of like-minded buddies – treat 8th as a framework and tool it up as you wish.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the core rules are simple precisely because every unit has its own additional rules. If, like me, you prefer an abstract experience, you can choose a simple army with few upgrades and mechanical variety (I invest the interest and flavour through the 'soft' non-mechanical aspects of the game; like painting and modelling). If you prefer a more challenging, detail-orientated experience, the army choices and upgrades are surprisingly detailed for some armies – and the less restrictive army-building system and stratagems/command point mechanics mean that there's a whole layer of tactical choices that was absent in previous editions.

 

 

[4] Will the game continue to be less complex in future iterations more focus on less models and heroes?

I don't think the game will become less complex – the core rules are very lean. The second point – of the emphasis of individuals and heroes – is something different. I agree with you on that; but I'll come back to it.

 

 

[5] Should I try other games or foster a group of people playing older editions?

I've never treated it as an zero-sum thing. I still play 2nd edition occasionally – it's a great system for Inq28, for example. Basically, we decide what we want to achieve, and work out which system supports it best. For big battles, the abstracted 8th is vastly superior to older versions, in my opinion. For skirmishes of a dozen models or so, 2nd edition hits a level of detail that is hard to beat.

 

So, my answer it basically 'both'!  I've also heard great things about the Bolt Action-derived Gates of Antares. That might be a good alternative system for you to explore.

 

 

[6] Further more. Will I be able to share the game with my future children or even want to as a too? So that I can teach them strategic planning in a fun way. Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.

I loved the tactics making my own armies and keeping my guys alive. I feel that this game is built around families introducing thier children to the games.. None of it seemed to be about the heroes. My father never got excited about characters. It always seemed to be about maky your own guys yours tell a small part of the story. It just wasn't a thing in my day to care overly about characters. But as the overwatch fandom grew I noticed changes to games overall. Less emphasis on personal touch and more about cool people in interesting situations.

 

This is quite a complicated set of questions. On the question of sharing it with your children; that's always going to have a personal answer. Entirely depends on whether your children want to, as well! :D  Joking aside, if the question is 'Will this be an enjoyable and worthwhile way of spending time with my children?', then I'd say the reduced amount of pre-knowledge needed is a plus, and answer 'At least as enjoyable as any other edition, and likely more'. If the question is 'Will this be a productive and educational way of spending time with my children?', then I'd say that 'there are probably better ways than tabletop wargaming of teaching strategy and tactics; but the social aspect is very worthwhile – and 8th is better for the social aspect because it encourages modification (through Open and Narrative play) and is a cleaner, less complex system, allowing less time consuting rulebooks, and more time interacting with the other player.'

 

On the 'personal touch', I quite agree. I think there has been a shift away from personalisation and making 'your army', which I think's a shame. However, that's not really the fault or symptom of the game system, but of the community. Personally, I think it's the community drive for efficiency and competitiveness that has caused this. Any thread on list-building, for example, takes it as read that the opening poster is looking for advice on efficiency, rather than showcasing creativity – which is, in my opinion, a shame. Think if painting/conversion was treated in the same way; that personal touches were derided for 'slowing your painting down', or 'no-one will know what they are'... how awful! :D

 

If anything, because 8th explicitly recognises different modes of play – Open, Narrative and Matched –  and because it has made the army building much less restrictive, I'd say it's better for personalising. 

 

 

[7] Are we seeing a shift because more inclusivity is being pushed in all types of games/media And how do you feel that effects 40k? Is 40k turning into a MOBA tables top? As an older player how do you feel about it?

 

This is erring on a real-world topic; but my opinion here is that making the game more accessible is only a good thing. You can always politely decline a game, after all; but if no-one asks, then you don't have the option. As I outlined above, if you want to make an elegant game more complicated, you can; but it's much more difficult to do the opposite.

 

Basically, I think it boils down to the fact that the core rules appear surprisingly sparse, and that's put you off. I'd reassure you that 8th edition does have a rewarding level of complexity – it simply doesn't require as much pre-learned knowledge. Instead, the on-board interactions of far more diverse armies, plus the stratagem mechanics, means that you get a very fluid game that's easy to pick up, but far from simple.

[allfatherstudios]

 

[snip]I don't know I just still can't seem to get behind 8th. It's just so boring.

Then don't worry about 8th. Stick with 7th and enjoy the games you play with that edition.

Well ya. However that's off topic a bit. The discussion is about tactical differences between editions. You do however bring up a potential issues however. What happens when enough of people like myself stop buying the game for our kids? Or drop out all together. Not that I am. I'm waiting for 9th hoping that conversations like this foster a better edition and experience.

[allfatherstudios]

Hey AFS, I've broken your post down into a few points to help drive my post; hope that's cool, and that the thoughts of someone of similar 'gaming vintage' is useful to you :)

 

 

[1] for those of us [who] rather like complexity diversity, and competence where's the fun?

[2] But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter. Army's don't appear to be flavorful. [...]

[3] What's in it for me when I'm old school? When being streamlined doesn't factor into enjoyment.

[4] Will the game continue to be less complex in future iterations more focus on less models and heroes?

[5] Should I try other games or foster a group of people playing older editions?

[6] Further more. Will I be able to share the game with my future children or even want to as a too? So that I can teach them strategic planning in a fun way. Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.

I loved the tactics making my own armies and keeping my guys alive. I feel that this game is built around families introducing thier children to the games.. None of it seemed to be about the heroes. My father never got excited about characters. It always seemed to be about maky your own guys yours tell a small part of the story. It just wasn't a thing in my day to care overly about characters. But as the overwatch fandom grew I noticed changes to games overall. Less emphasis on personal touch and more about cool people in interesting situations.

[7] Are we seeing a shift because more inclusivity is being pushed in all types of games/media And how do you feel that effects 40k? Is 40k turning into a MOBA tables top? As an older player how do you feel about it?

 

 

[1] for those of us [who] rather like complexity diversity, and competence where's the fun?

Fun is always going to be subjective. If you enjoy granularity, then I'd agree 8th won't offer you as much as (say) 2nd edition. However, I don't think that decreased complexity necessarily means the result is less strategic. In fact, I'd argue that 8th has done a good job of getting rid of complication – bad, duplicated or awkward mechanics – without reducing the complexity.

 

Effectively, 40k has always tried to balance simulation – which wants as much complexity as possible for the most accurate result – and abstraction – which streamlines and declutters the ruleset to provide speed and accessibility. In my experience, those who prefer simulation tend to like details and micro-differences between similar models/weapons; whereas those who prefer abstraction prefer broader groupings for similar models/weapons.

 

In essence, simulation emphasises a ground-level tactical experience – individual soldiers running out of ammunition, tiny differences in kit being of occasional relevance – while abstraction seeks to create a god's-eye view strategic experience – with the details being less important. Typically, successful simulation games are slower and smaller in scale; while successful abstracted games are faster and can support larger forces. 

 

+++

[All this has happened before]

The change between Space Marine 2nd edition and Epic: 40,000 is the best equivalent to the change from 7th to 8th ed. 40k that I can think of. 

Epic: 40,000 was a ground-up re-write (much like 8th) that stripped out a huge amount of redundancy in order to provided a system that allowed a more intuitive experience. The balance of that was that (by and large) all weaponry was reduced to a single statistic – an abstract firepower characteristic – so there was no mechanical difference between the boltguns of a Space Marine stand and the guns on a Predator beyond the amount of firepower. 

 

Like you, I initially decried the abstraction as reducing the diversity – i.e. the flavour – of the game. However, the experience of actually playing the game was hugely improved – I could remember everything I needed because it was so simple; which meant less consultation of rulebooks and tables, fewer discussions about exceptional cases, and a much greater flow to the game. There was also less pre-game knowledge required, which means that games weren't decided by 'tricks', such as a new model that did something mechanically out of the scope of the original game.

 

Because I wasn't being distracted by minutiae, I was able to concentrate on the grand sweep of my plan. The system reduced the complication without reducing the complexity. I regard Epic: 40,000 (and its progeny, Epic: Armageddon) as what really improved my enjoyment of gaming.

 

+++

[Enough waffling, what about 8th?]

I think 8th has done a good job of providing a more abstracted experience, which I think makes for a better tabletop game. Tabletop wargames are a social experience, one that is spoiled somewhat by continual reference to rulesbooks, or the need to reference expansion tables etc. For this reason, I think simulation works better for computer games – where the machine can instantly take account of all the variables and provide a result – whereas tabletop games require at least some level abstraction.

 

[2] But where does the strategic level come in. No armor Facings. Line of sight for guns don't matter. Line of sight doesn't seem to matter. Army's don't appear to be flavorful. [...]

I won't argue 8th is perfect; but I always regard these specific examples as sacrifices I'm happy to make within the rules set. I can see that they seem to cause a lot of heartache online; but I just haven't had those experiences personally.

[On line of sight]  Line of sight has been a point of grumbling since Rogue Trader – whatever mechanic is used, odd things happen. The permissive line of sight mechanic in 8th rewards social interaction and compromise – making a better experience – rather than specialist knowledge and lawyeristic wrangling.

[On armour facings] This is a good example of a legacy rule that, on the face of things, is an odd exclusion. We're so used to vehicles operating differently, that it's weird when they don't. However, by treating vehicles differently in previous editions, we ended up with weird equivalences – why was a Dreadnought a vehicle, and a Wraithlord not? Why did Carnifexes and Riptides not have facings? 8th has simply abstracted everything to a common set of rules. I don't personally miss armour facings, because I think the granular damage table is a much more interesting mechanic that makes for fewer false equivalences.

[On flavour]  This, I think, is down to taste. Personally, the common mechanics for different armies is something that I'm quite familiar with from Epic: Armageddon, and I'm perfectly happy with how it translates mechanically. 

 

For me, the command point/stratagems add a level of 'command-level' interest missing from 7th. Having the power to influence, but not control, the 

results of many events is what adds tension, which is why the random distances are to my taste. I can't absolutely rely on my troops to do a certain things (like get into combat), but I can weigh things in their favour by getting closer than absolutely necessary, or using a re-roll. As the game goes on, and my command point pool runs low, I'm forced to make tough decisions – it also neatly simulates the breakdown of communication between high-command and ground level troops. A good general takes that into account. 

 

 

[3] What's in it for me when I'm old school? When being streamlined doesn't factor into enjoyment.

The benefit of an abstracted system is that you can introduce complexity if you prefer. 8th is a great framework around which you can hang as much complexity as you and your group wish; whereas with something as complicated as 7th, it's harder to strip back unwanted complication. If you miss armour facings, perhaps it's something you can introduce with your friends. One benefit of being old school is that you'll have a group of like-minded buddies – treat 8th as a framework and tool it up as you wish.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the core rules are simple precisely because every unit has its own additional rules. If, like me, you prefer an abstract experience, you can choose a simple army with few upgrades and mechanical variety (I invest the interest and flavour through the 'soft' non-mechanical aspects of the game; like painting and modelling). If you prefer a more challenging, detail-orientated experience, the army choices and upgrades are surprisingly detailed for some armies – and the less restrictive army-building system and stratagems/command point mechanics mean that there's a whole layer of tactical choices that was absent in previous editions.

 

 

[4] Will the game continue to be less complex in future iterations more focus on less models and heroes?

I don't think the game will become less complex – the core rules are very lean. The second point – of the emphasis of individuals and heroes – is something different. I agree with you on that; but I'll come back to it.

 

 

[5] Should I try other games or foster a group of people playing older editions?

I've never treated it as an zero-sum thing. I still play 2nd edition occasionally – it's a great system for Inq28, for example. Basically, we decide what we want to achieve, and work out which system supports it best. For big battles, the abstracted 8th is vastly superior to older versions, in my opinion. For skirmishes of a dozen models or so, 2nd edition hits a level of detail that is hard to beat.

 

So, my answer it basically 'both'!  I've also heard great things about the Bolt Action-derived Gates of Antares. That might be a good alternative system for you to explore.

 

 

[6] Further more. Will I be able to share the game with my future children or even want to as a too? So that I can teach them strategic planning in a fun way. Would they care at all about rowboat guillsman? When I first started I didn't care about the heroes.I loved the tactics making my own armies and keeping my guys alive. I feel that this game is built around families introducing thier children to the games.. None of it seemed to be about the heroes. My father never got excited about characters. It always seemed to be about maky your own guys yours tell a small part of the story. It just wasn't a thing in my day to care overly about characters. But as the overwatch fandom grew I noticed changes to games overall. Less emphasis on personal touch and more about cool people in interesting situations.

 

This is quite a complicated set of questions. On the question of sharing it with your children; that's always going to have a personal answer. Entirely depends on whether your children want to, as well! :D  Joking aside, if the question is 'Will this be an enjoyable and worthwhile way of spending time with my children?', then I'd say the reduced amount of pre-knowledge needed is a plus, and answer 'At least as enjoyable as any other edition, and likely more'. If the question is 'Will this be a productive and educational way of spending time with my children?', then I'd say that 'there are probably better ways than tabletop wargaming of teaching strategy and tactics; but the social aspect is very worthwhile – and 8th is better for the social aspect because it encourages modification (through Open and Narrative play) and is a cleaner, less complex system, allowing less time consuting rulebooks, and more time interacting with the other player.'

 

On the 'personal touch', I quite agree. I think there has been a shift away from personalisation and making 'your army', which I think's a shame. However, that's not really the fault or symptom of the game system, but of the community. Personally, I think it's the community drive for efficiency and competitiveness that has caused this. Any thread on list-building, for example, takes it as read that the opening poster is looking for advice on efficiency, rather than showcasing creativity – which is, in my opinion, a shame. Think if painting/conversion was treated in the same way; that personal touches were derided for 'slowing your painting down', or 'no-one will know what they are'... how awful! :D

 

If anything, because 8th explicitly recognises different modes of play – Open, Narrative and Matched –  and because it has made the army building much less restrictive, I'd say it's better for personalising. 

 

 

[7] Are we seeing a shift because more inclusivity is being pushed in all types of games/media And how do you feel that effects 40k? Is 40k turning into a MOBA tables top? As an older player how do you feel about it?

 

This is erring on a real-world topic; but my opinion here is that making the game more accessible is only a good thing. You can always politely decline a game, after all; but if no-one asks, then you don't have the option. As I outlined above, if you want to make an elegant game more complicated, you can; but it's much more difficult to do the opposite.

 

Basically, I think it boils down to the fact that the core rules appear surprisingly sparse, and that's put you off. I'd reassure you that 8th edition does have a rewarding level of complexity – it simply doesn't require as much pre-learned knowledge. Instead, the on-board interactions of far more diverse armies, plus the stratagem mechanics, means that you get a very fluid game that's easy to pick up, but far from simple.

Lots of good points here. I still have some hang ups however. Still great discussion.

[Volt]

A few of my thoughts:

 

Save modifications are, and always were superior to the 3rd to 7th AP system.

 

Everything wounding everything and the change to wound rolls has meant that mass fire is valid vs all but the toughest of units. In a sense, it's kind of like Epic used to be.

 

The character rules suffer from bad writing. It's easy to see how they were intended to work, but as usual the power gamers ruined it for everyone and now it's a mess.

 

My issue right now is with terrain. We need old school area terrain back - ie: if you're inside the footprint of a ruin, wood or similar, you are in cover. Doesn't matter if the entire model is visible to the firer, you're in cover.

I think what we need more is just comprehensive, cheap cover. Like full trenches, multiple sandbag walls, etc. Lots of simple things to provide that +1 to armor saves. It's just difficult as it's expensive for the individual to make, so the board usually consists of maybe 3-4 pieces of terrain and is otherwise flat. Terrain is an absolute must and it should be prolific, not sparse.

[apologist]

 

I think what we need more is just comprehensive, cheap cover. Like full trenches, multiple sandbag walls, etc. Lots of simple things to provide that +1 to armor saves. It's just difficult as it's expensive for the individual to make, so the board usually consists of maybe 3-4 pieces of terrain and is otherwise flat. Terrain is an absolute must and it should be prolific, not sparse.

 

Agreed. The third army – i.e. the board and scenery – is an element that has historically always been left up the players, with very little guidance beyond 'roughly X% of the board' or similar, and suggestions for how to apply some very broad rules to your terrain collection. 

 

My experience of 40k has always been very heavily terrain-led; but then I'm in the fortunate position of having friends who enjoyed this aspect of the hobby a great deal; and later coming to enjoy the challenge myself. As a result, I've never really been in the position of playing over planet bowling ball. 

 

I think a set of suggested or example terrain lay-outs – literally maps showing exactly how many pieces of terrain, where they're placed on the board, and what they do in mechanical terms – would be hugely helpful in helping people understand what GW think a typical board should look like. It would also go a long way to normalising a certain amount of terrain; and if the maps stated what effects the terrain piece had, would help to reduce the random rolls that a lot of people find a turn-off.

[Bulwyf]

I have played since Rogue Trader. 8th edition is by far the best edition of the game. You don't need six different books for each player to continually consult rules on every.single.phase. of the game. The wound rolls in 8th , the split fire and streamlined rules makes the game easier to learn, faster to play and yes there is still strategy and tactics.

 

The only thing really missing at this point IMO are rules to let you create your own vehicle and characters for matched play. 8th is the closest I can remember to whichever edition was Herohammer...I think that was 5th? that I can remember. Being able to create your own characters for matched play that are equivalent to named characters from the codex would be a huge boost.

 

My only other quibble with 8th so far is that I wish assault armies were more equally balanced against shooting lists.

[Slan Drakkos]

I like 8th significantly more than 7th. Even though some of the strategic parts have been dropped, there have been several other strategy based parts of the game that have been made.

 

Anybody else remember using their space Marines to charge a unit of eldar and getting wiped out because your initiative meant that the enemy swung first? Now that everyone swings at the same time, you have to very strategically place your units so that you're not the one being charged.

 

Remember how pistols were just toned down versions of the bigger guns? Now they can be used in close combat! That actually gives me a reason to take pistols in close combat.

 

Remember how you had to fight to the death when your units got into close combat? Now you can tactically retreat if the situation doesn't favor you or you really need to fire on that unit that charge you.

 

Yes, 8th has gotten rid of some things that were cool, but instead of focusing on the negative, try to see some of the positives.