Is 8th edition tactical and strategic?

[allfatherstudios]

 

1: Seems with clarification, you agree, at least in part with Nova.

 

 

 

 

2: Commercial success has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules. People who are pure hobbyist/painters buy GW product and never play the game, People who read the BL and love the lore buy product and never play the game.

This is the unfortunate legacy of GW positioning itself some 30 years ago to be a -miniature- company, not a rules company.

It's made steps, but it still is in the mindset of being a Mini company. At least under Nova's conditions (now stated), it can work on both. I once hoped that with the advent of forge world, GW -would- concentrate more on rules, but it seems that was misplaced hope.

 

 

 

Having competent competitive gamers involved in the rules writing process is something I agree is a good idea. I do not think that defining this as the top 10 - however you define that - is particularly useful. I really do not think that you would want these people as the lead rules writers but that is because I do not believe that the market positioning of GW is unfortunate, I believe it is the reason why they survived this long and they would be very ill advised to change their broad approach. Commercial success is important if we want the game to be alive in another 25 years and the GW focus on a wide spread of things - not giving top priority to rules - is a proven successful business model. In practice I believe that the set of play-testers they have (and we do by now know the names of quite a few of them) should be delivering most of the benefit of having top players involved in the rules development process. 

 

Honestly i think adding some really good technical authors to the process would be a greater benefit to the players but if someone wants to think that the competitive gamers add more that is a viable opinion too.

 

Lurching back towards the topic - there is an element of tactical and strategic play to GW games but their development priorities are spread across many aspects of the game so they do not and will not focus on just this. Their games have never been the most tight competitive rule-sets. I find that there is enough tactical nuance to 8th edition to satisfy me, positioning in the charge and fight phases is super-important now even if positioning in the shooting phase a little less crucial than in previous editions.

. Honestly I'm not sure that corporate homogeneity is a model that will benefit them long-term. The more you simplify for the masses the worse the system and story will get. Masses don't equal longevity. Once the pop culture boom stifles, you've alienated your player bass. By continuing to make easy to play games. When the IP is no longer popular. You lose whatever player Base you still had. Homogensation isn't a great thing to celebrate. More people doesn't make things better. It's like pop music. The literally the worst possible combination of music on the planet. But very basic people enjoy it. But once that song becomes unpopular they move onto the next popular thing. I don't want 40k to be a fidget spinner for basic people. Normal everyday people don't like complexity. They like Adam Sandler movies or axe throwing because that's what everyone else is doing. Because it's so chea' ... And they can tell their Bea. About it.. or boo... Or whatever popular half words are being used today so adults sound like children.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

 

I would argue that this is better. Granted not better for ever unit in every faction but for that SoB unit it sounds amazing. several strong pistol shots in a completely different phase than combat. (And the mention of shooting twice to boot.) They may well wipe out what ever it was that they were in combat with before the charge phase meaning they can charge all over again. VS. +1 attack for ST3 Models.  no contests. lol

 

Better is not the same as strategic. You're right, it probably is better for Seraphim, but it's not better for those Honour Guard or Orks (for example) who have better accuracy/strength/AP on their melee attacks than on their pistols.

 

 

 

 

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

On my turn they move 24" fire four melta pistols, a plasma pistol and 14 bolt pistols, meltas and plasmas usually at a tank or hero unit, charge either a tank or something big, surround it to prevent it from leaving (fly, so easy to do) survive a combat 3+/5or6++reroll depending on if Celestine is near) survive the enemy tanks turn, AoF fire pistols and then regular fire pistols.

 

There's no special rule that makes them any better at pistols, but it allows you to surround and kill tanks.

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

The +1A buff exists on quite a few close combat weapons, chainswords etc. so the pistols DO give an actual extra attack. The weapons that dont give +1A give you an actual choice in what you use to fight, and having an inferno pistol or hand flamer actually gives you more of an affect than an extra swing with a knife. I think its great!

 

But less of an effect than 2 extra swings (because again, pistols only work once per game turn, whereas you fight twice) with a power axe, as pretty much all the high value 'killing' weapons don't grant additional attacks.

 

Again, this wasn't supposed to be about whether the new pistol rules are good/bad. I don't think they are a benefit for most assault units, but have resulted in a greater diversity of character loadouts, which is a change I like. But the rule was brought up as an example of how they've made 8th more strategic, and I'm still just not seeing how that's the case.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

. Honestly I'm not sure that corporate homogeneity is a model that will benefit them long-term. The more you simplify for the masses the worse the system and story will get. Masses don't equal longevity. Once the pop culture boom stifles, you've alienated your player bass. By continuing to make easy to play games. When the IP is no longer popular. You lose whatever player Base you still had. Homogensation isn't a great thing to celebrate. More people doesn't make things better. It's like pop music. The literally the worst possible combination of music on the planet. But very basic people enjoy it. But once that song becomes unpopular they move onto the next popular thing. I don't want 40k to be a fidget spinner for basic people. Normal everyday people don't like complexity. They like Adam Sandler movies or axe throwing because that's what everyone else is doing. Because it's so chea' ... And they can tell their Bea. About it.. or boo... Or whatever popular half words are being used today so adults sound like children.

 

 

It is hard to discuss where the tactical elements of the game are with someone who has never played it. Having played 8th many times I do not believe your caricature of an oversimplified lowest-common-denominator game is accurate so we would be starting the discussion from a false premise.

 

I have heard some players express similar opinions to yours over the past year - but never yet from a player who beat me or even came close. Read into that what you will.

[allfatherstudios]

 

. Honestly I'm not sure that corporate homogeneity is a model that will benefit them long-term. The more you simplify for the masses the worse the system and story will get. Masses don't equal longevity. Once the pop culture boom stifles, you've alienated your player bass. By continuing to make easy to play games. When the IP is no longer popular. You lose whatever player Base you still had. Homogensation isn't a great thing to celebrate. More people doesn't make things better. It's like pop music. The literally the worst possible combination of music on the planet. But very basic people enjoy it. But once that song becomes unpopular they move onto the next popular thing. I don't want 40k to be a fidget spinner for basic people. Normal everyday people don't like complexity. They like Adam Sandler movies or axe throwing because that's what everyone else is doing. Because it's so chea' ... And they can tell their Bea. About it.. or boo... Or whatever popular half words are being used today so adults sound like children.

 

 

It is hard to discuss where the tactical elements of the game are with someone who has never played it. Having played 8th many times I do not believe your caricature of an oversimplified lowest-common-denominator game is accurate so we would be starting the discussion from a false premise.

 

I have heard some players express similar opinions to yours over the past year - but never yet from a player who beat me or even came close. Read into that what you will.

well I've played everything up until 8th. I

 

. Honestly I'm not sure that corporate homogeneity is a model that will benefit them long-term. The more you simplify for the masses the worse the system and story will get. Masses don't equal longevity. Once the pop culture boom stifles, you've alienated your player bass. By continuing to make easy to play games. When the IP is no longer popular. You lose whatever player Base you still had. Homogensation isn't a great thing to celebrate. More people doesn't make things better. It's like pop music. The literally the worst possible combination of music on the planet. But very basic people enjoy it. But once that song becomes unpopular they move onto the next popular thing. I don't want 40k to be a fidget spinner for basic people. Normal everyday people don't like complexity. They like Adam Sandler movies or axe throwing because that's what everyone else is doing. Because it's so chea' ... And they can tell their Bea. About it.. or boo... Or whatever popular half words are being used today so adults sound like children.

 

 

It is hard to discuss where the tactical elements of the game are with someone who has never played it. Having played 8th many times I do not believe your caricature of an oversimplified lowest-common-denominator game is accurate so we would be starting the discussion from a false premise.

 

I have heard some players express similar opinions to yours over the past year - but never yet from a player who beat me or even came close. Read into that what you will.

I would say that's probably subjective. There's alot of people that feel it's over simplified. I've never played 8th. To be fair. I've played every other edition of the game and other war games. As a long time wargamer. 8th from whatever I've watched seems less tactical. Others have described 40k as such. I would also argue it's not hard to win a match of 40k with the right build and basic understanding of strategic planning. Secondly what do you yourself miss about older editions? What I liked about 8th from what I've seen is only newer models coming out. And attempts to curb spamming. What I dislike most about 8th is the cover, armor facings and no templates. Which I always loved about the game.

[Warhead01]

 

 

 

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

 

I would argue that this is better. Granted not better for ever unit in every faction but for that SoB unit it sounds amazing. several strong pistol shots in a completely different phase than combat. (And the mention of shooting twice to boot.) They may well wipe out what ever it was that they were in combat with before the charge phase meaning they can charge all over again. VS. +1 attack for ST3 Models.  no contests. lol

 

Better is not the same as strategic. You're right, it probably is better for Seraphim, but it's not better for those Honour Guard or Orks (for example) who have better accuracy/strength/AP on their melee attacks than on their pistols.

 

 

 

I can't see how it would be important at all for Orks though. Well, there is one way it would help but over all it would be pointless. (+1 attack.) 

The only benefit I see for Orks is allowing more attacks from units under 20 Strong or those with out the Green Tide rule. (Or single model units.) 

But it's just a tool in the tool box not  a strategy to have an extra attack.  What good is an extra attack you never get to use?  

I understand what your saying about the pistol shots not being that good for every army but ever army isn't the same so does that matter?

 

The only thing every army has mostly equally are the core rules of the game. (Mostly because T'AU have no psykers.) 

 

I am not playing Space Marines currently so I can't speak very much to them. 

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

 

It is hard to discuss where the tactical elements of the game are with someone who has never played it. Having played 8th many times I do not believe your caricature of an oversimplified lowest-common-denominator game is accurate so we would be starting the discussion from a false premise.

 

I have heard some players express similar opinions to yours over the past year - but never yet from a player who beat me or even came close. Read into that what you will.

I would say that's probably subjective. There's alot of people that feel it's over simplified. I've never played 8th. To be fair. I've played every other edition of the game and other war games. As a long time wargamer. 8th from whatever I've watched seems less tactical. Others have described 40k as such. I would also argue it's not hard to win a match of 40k with the right build and basic understanding of strategic planning. Secondly what do you yourself miss about older editions? What I liked about 8th from what I've seen is only newer models coming out. And attempts to curb spamming. What I dislike most about 8th is the cover, armor facings and no templates. Which I always loved about the game.

 

 

I really think that 3rd thru 7th were far more similar to each other than any of them is to 8th. It has changed significantly.

 

We should not fall into the trap of confusing complexity with tactical challenge. The rules of chess are simple by the standards of any tabletop game. The rules of 8th are less complex than previous versions but I do not honestly believe that the game has less tactical challenge. Where advantages are to be gained by understanding the tactics has changed and I do believe that players unfamiliar with 8th are tending to look in the wrong places and therefore not seeing it.

 

My throwaway point there was that I also meet and play some players who see 8th as simplistic but that the ease with which they get beaten  reveals that it is a lack of their understanding rather than a genuine lack of tactics in the game. Mostly they learn fast! Obviously that is from the limited sample set of players I have met but so far it has held true for me - regardless of bringing a beat-stick list players who believe that 8th lacks tactics get a bit of a thrashing.

 

At this point I think I have said all that I can say. The way to understand the tactics and strategies of 8th is to play against decent players who have begun to understand those things. It will not always be an easy learning process as you will now be 12 months behind the curve and therefore will take some serious beatings coming from your current position of not believing that the tactics and strategies even exist. Even so I heartily believe that the only way to learn these is through doing rather than talking; actions speak louder than words.

[Slan Drakkos]

 

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.

 

Are these 'strategic'? It seems that, because pistols are only used in your shooting phase, the 'you can use them in combat rule' comes up shockingly rarely, as you have to go through 2 full rounds of combat before your first opportunity to blast the enemy in the face. The +1 attack for pistol and stick of previous editions was far more useful, and a better reason to take pistols. That said, one side effect of this is it makes a lot more sense now for characters to carry bolters or other long arms, which is something I do like regarding loadout design in 8th (though Guard Sergeants still being unable to take a lasgun is its own ongoing travesty).

 

The 'bow out of combat' rule isn't 'strategic' imo, it's more of a direct buff to shooting armies. Go through the rigmarole of getting your expensive melee unit up in the enemy's face, survive the overwatch and finally connect. Then if you don't wipe them in 1 turn they just automatically bow out of combat and your left in the open with :cuss all recourse as the enemy blasts you off the board. The idea of the rule isn't bad, 'we don't want to fight a combat we won't win, run away' makes perfect sense, but there should be some opposed test to make or more deadly consequence than 'can't shoot that turn', because why would the attacker just stand there while the enemy retreats?

it is strategic. If you know that your unit is tough enough or big enough, they can unload on those that aren't pepped for CC with pistols when the time comes. It's also significantly more realistic. I've never once played a game and been like "yeah, it makes sense that carrying a pistol lets you attack one exra time with a sword". Pistols have pretty much always been used (at least in the context of this situation) for shooting someone once you have enough room to maneuver. If you really want the +1 to attacks, then just take a chainsword. Hell, take two for +2 to attacks. It makes sense that the guy armed with actual close combat weapons would get the extra attacks; what doesn't make sense is how carrying a pistol would let you throw out another swipe with your sword. That's just immersion breaking.

 

..... tactical retreats are not only strategic; they're also incredibly fluffy. There are plenty of examples in the books where one side is on the verge of losing in CQ and they fall back and fire on the enemy. I can certainly agree with the second part of what you said though. I used to play a game called Star Wars: Miniature Battles with my friends and one of the options that you had was to break off combat and move away, but if you did, any adjacent enemies would get to make a free attack. I could absolutely see something like that happening for 8th.

[Vykes]

 

Honestly I'm not sure that corporate homogeneity is a model that will benefit them long-term. The more you simplify for the masses the worse the system and story will get. Masses don't equal longevity. Once the pop culture boom stifles, you've alienated your player bass. By continuing to make easy to play games. When the IP is no longer popular. You lose whatever player Base you still had. Homogensation isn't a great thing to celebrate. More people doesn't make things better. It's like pop music. The literally the worst possible combination of music on the planet. But very basic people enjoy it. But once that song becomes unpopular they move onto the next popular thing. I don't want 40k to be a fidget spinner for basic people. Normal everyday people don't like complexity. They like Adam Sandler movies or axe throwing because that's what everyone else is doing. Because it's so chea' ... And they can tell their Bea. About it.. or boo... Or whatever popular half words are being used today so adults sound like children.

 

 

-massages temples- Dude... just.... C'mon, really?  I'd be willing to wager none of us are the next Napoleon, we're not gatekeeping some horde of marauding anti-cerebral savages, preparing the last line of defense for gaming Valhalla, here.  I'd be willing to bet if you put us all in a lineup, most of us would qualify as 'basic people'.  And if you looked at our internet search history, we're still gonna look like 'basic people'. Right now a lot of this sounds like, "I know how to drive a car, a truck, and I've sat in a minivan before, so I totally know how a motorcycle works and it's got literally half the number of wheels which makes it statistically half as good."  

 

I used to be the 20 year old gaming store 'that guy' with the BMI and snark to accompany it.  Now I'm not, and it's kinda a shock at all the noise that I thought was fundamentally important that just totally wasn't.  Lighten up, mate, go play a patrol game with some buds, have some drinks, and laugh when Khârn butchers a half dozen of your own guys and promptly falls over when the tank next to him goes up in flames.  It's the same old game... but it's still just a game.  40K and wargaming isn't 'Post Apoc-strat Prep 300': when the end comes in fire, flames, and robot overlords, there's still gonna be guys who are gonna kill us and take our food.

 

Was being able to muscle memory in a 2" cohesion gap in a unit of 10 troopers to avoid the totally random template scatter so crucial? 

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

 

 

The 'bow out of combat' rule isn't 'strategic' imo, it's more of a direct buff to shooting armies. Go through the rigmarole of getting your expensive melee unit up in the enemy's face, survive the overwatch and finally connect. Then if you don't wipe them in 1 turn they just automatically bow out of combat and your left in the open with all recourse as the enemy blasts you off the board. The idea of the rule isn't bad, 'we don't want to fight a combat we won't win, run away' makes perfect sense, but there should be some opposed test to make or more deadly consequence than 'can't shoot that turn', because why would the attacker just stand there while the enemy retreats?

 

 

 

Between skilled players the 'bow out of combat' becomes an entire game within a game with clever positioning, casualty removal etc all combining to contest whether the unit can fall back or is held hostage. Sure if all you do is a 7th edition style 'pile all my models in maximise the number of swings' then it can seem very depressing and negative for the assault army player but that is applying 7th edition tactics to an 8th edition game.

 

There are a number of articles of varying quality out there describing the whole dark art of 3-pointing models to take them hostage, how to position against that happening and how to counter such defensive positioning. That all looks like tactics and counter-tactics to me.

[Khornestar]

Agreed. Snobbery and elitism aren’t good for the hobby, either. We’re all just a bunch of meat bags trudging along. If any our lives were scrutinized, I’m sure there would be things to criticize or belittle. Restricting one’s enjoyment of something based on how popular it is sounds like an unfortunate way to live life.

[Lysere]

I'm hoping this has already been said but it bears repeating. Complex rules do not make a game deep or strategic. Simpler rules are almost always better because the important part is a player being able to look at the rules and figure out strategies and tactics on their own. Fighting games are a good comparison.

 

That's not to say 8th is perfect but some tweaks to cover and emphasizing less bonuses for taking allies and I'd say it would be in a pretty solid spot overall. It's already a heck of a lot more fun than 7th which was basically just broken combo vs broken combo by the end.

[bryanp319]

As someone who was very hesitant to embrace a new edition of the game i will say that playing 8th edition is a surprisingly enjoyable experience. Adding a resource management aspect like command points has been an interesting addition to the game and for the most part, the things that were eliminated from the game were unnecessary complications such as the completely separate set of rules that governed vehicles. I will say that tactics and strategy are different then they were in 7th and earlier editions but I do not believe that they have decreased in importance. That being said there are some things that could be improved further in the game.

 

That being the rules for terrain being essentially non existent. Difficult terrain and cover should be larger factors then they are in both the movement and the shooting phase.

 

The other major change that would improve the game that was halfway implemented would be to move away from the I go you go play. This was done in the combat phase but should have been done in the shooting phase as well and perhaps for movement. 

 

Overall though i will say it is the best edition of the game thus far and my enthusiasm for playing games of 40k has never been higher.

[taikishi]

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.

 

Stop throwing this word "power gamers" around. It's ad hominem for one, and for another you clearly DO NOT understand the phrasing, especially after I very clearly displayed the difference between playing within the rules of the game (Cullexis Assassins screening other characters) to create LEGAL advantages and someone who goes out of their way to actually try to break the rules of the game to create advantages they wouldn't and shouldn't otherwise have.

 

That being said, I absolutely agree on the terrain rules and actually lament that I can't use Celestine + her Geminae to screen another character since it is a unit of three models.

[Redtoof]

I’m not sure that 8th is simplified in any significant way than previous versions. Streamlined yes, a lot of slightly arguable rules like templates and armour facings have been removed, as have a lot of the restrictions on who can shoot or charge what, but this results in a lot more options. Add in command points and all the aura effects and suddenly you have many, many more tactical decisions to make than you ever did in earlier editions.

 

I think when people talk about tactics being removed from the game they are often talking about specific rules that we all knew how to use our forces to get around. E.g. templates meant everyone always spaced their units out as much as possible. The game doesn’t really lose anything because that ‘tactic’ that everyone used without even thinking is no longer required. It reminds me of when guess range weapons were removed. People were upset because the ‘tactic’ of being good at estimating distances was no longer required. The game was not dumbed down, it just changed.

 

Edit: I guess my response to the original question is yes, 8th is tactical and strategic, at least more so than 7th. It’s just that the tactical decisions revolve more around target priorities and use of resources than the facing and position of individual models. I find there are more tough choices to make in this edition and fewer situations where there is only one viable option.

[Noserenda]

Id suggest actually playing it, a lot of people have your misconceptions but they tend to fade after youve played it a few times and seen how it all actually fits together, especially the assault phase. The Rules are free if you pick up (Or download?)  the primer so give it a crack.

Personally having played it a fair bit the only things id want to add is more meaningful scenery rules which they could add in a Generals compendium or similar and a bonus for shooting vehicles in the back ala Bolt action, like +1 to wound from behind, simples!

Oh and for purposes of FAQs mostly adding special rule keywords, so all the various Deep strikes or outflanks or whatever have that as a keyword you can FAQ them all at once. EG No DEEP STRIKES in turn 1. 

Also, myself as ive gotten older im much MUCH more in love with simple elegant mechanics rather than horrific bloat and exceptions like the last few editions of 40k and ive played them all.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't really feel that the steps 8th took to streamline the game really took out that much tactical and strategic depth.

 

Templates pretty much always caused disagreements, and I think that they should have rebalanced the weapons better but it was never really worth the hassle (more so because people learned to space their models).

 

I don't believe that vehicle facing really added in that much for shooting with free pivots. I can understand that moving to fire at the side or rear armor was more important. But the best anti-tank really didn't care much, and the random damage tables of 3-5 could keep a vehicle alive forever (which was silly). So I don't see the switch to toughness and degrading stats as something that took depth away, it may have created more because you have to have a plan for some of the bigger vehicles instead of hoping for one good melta shot.

 

[m0nolith]

There really are two main arguments here.

 

1: 8th does not have the tactical and strategic depth depth

2: 8th does have a good amount of tactical and strategic depth.

 

In reality, both are true, but that is dependent on who you're talking to.

There is an internal unarticulated metric of "depth to a gaming system" that every gamer has, but what level it should be at and how much is required for it to be fun is different for every person, and this I think is the key point which makes this edition so divisive.

[Noserenda]

Well that and the internet... Ill bet we would have had exactly this when 3rd ed launched if we had had a decent internet :D Ofc Forge world is keeping 7th on life support which is probably only making things worse too.

[m0nolith]

Well that and the internet... Ill bet we would have had exactly this when 3rd ed launched if we had had a decent internet Ofc Forge world is keeping 7th on life support which is probably only making things worse too.

But its not exactly life support. Take a look at the Google Trends when it comes to the Horus Heresy, which is our best indicator of sales numbers and popularity if you don't want to believe FW themselves.

The community is thriving again and I think a good portion of that is because so many people are unhappy with 8th.

If 8th is your thing, then by all means I want you to have fun, but please don't dismiss people having fair grievances against 8th simply as them not having playing it.

I was around when 3rd ed hit, and 3rd ed release this is not, this is much more divisive.

 

I say all that with the caveat that 8th ed 40k is much better than 7th ed 40k, but I just take an issue equating FWs Heresy 7th (AoD 1st ed now) as being the same thing as 40k's 7th ed.

It was the codexes and the terrible formations that made 7th ed be a garbage edition for 40k at the end of its lifespan, not the edition itself, which imo, was pretty great.

[BluejayJunior]

I started playing in 8th edition, so I can't compare it to other editions of the game. But it is still a tactical and strategic game.

I don't think it can be said enough that complex rules do not equal a more strategic game. 

I really think you need to at least try playing a couple of games. It's only fair before you make up your mind about it. You may not like it and decide to sit out the edition or continue playing an older edition, and that's fine. But you seem to have pretty strong opinions about it that aren't based on any personal experiences playing it. There is no downside to playing a couple games. Either it changes your mind about the game or it doesn't. 

[Noserenda]

 

Well that and the internet... Ill bet we would have had exactly this when 3rd ed launched if we had had a decent internet Ofc Forge world is keeping 7th on life support which is probably only making things worse too.

But its not exactly life support. Take a look at the Google Trends when it comes to the Horus Heresy, which is our best indicator of sales numbers and popularity if you don't want to believe FW themselves.

The community is thriving again and I think a good portion of that is because so many people are unhappy with 8th.

If 8th is your thing, then by all means I want you to have fun, but please don't dismiss people having fair grievances against 8th simply as them not having playing it.

I was around when 3rd ed hit, and 3rd ed release this is not, this is much more divisive.

 

I say all that with the caveat that 8th ed 40k is much better than 7th ed 40k, but I just take an issue equating FWs Heresy 7th (AoD 1st ed now) as being the same thing as 40k's 7th ed.

It was the codexes and the terrible formations that made 7th ed be a garbage edition for 40k at the end of its lifespan, not the edition itself, which imo, was pretty great.

 

You appear to have completely missed my point so ill try res-stating it. 7th-8th is a similar overhaul to 2nd-3rd and there was plenty of grumbling about it at the time i recall, with people saying it was dumbed down etc but because you had no internet to form those communities people either put up or shut up effectively because the most time you had to talk to folks about 40k was when they were playing 40k with you :D 

 

The Heresy community or not is irrelevant to this discussion, they are still supporting 7th ed 40k which means there is a supported option there to play it, (some things only have 7th ed rules in fact frustratingly) which is prolonging the whole thing a lot more than previous editions, i mean ive been there, i initially hated 5th(or 6th?) but eventually switched over because i still wanted to play games. So thats my point, nothing to do with the heresy itself.

 

And yeah the AoD version is still 7th, a minor minor tweak does not a new system make, the rot is still there.

[Panzer]

There really are two main arguments here.

 

1: 8th does not have the tactical and strategic depth depth

2: 8th does have a good amount of tactical and strategic depth.

 

 

Those aren't arguments. Those are assertions/opinions. And thus without any arguments rather useless. ^^

[Schlitzaf]

So answer question bluntly; yes.

 

Armor Facings, and the plethora of other rules you mentioned (but Espacially armor facings) are also not strategic they are TACTICAL elements. Strategic Elements are better understood as the pre-battle procedure or better put.

 

ListBuilding

Terrain

Mission

 

Now perhaps strategically list building is less skewed as anything wound anything, means you don’t have to include obligatory anti-tank so you don’t die because someone has AV12-14 Vehicle. But by extension, ListBuilding is now several degrees more strategic.

 

1) Speciality v Line Detachments. The idea of using the various speciality (heavy/elite/etc) vs Battlelion/Brigade. First enables armies like Deathwing without forcing Belial. Two it provides a question; super elite hard hitting tactical ability or strategic battlefield manipulation. Meaning taking a speciality vs a line detachment is the first list building level question

2) Relics, Relics are free but cost CP or a Warlord trait. Meaning you are surrendering a ability to change a strategic scenerio for improved tactical ability. That whole idea extends to command points and strategems in general. This means you create a strategic level game design.

3) To evolve point 1, because you aren’t forced into rebuilt formations ala 7th, you have greater strategic list building as you now have choices not enforced ones.

 

Tactical Decisions

1) Claiming Objectives occur in Approved at End of Player Turn. That means you want to use tactical ability over holding strategic resources back to claim early objectives.

2) Character Placements and how you use auras, abilities and more. Using null zone to murder warlocks means your not having your librarian casting might (or maybe you are and giving up smite) on Gulliman.

3) Using strategems you use a limited strategic resource to leverage tactical advantage. Death in Duty End for Space Marine Characters a basic example of something used by multiple players with various characters.

4) Unit activation during Combat. The interruption and who goes first dictates combat flow and all the more is vital tactical ability.

 

That just is the basics demonstration but to answer the question in OP yes.

[Panzer]

Armor facings weren't particularly tactical either to be fair.

It just made people never actually move their tanks because it was way too punishing to enable your  opponent to shoot at the sides or even worse the back. So it resulted in a rather static tank gunline (something that still exists but you aren't forced to anymore since you can move them forward just as fine as Prot does with his Deathguard).

Imo one of the best things about 8th edition is that they got rid of armour facings and changing vehicles to the tougness+wounds system every other unit uses (since it was basically that but more punishing anyway).

 

Another thing where 8th is more tactical than 7th is reserves.  Before it was a huge gamble so that nobody really used deep strike unless they had access to Drop Pods which cheesed all the bad parts about deep strike. Not just that you had no say about when they come, you also had no say about where they come for the most part. Now you can decide when they come and place them exactly where you want/need ... unless your opponent denies that space with his own units, especially infiltrators.

Voila, decisions and counter-play instead of needless gambling.

[chapter master 454]

There really are two main arguments here.

 

1: 8th does not have the tactical and strategic depth depth

2: 8th does have a good amount of tactical and strategic depth.

 

In reality, both are true, but that is dependent on who you're talking to.

There is an internal unarticulated metric of "depth to a gaming system" that every gamer has, but what level it should be at and how much is required for it to be fun is different for every person, and this I think is the key point which makes this edition so divisive.

 

So...I didn't know fences had cushions with how you are sitting on it!

I am not taking a shot at you or anything but in this discussion you literally managed to make a post that just points the obvious and adds little to it. I am not taking shots but it just gave me a giggle with how neutral your post was! (you are practically sitting on it!)

 

Anyone, my humour aside. Lets get nitty, gritty and some grim darky.

 

So I want to address some things and in terms of game balance and add some notes on those in relation to what I believe GWs mission statement was on 8th.

First, that statement was "Remove needless bloat and simplify the game while retaining the core game experience".

 

I think we can agree to that end, that statement was extremely successful.

Games feel more fluid, the rules are easily explained across a simple fold-out that you can put in any bag and is far less intimidating to look at. The Rulebook now is actually more fluff than rules which personally I really like (there is of course missions and the like).

Wounding and hit rolls are now far simpler and in a good way as prior it was an elbow through the rear way of doing it. It would be nice to have some form of interaction between stats like WS skill however it just adds un-needed bloat and complexity that isn't really needed along with just adding layers that can confuse a player learning the game. Those sort of systems work best in skirmish style games, not battles that 40k attempts.

 

One complaint I hear come up regularly is the tanks. "No more armour facing reduces tactical thinking" is the argument but sadly it doesn't provide why and how it benefited the game. Answer: it really didn't. How many times did you tactically move in a way to get that side armour or even rear armour shot on a tank? unless you were eldar, you never really did and even then going from the front was often just as effective considering how weak tanks were prior. It just felt bad and really was a system that was half done because tanks could perform fast and furious moves to get whatever facing they wanted where they wanted including their access points. Rhinos going full 12" into the enemy then suddenly popping a sick 180" handbrake turn so the back ramp was as close as possible to the enemy or predators literally moving sideways as to get some cover.

If you want armour facing back we would have to add many more mechanics to the game for tanks (and in extension Monstrous Creatures) just to make that mechanic feel good to use and something that adds tactical depth such as: Tanks spending movement to turn, Damage to treads that make it so the tank has a harder time turn or even moving, decent sponson rules along with turrets. So many MANY mechanics just for this one unit sub-type would make the game become bogged down on those rules and it would feel uneven as well.

 Why does this unit have so many rules yet infantry only have a couple? It just makes the game feel like it was attempting to implement a tank warfare TTG into a game about all warfare.

 

If you prefer the older editions, then I personally want to ask you to do something for me. Just lets do some back and forth. Go play some games of prior editions and make a list of things that you preferred and that edition you felt did better. Lets get a list of those and compare and see if possibly there is common ground.

 

However it could just be a classic case. Some people still say morrowind from the elder scroll series is the best...ether though skyrim and oblivion improved many elements beyond what morrowind did -dives for his bunker as a horde of about 15 people come charging like cadians screaming about their planet!-