So I went back to 7th edition.

[TheUbikator]

So recently, I've been thinking more and more about 7th edition - and after a local master tournament, and ork codex previews - I said: "screw it, I wanna see if it's just my nostalgia or really 7th ed is better". So I've called my friend who started collecting wh40k just before 8th come out (1. The guy is a blast to play with and a good friend of mine, 2. I wanted some fresh perspective), and booked a table on our weekly beerhammer event.

 

He brought his necrons and I've brought my Deathwatch strike force with Guard Mech Platoon in tow.

 

I must say, it was really enjoyable.

 

We were playing 2000 pts game, that lasted for 5 turns (maelstrom of war cards), with 3 homebrew rules. 1. everything has split fire, 2. you don't have to shoot the same thing you want to charge, 3. you can charge after firing weapons other than pistols nad assault, but you are penalized with disordered charge if you do. The game ended in a draw. Some stray observations:

 

1. Deployment went much smoother. The fact that I didn't have to constantly measure 17,5" between my units, slowly deploy my screening units, and building some "castle" around a unit giving a certain aura, was a good start. 

 

2. The first turn wasn't deciding. While we both had the decent ranged firepower, no one was able to blast opposing player thanks to some clever positioning, cover saves, and the way armour penetration works. Also the fact that everything has a smaller rate of fire helped.

 

3. I had to think much more in a movement phase. Lately, in my games of 8th edition, I've been skipping movement phase about 80% of the time (because most of the armies either deep strike or cross no man's land in T1 or are gunline where you just pray that your opponent rolls below the average), during that game I had to think much more where I want to move and how I want to move. Grabbing cover, moving at combat speed or cruising made me think more about my moves.

 

4. While many (about 9 out of 10 in my experience) 8th ed games are basically over by turn 3, (because in most cases one player has been crippled by the other one), here we had surprisingly a lot of stuff at the beginning of our T4. Mainly because in 7th (even with AP2/3 flying around), power armour does work (his warriors would've wiped the floor with my kill team in a single turn this edition), and if it doesn't you can still use cover. Almost all the time I or my opponent had some kind of save (that wasn't 6+), the game was much more dynamic and fun.

 

5. Ironically phases took much less of a time. Even with damn templates and blasts shooting phase still took less of a time. Who would've thought that when you don't have to roll 50 dice (or 120 for orks) for each squad game goes much quicker? 

 

6. Close combat was less one-sided. With the way WS and initiative work in 7th, the combat was less decisive. And I think it is a good thing, with the way charges work in 8th, when you are charged with dedicated melee unit you can just remove your models without even rolling, here it was pleasant that my guys had even a chance to fight (they didn't kill much but it was nice either way). And because you can't hit better than on 3+, the fights weren't as predictable. It forced us to adapt.

 

7. The game ended in a draw. I played 150+ games of warhammer 8th edition, and I can't remember a game that ended in a draw. 

 

8. My friend liked playing 7th more than I've thought he would have. We are already planning on playing some more.

 

 

Can you bring awful cheesy list in 7th? Yes, you can. But you can do that in 8th too. (Tzangor bomb comes to mind for example) And after today's game, I'm done with 8th. This game was more enjoyable and engaging than any other previous game in six months. 

 

I'll need to play some more, but as of now - I think 7th is vastly superior than what has 8th become now. Fight me. 

[BitsHammer]

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations. :P

[TheUbikator]

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

[BitsHammer]

 

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

 

You say that like it justifies the state of the game during 7th (it doesn't).

 

Much like how 8th has certain faults (which are seeing more effort being put into them to be fixed) 7th had problems. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make it superior, it just means you're slapping a crude patch on a leaking boat and calling it good.

[TheUbikator]

 

 

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

 

You say that like it justifies the state of the game during 7th (it doesn't).

 

Much like how 8th has certain faults (which are seeing more effort being put into them to be fixed) 7th had problems. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make it superior, it just means you're slapping a crude patch on a leaking boat and calling it good.

 

There is a big difference when the game forces you to use certain broken combos (Blood angels playing almost exclusively with death company and slamguinius, Orks using DA JUMP because if they don't they'll be shot from the table, Everything with knights really and don't even start with CE or Ynnari). You can play Necrons in 7th without Decurion detachment, you can play SM without free transport Detachment - but you can't play Deathwatch in 8th without vets with storm bolter in deep strike, you can't play half of imperium armies without guard or Ad Mech - and that includes friendly gaming because of the disparity of power between codices is so large that fluffy guard list wipes the floor with fluffy BA or Tau list. Go ahead an try to find a guy who plays Knights and doesn't use Ion Bulwark or Rotate Ion shields every turn.

 

You can easily say "CADs only" and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that - furthermore I think that fixes a lot of problems with 7th edition. Try to find an easy fix for 8th edition... Wait, there isn't one. Because when you look at the number of changes GW made in Big Faqs and in CA, I don't think designers have even a clue what to do next. "You can deep strike whenever you want!" "No, now you can't do that! Except for these armies, and with those strategems." "Oh, now you can't deep strike T1 period. What, we left a couple of loopholes? Well, I don't know!" You were saying something about "(...)it just means you're slapping a crude patch on a leaking boat and calling it good." ?

[BitsHammer]

 

 

 

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

 

You say that like it justifies the state of the game during 7th (it doesn't).

 

Much like how 8th has certain faults (which are seeing more effort being put into them to be fixed) 7th had problems. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make it superior, it just means you're slapping a crude patch on a leaking boat and calling it good.

 

There is a big difference when the game forces you to use certain broken combos (Blood angels playing almost exclusively with death company and slamguinius, Orks using DA JUMP because if they don't they'll be shot from the table, Everything with knights really and don't even start with CE or Ynnari). You can play Necrons in 7th without Decurion detachment, you can play SM without free transport Detachment - but you can't play Deathwatch without vets with storm bolter in deep strike, you can't play half of imperium armies without guard or Ad Mech - and that includes friendly gaming because of the disparity of power between codices is so large that fluffy guard list wipes the floor fluffy BA or Tau list. Go ahead an try to find a guy who plays Knights and doesn't use Ion Bulwark or Rotate Ion shields every turn.

 

You decry "certain broken combos" while touting an edition built on broken combos and deathstars. Just because you didn't play with them doesn't make the edition any better.

[kombatwombat]

Did either of you fire a weapon with a large blast? Did their opponent quiver with fear? Was it glorious?

 

Man I miss templates!

[TheUbikator]

 

 

 

 

Every edition has its pros and cons. We'll see you back in 8th once you guys start taking formations.

We used formations! (but not the broken ones)

 

You say that like it justifies the state of the game during 7th (it doesn't).

 

Much like how 8th has certain faults (which are seeing more effort being put into them to be fixed) 7th had problems. Pretending they aren't there doesn't make it superior, it just means you're slapping a crude patch on a leaking boat and calling it good.

 

There is a big difference when the game forces you to use certain broken combos (Blood angels playing almost exclusively with death company and slamguinius, Orks using DA JUMP because if they don't they'll be shot from the table, Everything with knights really and don't even start with CE or Ynnari). You can play Necrons in 7th without Decurion detachment, you can play SM without free transport Detachment - but you can't play Deathwatch without vets with storm bolter in deep strike, you can't play half of imperium armies without guard or Ad Mech - and that includes friendly gaming because of the disparity of power between codices is so large that fluffy guard list wipes the floor fluffy BA or Tau list. Go ahead an try to find a guy who plays Knights and doesn't use Ion Bulwark or Rotate Ion shields every turn.

 

You decry "certain broken combos" while touting an edition built on broken combos and deathstars. Just because you didn't play with them doesn't make the edition any better.

 

And 8th isn't built upon broken combos and deathstars right now? Because it sure seems so. The thing is it is just easier to ignore bad stuff in 7th, while in eight some armies can't play without relying on broken builds.

 

 

Did either of you fire a weapon with a large blast? Did their opponent quiver with fear? Was it glorious?

 

Man I miss templates!

 

I dropped a bomb with large template! I threw frag grenades! He fired his doomsday Ark! It scattered! It was! 

[BitsHammer]

8th doesn't have deathstars (those require things in singular units to build a combo), instead it's the age of "bubblehammer" since every list I see played in competive play is built around tiny aura bubbles and CP production and eskews digging deeper for unit synergies and combos.

 

Look, I won't claim 8th is perfect, but it's still vastly better than 7th and pretending otherwise is just putting lipstick on a pig and claiming it's a runway model.

[toaae]

To each their own. I stopped playing in 7th because of how unfun it was and I've loved 8th so far. But, that's just, like, my opinion, man. Play 7th if you want.

[TheUbikator]

8th doesn't have deathstars (those require things in singular units to build a combo), instead it's the age of "bubblehammer" since every list I see played in competive play is built around tiny aura bubbles and CP production and eskews digging deeper for unit synergies and combos.

 

Look, I won't claim 8th is perfect, but it's still vastly better than 7th and pretending otherwise is just putting lipstick on a pig and claiming it's a runway model.

Well, we agree to disagree because I would say the same thing about the eight. Like, everyone bought into GW narration that 8th is the best edition there is and for a moment I would've agreed on that, but now it's just not true. I know people who are saying that 8th is the best, and the next day I hear them saying that they are taking a break from 40k. And I know where you coming from because at the end of 7th I thought "oh yes new edition enough with this broken crap", but now... I'll take broken 7th over broken 8th.

 

And before this game I was scared that my friend wouldn't enjoy this game, that he would be confused with 7th rules but he wasn't. And what's more, he understood rules more quickly than people playing 8th for the first time (I played some intro games with people who were new to 40k or 8th, and almost every time heard some variant of "wait that rule doesn't make any sense!" or "that's just silly"). And I'll play some more but, I really think 7th is just a better experience. 

[BitsHammer]

I feel like there is a strawman there with claims that people would say things in 8th didn't make any sense while 7th totally did. Because I know we've had threads dedicated to pointing out all the things in 7th that didn't make sense (can't hit Invisible units with flamers for example). 

 

At the end of the day, if you like 7th, good for you. I just disagree with claims that it's better than 8th when those claims only work after you use the clause "ignoring all the flaws and broken parts of the game that were never patched". Say what you want about 7th, but at least we're seeing some level of support from GW to fix that broken stuff.

[TheUbikator]

I feel like there is a strawman there with claims that people would say things in 8th didn't make any sense while 7th totally did. Because I know we've had threads dedicated to pointing out all the things in 7th that didn't make sense (can't hit Invisible units with flamers for example). 

 

At the end of the day, if you like 7th, good for you. I just disagree with claims that it's better than 8th when those claims only work after you use the clause "ignoring all the flaws and broken parts of the game that were never patched". Say what you want about 7th, but at least we're seeing some level of support from GW to fix that broken stuff.

 

Just to mention the few:

 

1. Flamers auto hitting flyers.

2. Vehicles shooting from the left track because weapons facing doesn't mean anything anymore.

3. Infantry disembarking before the move.

4. How the flayers work in general.

5. To hit modifiers (plasma, 7+ to hit re-rolls etc).

 

And that is just the basic stuff. Look what is happening with the fly keyword, it's hard to keep track with this thing.

 

Look, I don't claim that 7th wasn't broken it was - but only if you tried to actively break the game. You didn't need to find a broken combo just to have a fighting chance. For example, I had a couple of games against this great CE player. But after a couple of games against him, I realised that I didn't stand a chance against his FRIENDLY list unless I brought some weapons-grade cheddar. And I'm saying that as a guard player. Think about marines.

 

In 7th I've seen Ork players win local tournaments (with flyrants flying circus, with grav - centurions with invisibility etc), in eight? Its usual suspect Nurgle demons, Ynnari, IK imperial soup.

[kombatwombat]

At the end of the day, if you like 7th, good for you. I just disagree with claims that it's better than 8th when those claims only work after you use the clause "ignoring all the flaws and broken parts of the game that were never patched". Say what you want about 7th, but at least we're seeing some level of support from GW to fix that broken stuff.

Both editions have their flaws, and which edition’s flaws are worse is obviously subjective. But I think the real difference between them is that 7th’s problems are easier to fix and much easier to get your opponent onboard with. What muddies the waters is GW’s refusal to try and fix 7th but routine attempts to fix 8th. So what’s better? An edition whose problems are easier to fix but were never officially addressed, or an edition whose problems are impractical to fix but receives a lot of official attempts?

 

I say that 7th is easier to fix and easier to get your opponent to agree to because just saying ‘CAD only’ fixes the lion’s share of 7th’s problems and is something most players would welcome with open arms. Adding a few things like the OP’s ‘split fire for all’ are also relatively easy to agree on. Fixing 8th’s problems requires much closer attention. If you start saying to your opponent ‘no Primarchs, no Mortal Wound Spam, no CP farming, no Soup unless it’s this one but not that one, no this, that or the other’ you’re effectively dictating your opponent’s army to them. It’s going to be much harder to get them to endorse the idea than something as clean as ‘CAD only’.

[Laughingman]

I always assumed the Death of Templates was largely the result of the time sink the small blast templates became in mass (Quad Mortars come to mind). I still believe that Flamer hits should have been modifiable based on target unit size "for every ten models in a targeted unit add 1 to the D6 auto-hits roll" So hitting an 30 strong squad results in 3+D6 Auto-Hits but against a ten man squad only results in 1+D6 auto-hits...

[Azekai]

I always assumed the Death of Templates was largely the result of the time sink the small blast templates became in mass (Quad Mortars come to mind). I still believe that Flamer hits should have been modifiable based on target unit size "for every ten models in a targeted unit add 1 to the D6 auto-hits roll" So hitting an 30 strong squad results in 3+D6 Auto-Hits but against a ten man squad only results in 1+D6 auto-hits...

I think you are right about removing blasts due to how long they take to adjudicate. I miss big blasts to some degree, but another feature of blast templates is it rewarded at least somewhat carefully spacing your squads to lessen the impact of the bombshells and flamethrowers. Not a bad tactic, but if there are a lot of minis on the field and you are being careful about your spacing... yeah, that's a lot of time down the toilet. 

 

As for 7th, I largely quit playing during that and 6th. I thought the psychic powers were gimmicky and awful (I strongly suspect that the two flavors of daemonology only existed to sell more models).

[Tyriks]

 

At the end of the day, if you like 7th, good for you. I just disagree with claims that it's better than 8th when those claims only work after you use the clause "ignoring all the flaws and broken parts of the game that were never patched". Say what you want about 7th, but at least we're seeing some level of support from GW to fix that broken stuff.

Both editions have their flaws, and which edition’s flaws are worse is obviously subjective. But I think the real difference between them is that 7th’s problems are easier to fix and much easier to get your opponent onboard with. What muddies the waters is GW’s refusal to try and fix 7th but routine attempts to fix 8th. So what’s better? An edition whose problems are easier to fix but were never officially addressed, or an edition whose problems are impractical to fix but receives a lot of official attempts?

I say that 7th is easier to fix and easier to get your opponent to agree to because just saying ‘CAD only’ fixes the lion’s share of 7th’s problems and is something most players would welcome with open arms. Adding a few things like the OP’s ‘split fire for all’ are also relatively easy to agree on. Fixing 8th’s problems requires much closer attention. If you start saying to your opponent ‘no Primarchs, no Mortal Wound Spam, no CP farming, no Soup unless it’s this one but not that one, no this, that or the other’ you’re effectively dictating your opponent’s army to them. It’s going to be much harder to get them to endorse the idea than something as clean as ‘CAD only’.

Your examples of what is 'broken' is not actually broken - those are stylistic choices you don't like. The game is never one sided because of vehicle facings and flamers hitting flyers.

 

Also, you should check out actual tournament data - lists (as well as play styles) in tournaments are more varied now than they ever were in 7th.

 

Ultimately, you can throw around whatever subjective anecdotes you want - personally, my group was all but dead in 7th and has been growing and thriving in 8th. But those aren't convincing, because they're anecdotal. What is convincing is sales. Since 8th came out, 40k has been selling at a level it has never seen before. This is strong, objective evidence that 8th is a better received ruleset. If you don't like it, that's fine, you absolutely should play how you want. But the community at large has been better off since 8th dropped.

[Trevak Dal]

There are a few things in 8th I like. That everything can wound everything, no instant death, the AP system the simpler to wound chart, Khorne Berserkers having a proper and fitting statline and points cost, the assault after firing any weapons and everything can split fire too.

 

If 7th had those things, I could save a bunch of money by not messing with 8th.

[Laughingman]

At least for me, 8th edition was largely positive, a handful of things irritate me namely replacements for template/flamer mechanics, or my carcharodons force loosing its chapter tactics.... 

[Trevak Dal]

Which that particular chapter tactic should be available to all marines (taking a chainsword/bp, Bolter and chainsword or Bolter, bolt pistol and chainsword on tacs) I've long advocated for ALL marines (even Primaris, Custodates or scouts) to get +1 attack and wound with no point adjustment (which is why scouts/neophytes etc don't get it, so there isn't a "rich getting richer" situation on people who run scout 5 man units).

 

Many woes in 8th can be fixed by saying "single codex, single army" (so no playing Ultramarines and Salamanders, or T'au and Viorla) which is 8th for "cad only" and a general dismissal of the HQ formation/detachment and some fluff enforcement.

 

If Tau can't have multiple commanders per detachment, you can't have multiple captains, hive tyrants, daemon princes, chaos lords, jetbike captains, etc) and to get the full amount of cp for Batallion you have to have max squads.

 

Oh suddenly hordes are a little more balanced against marines with 10 man squads in so far as cp goes. Chaos might be a little :cussed though (max size 15-20).

[Panzer]

Sounds like you had an exceptional game which is great. However nobody is saying that 7th edition games couldn't be fun. If that were the case then many of us probably wouldn't be here now and the edition wouldn't have lasted for as long as it did.

Also there's the case of everyone having their favourite edition be it warhammer or some pen&paper. Can't really argue against that since it's all about personal taste. There are some things 8th does objectively better and some things it does objectively worse. For me 8th is a lot more fun to play than 7th was but that doesn't mean I didn't have fun back then. ^^

[kombatwombat]

Your examples of what is 'broken' is not actually broken - those are stylistic choices you don't like. The game is never one sided because of vehicle facings and flamers hitting flyers.

 

Also, you should check out actual tournament data - lists (as well as play styles) in tournaments are more varied now than they ever were in 7th.

 

Ultimately, you can throw around whatever subjective anecdotes you want - personally, my group was all but dead in 7th and has been growing and thriving in 8th. But those aren't convincing, because they're anecdotal. What is convincing is sales. Since 8th came out, 40k has been selling at a level it has never seen before. This is strong, objective evidence that 8th is a better received ruleset. If you don't like it, that's fine, you absolutely should play how you want. But the community at large has been better off since 8th dropped.

Did you mean to quote me or someone else? I never mentioned anything about flamers hitting flyers or vehicle facings; I agree that those are stylistic differences. The differences I mentioned were Primarchs, MWs, CP farming and Soup, all of which are balance differences rather than stylistic.

 

I think you’re taking hard data, making assumptions about the relationships therein and then claiming that your interpretation is correct because it’s based on data.

 

For example, there being more variability in Tournament results is true; but you’ve assumed that it’s because this edition is more balanced than 7th. An alternative interpretation of the same data - and I’d argue the more correct one - is that the incredible pace of new releases, FAQs and Chapter Approved creates an unstable environment where a fixed meta can’t settle. If you look at any single major tournament the field isn’t any more varied than during 7th, but if you look at two tournaments with FAQs and releases between them you do see more variation in lists than two years ago. That suggests the variability in tournament lists is more to do with GW’s new release/FAQ policy than 8th being more balanced.

 

Very similar is your point about sales. It’s a true fact that GW’s sales (or at least their revenue and profit) have taken a big upswing since Gathering Storm and through 8th Ed. But again, you’re assuming there is a connection between the increased sales and the 8th Ed rules. Equally likely - hell, more likely in my opinion - is that the upswing in sales is due to GW’s massive increase in marketing. Around the same time 8th Ed was approaching GW started a new marketing drive where they fired up their social media presence again, started the Rumour Engine, started addressing leaks with more leaks, started taking player feedback, started doing beta rules, created Warhammer Community, started attending community events, created Warhammer TV and everything else. I think it’s much, much easier to draw the connection ‘massively increased marketing and social media presence = more sales’ than to say ‘a ruleset some people subjectively prefer to the old one but others don’t = more sales’.

 

The community has definitely been better off in the last 18 months. But I’d be interested to see hard proof that it’s because of a better ruleset and not better community engagement by GW.

[kombatwombat]

It’s probably worth adding that I don’t hate on 8th Ed - I play both it and 7th Ed (in 30k) and enjoy both versions. But I do hate on people who say 8th is better because they enjoy it more.

[Huggtand]

If we just could go back to Second Ed I would be a happy man  

[Cryptix]

If we just could go back to Second Ed I would be a happy man  

I was just about to post this :V. Granted, I wasn't born when it came out, but I had the oppurtunity to play a few games of it and it seemed both like a lot of fun and not very complicated.