So I went back to 7th edition.

[Elzender]

I ran a list in 7th that had units which were mathematically impossible to destroy.

 

When my opponent asked how he could beat me I replied with: "You can't"

 

And it was true. His Tau army could not touch my units, no matter what he tried. I only did it because his Tau formation detachments had tabled every other army in the first turn. 7th was rubbish!

While a good gaming system should definitely not allow this to happen, I think it should also fall to the players to not try to actively break the game.

 

I'm not pointing at you, Ishagu, or at any other frater that enjoys competitive gameplay, I just say it as reflection, but maybe players should really think a bit more about whether they (and their opponents) will really enjoy or have fun while playing their army, further than the thrill to win the game.

[Joe]

7th had some truly obscene army lists.

 

Looking at you, Renegades & Heretics; The Purge/Unending Host combo just broke the game.

[Ishagu]

 

I ran a list in 7th that had units which were mathematically impossible to destroy.

 

When my opponent asked how he could beat me I replied with: "You can't"

 

And it was true. His Tau army could not touch my units, no matter what he tried. I only did it because his Tau formation detachments had tabled every other army in the first turn. 7th was rubbish!

While a good gaming system should definitely not allow this to happen, I think it should also fall to the players to not try to actively break the game.

 

I'm not pointing at you, Ishagu, or at any other frater that enjoys competitive gameplay, I just say it as reflection, but maybe players should really think a bit more about whether they (and their opponents) will really enjoy or have fun while playing their army, further than the thrill to win the game.

That's the problem you see. I HAD to break the game or be tabled in turn 1. Tau, following their codex, would annihilate anything that wasn't an invincible death star if they went first. It was an ugly mess. The guy I was playing against was new and didn't understand things like list moderation and had been rampaging though a local club demolishing armies left and right.

 

The game was filled with problems like this. A bad gaming system allows this to happen, a truly terrible one makes it necessary... Good riddance, 7th edition!

[TheUbikator]

My last friendly game of 7th was me trying my HH Custodes for the first time against my buddies 40k Ad Mech force. Both of my dreadnoughts were immobilized by Grav in the first turn. There were some good parts of 7th, but the vehicle damage table and immobilization of vehicles was just the worst.

 

My last tournament game of 7th was against an 1850 point army that was almost entirely 1 unkillable unit. 2+ rerollable invulns with 3+ feel no pain and tons of chaff for look out sirs in case you actually get lucky and get a wound through. It was the worst game of 40k I've ever played. 8th edition isn't perfect. But it doesn't have anything as crazy as this.

 

 

Nothing crazy? Well, I wouldn't say that. Last month I played at national tournament master. We were playing in pairs, and there were plenty of tournament rules that were meant to cut crazy things. But some of them happened regardless. For example, a friend of mine was running Fire Warriors bomb (70 fire warriors, cadre fireblade Commander in a middle with 4 fusion blasters, space pope and some pathfinders) - Orks weren't able to do a damn thing about it. They were blasted in overwatch = no chance. Knights? Well... fire warriors were killing a knight a turn with shots to spare (that sweet strategem), and that's without his necron buddy, whose army in many cases was pretty unnecessary. The only game where he was close to a draw, was against a list with 120+ cultists with fearless and nurgling spam. Basically both armies were blocking themselves in the middle and most of the units were intact.

 

It has always been my opinion that the tournament scene is not the best place to see if the game is balanced, especially in the system like 40k. Why? Because tournament players are a very specific breed of player - because they look for every edge they can get, they are looking for an edge that can't be countered. In other words they are actively trying to break the system. In 7th you had captain smashfrakker in 8th you have captain slamguinius. 

 

My biggest gripe with 8th is that every game looks the same. If you are playing against CQC army, there is a very good chance that most of them will be in your deployment zone T1 which turns entire game into - who can screen more table from deep strikes and removes enemy models faster wins. When fighting CQC army against CQC army it boils down to who has the first turn, because chargers fight first. Gunline vs gunline? Same story.

 

And in the contrast of a 7th where most of the problems came from broken formations, and couple rules that can be fixed easily the 8th is broken in the very core. Why? Because everything became more lethal, has more shots/attacks, and armour saves are irrelevant. So what GW did to balance enhanced lethality of 8th? It removed cover saves (giving +1 to armour which in most cases is completely irrelevant), gave a certain army a ton of -1 to hit debuffs, and started giving out inv saves like a candy.

 

I'll give you one example why 7th is mechanically superior.

 

The dark eldar player in 7th wants to protect his raiders from a ranged army. What can he do?

 

He can deploy his raiders behind los blockers, so the enemy won't shoot him (barrage weapons in 7th aren't as accurate as in 8th if they don't have the line of sight).

He can place his raiders behind cover so they would gain a cover save (with nightshields and night fighting he'll get 3+ cover).

He can jink (2+ cover with night fighting but he hits on 6+ next turn).

 

What can he do in 8th?

 

He can deploy behind los blockers if an enemy has no indirect artillery.

He can pray that he'll make enough 5++ saves.

Play lighting fast reflexes. 

 

That's it.

 

The 7th gives you multiple valid choices on how to approach the situation like this, but the easiest to pull off (and most efficient) has some clear disadvantages. You need to weigh the pros and cons and play accordingly.

 

In 8th? You either play a card that has no disadvantages, and is a flat debuff against entire enemy army targeting that one unit, or you just pray that you'll make enough saves to stay alive.

 

And how gunline player can counter that play?

 

in 7th he can bring weapons with ignore cover special rule but there aren't lots of long range weapons with that rule (the guard officers can give an order that gives that rule to HWT but HWTs are squishy and needs to be placed in good positions), he can try to close in and hit them with template weapons, overwhelm enemy saves with number of shots, use searchlights etc.

 

What can gunline player do in 8th? He can either pour enough auto hitting weapons or just spam more firepower and power through debuff.

 

You know what's the saddest thing? That DE player without that strategem doesn't stand a chance.

[Ishagu]

8th isn't perfect for sure. It's still growing however, and is being adjusted frequently. That in itself is a positive.

[TheUbikator]

 

 

I ran a list in 7th that had units which were mathematically impossible to destroy.

 

When my opponent asked how he could beat me I replied with: "You can't"

 

And it was true. His Tau army could not touch my units, no matter what he tried. I only did it because his Tau formation detachments had tabled every other army in the first turn. 7th was rubbish!

While a good gaming system should definitely not allow this to happen, I think it should also fall to the players to not try to actively break the game.

 

I'm not pointing at you, Ishagu, or at any other frater that enjoys competitive gameplay, I just say it as reflection, but maybe players should really think a bit more about whether they (and their opponents) will really enjoy or have fun while playing their army, further than the thrill to win the game.

That's the problem you see. I HAD to break the game or be tabled in turn 1. Tau, following their codex, would annihilate anything that wasn't an invincible death star if they went first. It was an ugly mess. The guy I was playing against was new and didn't understand things like list moderation and had been rampaging though a local club demolishing armies left and right.

 

The game was filled with problems like this. A bad gaming system allows this to happen, a truly terrible one makes it necessary... Good riddance, 7th edition!

 

Wait... That sounds familiar because if Tau gets first turn this edition they'll cripple you T1 too. So what is the difference?

 

8th isn't perfect for sure. It's still growing however, and is being adjusted frequently. That in itself is a positive.

 

Yeah, but the adjustments themselves create more problems than they solve (if any). 

[Marshal Rohr]

As Centurion Mode becomes more widespread it is really worth pointing out playing the game at the lowest 'power level' makes it a lot of fun. Everyone is more resilient, tactics matter again, and terrain heavy boards make for fun and cinematic gaming experiences. Limiting special weapons like melta and plasma, reducing the proliferation of power weapons, etc. It is a wild ride. One single Leviathan becomes a true terror. Dreadnaughts matter. Bolters matter. It is great. In my opinion ;)

[kombatwombat]

7th could be enjoyed very much if both lists were built to be evenly matched or close-to by experienced players, and no abusive combinations were taken.

8th edition can be enjoyed without having to do the above. It's a better system.

I’m sorry, but what?!

 

I know you and I don’t see eye to eye on 7th Ed and I respect that, but your last statement is patently untrue to the point of deliberate self-deception.

 

8th Edition can be enjoyed without having to do the above - tell that to my Templars when they play my mate’s Guard. Or Grey Knights against Imperial Knights. Or AdMech against Eldar. We can argue back and forth over which edition has the better set of mechanics - and, indeed, we have before - but 8th Ed nowadays is every bit as unbalanced as 7th Ed. If you’re going to talk about grav-spam Demi-Companies breaking 7th then you have to compare it to Loyal 32+Slamguinius+Castellan with Relics/Warlord Traits breaking 8th. It was a different story in the days of Indexes immediately following the hard reset of 8th, but nowadays it’s same :cuss new bucket.

 

7th Edition could be enjoyed with the conditions you listed, but 8th requires those same conditions. Unless you’d like to argue that one player can bring a Grey Knight Terminator army and hope to have a game of any merit against Knights/Guard.

[Ishagu]

I've never suggested all units are created equal. But hey, unlike 7th, we're about to receive an annual unit adjustment.

[MysticTemplar]

 

It has always been my opinion that the tournament scene is not the best place to see if the game is balanced, especially in the system like 40k. Why? Because tournament players are a very specific breed of player - because they look for every edge they can get, they are looking for an edge that can't be countered. In other words they are actively trying to break the system. In 7th you had captain smashfrakker in 8th you have captain slamguinius.

 

 

I feel like this is the exact opposite of how one should judge balance.  The tournament scene is not just a good place to look to judge balance, but it is the *best* place to look, because the tournament scene is where you will generally see people pushing the system to its limits for advantage.  Players being able to break the system is problematic, because a balanced system *should not break*.  It's important to understand that improving internal and external balance at the top end does improve it at the low end, too - relying on list moderation to solve issues with the system is what is generally called the 'Rule Zero Fallacy' in the tabletop roleplaying game world - just because you can house rule the problem away (and relying on list moderation is, in itself, a form of house ruling, because you're avoiding the problematic areas) doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

[BitsHammer]

The only good thing about 7th is that it helped get Kirby booted out of the CEO seat and ultimately out of the company (finally).

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

And Mat Ward too !!!

[BitsHammer]

And Mat Ward too !!!

I think Ward left sometime around late 6th, early 7th and I don't think it's because of the game itself as much as his changing interests. He started focusing on writing more and less on game design.

 

Which is fair, you gotta pursue your dreams, right?

 

That said, Ward wasn't a bad guy in my book. Enthusiastic and in need of an editor to keep his fluff in line and a play testing team to keep the crunch in line (and no releasing codexes designed for a later edition during the earlier one) but that said, you can make similar arguments for all the staff.

[TheUbikator]

 

 

It has always been my opinion that the tournament scene is not the best place to see if the game is balanced, especially in the system like 40k. Why? Because tournament players are a very specific breed of player - because they look for every edge they can get, they are looking for an edge that can't be countered. In other words they are actively trying to break the system. In 7th you had captain smashfrakker in 8th you have captain slamguinius.

 

 

I feel like this is the exact opposite of how one should judge balance.  The tournament scene is not just a good place to look to judge balance, but it is the *best* place to look, because the tournament scene is where you will generally see people pushing the system to its limits for advantage.  Players being able to break the system is problematic, because a balanced system *should not break*.  It's important to understand that improving internal and external balance at the top end does improve it at the low end, too - relying on list moderation to solve issues with the system is what is generally called the 'Rule Zero Fallacy' in the tabletop roleplaying game world - just because you can house rule the problem away (and relying on list moderation is, in itself, a form of house ruling, because you're avoiding the problematic areas) doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

 

 

But that is the problem, isn't it? A good system shouldn't break, but 40k will break, because of the number of different codices, supplements and combinations is impossible to perfectly balance. In 7th you can easily "fix" certain problems with rules like "CAD only", in 8th you can't because the edition was built around spamming units and broken combos (take a shot every time GW marketing writes something as "combined with this strategem it is a powerful combo"). 8th was "Best 40k edition evar" when played with index because it is a very simple system that works with equally simple rules - start adding rules, superpowers, traits and system brakes. 8th ed won't get better than it is now. Unless GW rewrites core rules and half of the codices. It just won't happen.

[Ishagu]

In fairness 8th hasn't broken. It's not perfectly balances but it certainly isn't broken.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I agree and it can still be improved upon too .

[BitsHammer]

40k kind of has the D&D 3.5 problem: once you have a certain number of books involved the game becomes less an act of walking a balancing tightrope and more a game of trying to keep a bunch of plates spinning. Which is fine until the competitive scene comes along and kicks the table.

 

I kind of hope that when they get around to doing 9th they reboot it all from scratch again (only more drastically) and rework everything. I know that's an insane hope since that means hundreds of models and units that'd need to be re-pointed from scratch and we could end up with an AoS situation where they forget a faction and it never gets updated again (Tomb Kings), but generally I feel like the game is at the point where it needs a drastic rebuilding from the ground up to fix what are essentially fundamental problems with balance that can't be addressed as easily any other way.

[FlamingDeth]

It will be unpleasant to play against unpleasant players regardless of edition.

 

I think 5th edition was the most fun for me, how's that for an unpopular opinion?

[karden00]

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

 

What's stopping you? 2nd was marvelously good fun

[BitsHammer]

It will be unpleasant to play against unpleasant players regardless of edition.

 

I think 5th edition was the most fun for me, how's that for an unpopular opinion?

Frankly 5th was my favorite edition until 8th came along, so I can agree with you there too. It handled competitive play better than most editions since it was written more with that in mind too. The problem was the late edition "written for 6th" codex creep, but otherwise it was solid.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

And Mat Ward too !!!

I think Ward left sometime around late 6th, early 7th and I don't think it's because of the game itself as much as his changing interests. He started focusing on writing more and less on game design.

 

Which is fair, you gotta pursue your dreams, right?

 

That said, Ward wasn't a bad guy in my book. Enthusiastic and in need of an editor to keep his fluff in line and a play testing team to keep the crunch in line (and no releasing codexes designed for a later edition during the earlier one) but that said, you can make similar arguments for all the staff.

 

 

 

I heard he was virtually tossed out by the scruff . He was Kirby's boyo..

[BitsHammer]

 

 

And Mat Ward too !!!

I think Ward left sometime around late 6th, early 7th and I don't think it's because of the game itself as much as his changing interests. He started focusing on writing more and less on game design.

 

Which is fair, you gotta pursue your dreams, right?

 

That said, Ward wasn't a bad guy in my book. Enthusiastic and in need of an editor to keep his fluff in line and a play testing team to keep the crunch in line (and no releasing codexes designed for a later edition during the earlier one) but that said, you can make similar arguments for all the staff.

 

 

I heard he was virtually tossed out by the scruff . He was Kirby's boyo..

I doubt that to be the case since he was invited back around the time of Gathering Storm/8th to help work on something and Kelly has mentioned that Ward basically invented Battle Focus for the Eldar meaning he at least collaborated well with others.

 

I mean, it's not impossible, but Ward left before Kirby, not after him. If he was Kirby's guy (and let's be honest, it's not impossible since I've heard rumors of some new hires basically being drones who only do what the higher-ups want them and don't try to create or add to the setting/game on their own) he should have been tossed out after Kirby left.

 

Also I want to point out that Kirby was all about GW being a model collector's company and not gaming company, something that doesn't fit with how Ward wrote stuff in the game.

[Closet Skeleton]

Matt Ward was playing White Dwarf battle reports around the start of 3rd edition, he was in the company for a long time before he wrote a codex.

 

 

I'll give you one example why 7th is mechanically superior.

 

The dark eldar player in 7th wants to protect his raiders from a ranged army. What can he do?

 

Dark Eldar in 7th.

 

Let his raiders die and use power from death to counter strike because nobody played non-Ynari Dark Eldar in 7th.

 

8th ed at least didn't change design philosophy for codex writing half way through the edition.

 

40k kind of has the D&D 3.5 problem: once you have a certain number of books involved the game becomes less an act of walking a balancing tightrope and more a game of trying to keep a bunch of plates spinning. Which is fine until the competitive scene comes along and kicks the table.

Its off topic but core was the least balanced part of 3.5.

[BitsHammer]

Matt Ward was playing White Dwarf battle reports around the start of 3rd edition, he was in the company for a long time before he wrote a codex.

 

 

I'll give you one example why 7th is mechanically superior.

 

The dark eldar player in 7th wants to protect his raiders from a ranged army. What can he do?

 

Dark Eldar in 7th.

 

Let his raiders die and use power from death to counter strike because nobody played non-Ynari Dark Eldar in 7th.

 

8th ed at least didn't change design philosophy for codex writing half way through the edition.

 

40k kind of has the D&D 3.5 problem: once you have a certain number of books involved the game becomes less an act of walking a balancing tightrope and more a game of trying to keep a bunch of plates spinning. Which is fine until the competitive scene comes along and kicks the table.

Its off topic but core was the least balanced part of 3.5.

It was balanced with itself and nothing else, for better or worse. Which was a shame because some of the splat books had great stuff in them. 40k seems to have a similar problem. The indexes were well balanced with themselves, and early expansion (aka codexes) where balanced to the indexes, but not to where they ultimately took the game leading to those spinning plates to be on a table with a wobbly leg.

[Aothaine]

 

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). 

 

The game doesn't force you to play like this at all. The game doesn't exist for competitive play. Try toning down your army and just playing a narrative game and you'll start to understand. I think people put way to much emphasis on competitive play.