Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

  1. #1

    So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I'm looking over the threads and I'm not seeing people raving about the new design. What gives?

    Is it the awesome fusion of every edition we've all been waiting for or yet another retread designed to raise quick cash and boost the share price?
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.

    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  2. #2
    Chaplain
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    171

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I have been largely absent from 40k for over a year now. RL has been intense, lol. So I too am wondering how folks are viewing the latest edition of 40k. From what little I have read there has been some rather large changes-the lore is quite bonkers it seems, can’t wait to learn more though, and the new edition rules have stirred things up too from what I can tell. So, what are you warseer folk thoughts on all of this?

  3. #3

    Thumbs up Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I personally can't say nothing but good things about the new 40k. Its very refreshing to see it play so well and smooth.
    What has kept me from even bothering to think about actually playing 40k for years and years was the overly complicated rule set.
    Lets not even talk about the none sense that 7th ended up being, with more and more broken formations.

    Now its a level or close to it playing field for all armies. Sure, some have received their Codexes already, but even the index's aren't terrible against them.
    What the Codexes actually contain over the index, is stratagems, special items (that don't cost extra!) and some tweaks to stats. Thou I'm quite disappointed in them in the regard that they contain quite a lot of obvious mistakes, from spelling to data sheet stats all wrong! Some even copied the mistakes from the index books. So I can't recommend the paper books to anyone.
    I guess if I would have to point some things that still don't work quite logically is terrain and cover. Lets cross fingers and hope the Chapter approved that should come out by the end of the year has some fixes/expansions on that.

    Watching battle reports of 40k has been fun and the games run fast.

    If you are thinking of dusting off your minis for the new edition, main rules are freely downloadable from GW:s page.
    https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/w...er-English.pdf
    Rulebook FaQ: https://www.games-workshop.com/resou...lebook_ENG.pdf

    Worth reading after: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/w...Commentary.pdf
    And this: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/w...mmer_40000.pdf

    I rest my case gentlemen

  4. #4
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    XIth Great Company, Fenris
    Posts
    3,756

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Oh, it certainly feels like the best edition so far. I was concerned about the switch from armour values on tanks to toughness, but the elimination of the stat 'cap' at 10 has helped there.

    The fact that the arbitrary and foolish Instant Death rule has died is another cause for celebration, as is that the old "all or nothing" AP foolishness has been terminated after causing issues for too long.
    "They have their moments - although I've had to persuade at least three alien races not to invade the Earth on the strength of Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft" - Doctor Who's opinion of the Carpenters, "Relative Dementias" written by Mark Michaelowski

    Rules As Written doesn't always make for a fun game.

  5. #5
    Chapter Master Angelwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    4,366

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Its pretty solid and plays well.
    My issues with it are the iffy terrain rules concerning vehicles and monsters, and detachment abuse for command points - its a little like 7th's formation abuse, but here you don't have any real restrictions on army composition, and you get rewarded for it! Its a great strength being able to form your army how you want, but also a big weakness as its easy to abuse.

    However, the main rules are pretty simple and clear and play well. I have found that the game revolves around lascannon (and equivalents) spam, mortal wound spam and alpha strikes. It can be quite bloody, with many games pretty much over around turn 2 or 3.

    Its so much better than the mess 7th ended up in (you know what the culprits were), but vigilance by the game designers is needed lest the same fate happens to 8th.

  6. #6
    Commander
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    574

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I think the exact opposite.

    To me it is the worst edition so far. Previously editions were spoiled by codex creep and poorly designed codicies or add ons, this time the core system is just poor and bland. GW has simply transfered complexity from the core rules to factions rules. Eventually the game is too simple as it is not really cinematic nor has any depth outside of the stratagems (magical combos), most war movies cliche aren't reproduced, abstraction is king, and as soon as you add the newer codicies, the bloat of special rules returns quite quickly.

    The lack of real cover rules and total lack of difficult ground rules make of it something between a CCG or a boardgame but certainly not a wargame.
    Most of strategic thinking happens when making your list and choosing your overall tactic according to your stratagems (alpha strike (with first turn charge) or resilient gunline to sum it up) and there's a modicum of it when putting your minis on the table and also during the CC phase with the activation system but that's about it.

    The system is already not balanced, it is heavily biaised toward hordes who can spam cheap units filling different FOCs allowing them to earn a lot of Command Points which in turn allow them to use far more stratagems, moreover things die quite fast with the AOS wounding table and armor modifiers therefore elite units die almost as quickly as IG white shields making cheap units buffed by IC much more efficient and between good players (not competitive, just good) most games are won in a couple of turns according to initiative roll and charge roll.

    Its strong points are unified stats for MC and vehicles, the speed of a game (at the cost of streamlining too much) , the reserve and deep strike rules (you basically choose when and where to come), the removal of summoning (you basically pay for what you want to summong an make them come through the reserve rule) and mainly GW will to correct asap the main glaring weaknesses of the ruleset (the initially completely dumb initiative system has already been changed, almighty flyers have been nerfed and points are constantly changed, and maybe another thing or 2 which I forgot.

    Its weaknesses are basically everything else. GW as usual solved some 7th edition problems by creating entirely new ones.
    The yougoIgo system really cripples the game but you can't escape it as armies are optimized around area buffs provided by commanders and special characters, you have to move your army together or just drop the whole system because it wouldn't make sense at all otherwise.

    And no, the lack of cover will not be fixed anytime soon given that some factions simply ignore all cover. Changing this mechanic will probably involve changing several codicies.
    It is the same with the lack of difficult ground rules, it is the only way GW found to make assault armies competitive. (assault armies which can sometime make 36" first turn charges)

    If you liked how 40k was a crossed sci-fi/medieval gothic skirmish wargame you won't like it. If you like shiny minis with magical combos doing strange things on a table while you drink your beer and talk with friends, you may like it . I find it boring as f... because the games under my belt felt all the same.

    For my part, I adapted 7th edition to alternate activation and I'm currently tinkering with the removal of 7th greatest weaknesses (grav spam, super friends, invisibility and summoning, OP formations, challenge, weakness of CC armies, MC dominating vehicules, especially flying MC, long range high strength low AP ignoring cover weaponery and a few other issues ...) and I'm integrating 8th best innovations.
    Last edited by vlad78; 18-11-2017 at 14:05.
    If GW was a Chaos god, they'd be fueled by nerd rage.@MrBigMr

    Walls fall. Fists do not!!!

    IF 5th company :
    http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...63#post5924863

  7. #7

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Talk about a lengthy dissent!

    Quote Originally Posted by vlad78 View Post
    I think the exact opposite.

    To me it is the worst edition so far.
    I think someone says this about every edition.

    The lack of real cover rules and total lack of difficult ground rules make of it something between a CCG or a boardgame but certainly not a wargame.
    Most of strategic thinking happens when making your list and choosing your overall tactic according to your stratagems (alpha strike (with first turn charge) or resilient gunline to sum it up) and there's a modicum of it when putting your minis on the table and also during the CC phase with the activation system but that's about it.
    Also an evergreen criticism. This is inherent in every open force-selection game system.

    And no, the lack of cover will not be fixed anytime soon given that some factions simply ignore all cover.
    How so? Are these legacy rules or new ones designed for this edition?

    Changing this mechanic will probably involve changing several codicies.
    It is the same with the lack of difficult ground rules, it is the only way GW found to make assault armies competitive. (assault armies which can sometime make 36" first turn charges)

    If you liked how 40k was a crossed sci-fi/medieval gothic skirmish wargame you won't like it. If you like shiny minis with magical combos doing strange things on a table while you drink your beer and talk with friends, you may like it . I find it boring as f... because the games under my belt felt all the same.
    Again, I've been saying this since 1999. Maybe it's still true?

    For my part, I adapted 7th edition to alternate activation and I'm currently tinkering with the removal of 7th greatest weaknesses (grav spam, super friends, invisibility and summoning, OP formations, challenge, weakness of CC armies, MC dominating vehicules, especially flying MC, long range high strength low AP ignoring cover weaponery and a few other issues ...) and I'm integrating 8th best innovations.
    I have two problems with alternating activation, one practical, one theoretical.

    The practical one is that it leaves no space for people to take a break and refresh themselves or ponder their next move. One plus of the IGO-UGO system is that you can plan your next turn, get another beer (relieve yourself of the previous on) and so on without slowing the game down.

    Theoretically, alternating units introduces its own lack of realism because it's impossible to keep an army aligned for an all-out assault. Especially at the scale we are dealing with, that's patently absurd. The issue of whole side being able to move (and potentially charge) with impunity is easily solved with some sort of "opportunity fire" or reaction phase built into the IGO-UGO turn sequence.

    Fantasy went away, but it actually had a better way of doing this through charge reactions.

    Anyway, I'm not picking on you so much as trying to pick your brain.
    Last edited by Commissar von Toussaint; 25-11-2017 at 14:11.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.

    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  8. #8
    Veteran Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    141

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I honestly have to say I'm yet to fully get into the newest edition. I have been playing other wargames quite a lot and 40k is on a bit of a low in my local scene.
    The few games I played looked promising.

  9. #9
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,084

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    There are many solutions to the alternating activation problems (and problems include things like unequal activation adversely affecting the one with fewer and it driving odd force selections with a lot of 'activation chaff'). The most popular solution currently is having chunks of an army go, so a kind of half way house. However do a search for those discussions and you to can immerse yourself in rules mechanics!

  10. #10
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mannheim, Germany
    Posts
    1,346

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I like it so far and it's much fun but it isn't without some problems that prevent it from becoming the best wargame on the market (whichever game that may be).

    On the plus side i like the rulesset because it's easy enough to learn and the few questions can be answered very quickly. Miniatures are awesome as ever and GW is actually releasing good deals like the Get Started boxes that are good starting points and cheaper than its parts separately bought.

    On the negative side the rules are at times too simple or abstract.. cover means squat when it comes to moving/hiding your troops. You can charge without line of sight as long as you are in range so terrain means little if anything because you can shoot/charge right through woods for example.

    I also think that the Alpha Strike of Codex Armies is often enough much too strong.. since all your units are handled completely before the enemy gets to go you have the option to cause serious damage to your opponent with your entire army if you get to go first thus crippling him for the entire game. It would have been better to have each player handle only one unit, then the opponent gets to control one unit and so on until all units on the field have acted, in my opinion much more tactical.

    So i'm out of the tournament scene as i don't think it's a fun tournament game (fun meaning a balanced gameplay where even taking tournament designed lists still means to need tactical skill instead of relying on good dice rolling in the Alpha strike) but i will play this in private game as it is much fun.

  11. #11

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Real_Chris View Post
    There are many solutions to the alternating activation problems (and problems include things like unequal activation adversely affecting the one with fewer and it driving odd force selections with a lot of 'activation chaff'). The most popular solution currently is having chunks of an army go, so a kind of half way house. However do a search for those discussions and you to can immerse yourself in rules mechanics!
    That was what I was driving at: all versions of 40k are IGU-UGO, so I don't think it's a valid criticism.

    Archaon, tell me why cover doesn't matter? Is it just a save? Do models have to be fully concealed to benefit? Doesn't LOS block shooting?

    Does cover stack with armor saves? Time was, it didn't, so armies often fought in very open terrain and only took to cover to ward off AP3 or better weapons.

    Our group still plays 2nd and our boards are crammed with terrain. First turn doesn't seem to matter that much when no one can see the other deployment zone.

    I mean, is it possible that people simply aren't using enough terrain?
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.

    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,153

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    My biggest gripe with GW terrain is that it rarely blocks LoS for whole units or vehicles.

    There was a great WD battle report with Orks vs Space Wolves and there was a massive pile or rocks in the middle of the board. Due to cunning deployment and movement the Orks found themselves over committed down one side and had to floor it round the rocks providing the SWs plenty of time to riddle them with shots.

  13. #13
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,084

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    The terrain rules are naff... In essence it is 'true line of sight'. True as in human line of sight, not scale, or realistic or anything.

    Woods are a good example. In my first proper game under the new system I set up my infantry behind a block of woods 12 inches deep. I was surprised when my opponent then proceeded to lay waste to them through the woods with his troops. Turns out if you can eyeball a model from your model you can shoot it. Now wargaming woods are modeled to allow you to put models inside them. They are not modeled with the trunk density and undergrowth of an actual copse of trees. So you get a bonus for your save, but otherwise they are essentially not there...

  14. #14
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    XIth Great Company, Fenris
    Posts
    3,756

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    A certain amount of abstraction is required in order to keep the game flowing freely. There is, of course, nothing to stop your gaming group deciding that this is a bit far-fetched and declare that woods block all lines of sight.

    One could just as much point to a squad of Death Korps (or Elysians) with their heat seeking anti-aircraft grenades (Grenadiers Stratagem + lKrak Grenades - even supersonic they're hitting 1/3rd the time normally).
    "They have their moments - although I've had to persuade at least three alien races not to invade the Earth on the strength of Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft" - Doctor Who's opinion of the Carpenters, "Relative Dementias" written by Mark Michaelowski

    Rules As Written doesn't always make for a fun game.

  15. #15
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mannheim, Germany
    Posts
    1,346

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    That was what I was driving at: all versions of 40k are IGU-UGO, so I don't think it's a valid criticism.

    Archaon, tell me why cover doesn't matter? Is it just a save? Do models have to be fully concealed to benefit? Doesn't LOS block shooting?

    Does cover stack with armor saves? Time was, it didn't, so armies often fought in very open terrain and only took to cover to ward off AP3 or better weapons.

    Our group still plays 2nd and our boards are crammed with terrain. First turn doesn't seem to matter that much when no one can see the other deployment zone.

    I mean, is it possible that people simply aren't using enough terrain?
    Cover terrain (ruins, craters, buildings with high cover etc) givesyou +1 on the armor save, it's ok and can save some models but nothing that will probably win you the game consistently. The unit also has to be completely within it to apply so forget to cram in your 30 Ork mobs and such.

    As games are played with true line of sight you really can't hide unless you can fit an entire unit(vehicle completely behind LOS blocking terrain (and that means usually buildings) so armies that rely on their first strike ability and can do this well (and start first) do have a big advantage.. if the first strike works well you cripple the opposing force, if not it may get to be an interesting game.

    I like this new 40K and i am looking forward to the release of the new Dark Angels codex in less than 2 weeks (i play Ravenwing) and i'm thinking of about starting Tyranids but this game is flawed to a degree in that is too abstract in certain areas, i.e. cover/LOS rules could have used a bit more expansion (the mentioned wood area that doesn't block squat.. might not be there at all for game purposes) and i think a more modern game design of each player alternating between handling a unit at a time could have improved the game.. this way while the other players acts you are relegated to making armor saves (and maybe use a stratagem every now and then).

    I think GW missed an opportunity to update and modernize their game design but then again 40K 8th is a huge success so what do i know

  16. #16
    Chapter Master carlisimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    1,382

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I'm not enjoying it. The most fundamental issue, imo, is terrain having only minor effects. You basically ignore it and either charge full steam ahead through whatever's in the way, or sit still and shoot. Maneuvers are rarely interesting anymore. In previous editions your shooty units could get a significant advantage to moving to a higher or clearer spot, or one with cover. You'd be rewarded for getting into the side or rear arc of many vehicles. It could be worth losing a turn of shooting for. Assault units might get in position to threaten multiple units, whereas now armies tend to bunch up around bonus-giving characters so there's less of that.

    Similarly, you'd be faced with more decisions because you couldn't split fire, had to fire at the squad you were going to charge, things like that. Everything's a little too easy now. The penalty for moving a heavy weapon squad is tiny. All those -1 to hit rules are too generous, and that's why the game is so straightforward now. There's one correct thing to do.

    Death rates are too high. One reason there isn't much maneuver is that the game is decided so much earlier than in many previous-edition battles. There used to be more miraculous late-game turnarounds, I feel.

    Finally, strategems and rerolls are a bigger part of the game than I'd like. Personally, I'd like them to be minor effects that add a little bit of flavor to the game, but everything revolves around them. It also means you get blobs to gain characters' benefits and the result is even worse than back when we tried to space everyone out at maximum coherency distance.

    A lot of my issues come from the army lists and how they're built rather than from the core rules. And those core rules could be given an extra layer of complexity that would leave the game simpler than most previous editions while giving you reasons to actually think about your next move. Just as a lot of people think 5th was the best version of 3rd, a future edition based on 8th could make me happy. But this one doesn't.

  17. #17
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    XIth Great Company, Fenris
    Posts
    3,756

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Quote Originally Posted by carlisimo View Post
    Death rates are too high. One reason there isn't much maneuver is that the game is decided so much earlier than in many previous-edition battles.

    I keep seeing this claim, yet not experiencing it myself. In my last game - a 4-way Carnage - I had a horrendous first turn (five 1's, eight 2's, a 3, a 4 and a 5 out of sixteen dice from a single roll - if those Grey Hunters hadn't been in cover...), yet by the start of the last turn of the game (5) I was still in contention, though the Necron and Tyranid players had been eliminated (none of us appreciative of the Guard player's decision to field a Knight in 1,000pts.).
    "They have their moments - although I've had to persuade at least three alien races not to invade the Earth on the strength of Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft" - Doctor Who's opinion of the Carpenters, "Relative Dementias" written by Mark Michaelowski

    Rules As Written doesn't always make for a fun game.

  18. #18
    Chapter Master carlisimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    1,382

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    I don't know what to make of 4-way games, but I'll assume you're talking about a trend in your experience and not just a unique battle. It's good news - being in contention on the last turn is how it should be.

    Knights in 1,000 point games are indicative of GW not quite fixing what I consider to have been a problem for some time now (not specific to 8th). I'm a lot happier with the Horus Heresy's old school force organization chart, 25% limit on Lords of War, and its 6th ed. holdover rule that it's mostly just Troops that score.

  19. #19

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Quote Originally Posted by Archaon View Post
    Cover terrain (ruins, craters, buildings with high cover etc) givesyou +1 on the armor save, it's ok and can save some models but nothing that will probably win you the game consistently. The unit also has to be completely within it to apply so forget to cram in your 30 Ork mobs and such.
    Wow, that's awful. Cover should be universally useful. Percentage-wise, I get that a terminator benefits less from being behind a concrete wall than an ork does but they both benefit in the same way. The advantage of heavy armor is simply that you don't need cover as much, and this gives those troops more battlefield endurance (and therefore makes them more valuable).

    As games are played with true line of sight you really can't hide unless you can fit an entire unit(vehicle completely behind LOS blocking terrain (and that means usually buildings) so armies that rely on their first strike ability and can do this well (and start first) do have a big advantage.. if the first strike works well you cripple the opposing force, if not it may get to be an interesting game.
    This is silly, but it is also easy to fix: Simply discuss the "true" aspect of the terrain during setup.

    When I use woods, I set down various pieces of felt and then populate them with tree models. This allows us to have the freedom to move the models without creating crazy-dense plastic forests.

    Thus "true" LOS would be whatever you agree it is. In any event, I throw enough terrain on a table top that "true" or not, you can't usually see from one side to the other unless that's part of our scenario.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.

    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  20. #20
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,084

    Re: So what's the verdict on the new 40k?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    This is silly, but it is also easy to fix: Simply discuss the "true" aspect of the terrain during setup.

    When I use woods, I set down various pieces of felt and then populate them with tree models. This allows us to have the freedom to move the models without creating crazy-dense plastic forests.

    Thus "true" LOS would be whatever you agree it is. In any event, I throw enough terrain on a table top that "true" or not, you can't usually see from one side to the other unless that's part of our scenario.
    I have discovered most 40k players want to play the book rules, not use the style of abstracted terrain other games use (even other GW games!). So far Epic 4th ed is the best stab at terrain GW has done and I wish they ported it into other systems!

    And another niggle. I like Imperial Guard. If I play Cadians I am given a bonus for standing still. That actually is a rule - something that enhances an army if it is played as a static gun line...

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •