Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

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

  1. #21

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Real_Chris View Post
    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!
    There's nothing in the book that contradicts what I suggest, though. If anything, GW's rules are far more abstracted since they assume the absence of all sorts of LOS obstructions. Ever notice that non-urban battlefields have been freshly mowed to the consistency of a golf fairway? Not even tall weeds to get in the way.

    I'm sad to see that GW has continued to embrace the "tournament legal" approach rather than the "if both players agree" style, which IMHO is the only way one can really play with miniatures.

    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...
    I cordially despise those sorts of special rules. As a tactic, a gun line has its pros and cons, but there shouldn't be special rules encouraging it. Let the weapons systems, terrain and objective speak for themselves.

    The thing is, troops that aren't moving are objectively more accurate. That's why I liked the old "rapid fire" rule that applied to ALL space marines (imperial and renegade) with certain weapons. It's actually a realistic tradeoff for elite troops, not a sub-army special rule.
    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. #22
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    I cordially despise those sorts of special rules. As a tactic, a gun line has its pros and cons, but there shouldn't be special rules encouraging it. Let the weapons systems, terrain and objective speak for themselves.
    I agree wholeheartedly, subtlety is always the best policy.

  3. #23
    Veteran Sergeant Kelkyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    126

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

    Having played all editions of 40k, I like 8th. The removal of armor values to toughness, return of move value, and keeping only armor or invuln saves; all spot on to how 40k should play. Issues with alpha strike can be mitigated with missions and deployment zones. Like all past editions you must be aware of what enemy units are capable of, and what special rules factions can bring to bear, while not forgetting your own rules. The Faction rules have much more impact and can be difficult to remember it all.

    How you play matters too. A game that is played just like a tournament game will be loaded with the most unbalanced rules legal spam possible, it will be win at all costs. A relaxed game at a friends house with themed armies and agreed limits will be more enjoyable. Crazy things can happen still, like a tank or unit that just won't die, horrendous shooting phases, every charge failing.

    Terrain suffers in an official capacity from GW's terrain. The rules they have are based on what they sell. This may not be representative to the terrain you own or your local store uses. I use an older (5th?, 6th?) edition version of tree templates, that better fits my model railroad trees on textured felt templates. A poorly setup table has always made for a poor game of 40k.

    A tank army on a table with a couple ruins in each deployment zone that turtles in a corner playing a mission to kill enemy units will dominate. The same army will suffer when the mission is to take objectives all over the table, and there is some good LOS blocking terrain near the center of the table.

    Don't agree to play a crappy game of 40k, then you won't have a crappy time. 8th works.



    Buy the cards too.

    Shoot knights til they die, smirk at the rage quit. Don't quit if your crap dies, you can still learn or even win.

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelkyen View Post
    Having played all editions of 40k, I like 8th. The removal of armor values to toughness, return of move value, and keeping only armor or invuln saves; all spot on to how 40k should play.
    This is why I am interested again.

    Issues with alpha strike can be mitigated with missions and deployment zones. Like all past editions you must be aware of what enemy units are capable of, and what special rules factions can bring to bear, while not forgetting your own rules. The Faction rules have much more impact and can be difficult to remember it all.
    Ah, and the faction rules are part of the problem. I get the drive to have a diverse and distinct bunch of armies and the sale of miniatures are what keep the lights on at GW HQ, but I think there is a point where all the factions keep people away from the game rather than draw them in.

    I think the golden number is five or six. More than that and design space just gets too cluttered and the lists start to mirror each other. Special rules (which should convey some fluff) become more like cheats.

    As any whiskey drinker will tell you, you can have too much of a good thing.

    How you play matters too. A game that is played just like a tournament game will be loaded with the most unbalanced rules legal spam possible, it will be win at all costs. A relaxed game at a friends house with themed armies and agreed limits will be more enjoyable. Crazy things can happen still, like a tank or unit that just won't die, horrendous shooting phases, every charge failing.
    Everywhere and always true. The question is the style of play GW promotes. For a looooong time it's been tournament legal, and game play suffered. Again, the simple phrase "if both players agree" or alternatively "if your opponent agrees" would do a lot to change the mentality (and image) of the game.

    "New GW" should look into this.

    Terrain suffers in an official capacity from GW's terrain. The rules they have are based on what they sell. This may not be representative to the terrain you own or your local store uses. I use an older (5th?, 6th?) edition version of tree templates, that better fits my model railroad trees on textured felt templates. A poorly setup table has always made for a poor game of 40k.
    I wonder how much GW's decision to make "official" terrain has impacted the game? The boards in 2nd were crowded - necessarily so, given the lethality of shooting. With 3rd the battlefield started to look like a table-setting with the plates removed. You got a bright centerpiece and some oddments on each side.

    A tank army on a table with a couple ruins in each deployment zone that turtles in a corner playing a mission to kill enemy units will dominate. The same army will suffer when the mission is to take objectives all over the table, and there is some good LOS blocking terrain near the center of the table.

    Don't agree to play a crappy game of 40k, then you won't have a crappy time. 8th works.
    Quite true. The problem was when earlier editions made this devilishly difficult.
    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.

  5. #25
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    Ah, and the faction rules are part of the problem...I think the golden number is five or six. More than that and design space just gets too cluttered and the lists start to mirror each other. Special rules (which should convey some fluff) become more like cheats.
    I can see this comment upsetting a lot of people Out of interest, which six would you choose to keep?

    I guess some could be folded back into the Imperial Agents list from the Black Codex to act as allies only...all chaos in one book?

  6. #26
    Chapter Master Angelwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    4,366

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Real_Chris View Post

    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...
    On the other hand, the current guard codex also has doctrines for other guard regiments that really encourage movement. The static gunline will have a tough time achieving objectives too.
    I know where you're coming from, I don't particularly like static gunlines myself, but its not just guard - many armies have stuff in them to encourage standing still and blasting away - even tyranids have some of this. But equally, there is stuff to encourage moving about too.

  7. #27

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelwing View Post
    On the other hand, the current guard codex also has doctrines for other guard regiments that really encourage movement. The static gunline will have a tough time achieving objectives too.
    I know where you're coming from, I don't particularly like static gunlines myself, but its not just guard - many armies have stuff in them to encourage standing still and blasting away - even tyranids have some of this. But equally, there is stuff to encourage moving about too.
    Right, but doctrine should be entirely up to the player and based on force selection and tactics, not faction rules.

    For example, my imperial marines rely heavily on dreadnoughts. I like the old models and find them very tactically useful, so my chapter is known for using them.

    I don't need special rules or an extra slot or some other bonus, it's just how I roll. That my personal "doctrine."

    Similarly, I don't much care for space marine scouts, so my "doctrine" doesn't emphasize them. I don't get extra victory points for not taking them, or an alternate choice, it's just how I like to play.

    That's what I like to see in a game - players formulate their own styles of play that don't need special rules to make them work.

    To put it another way, giving a unit a bonus for standing still is a pretty obvious way to dictate tactics. One of the things I really dislike about the newer versions of 40k is how units are so specialized that you really don't get a choice of what to do with the unit (or faction) you selected.

    Yes, there are a lot more units and a lot more lists, but they are all really specialized. That's dull for two reasons:

    1. It makes force selection more important than actual tactics and,
    2. It limits player creativity. The designer is basically telling the player how to fight their army.

    There is enough inherent flexibility in unit types and tactics that you don't need any other bonuses.
    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. #28
    Chapter Master mughi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    yelm washington USA
    Posts
    1,705

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

    Been a 40K player since 3rd-opinion on 8th-

    Very simplified, can be fun, better than 6th and 7th, easier for newer players to grasp-but gets boring real quick because it is a supper simple dakka fest.

    I play 8 different game systems so I understand 40K was always simpler than the smaller scale skirmish systems but I think they oversimplified it. there are a host of things that bug me
    .lack of real interaction with terrain
    .cash grab-primaris space marine- space marines, breaks the lore and is punishing long time collectors
    .wound and dakka creep
    .min-maxing via formations
    .monsterous creatures-all the things

    Don't get me wrong I have had notable success with 8th- winning almost all my games- I just got so bored with it that i have reverted back to playing 5th edition with friends, it just seems a bit more fun to play.

  9. #29
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,084

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

    I am trying to convince my club to introduce a simple terrain rule - keep with the idiocy in the book BUT if the model you can see has two pieces of terrain between the attacker and defender LOS is blocked. For example a patch of trees and one of GW's full of holes buildings - nope can't see.

  10. #30
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,152

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

    Terrain rules should never require a fix, I'd expect every wargame to have some sort of functioning terrain rules that encourage players to think about where they place their models.

    Perhaps GW should have spent more time getting the basics right and less time coming up with a million special rules. I much prefer the Universal Special Rules of 5th but even then they could have been streamlined.

  11. #31

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Egg View Post
    Terrain rules should never require a fix, I'd expect every wargame to have some sort of functioning terrain rules that encourage players to think about where they place their models.

    Perhaps GW should have spent more time getting the basics right and less time coming up with a million special rules. I much prefer the Universal Special Rules of 5th but even then they could have been streamlined.
    I think the problem is that GW still isn't sure what kind of game they want 40k to be.

    Is it a game of assault or a game of firepower?

    If it's a game of assault, then shooting is mostly for show and terrain is chiefly an obstacle to movement. Since the goal is to obtain a decision in close combat, cover has to be of limited value so that armies aren't tempted to camp out in it and shoot down attacking troops. Thus, terrain has to be downplayed and limited.

    It sounds like GW still doesn't know which way it wants to go. That doesn't bode well.
    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. #32
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,152

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

    I think there is also an element of deliberately not settling down the rules, if the nature of the game keeps changing slightly with new editions and new FAQs then players will need to re-write army lists to adapt and so buy more minis.

  13. #33
    Chapter Master mughi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    yelm washington USA
    Posts
    1,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Egg View Post
    I think there is also an element of deliberately not settling down the rules, if the nature of the game keeps changing slightly with new editions and new FAQs then players will need to re-write army lists to adapt and so buy more minis.
    ROFLOL
    I refuse. I have not bought a new GW mini in years. I may be tempted when plastic vulkan or the lion comes out(cuz who don't want a primarch model even for display) but seriously? even as lovely as GW models are they are so overpriced. my equivalent warhound titan I got from dreamforge is a fantastic plastic kit at 1/4 the cost of a FW resin. sure I can't use it at GW events(not that I go to them anymore) but the guys at my FLGS don't care.

  14. #34
    Chapter Master Lost Egg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wandering in the wilderness...
    Posts
    2,152

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

    Agreed, I've pretty much stopped buying GW minis and even when I do I seem to quickly lose interest. Having said that I am going to pick up the Darkoath WarQueen as she's cool.

    I am continuously surprised at how much some people drop on GW stuff again and again. Each to their own though I suppose.

  15. #35

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Egg View Post
    Agreed, I've pretty much stopped buying GW minis and even when I do I seem to quickly lose interest. Having said that I am going to pick up the Darkoath WarQueen as she's cool.

    I am continuously surprised at how much some people drop on GW stuff again and again. Each to their own though I suppose.
    I buy GW stuff on an intermittent basis, but always on the secondary market and usually something that's out of print.

    Since I play 2nd ed., none of the newer stuff has any interest for me, but I'm not averse to some of the new plastics - provided I can get them cheap.

    I derive my greatest satisfaction from kit-bashing and making unique conversions. My orks use a variety of unconventional kits to create their vehicles and equipment. It seems odd to me how a race of garage mechanics would somehow turn out standardized variants.

    Anyhow, I'm sensing that this is not the big breakthrough edition that it looked like it might be. The old guard seem down on it and the old old guard remain cautious.

    And terrain rules seem to be a problem, which means GW still hasn't been willing to fully commit to one side of the assault/shooting divide.
    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.

  16. #36
    Brother Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost Egg View Post
    Terrain rules should never require a fix, I'd expect every wargame to have some sort of functioning terrain rules that encourage players to think about where they place their models.

    Perhaps GW should have spent more time getting the basics right and less time coming up with a million special rules. I much prefer the Universal Special Rules of 5th but even then they could have been streamlined.
    They had it right when they classified most terrain as area terrain. Clean, simple rules that did indeed affect the game without being game breaking.




    As far as the consensus of how it's doing? I'm hearing of quite a few 2nd Edition players who were brought back by this edition. Not bad, I guess. I've also heard of even more post 3rd players quitting because of this one. The online communities have had an uptick in Oldhammer/Classichammer/Retrogaming clubs and groups, I'd say that is more than coincidental.

  17. #37
    Chapter Master mughi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    yelm washington USA
    Posts
    1,705

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

    Yeah we still treat all the terrain like ruins and tree templates as area terrain for cover saves and movement interaction, with true LOS to see if you can actually shoot the target.

    But I digress since I have pretty much gone back to playing 5th with a few add-ons from 6th and 7th editions that work well in 5th(grenade throwing, CCWs having an AP value, snap fire, overwatch etc...).

    The most enjoyable codexes for me with a few exceptions are from 5th(but you can use just about any before 8th for easy conversion to 5th ed rules)
    IG, space wolves, grey knights, blood angels, nids all were really good in 5th, but I prefer 3rd for chaos marines

  18. #38

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Retrogamer View Post
    As far as the consensus of how it's doing? I'm hearing of quite a few 2nd Edition players who were brought back by this edition. Not bad, I guess. I've also heard of even more post 3rd players quitting because of this one. The online communities have had an uptick in Oldhammer/Classichammer/Retrogaming clubs and groups, I'd say that is more than coincidental.
    This is the problem with anecdotal data. The guy that you never met because he stopped playing in 1999 goes unseen, whereas the guy who played right up until the newest version came out draws your attention.

    I'm of course one of those 2nd ed. guys whose curious about the game and would get "current" if the game was the breakthrough product I've been waiting for, but it sounds like once again GW failed to stick the landing. Giving the choice between using the flawed game I already own and buying another flawed game, I'll stick with what I have.

    I have to say the terrain discussion is really concerning to me. At this scale, terrain should be the first thing you get right. The terrain rules in 2nd were pretty simple: Stand out in the open and expect to die. LOS was easy to achieve and ability to have units duck down ("hide") gave the feeling that you were dealing with actual troops, not just mobile statues.

    Yes, it was difficult for low BS troops like Orks and IG to dislodge armored troops in cover - which is a real problem. The solution is either to shell them into oblivion or dig them out.

    GW seems to have rejected yet again the idea that tactical puzzles should require a little more thought than "get em!" and power armor to solve.

    More's the pity.
    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.

  19. #39
    Brother Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29

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

    I pretty much mention the guy from 1999 immediately in my post, if you read again. And there are indeed several instances of this on gaming boards, as people make sure to announce that they are 2nd Ed. players returning specifically for this edition. Your silent people are the ones that walk away from the game without a second mention, and that's not something you'd catch on a board, but definitely in your local clubs.

    Everybody expects something different from their game, no matter the system. The cycling in and out of existing players attests to that. There are people that had quit when 3rd came out that have come back in little clusters every time that one group of things from 2nd that they valued most that they "lost" had been brought back in some form. With the 3rd Ed. reboot, we got arguably a completely different game, and every new ruleset starting in 5th has been trying its best to stuff at least a little bit of 2nd back into the mix. You, personally, are looking for more than what has been brought back. Me, personally, didn't start until they scrapped 2nd. The farther they move from 3rd's paradigm, the less motivated I am to stay current. 8th is, in my mind, just a few touches shy of 2nd Edition. It will be the first edition since Rogue Trader that I didn't own the rules and relative codex for. As much as I disliked 2nd, I still at least tried to stay abreast of the rules and motivate myself to play. 8th has all but killed my drive to do so.



    THAT being said, depending on what forum you go to, the predominance of chatter is that the community is championing on with it. If the community could keep trudging through 7th, they'll stick around for ANYTHING.


    My suggestion to any person wanting to take up the game nowadays is "Check it out, watching being played. Figure out what your concept of a good game is, and what a fun game is. Whatever points intersect, make sure that the game you want to get into fits in that zone, at least a little." Then I would tell them about the older editions and how to find the books and battle reports. If they ask me my honest opinion about balance, composition and whatnot, I won't be diplomatic and I won't sing accolades of any edition that I think doesn't deserve accolades sung about it. In my mind, 8th is one of those editions. It's already there without codex creep. I shudder to think of what it'll be this time next year...

  20. #40

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Retrogamer View Post
    I pretty much mention the guy from 1999 immediately in my post, if you read again. And there are indeed several instances of this on gaming boards, as people make sure to announce that they are 2nd Ed. players returning specifically for this edition. Your silent people are the ones that walk away from the game without a second mention, and that's not something you'd catch on a board, but definitely in your local clubs.
    I read your post with great care and nothing you've written above refutes it.

    Without comprehensive and detailed sales data, there's simply no way to know what's going on with the games. Even then, we can't know if a game is selling well because existing players are upgrading or new players are getting involved. Then there's the problem of old players quitting while even older players are coming back.

    Over the existence of this site, there have been plenty of big public announcements that people are quitting GW. They get a bit of notice depending on what else is going on and then it's forgotten. If you weren't there to see the announcement, it's as if it never happened.

    You speak of seeing things at clubs, but that fails to account for people like me who have the space to game at home. Most people I know are like that. Back in the day we played at the FLGS, but now we're situated so that we have our own personal gaming space.

    It's just hard to know what's going on.

    Everybody expects something different from their game, no matter the system. The cycling in and out of existing players attests to that. There are people that had quit when 3rd came out that have come back in little clusters every time that one group of things from 2nd that they valued most that they "lost" had been brought back in some form. With the 3rd Ed. reboot, we got arguably a completely different game, and every new ruleset starting in 5th has been trying its best to stuff at least a little bit of 2nd back into the mix. You, personally, are looking for more than what has been brought back. Me, personally, didn't start until they scrapped 2nd. The farther they move from 3rd's paradigm, the less motivated I am to stay current. 8th is, in my mind, just a few touches shy of 2nd Edition. It will be the first edition since Rogue Trader that I didn't own the rules and relative codex for. As much as I disliked 2nd, I still at least tried to stay abreast of the rules and motivate myself to play. 8th has all but killed my drive to do so.
    Cost is also a factor. I'm not talking about models, simply the expense of buying new books for all the armies you own plus the core rule book. By quitting when I did, I saved myself considerable money by not buying 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. And likely 8th.

    GW's business model has long been planned obsolescence rather than minor refinements on a definitive system. With the advent of the "new GW," I had hoped things changed. Maybe not?

    My suggestion to any person wanting to take up the game nowadays is "Check it out, watching being played. Figure out what your concept of a good game is, and what a fun game is. Whatever points intersect, make sure that the game you want to get into fits in that zone, at least a little."
    My time is precious. This gives me a way to decide if even that step is worthwhile, plus it spurs discussion.

    Then I would tell them about the older editions and how to find the books and battle reports. If they ask me my honest opinion about balance, composition and whatnot, I won't be diplomatic and I won't sing accolades of any edition that I think doesn't deserve accolades sung about it. In my mind, 8th is one of those editions. It's already there without codex creep. I shudder to think of what it'll be this time next year...
    Yeah, codex creep. That right there is a deal-breaker.
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •