PDA

View Full Version : So what's the verdict on the new 40k?



Commissar von Toussaint
16-11-2017, 01:07
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?

Nazrax
16-11-2017, 03:49
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?

Kharandros
16-11-2017, 16:27
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/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Warhammer-40k-Battle-Primer-English.pdf
Rulebook FaQ: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/warhammer_40000_rulebook_ENG.pdf

Worth reading after: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Designers_Commentary.pdf
And this: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_War hammer_40000.pdf

I rest my case gentlemen :)

WLBjork
17-11-2017, 04:06
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.

Angelwing
17-11-2017, 18:34
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.

vlad78
18-11-2017, 13:55
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-11-2017, 13:49
Talk about a lengthy dissent!


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.

Ponge
27-11-2017, 17:31
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.

The_Real_Chris
27-11-2017, 17:36
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!

Archaon
27-11-2017, 17:59
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-11-2017, 01:39
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?

Lost Egg
30-11-2017, 06:34
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.

The_Real_Chris
30-11-2017, 11:37
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...

WLBjork
04-12-2017, 08:32
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).

Archaon
05-12-2017, 22:29
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 :)

carlisimo
06-12-2017, 04:49
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.

WLBjork
06-12-2017, 18:41
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.).

carlisimo
06-12-2017, 20:16
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
07-12-2017, 22:59
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.

The_Real_Chris
15-12-2017, 13:53
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...

Commissar von Toussaint
17-12-2017, 18:10
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.

Lost Egg
17-12-2017, 19:03
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.

Kelkyen
19-12-2017, 03:24
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-12-2017, 00:08
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. :biggrin:


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.

Lost Egg
20-12-2017, 08:07
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 :D 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?

Angelwing
21-12-2017, 18:31
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
22-12-2017, 00:24
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.

mughi3
04-01-2018, 11:30
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.

The_Real_Chris
04-01-2018, 16:11
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.

Lost Egg
04-01-2018, 19:47
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-01-2018, 22:02
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.

Lost Egg
06-01-2018, 07:52
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.

mughi3
06-01-2018, 09:31
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.

Lost Egg
06-01-2018, 13:36
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.

Commissar von Toussaint
07-01-2018, 01:50
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.

Retrogamer
09-01-2018, 01:28
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.

mughi3
12-01-2018, 06:53
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

Commissar von Toussaint
13-01-2018, 13:39
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.

Retrogamer
14-01-2018, 08:04
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...

Commissar von Toussaint
14-01-2018, 13:22
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.

Retrogamer
15-01-2018, 03:41
Well, I didn't treat my anecdotal evidence as Empirical. Still, it's what we have. "From what I've seen" is treatable as an estimate, which is all the farther most posts go, unless we're talking an AOS love/hate thread in which case it seems anecdotal evidence IS Empirical to validate one side or the other. Basically it's either everybody plays it or nobody plays it. I'd like to think what I offered wasn't so... partisan.



Also, if I had it all to do over again, I'd love to go back and tell myself "Hey, you're going to wind up sinking a ridiculous amount in codices, army books, and rulebooks for systems you won't like and barely play, if you DO play. Spend it on models, especially before the ridiculous price hikes." So I'm feeling you about the cost.


I also see what you mean with gaming space. I play at players' houses quite a bit, but I still pop into the stores to see what's current, or what's retro. So far two of the three major shops in town are totally fine with retrogaming, with only one being a "current or banned" type of mentality. That is also how I get a "feel" for what the community is doing, at least locally.

At least at my clubs, I'm noticing that pick up games just don't seem to be happening. That's the real shame. Even if everyone is playing the new 40K, if nobody is playing it visibly, the random walk ins to the shop aren't pulled in. That used to be the beauty of gaming back in the day. We don't seem to have that now. Definitely not in my area, at least.

mughi3
15-01-2018, 09:43
Well lets be honest-no community support=no game


The models are overpriced for 40K, but they look nice and the fluff is a huge draw. however if nobody is playing all you have is some nice display pieces. which you really don't need an armies worth of just for display, one will do.

After years of playing I still have a cabinet full of Japanese resin figure kits and plastic UC gundam master grade kits still in their boxes....however over the last 2 decades I have built seven 40K armies, 2 dust armies, to many classic battletech figures to keep track of, enough infinity to field 4 armies, warmachine, Babylon 5 wars(mostly narn), and even heavy gear. this is why I needed zero new models to make a viable army for 8th ed 40K.

The motivation was-gotta get them ready to use for upcoming games.

6th was so terrible it literally killed 40K at my FLGS, 7th made enough positive changes to cause a small resurgence......8th is to soon to tell. it seems close to 7th for the time being.

I feel I am fortunate enough to have a FLGS with a large gaming area and plenty of fine terrain to play the many games I have, 40K just isn't the big draw it was before 6th where I was averaging 3 games every Saturday, now its more like once a month. Although I did have a fantastic knock down drag out fight with my warmachine last night-glory to the ever victorious KHADOR!

Commissar von Toussaint
15-01-2018, 16:44
Well lets be honest-no community support=no game

True.


The models are overpriced for 40K, but they look nice and the fluff is a huge draw. however if nobody is playing all you have is some nice display pieces. which you really don't need an armies worth of just for display, one will do.

I disagree about the aesthetic. I like building my own tanks from non-GW kits because they cost 1/3 as much and have better quality. I use historical or off-brand troops for similar reasons.

GW made a point of basing 40k on some derivative ideas which facilitates using other derivative kits.


After years of playing I still have a cabinet full of Japanese resin figure kits and plastic UC gundam master grade kits still in their boxes....however over the last 2 decades I have built seven 40K armies, 2 dust armies, to many classic battletech figures to keep track of, enough infinity to field 4 armies, warmachine, Babylon 5 wars(mostly narn), and even heavy gear. this is why I needed zero new models to make a viable army for 8th ed 40K.

The motivation was-gotta get them ready to use for upcoming games.

We are quite similar. I paint to play, period. If no game is likely to happen, the models collect dust and my painting table gets covered in stray paper and other oddments. Once a game looks likely, the table gets cleared off and I start grinding stuff out.

For a guy who doesn't like painting, I have a crapload of figures, including every army from 2nd ed (except Necrons, I hate them).

6th was so terrible it literally killed 40K at my FLGS, 7th made enough positive changes to cause a small resurgence......8th is to soon to tell. it seems close to 7th for the time being.


I feel I am fortunate enough to have a FLGS with a large gaming area and plenty of fine terrain to play the many games I have, 40K just isn't the big draw it was before 6th where I was averaging 3 games every Saturday, now its more like once a month. Although I did have a fantastic knock down drag out fight with my warmachine last night-glory to the ever victorious KHADOR!

With my own dedicated tabletop space, I freely admit I'm out of touch. That's why I come here. :D

carlisimo
21-01-2018, 22:44
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.


I think that, as with templates going away, GW went for the option that would result in the fewest disputes and therefore the least wasted time. Area terrain was always difficult for two players to agree on if they were taking the game too seriously. True line of sight doesn't make for a better game, imo, but it is easier to deal with.

Fangschrecken
27-01-2018, 00:58
I dunno, terrain rules in 4th edition seemed pretty good to me. Area terrain needed a base and everyone in there got the save, which makes a lot of sense to me. This is a minis game and theres no way the average player will have terrain with enough detail to be realistic. Not every building will be completely empty with no desks or chairs, so just giving someone cover for being in a building made sense.

I really think it'd be easy to come up with common sense terrain rules that everyone can live with. Like, sure true line of sight makes sense, but if one guy is across a terrain piece over a certain thickness (I think it was 6 inches) you can't shoot at him because, while the building or wood may look empty you need to use a little abstraction and assume that that copse of trees is more than 4 trunks and patches of leaves. There are bushes and vines and what not that, after a certain distance, you can't see through.

When I was kid I recall there being a narrow strip of trees between two asparagus fields. It wasn't more than 30ft across but I could never see through it. Now in 40K, with the limitations in models, that small wood becomes 5-6 barren trees and some static grass which you can clearly see through.

People take this all too literally. Sorry for the rambling post.

vlad78
27-01-2018, 01:12
Talk about a lengthy dissent!



I think someone says this about every edition. ;)



Also an evergreen criticism. This is inherent in every open force-selection game system.



How so? Are these legacy rules or new ones designed for this edition?



Again, I've been saying this since 1999. Maybe it's still true?



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.

Necromantic reply spell activated.

- I have been playing 40k since almost the very beginning and 2 things pleased me most, the rpg and wargame roots of the game.
From that perspective my favourite editions were RT (can't replace the original) and 5th (before codex creep which ruined everything). 2nd had trouble deciding between rpg and wargame and was awkward with the worst close combat rules ever. 3rd added needed streamlining but ruined a lot of fluff before 4th restored it and felt a bit bland with OP CC, 4th was great but not as good as 5th and 6/7th have been the first editions which did not improve the game. 8th is a totally different paradigm where the game needs to be simpler to cram more minis (including super heavies). It erased its rpg roots completely and went as far from a wargame as possible. Therefore it is the worst edition for me to date. :p

- Nope, open force selection game systems do not have to always decide the game before it actually happens. It can happen but not on such a daily basis if you go for the competitive choices. Casual games are ok on that side, competitive games are often totally one sided. And those that are not are decided by the initiative roll or the first turn charge roll. (this is my experience, it may change with the release of the new books or be different with other players )

- About AA:
Allowing to take a break is just a matter of taste. :D
I always feel having to wait for my opponent to move his whole army is always a chore. We can always make a break between 2 turns to have a beer together. Turns are really tight with actions reactions and overall it's much faster because there's no loss of time . (if you both know your list well) It's a different habit to take but AA and army level assault are not mutually exclusive far from it. I'd say coordination is even more important than with YOUgoIgo. (don't move you back units first or you'll create traffic jam ;) and get slowed down and slaughtered)

AA is not perfect but its level of realism is far above yougoIgo which is totally dumb imho. Usually 80% 40k turn sequence rules (night fight rules, reserve rules, before 8th no 1st turn charge..) are there to mitigate the alpha strike potential which yougoIgo generates which is even far more nonsensical imho.
Moreover I don't get how AA prevents making all out assault. I did with those rules, it works, the key is coordination. First units will get mauled but the following ones not so much, keeping them in cover until artillery or supporting units did suppress threatening foe units helps tremendously. AA is a totally different way of playing 40k by using more logical real world tactics. Believe me the tactical choices are tremendously increased. But it needs a little tinkering with the rules like good shielding units (with rules like grots shielding orks units behind them) or priority activation enforced on Deep striking units preventing any player to use his deep striking units last to claim an objective or to come and kill the warlord while staying unmolested.
Besides I did not see any problem with activation chaffs, in a good list, strong and mobile and expensive units come and kill their targets, they don't waste time. If someone is stupid enough to let you activate your army faster than his, you will punish him either by taking the objectives before him (and some missions or maelstrom of war does reward you for doing that just like the old epic did) or by killing not yet activated key units.

Frankly AA is the only way to play a full drop pod list without having a boring game. AA equilizes quite a bit the gap in power level between different armies (beware it does not put everything on the same level but it helps, eldars for instance learn that they are fragile and they need to take cover, a lot !!). It's not perfect but from experience, it's much better.

And opportunity fire has a place here, like the old overwatch rule which I like a lot if it has downsides too. (usually your units have better things to do than just freeze and wait for the enemy to show up unless you have a massive deep strike coming the way of your support units.

I think yougoIgo is more suited to fantasy games where firepower is not so critical, where order where not instaneously conveyed from the leader to the front. AA or similar systems are much more suited to modern and sci-fi skirmish games imho. Eventually, when the game reaches a critical size (apocalypse size more than 3000+ per side) you may have to activate whole platoons at a time or when some units do trigger a special power when moving together. (vindicator template of doom or the shield created between Dark angels land speeders in some previous edition)

8th would gain quite a lot by adopting AA. Even just erasing alpha strike would make the game much better.

- I see someone has explained how cover rules work (or don't ) under 8th. Basically you seldom have cover and it is either insignificant (except for tiny low save units) or unobtainable because a single mini out of cover removes the cover for the whole unit.
Imperial fists and iron warrior armies simply ignore cover rules when shooting at something. And weapons ignoring cover will increase. (not that it is much useful given that cover does not mean much to anybody except cheap hordes)

My 2 cents.

Fangschrecken
27-01-2018, 15:55
With AA are you suggesting a simple "you activate a unit and then I do" or something more like x-wing where some units will have higher initiative and thus priority?

Commissar von Toussaint
27-01-2018, 20:56
- Nope, open force selection game systems do not have to always decide the game before it actually happens. It can happen but not on such a daily basis if you go for the competitive choices. Casual games are ok on that side, competitive games are often totally one sided. And those that are not are decided by the initiative roll or the first turn charge roll. (this is my experience, it may change with the release of the new books or be different with other players )

I don't think that they are, either. The key is whether the points are correct (with GW they usually aren't) and if the game provides a framework so that you don't get an inadvertently unbalanced game. The problem though is that when players are given wide discretion that also gives them the opportunity to make poor choices, thereby impacting the game.

We will have to agree to disagree on IGO-UGO. Using alternating activation, you cannot launch a full platoon bum-rush or have tanks advance in panzerkeil or similar formation. You get silly situations where one tank in the arrowhead moves forward, which opens up the screen and then the enemy can fire through the gap.

That's just as much of a game system artifact as an army surging forward while the opponents seemingly do nothing.

Of course, with an integrated turn sequence, you don't even need an overwatch mechanic to provide interactivity.

1. Player A moves.
2. Player B shoots.
3. Player A shoots.
4. Player B moves.
5. Player A shoots.
6. Player B shoots.

It's still IGO-UGO, but each side keeps the other honest. I use a close variant of it in my own game - which admittedly is fantasy. I thought of making a 40k type version but 2nd is too solid a system to really improve it on. A few minor fixes (like the close combat system) and it's good to go.

I must say I'm deeply disappointed to hear GW has made a mess of terrain. I think shooting should dominate any future tech game but this can be offset by making terrain effective at providing cover. If terrain is useless, no one will use it and the battlefield will look utterly lame.

mughi3
29-01-2018, 13:34
Terrain in 8th actually just got worse with the new FAQ/rules change. Not surprisingly it is a direct result of bad game design for vehicles-IE they are all monsterous creatures now and can shoot you no matter which way the guns point (LOS) or where they are located on the model.

like many things that used to work fine in the game, GW removing true LOS for weapons mounts just made more problems. it effectively, with few exceptions, just made terrain non-existent for non-infantry models.

Even dust tactics battlefield(the TT version of the rules) uses a nice hybrid of old 3rd ed rules. all terrain is area terrain unless it is a stand alone item (think big rock or a single tree) and provides cover if your in it, but you can only shoot out or get shot if you are within 4" of the edge of terrain.

No LOS issues, no percentage of cover rules etc... there is also the fact it is a simple cover save either you make it or you don't. its not based on a dice number but rather a symbol on 2 sides of the dice.

Infinity is also rather nice in that cover only helps if you are in BTB contact with the cover and the direction of fire travels through said cover to get to you. to keep things from getting silly they added size silhouette templates so that you could not hide say a TAG behind a low wall that only covers it up to the ankles. it has to be at least 50% .

Of course cover in the game not only adds to the models armor save it also makes you harder to hit. it's a much more complex skirmish game so I digress....


I should note dust uses the AA system instead of IGYG which as it stands is one of the problems with 8th and its non interactive terrain rules. a dakka heavy army can literally cripple an opponent turn 1 if they go first ( I know, I have done it many times). with an AA system you cannot cripple an army with only 1 unit activating at a time even though they get 2 actions (move/move, move/shoot, shoot/move, shoot/shoot-counts as twin linked etc...) and can split fire. there just isn't enough fire power in shots the way the game is designed to do that.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-01-2018, 00:51
Terrain in 8th actually just got worse with the new FAQ/rules change. Not surprisingly it is a direct result of bad game design for vehicles-IE they are all monsterous creatures now and can shoot you no matter which way the guns point (LOS) or where they are located on the model.

like many things that used to work fine in the game, GW removing true LOS for weapons mounts just made more problems. it effectively, with few exceptions, just made terrain non-existent for non-infantry models.

Oy vey. :(


I should note dust uses the AA system instead of IGYG which as it stands is one of the problems with 8th and its non interactive terrain rules. a dakka heavy army can literally cripple an opponent turn 1 if they go first ( I know, I have done it many times). with an AA system you cannot cripple an army with only 1 unit activating at a time even though they get 2 actions (move/move, move/shoot, shoot/move, shoot/shoot-counts as twin linked etc...) and can split fire. there just isn't enough fire power in shots the way the game is designed to do that.

Right, but the problem isn't the turn sequence, it is the utter lack of realistic cover rules.

Wargaming is an attempt to approximate real-world conditions.

In the real world, large units sitting out in salt flats under the guns of the enemy have a life expectancy that can be measured in seconds.

There is no "alternating activation" that says a hostile squad fires, but all the rest wait patiently while one of the targets moves. It's pretty much a shooting gallery.

I'm sure that the guys going over the top in 1915 wished they could stop the other side from all shooting at once, but that's not the way things work.

The issue is with cover - both how it affects the game and whether players are putting enough of it on the tabletop.

Clearly there are armies with vested interest in fighting over a parking lot. Others might want slightly more variety.

One reason why I broke off at 3rd was I found the either/or nature of cover/armor saves to be conceptually indefensible. The guy sitting behind the stone wall in power armor gets protection from both.

When people said "Gosh, it's awfully hard to dislodge a guy like that," I could only offer puzzled agreement. :eyebrows:

"Yes, it is hard. It should be hard. That's what makes wargames so interesting - the tactical challenges one faces."

I'm glad for this thread and the insights I've gained, because it's clear that the "new" GW is just as clueless as the old one.

There is a place for boards with little bits of hills and some small woods - fantasy battles, where huge formations need plenty of room to maneuver.

The 40k universe clamors for tangled forests or the urban nightmare of hive cities and factory centers. Sometimes - just for fun - one might make a major assault across open terrain, but it's a deliberate choice to do so, not the default setting.

I guess the verdict is once again "missed it by that much."

Lost Egg
30-01-2018, 09:15
... it's clear that the "new" GW is just as clueless as the old one.

I think their games suffer from the same fundamental problems and that comes from a desire to maximise sales which effects the games design.

mughi3
30-01-2018, 11:54
I think their games suffer from the same fundamental problems and that comes from a desire to maximise sales which effects the games design.

well that's been kinda the silly montra for what the last decade?
"we are a model company that happens to have a game attached to them"
Even though without the game they would have no sales market to speak of. I mean if your just collecting the models how many space marines of the various types do you really need? certainly not squads worth.


Commissar von Toussaint
I think the only system that comes close while still maintaining game balance is the reactionary play of infinity. the reaction-or Automatic Reactive Order(ARO) represents the split second you have to do something when faced with sudden enemy activity. rather it be to shoot back, duck, call for help etc... as one 40K player that transitioned over put it-why would my elder rangers wait for the bumbling ork horde to cross the open terrain and then get set up in nice protective cover before I am allowed to shoot at them?

The new rules for vehicles/creatures really annoys me. having a predator or dreadnought or leman russ for that matter hiding behind a hill with only the top half sticking over suddenly gets no cover at all for the sake of "fairness" because it can fire all its guns without concern from where they actually are placed on the model. Thus giving infantry models an unfair advantage.

This is why 5th is still the best incarnation of the game as an army level system.

vlad78
30-01-2018, 14:04
With AA are you suggesting a simple "you activate a unit and then I do" or something more like x-wing where some units will have higher initiative and thus priority?

any system works better than yougoIgo imho.
It can be simple 1 activation per side with the old overwatch rule allowing you to have reaction fire. In my system, regular units are not automatically on overwatch but they can freeze and wait for the opponent activation to shoot. But other units who did have the interception rule of 40k 7th can react to your opponent movements if they are not activated. I basically tried to stay as close as possible to the 40k system and rerolled for iitiative each turn but anything else is fair game.

Bolt action is also fun with random activation. Just put a number of dices equal to the number of units you have in a bag, mix them with your opponents dices, and pick randomly a dice for each activation, then it would be totally random but each time you activate a unit you increase the chance of your opponent to activate his units. Not very realistic but still fun.

vlad78
30-01-2018, 14:37
I don't think that they are, either. The key is whether the points are correct (with GW they usually aren't) and if the game provides a framework so that you don't get an inadvertently unbalanced game. The problem though is that when players are given wide discretion that also gives them the opportunity to make poor choices, thereby impacting the game.

We will have to agree to disagree on IGO-UGO. Using alternating activation, you cannot launch a full platoon bum-rush or have tanks advance in panzerkeil or similar formation. You get silly situations where one tank in the arrowhead moves forward, which opens up the screen and then the enemy can fire through the gap.

That's just as much of a game system artifact as an army surging forward while the opponents seemingly do nothing.

Of course, with an integrated turn sequence, you don't even need an overwatch mechanic to provide interactivity.

1. Player A moves.
2. Player B shoots.
3. Player A shoots.
4. Player B moves.
5. Player A shoots.
6. Player B shoots.

It's still IGO-UGO, but each side keeps the other honest. I use a close variant of it in my own game - which admittedly is fantasy. I thought of making a 40k type version but 2nd is too solid a system to really improve it on. A few minor fixes (like the close combat system) and it's good to go.

I must say I'm deeply disappointed to hear GW has made a mess of terrain. I think shooting should dominate any future tech game but this can be offset by making terrain effective at providing cover. If terrain is useless, no one will use it and the battlefield will look utterly lame.

When I explained AA, I added you can use formations when units have some kind of powers because they fire at the same time to use a special attack or are close to the command vehicle which makes them faster or more resilient or whatever. The problem with this lies with the fact 40k is supposed to be a skirmish game, you should not have 10+ tanks in a 1500pts game. But when playing truly big games you can use this kind of system by using platoons instead of moving your units individually. Epic did this once. This is not a problem when each platoon is just a fraction of the army. It becomes one when your army is just one big platoon.


Another problem , 40k is not really a realistic wargame, if you want to include tactics like panzerkeil, you'll have to create special rules for it or tinker with the priority target rules.

Just to illustrate my point, the IG 7th edition codex allow you to field platoons of up to 3 Leman russ for each heavy support slot in your army organization. 1 LR is roughly 180pts worth, 3 = 540 = more than a third of a list in a 1500pts standard game. This breaks the whole point of AA which is to remove alpha strike and allow for a fairer fight but stopping any playing to move too many units at once. But in a bigger game with more than 10000 pts per side this should not be a problem besides 7th 40k rules stated you had to shoot the closest vehicle from a squadron if i remember well.


And eventually I used similar tactics with a wall of vehicles front of my army, and yes it leaves gaps the time to position them all in front again but if you're careful and you activate them first, you'll still grant cover to what is behind. And if you still don't believe me, cheat, use the new Land Raiders and Rogue trader tiny rhinos behind. :)

But come to think about it, there should be a way to let you activate two units interacting just like you would activate an independant character and the firesquad he's leading together.

Sure it is really difficult to recreate the simultaneous nature of a firefight but I still think AA (with some adjustements) is a better solution when aiming to recreate a modern battle, better at least than simply waiting for your opponent to move and shoot with everything he has.

Lord Damocles
30-01-2018, 19:37
I'm glad for this thread and the insights I've gained, because it's clear that the "new" GW is just as clueless as the old one.
That's certainly one possible interpretation.

Another is that New GW™ has deliberately released rubbish terrain rules so that they can sell better ones separately further down the line.

It's not like we haven't seen them do this elsewhere already - Necromunda was carved up like a turkey in order to make people buy half a dozen (or more) books instead of the one which sufficed for previous editions. White Dwarf spreads content which would have been contained in a single issue across whole years.

Why bother balancing points costs when you can force people to buy Chapter Approved every year (which creates as many problems as it solves, so they'll need next year's too!)?
Why bother putting legacy options in Codexes when you can force people to buy an Index as well?


Alternatively they'll use better terrain rules as one of 9th edition's wonderful new features!

vlad78
31-01-2018, 04:45
That's certainly one possible interpretation.

Another is that New GW™ has deliberately released rubbish terrain rules so that they can sell better ones separately further down the line.

It's not like we haven't seen them do this elsewhere already - Necromunda was carved up like a turkey in order to make people buy half a dozen (or more) books instead of the one which sufficed for previous editions. White Dwarf spreads content which would have been contained in a single issue across whole years.

Why bother balancing points costs when you can force people to buy Chapter Approved every year (which creates as many problems as it solves, so they'll need next year's too!)?
Why bother putting legacy options in Codexes when you can force people to buy an Index as well?


Alternatively they'll use better terrain rules as one of 9th edition's wonderful new features!

The sin of aiming to sell over simply aiming to make the best game possible and just add more lore/factions/stories/tactics.

vlad78
31-01-2018, 10:33
However, everything is not to be thrown away. The minis are really improving and as I said there are bits here and there which are worth noting. If you like pick up games with a shiny boardgame, it's quick and fun.

Commissar von Toussaint
02-02-2018, 23:20
Another problem , 40k is not really a realistic wargame, if you want to include tactics like panzerkeil, you'll have to create special rules for it or tinker with the priority target rules.

I think 2nd was pretty close. It was the fiddly rules (scatter for every jump pack??? Rolling for plasma expansion/contraction every turn???) that bogged it down. If you get rid of that kind of hyper-detail, you get a good game.

I mention that Panzerkeil because it's a great IG tactic in that version. If you field a tank platoon, you put the Demolisher with ablative armor in the lead, knowing it will help cover the supporting standard model Russ tanks.

The soft vehicles then move within the wedge, protected by both the LOS obstruction and the closest/easiest targeting rules.

Overwatch was nice because you could interrupt a move when a target was in the open and take a shot - something that AA doesn't intrisically allow you to do.

That's a big problem with "pure" AA. You can rush through the open with impunity, must as in a classical IGO-UGO system.

Unlike IGO-UGO, you can't keep alignment or use an integrated attack. Everyone has to fight piecemeal. I don't like that at all.

Oh, and if you allow "formations" so that units can all move at once, the opponent then gets the same special ability by default because you have no one left to activate.

Anyway, I don't think GW will ever embrace AA or decent rules. :D

vlad78
03-02-2018, 22:56
I think 2nd was pretty close. It was the fiddly rules (scatter for every jump pack??? Rolling for plasma expansion/contraction every turn???) that bogged it down. If you get rid of that kind of hyper-detail, you get a good game.

I mention that Panzerkeil because it's a great IG tactic in that version. If you field a tank platoon, you put the Demolisher with ablative armor in the lead, knowing it will help cover the supporting standard model Russ tanks.

The soft vehicles then move within the wedge, protected by both the LOS obstruction and the closest/easiest targeting rules.

Overwatch was nice because you could interrupt a move when a target was in the open and take a shot - something that AA doesn't intrisically allow you to do.

That's a big problem with "pure" AA. You can rush through the open with impunity, must as in a classical IGO-UGO system.

Unlike IGO-UGO, you can't keep alignment or use an integrated attack. Everyone has to fight piecemeal. I don't like that at all.

Oh, and if you allow "formations" so that units can all move at once, the opponent then gets the same special ability by default because you have no one left to activate.

Anyway, I don't think GW will ever embrace AA or decent rules. :D

I do use overwatch in my AA ruleset. :p Either when activated you decide to put your unit in overwatch to wait for an opportunity to shoot a hitherto hidden foe unit when it will show up, and units with the interception skill are on overwatch by default and can spend their activation to shoot precisely when the other player is activating one of his units, its a kind of reaction shooting.

Fangschrecken
08-02-2018, 02:50
However, everything is not to be thrown away. The minis are really improving and as I said there are bits here and there which are worth noting. If you like pick up games with a shiny boardgame, it's quick and fun.

Thank you for that bit of positivity. I know it's popular to bash GW for not doing things right, but they are a publicly traded venture and they suffer from the same problems all such companies do. Namely that the shareholders will expect a profit and regular dividends and that leads to the downright stupid behavior we've seen on the past; where they abandon all attempts to placate the player base, balance that game or otherwise put any serious effort into game design. Now, I think the new CEO is steering them in the right direction and proving that even if you make the best models you'll still lose players/customers because the game is unbalanced to the point of being unplayable. So, with that said, I'm going to hold out hope that they keep improving and GW finds a way to make a fun, balanced and reasonably nuanced game while still keeping the shareholders happy.

Commissar von Toussaint
10-02-2018, 13:48
Truth be told, it's not that difficult to circulate a new set of rules in the information age. Dump a .pdf on your web site and presto! it's fixed.

The hard copy versions take longer to print, but it's a far cry from the 90s and Aughts when GW had to publish corrections in a magazine or sell an "annual."

That's another reason I think it better to wait and see. If the howls of player protest really induce changes, that will be the moment to play.

As to the new models, etc., I'm agnostic. I buy exclusively on the secondary market or use non-GW models. I don't even know what GW tanks cost these days, but I know that Tamiya kits are super-cheap, have excellent detail and even working running gear. Plus, they're fun to modify in new and exciting ways. I have to say that as I've gotten older, I've gotten more pleasure out of conversions than game play.

Nkari
24-03-2018, 17:36
So ive been out of the GW loop since about a year before the end times and AOS, AOS killed my interest in GW, but I keep looking back at the awsome miniatures, (especially the greater daemons!), I have resigned myself to give up hope on the fantasy front, so instead Im checking the 40k front..

Basicly.. how dumbed down is the current 40k? Is it worth it if you like tactical games rather than "line em up and smash em" games ? Or is there a better possibility that a "fluffy" (given personal biases ofc) can hold its own vs other "normal" lists in the current meta..
And do they still codex creep as much as they did before ?
Im so um, ambivalent about investing time and effort into 40k again.. Convince me either way plz!

Oh, and I played 2nd ed 40k until 6th edition or 7th edition I belive.. :P

vlad78
26-03-2018, 22:43
So ive been out of the GW loop since about a year before the end times and AOS, AOS killed my interest in GW, but I keep looking back at the awsome miniatures, (especially the greater daemons!), I have resigned myself to give up hope on the fantasy front, so instead Im checking the 40k front..

Basicly.. how dumbed down is the current 40k? Is it worth it if you like tactical games rather than "line em up and smash em" games ? Or is there a better possibility that a "fluffy" (given personal biases ofc) can hold its own vs other "normal" lists in the current meta..
And do they still codex creep as much as they did before ?
Im so um, ambivalent about investing time and effort into 40k again.. Convince me either way plz!

Oh, and I played 2nd ed 40k until 6th edition or 7th edition I belive.. :P

Take my opinion with salt as I'm not a 8th edition fan.

Concerning tactical depth it's extremely dumbed down in order to allow fast play with as many minis as possible.
Basically everything can kill everything and strategies are summed up by spamming as many units as possible in order to fill your FOCs and unlock as many command points as possible which in turn unlock stratagems which allow combinations improving drastically the effectiveness of your army.

Terrain is almost irrelevant and cover has only marginal interest. Games are usually decided by turn 2 or 3 if both players are skilled. Beyond that point the outcome is known.

Now it's not as simplistic as it seems given that loads of special rules were simply moved from the rulebook into each codex.

Bright points you decide when and where to use your reserve, your warlord chooses its traits, the game is extremely fast

Coasty
28-03-2018, 13:08
Hmmm.

Looks like I'm still sticking with 2nd, then.

Retrogamer
29-03-2018, 08:17
Hmmm.

Looks like I'm still sticking with 2nd, then.

Honestly, the current 40K is a direct result of trying to cram 2nd edition back into the 3rd edition design frame. So if you were down with 2nd Ed. you may like 8th more than you think.

Hellebore
03-04-2018, 06:49
Honestly, the current 40K is a direct result of trying to cram 2nd edition back into the 3rd edition design frame. So if you were down with 2nd Ed. you may like 8th more than you think.

Trying to cram a couple of very specific 2nd ed things in. The stuff you don't like about 8th didn't come from 2nd ed.

Retrogamer
06-04-2018, 07:59
Actually most of what I didn't like about 2nd is in 8th now, in some shape or form.

Commissar von Toussaint
06-04-2018, 13:18
Actually most of what I didn't like about 2nd is in 8th now, in some shape or form.

Care to give some specifics?

Retrogamer
12-04-2018, 07:12
Move values, Overwatch, the wargear issues, an unwieldy psychic phase, preposterously overpowered characters. Sheer killiness volume, which was dialed back during the jump from 2nd to 3rd. Starting in 5th, they slipped little snippets from 2nd back in, stuff that was rightly eliminated. Combat squads come to mind almost immediately. The vehicle rules aren't the same as 2nd, I think they are actively worse. I'm not a fan of the wounds system, honestly. I realize I'm a throwback grognard for my viewpoints, but that's what I want out of a 40K game. Basically 3rd Edition. Some of the 3rd books were imbalanced, but it's still workable. Now, I don't enjoy the ruleset enough to be motivated to get to the local store to attempt to play. Granted, it was more 6th and 7th that crushed my drive, but 8th, which I was hoping would resuscitate it, basically set the corpse on fire.

The_Real_Chris
16-04-2018, 13:51
The wounds system for vehicles is more 1st edition :)

Commissar von Toussaint
19-04-2018, 00:38
Move values, Overwatch, the wargear issues, an unwieldy psychic phase, preposterously overpowered characters. Sheer killiness volume, which was dialed back during the jump from 2nd to 3rd.

Them's fighting words. :mad:

I'd like to elaborate on why you're completely, utterly wrong, but this isn't the place for it. This is. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?234489-2nd-ED-memories) I'll be waiting. :evilgrin:


Starting in 5th, they slipped little snippets from 2nd back in, stuff that was rightly eliminated. Combat squads come to mind almost immediately. The vehicle rules aren't the same as 2nd, I think they are actively worse. I'm not a fan of the wounds system, honestly. I realize I'm a throwback grognard for my viewpoints, but that's what I want out of a 40K game. Basically 3rd Edition.

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:


Some of the 3rd books were imbalanced, but it's still workable.

Ah, the halcyon days of the rhino rush and star cannon spam. We miss them so. :p

More seriously, I think it's interesting to look at the resale value of some of the old editions and how it reflects their popularity.

Rogue Trader is high because it's hard to find. I guess people play it, but mostly you buy it because it's rare and a window into the early days of the hobby. Kind of like buying a copy of "Chainmail." (Full credit to anyone who knows what I'm talking about.)

I basically had to throw my 3rd ed books away. I couldn't sell them for any price. I'm not seeing a brisk market for the other "intermediate editions," but I'm also not searching closely.


Now, I don't enjoy the ruleset enough to be motivated to get to the local store to attempt to play. Granted, it was more 6th and 7th that crushed my drive, but 8th, which I was hoping would resuscitate it, basically set the corpse on fire.

Yeah, I saw some of the preview stuff and thought that I might actually buy current 40k material for the first time in 15 years.

Based on the feedback, I'm holding off.

I am, however, gearing up for a new 2nd ed. campaign. Because, it was the best edition ever, you know. :cool:

Retrogamer
19-04-2018, 08:43
Them's fighting words. :mad:

I'd like to elaborate on why you're completely, utterly wrong, but this isn't the place for it. This is. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?234489-2nd-ED-memories) I'll be waiting. :evilgrin:

Debate and decry 2nd Edition in a 2nd Edition hardcore fan thread? No thanks, I'll save myself the effort and just look at myself in the mirror and say "You're wrong" to everything I try to say.


Ah, the halcyon days of the rhino rush and star cannon spam. We miss them so. :p

Again with this?

There were worse offenders to the "Rhino Rush" than Marines. In fact, there were only two occasions where people were getting first turn charges from a transport: In the Cleanse or Night Fight missions where you were 18" away in the first place, or if someone was playing Blood Angels and overcharged. Past that, it was more vicious if Eldar or Dark Eldar made it into combat as they had cheap Power Weapon units that could cleave through even MEQ with no effort. Rhinos could be glanced by anything St 5 or higher, you shoot them before they get the Marines up to you. Wave Serpents were much more survivable, and carried more deadly cargo. I can't for the life of me figure out why people keep perpetuating this line.

And lets look at the reality of "Starcannon Spam" for a minute. Starcannons were, what, 50 pts each? Even if someone DID spam them, you look at what units could actually take them, how much those cost, consider the average BS in the Eldar army was 3, and discount about half of the output a 3 shot weapon could provide. Dark Reaper heavy Biel Tan armies were worse, and even THOSE weren't unbeatable.


More seriously, I think it's interesting to look at the resale value of some of the old editions and how it reflects their popularity.

Rogue Trader is high because it's hard to find. I guess people play it, but mostly you buy it because it's rare and a window into the early days of the hobby. Kind of like buying a copy of "Chainmail." (Full credit to anyone who knows what I'm talking about.)

I basically had to throw my 3rd ed books away. I couldn't sell them for any price. I'm not seeing a brisk market for the other "intermediate editions," but I'm also not searching closely.

Popularity doesn't equal quality. Case in point? The Spice Girls went platinum how many time?


Yeah, I saw some of the preview stuff and thought that I might actually buy current 40k material for the first time in 15 years.

Based on the feedback, I'm holding off.

I am, however, gearing up for a new 2nd ed. campaign. Because, it was the best edition ever, you know. :cool:

That's the one good thing about divisive editions and the internet, you have no problem finding like minded people to play either an older edition of the game or some comparable game by another publisher. I'll keep my eyes on the game, always hopeful that it'll get better, and getting the newer kits that I find attractive, but I will keep playing 3rd in the interim. Or 6th WFB, whichever I can get a game in with.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-04-2018, 01:44
Debate and decry 2nd Edition in a 2nd Edition hardcore fan thread? No thanks, I'll save myself the effort and just look at myself in the mirror and say "You're wrong" to everything I try to say.

Hold that thought.


Again with this?

You get that I was drawing a parallel between your stereotypical gripes about 2nd and those leveled at 3rd, right? Now where'd you put that mirror... :p


There were worse offenders to the "Rhino Rush" than Marines. In fact, there were only two occasions where people were getting first turn charges from a transport: In the Cleanse or Night Fight missions where you were 18" away in the first place, or if someone was playing Blood Angels and overcharged. Past that, it was more vicious if Eldar or Dark Eldar made it into combat as they had cheap Power Weapon units that could cleave through even MEQ with no effort. Rhinos could be glanced by anything St 5 or higher, you shoot them before they get the Marines up to you. Wave Serpents were much more survivable, and carried more deadly cargo. I can't for the life of me figure out why people keep perpetuating this line.

And lets look at the reality of "Starcannon Spam" for a minute. Starcannons were, what, 50 pts each? Even if someone DID spam them, you look at what units could actually take them, how much those cost, consider the average BS in the Eldar army was 3, and discount about half of the output a 3 shot weapon could provide. Dark Reaper heavy Biel Tan armies were worse, and even THOSE weren't unbeatable.

My objections to 3rd centered on its insane power-spiral and the fact that most combats degenerated into a mosh pit.

That and it marked the first time when GW openly re-wrote rules to boost figure sales.


Popularity doesn't equal quality. Case in point? The Spice Girls went platinum how many time?

Yes, but how are they selling today?

That's my point: anything can enjoy a surge of popularity when the hype is at its height, but after the advertising blitz is over, what do people really think of it?

In the case of 3rd, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Maybe 50 years from now it will be hailed as a visionary game system, but I highly doubt it.


That's the one good thing about divisive editions and the internet, you have no problem finding like minded people to play either an older edition of the game or some comparable game by another publisher. I'll keep my eyes on the game, always hopeful that it'll get better, and getting the newer kits that I find attractive, but I will keep playing 3rd in the interim. Or 6th WFB, whichever I can get a game in with.

Well, yes, which is why there is a venerable thread for 2nd. One thing that thread helped illustrate, by the by, is that a lot of people who hated 2nd never played it properly. Overwatch, for example, is an elegant and straightforward mechanic to prevent units from exploiting the turn system by advancing over open ground without taking fire. The rules themselves are clear but widely misinterpreted (a problem magnified by inaccurate "battle bibles," I should add).

Similarly, the "overpowered characters" couldn't actually do much unless they got in base to base contact, and even that was mitigated by the rules allowing firing into melees and voluntary breaking (followed up, of course, by waves of cleansing firepower). :evilgrin:

As for the psychic phase, it was a pain. It was also optional. Even when the edition was current, people often agreed to omit psykers by mutual consent. (One of the common "fixes" to the edition is to allow the Eldar to select an Exarch to be army commander rather than requiring a Farseer or Avatar.)

Basically, it needed a revision and got gutted. What came after was amusing at first and then got rather boring - but apparently you like it, so it's all good.

Clearly you need to start your own thread on it!

Kakapo42
20-04-2018, 05:13
Retrogamer, reading your replies makes me sometimes think it's a shame we probably don't live nearby - most of your thoughts/feelings around 3rd edition strongly mirror my own, and if given a choice over which 40k rule set to use I'll typically go with either 3.5 edition or very early 4th (4th core rules, 3rd/3.5 edition codexes). Then again, I could very well be too pro-3.5 and/or too much of a narrative/uncompetitive type for your tastes.




I basically had to throw my 3rd ed books away. I couldn't sell them for any price. I'm not seeing a brisk market for the other "intermediate editions," but I'm also not searching closely.



Man, I wish I was around then - I'd have been more than happy to take those 3rd edition books off your hands for you. :D

Retrogamer
20-04-2018, 08:53
You get that I was drawing a parallel between your stereotypical gripes about 2nd and those leveled at 3rd, right? Now where'd you put that mirror... :p

Stereotypical is not the same as consistent. I never hold any value in netlist sort of gripes. People saying that "all you ever saw was x" tends to be hyperbole spun out of an unfun encounter with said x and not having a way to deal with it at the time without altering their army in some way. The things I dislike about 2nd, and that MANY others dislike about 2nd, were more than a common experience, and could even be seen in the battle reports and what tourney play you had at the time.


My objections to 3rd centered on its insane power-spiral and the fact that most combats degenerated into a mosh pit.

That and it marked the first time when GW openly re-wrote rules to boost figure sales.

Power spiral? Meaning the power levels dropped, or are you talking about codex creep? There were SEVERAL codices that had issues, most also had Gav Thorpe attached to them. Both overpowered and underpowered.

And I'm not sure I can fault GW for attempting to help sales through their rules. They are a miniatures company after all. And lets face it, the Terminators rule change was necessary.


Yes, but how are they selling today?

That's my point: anything can enjoy a surge of popularity when the hype is at its height, but after the advertising blitz is over, what do people really think of it?

In the case of 3rd, it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Maybe 50 years from now it will be hailed as a visionary game system, but I highly doubt it.

You're also looking at a game system that was fundamentally rewritten from the ground up vs. a game system where up until 8th the modern version was essentially a tweaked version of it. Now that 8th has brought in a heavily changed core system, you may very well see an increase in interest. May not, since consensus on "best" edition and all that. For 2nd Ed. you have either 2nd Ed. or 2nd Ed. to choose from, whereas the 3rd Ed. rules engine is used to make 3rd-7th. Marked difference there.


Well, yes, which is why there is a venerable thread for 2nd. One thing that thread helped illustrate, by the by, is that a lot of people who hated 2nd never played it properly. Overwatch, for example, is an elegant and straightforward mechanic to prevent units from exploiting the turn system by advancing over open ground without taking fire. The rules themselves are clear but widely misinterpreted (a problem magnified by inaccurate "battle bibles," I should add).

Similarly, the "overpowered characters" couldn't actually do much unless they got in base to base contact, and even that was mitigated by the rules allowing firing into melees and voluntary breaking (followed up, of course, by waves of cleansing firepower). :evilgrin:

As for the psychic phase, it was a pain. It was also optional. Even when the edition was current, people often agreed to omit psykers by mutual consent. (One of the common "fixes" to the edition is to allow the Eldar to select an Exarch to be army commander rather than requiring a Farseer or Avatar.)

Basically, it needed a revision and got gutted. What came after was amusing at first and then got rather boring - but apparently you like it, so it's all good.

Clearly you need to start your own thread on it!

Ehhhhhhh, if all 2nd needed was a revision, that's what GW would have done. They saw fit to scrap the entire gaming engine behind the system and started from scratch. THAT should be pretty telling. The current renaissance we have could be pinned more on nostalgia than claiming that this one edition was objectively the best.

Retrogamer
20-04-2018, 08:55
Retrogamer, reading your replies makes me sometimes think it's a shame we probably don't live nearby - most of your thoughts/feelings around 3rd edition strongly mirror my own, and if given a choice over which 40k rule set to use I'll typically go with either 3.5 edition or very early 4th (4th core rules, 3rd/3.5 edition codexes). Then again, I could very well be too pro-3.5 and/or too much of a narrative/uncompetitive type for your tastes.



Man, I wish I was around then - I'd have been more than happy to take those 3rd edition books off your hands for you. :D

Yeah, it'd be nice to expand the small group I have. Unfortunately any sort of retrogaming means you're behind the 8 ball when trying to find opponents.

And some later 3rd Ed. codices I do dislike, but not enough that I'd refuse to play against those armies.

Lost Egg
21-04-2018, 06:50
Ehhhhhhh, if all 2nd needed was a revision, that's what GW would have done. They saw fit to scrap the entire gaming engine behind the system and started from scratch. THAT should be pretty telling. The current renaissance we have could be pinned more on nostalgia than claiming that this one edition was objectively the best.

I think Commissar's point was that though 2nd ed needed a revision GW instead decided to change the focus of the game to larger battles to drive miniature sales. As 2nd ed was desinged around small firefights it would not work for larger games without a significant re-write, either that or games of the size GW desired would take aaagggeeesss.

Personally I don't really see the connection between 2nd and 8th. I stopped playing around 7th, partly due to my daughter being born but also as I wasn't really happy with the changes from 6th and my interest had been stalling since then. To my mind 40k still has the same essential problems its almost always had and in many ways I don't think GW is interested in making it the best it can be...its a bit like a drugs company, why cure a disease when you can make so much money from treating it?

Commissar von Toussaint
22-04-2018, 01:12
Stereotypical is not the same as consistent. I never hold any value in netlist sort of gripes. People saying that "all you ever saw was x" tends to be hyperbole spun out of an unfun encounter with said x and not having a way to deal with it at the time without altering their army in some way. The things I dislike about 2nd, and that MANY others dislike about 2nd, were more than a common experience, and could even be seen in the battle reports and what tourney play you had at the time.

Again, everything you have written could be said about third. Every. Single. Word.

I find it interesting that you start off by saying just because something is a common complaint doesn't mean it was viable and then by the end basically say that your complaint is more valid because it was...common. :eyebrows:

If you were to wander over to the 2nd ed. thread, you'd find the same points you raised also debated and quite effectively refuted, particularly in your example of "overpowered characters."

My standard-issue commander of the era, Captain Whirlingdeath, killed far more enemy troops in 3rd than he did in 2nd. This was because the superlative stats and weapons of characters in 2nd only came into play in close combat, which required base-to-base contact. Since you had to move into contact as part of the charge, it was very difficult to get more than two models into contact. All extra attacks did was give you lots of dice (which actually hurt you beyond a certain point).

But 3rd removed that difficulty. You only had to be in base to base contact with a single model to fight at full capacity. Moreover the charge range was extended by 50 percent, so not only could you dump more attacks on more models, it was easier to get there.

The upshot: A space marine captain with pistol, power sword, and terminator honors had at least double the killing potential of his 2nd edition equivalent.


Power spiral? Meaning the power levels dropped, or are you talking about codex creep? There were SEVERAL codices that had issues, most also had Gav Thorpe attached to them. Both overpowered and underpowered.

And I'm not sure I can fault GW for attempting to help sales through their rules. They are a miniatures company after all. And lets face it, the Terminators rule change was necessary.

Well yes. They make rules to sell figures - and the results show it. :D


You're also looking at a game system that was fundamentally rewritten from the ground up vs. a game system where up until 8th the modern version was essentially a tweaked version of it. Now that 8th has brought in a heavily changed core system, you may very well see an increase in interest. May not, since consensus on "best" edition and all that. For 2nd Ed. you have either 2nd Ed. or 2nd Ed. to choose from, whereas the 3rd Ed. rules engine is used to make 3rd-7th. Marked difference there.

And none of those subsequent editions have been regarded as "definitive." It's just another tweak and a reset on the power curve.

One of the nice things about playing an old edition is that you no longer have to worry about that happening.


Ehhhhhhh, if all 2nd needed was a revision, that's what GW would have done. They saw fit to scrap the entire gaming engine behind the system and started from scratch. THAT should be pretty telling. The current renaissance we have could be pinned more on nostalgia than claiming that this one edition was objectively the best.

Whatever you do, do not cite GW's business decisions as authoritative regarding either rules clarity or play balance.

Or if you do, give me a warning so I don't spray beer on my monitor. :(

As Lost Egg correctly notes, GW wasn't interested in improving 2nd edition because they saw their games as a way to sell models. So they completely changed the rules system to do just that.

I know, GW likes to pretend it cares about rules balance and I think the designers tell themselves that to help them sleep at night, but we all know it's a lie. GW always rips on previous editions because if you don't buy the upgrade, they don't make any money.

The case of 2nd is kind of interesting because back in the day (on Portent, the predecessor to this site), GW actually had people actively trashing 2nd on the message boards. They really wanted that game dead because (wait for it) people who stuck with it weren't giving them any additional money.

Commissar von Toussaint
22-04-2018, 01:40
I would also add that because of its smaller model count, 2nd lent itself to much more of a narrative style of play. Subsequent editions are almost entirely about models piling onto the tabletop. Basically the game went from squad-platoon scale to platoon-company.

I prefer the former to the latter.

Kakapo42
22-04-2018, 03:45
I would also add that because of its smaller model count, 2nd lent itself to much more of a narrative style of play. Subsequent editions are almost entirely about models piling onto the tabletop. Basically the game went from squad-platoon scale to platoon-company.

I prefer the former to the latter.

I see this argument thrown around a lot, but frankly I don't buy it.

It could be that I simply have a different definition of 'narrative style of play' to most. To me, a narrative style of play is simply where the game is treated more as a storytelling exercise rather than a competition or test or skill. An oversimplification perhaps, but if I were to sum it up in just one short sentence that's probably how I'd go about it. I could probably expand on it with ideas around adding in roleplaying elements and so forth, but at it's core it seems to me to be about considering the game as a storytelling exercise.

In this context, I don't really see a game system being more conducive to large model-counts as having any real impact on how well it lends itself to narrative play. I consider 3.5 edition and early 4th edition 40k to be just as well-suited to a narrative style of play as, say, Necromunda (my apologies if that statement made you spray drink on your monitor :p). Maybe it's because I have a more vivid and active imagination than most, but I don't really feel like game mechanics are that important to facilitating a narrative style of play. Background lore and visuals have always been more important to that in my eyes. I guess what I'm saying is that I've never felt the need to have the game hold my hand to have a great narrative play experience. Indeed, sometimes I find narrative focused game mechanics can get in the way of a narrative style of play - the proliferation of Chapter Tactics style rules in 8th edition is a classic example of this.

Instead I think the difference is more in the kind of stories that are told by a rules set. A game with a smaller model-count might lend itself better to stories with a smaller ensemble cast, where every single last model is a major character with their own full conclusive arc, and everyone gets a similar amount of screen-time (table-time?). A larger model-count game shifts that focus, putting more emphasis on just one or two key characters and having more bit-parts and faceless redshirts. That doesn't mean that either is more conducive for narrative play, it just means that they lend themselves towards different styles of stories told during narrative play (and even then, sometimes you can still play low model-count games using a ruleset written with higher model-counts in mind). Just because a story unfolds at the platoon-company level doesn't make it less of a story than one taking place at a squad-platoon level.

Heck, I could probably have a really narrative play experience with Epic, which is very explicitly a battalion+ oriented game.

Is a story less engaging or interesting just because it has more extras? I'd argue not, it takes more than that to make a story bad. ;)

Commissar von Toussaint
22-04-2018, 13:54
I see this argument thrown around a lot, but frankly I don't buy it.

It could be that I simply have a different definition of 'narrative style of play' to most. To me, a narrative style of play is simply where the game is treated more as a storytelling exercise rather than a competition or test or skill. An oversimplification perhaps, but if I were to sum it up in just one short sentence that's probably how I'd go about it. I could probably expand on it with ideas around adding in roleplaying elements and so forth, but at it's core it seems to me to be about considering the game as a storytelling exercise.

You are correct that you can have a narrative flow with any scale of game. However, certain rules sets are more conducive to it.

2nd of course was a revision of Rogue Trader, which had a strong role-playing element in it. The codices had far more background than the later editions. What was Codex Imperialis but a book of background material? When was the last time GW set aside that much space purely for fluff in a starter box?

The mission cardsalso aided in building a story line as you could have competing (and hidden!) agendas competing on the tabletop.

Finally, the oft-criticized open army creation rules fostered a more collaborative gaming environment. While this did put more of a burden on the players to create a competitive game, it also opened up more possibilities for unique scenarios.

Third ratcheted down on a lot of this. The org chart sharply restricted what you could take without really doing anything to stop cheaty armies. What it did do was discourage narrative-themed armies like an all-terminator force dropping in to clear a target.

(Of course being GW, they later provided masses of loopholes making the notion largely moot.)

Wargear became standardized and simplified because the game was too big to bother with parries. In fact, a lot of the characterful detail went away because of the growth in armies. No more could you have a superbly lucky Imperial Guardsman somehow win a duel with a genestealer. With grenades now an abstraction, you could forget about a lone soldier tossing a krak grenade from a rooftop and scoring a catastrophic kill on a nearby tank barely in range.

And come on, who hasn't had hilarious game results, like turrets flying off and killing an army commander, or a squadron of ork bikes getting caught in a chain reaction of collisions? My personal favorite was a tyranid player who had wiped out ad entire space marine army but for one terminator who then only surrounded the guy with genestealers but decided to hit him with a venom cannon for good measure. The venom cannon missed and curved in a perfect arc around the terminator, wiping out all his adversaries. :eek: The look on the 'nid player's face as each part of the thudd gun template was rolled was priceless. We still laugh about it 20 years later. :D

We tried to do stories in 3rd, but you just had less material to work with because of all the abstraction. In 2nd, the system itself made the stories. Who was that guardsman who killed the genestealer? Who was that lone terminator? What happened to that carnifex that took 20 wounds in a turn and managed to regenerate enough to stay alive? (Actually, I know the answer to that last one - the next turn we gave him 36 more wounds and this time he stayed dead :evilgrin: .)

2nd had enough detail for its scale and that provided some fun vignettes that practically begged to be enshrined in a story. Yes, you could make up a narrative about games in 3rd, but you had less material to work with. It was closer to making up stories about games in Axis and Allies or some other abstract game.

I guess the difference comes down to in 3rd, you'd get some goofy result and - if you were building a narrative game - have to discuss how that actually happened.

In 2nd, you'd find yourself staring at the tabletop asking yourself: did that just happen?

Lost Egg
22-04-2018, 18:56
I would also add that because of its smaller model count, 2nd lent itself to much more of a narrative style of play. Subsequent editions are almost entirely about models piling onto the tabletop. Basically the game went from squad-platoon scale to platoon-company.

I prefer the former to the latter.

I heartily agree. While I expect you can play smaller games of 40k 8th ed its just not the same as the Combat Patrol in 5th...that was great fun and reminded me of 2nd ed; smaller forces meant more room for manoeuvring and you really felt the death of every mini. Kill Team was much the same in 5th then to my mind they overcomplicated it.

Kakapo42
23-04-2018, 03:55
We tried to do stories in 3rd, but you just had less material to work with because of all the abstraction. In 2nd, the system itself made the stories. Who was that guardsman who killed the genestealer? Who was that lone terminator? What happened to that carnifex that took 20 wounds in a turn and managed to regenerate enough to stay alive? (Actually, I know the answer to that last one - the next turn we gave him 36 more wounds and this time he stayed dead :evilgrin: .)

The funny thing is that actually reads as an argument against 2nd edition for me.

Again, it's likely that I just have a very different approach to narrative play than most, or because I have an unusually active imagination, but I don't really want the system itself to make the stories - that's my job, and the job of my opponent. Things like where a flying tank turret lands or what happens when an Ork biker looses control of their bike are details that I don't want the game to tell me, because those sorts of things are details I want to be able to decide for myself, or details I want to let my opponent decide for themselves. Going by your descriptions above, I feel like if I were to play a game of 2nd edition, the only reaction I'd have would be to shrug and say "OK, now what." The way you've described it sounds like I'd probably find it too railroaded.

A similar phenomenon is why my favourite codexes are still the 3.5 edition ones, and why I like them over the 2nd edition codexes I've read, despite the comparatively lower quantity of background material in them - I'd much rather have just 5 pages of in-universe background packed full of incredible artwork and phenomenally evocative atmosphere than 15 or 20 pages of relatively dry background by an omniscient narrator, because the former leaves me with much more inspiration and room to build on with my own imagination.

Again, I don't want the game to tell me everything. That discussion about how some strange result actually happened in 3rd is half the fun for me. Really what I'm looking for in a game, narrative-wise, is for it to provide a good skeleton of a story that me and my opponent can then flesh out ourselves, a framework for our own narratives. In this way I find a degree of abstraction a help rather than a hinderance. Now, that said, it is certainly possible to have too much abstraction in some areas, and I suspect abstraction in the wrong places is a major factor in why 8th edition 40k just doesn't do it for me (things like the morale rules and lack of vehicle facings in 8th are prime culprits here). But 3.5 edition 40k, and its cousin early 4th edition, provide exactly the right balance between abstraction and detail that I'm looking for in a tabletop wargame. The somewhat abstracted classes of close combat weapons in the 4th edition core rules are a great example of this - I like having a difference in how, say, heavy close combat weapons and power weapons inflict damage, but I don't need to know the minutiae of different varieties of power weapon (indeed, giving different power weapons different AP values in 6th was something that never has and never will make sense to me) - just give me a general power weapon mechanic and I can figure out the rest of what happens in the story myself.

And incidentally, I've had some great experiences with making up stories about what happens in games of Risk with my friends. :angel:

Ultimately, 3.5 and 4th edition 40k are just right for what I want in a narrative game, and 2nd edition, it seems, is not. Evidently however it is exactly what you're looking for with narrative play, and that's great! But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be universally fantastic for all kinds of narrative players.

Retrogamer
23-04-2018, 08:33
When you got a "Vehicle Annihilated" result in 3rd, you didn't need to have it list what bits went where as the explosion spread out 6", that's on the players to visualize. Some abstraction is absolutely necessary in this case, and never was that more obvious in the changes from the 2nd Edition vehicle rules to the vehicle rules in 3rd Edition.

The_Real_Chris
23-04-2018, 11:45
Instead I think the difference is more in the kind of stories that are told by a rules set. A game with a smaller model-count might lend itself better to stories with a smaller ensemble cast, where every single last model is a major character with their own full conclusive arc, and everyone gets a similar amount of screen-time (table-time?). A larger model-count game shifts that focus, putting more emphasis on just one or two key characters and having more bit-parts and faceless redshirts. That doesn't mean that either is more conducive for narrative play, it just means that they lend themselves towards different styles of stories told during narrative play (and even then, sometimes you can still play low model-count games using a ruleset written with higher model-counts in mind). Just because a story unfolds at the platoon-company level doesn't make it less of a story than one taking place at a squad-platoon level.

Heck, I could probably have a really narrative play experience with Epic, which is very explicitly a battalion+ oriented game.

Is a story less engaging or interesting just because it has more extras? I'd argue not, it takes more than that to make a story bad. ;)

I think the issue isn't size per say (or model size), but space. I played an Ork army in 8th that filled the deployment zone completely. It advanced in a mass. Sure its a great story to talk about the wall of Orks, but you want some variety in the 'wall of...' 40k stories. A bigger table, or less models on a 6x4 gives space to move around and develop tactics and narrative. Turn one everything shoots turn turn the enemy 'wall of... hits you isn't that.
One advantage of 2nd was the time it took to get to CC and the shooting you took getting there made it more of a challenge. Lower movement speeds made that aspect more important and fast troops more terrifying (genestealers racing in were a source of consternation).
Epic A has a lot of variation in movement and that drives a lot of the challenge and interest. The increase in model count per square foot is a boost to profits but something of a detriment to that forging lots of _different_ narratives.

Lost Egg
24-04-2018, 07:54
I think the issue isn't size per say (or model size), but space. I played an Ork army in 8th that filled the deployment zone completely. It advanced in a mass. Sure its a great story to talk about the wall of Orks, but you want some variety in the 'wall of...' 40k stories. A bigger table, or less models on a 6x4 gives space to move around and develop tactics and narrative. Turn one everything shoots turn turn the enemy 'wall of... hits you isn't that.

One advantage of 2nd was the time it took to get to CC and the shooting you took getting there made it more of a challenge. Lower movement speeds made that aspect more important and fast troops more terrifying (genestealers racing in were a source of consternation).

Epic A has a lot of variation in movement and that drives a lot of the challenge and interest. The increase in model count per square foot is a boost to profits but something of a detriment to that forging lots of _different_ narratives.

This remind me of a WD battle report where one chap (Andy...someone...not Chambers) had a solid block of Orks and his plan was to charge forwards en-mass straight for the objective while the Eldar player had a more spread out deployment. They made a big thing in the report that such an aggressive deployment by the Ork player raised a lot of eyebrows so such a tactic must have been rare then. At the time it was no surprise to me what the outcome would be...the Orks charge and the Eldar formed up as a funnel and blasted them to bits before swooping in to win the game.

I guess someone in GW saw that report and thought that should be the model for Ork tactics...

Angelwing
24-04-2018, 18:50
that was a 2nd ed battle report that was reprinted in the 2nd ed battles book between adi 'grand warlord' wood and jake thornton.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-04-2018, 00:55
When you got a "Vehicle Annihilated" result in 3rd, you didn't need to have it list what bits went where as the explosion spread out 6", that's on the players to visualize. Some abstraction is absolutely necessary in this case, and never was that more obvious in the changes from the 2nd Edition vehicle rules to the vehicle rules in 3rd Edition.

I get that people didn't like some of the detailed results in 2nd (like the turret flying off and landing somewhere) but 3rd totally ruined vehicles for me.

Tanks with ordnance became deployed pillboxes, and if they moved, they crawled across the map and could be outrun by leg infantry.

Plus GW came up with convoluted rulings, like the one where a red-painted ork vehicle could actually declare itself stationary but use its booster rockets and if it's move was 3" or less, it counted as stationary - really ruined it for me. And no, I didn't encounter that little nugget on the tabletop, but in the pages of White Dwarf, explaining how it was perfectly legal. :wtf:

Plus, there were the oddball things like the Imperial Guard forming up in ordered ranks with their troops in front of their tanks - acting as meat shields to the ordnance could do its work. :eyebrows:

And yes, I also noticed how the "wall of orks" went from being suicidal to a viable tactic.

I mentioned it before, but I don't understand how people argue that characters in 2nd were overpowered when they had to physically touch a model to engage it in close combat. Not in 3rd! Get your captain in contact with a single enemy model and he could wipe out the whole squad.

I will grant that narratives in 3rd were harder because the game was so counter-intuitive.

That was also my problem with the game: the tactics were counter-intuitive as well.

Nkari
26-04-2018, 21:13
I think they mean the Deepstriking terminator armed librarian wiping out 2/3rds of the oponents army with one spell.

My favourite moment in 2nd ed was when my terminator kited chaos lord with a refractor field, legged it across the whole board, in the open, and shrugged off everything inkuding lascannons, krak missiles etc, but just before he got to charge, he died to a lasgun..

So much fun, Tho I had real problems vs nids generaly, especially the carnifexes.. =)

Commissar von Toussaint
27-04-2018, 23:30
I think they mean the Deepstriking terminator armed librarian wiping out 2/3rds of the oponents army with one spell.

That's why I've used the psychic rules exactly twice since the game came out.

Oddly, none of my opponents wanted to use them, either. They were optional for a reason.


My favourite moment in 2nd ed was when my terminator kited chaos lord with a refractor field, legged it across the whole board, in the open, and shrugged off everything inkuding lascannons, krak missiles etc, but just before he got to charge, he died to a lasgun..

So much fun, Tho I had real problems vs nids generaly, especially the carnifexes.. =)

You mean with chaos? Wouldn't a bloodthirster take care of that problem?

Captain Brown
15-05-2018, 22:51
My group has liked the new rules and has played more games during the last 10 months than we did for 4th through 7th edition.

I would agree the game became much simpler, but that has speeded up play. We also pretty well play with single armies on each side, not much in the way of selecting other armies detachments to cover the weaknesses of your own army. All but one of our players seem to base their armies on themes rather than effectiveness. We also play with the Force Points rather than the regular points tables...being fairly strict on WYSIWYG. Again there is one player who pushes the boundaries of that and has lots of "exceptions" to point out before the games. I think in all the 30+ games played there have only been 3 or 4 one sided games and 2 of those were armies that had a lot of proxies and special formations, not a normally balanced force.

I like the recent changes rewarding the more traditional armies organization of Hq, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support rather than allowing unlimited special formations, which resulted in some of our one sided games.

My two cents,

CB

Lost Egg
16-05-2018, 06:29
Does anyone play small games, do they play well?

I'm thinking Combat Patrol size here as I much prefer smaller games.

dragonbreath
15-06-2018, 17:31
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.

Late to the party as usual, I will say this: terrain rules pretty much guaranty the dakka creep makes for short games roundwise, but the the high number of shots and rerolls usually makes for an unpleasant round for someone and stretches the game out timewise...not to mention problems with Alpha strike and the real meta is STILL list building at the expense of strategic games.

More interesting, I think, and it says a lot about the state of the game, pre- and post-FAQ are the preponderance of marine armies, space wolves, and of course, grey knights, on eBay, and the occasional small groups of lazorbacks and hive tyrants for sale. I would hate to think that GW actually does this stuff deliberately, but intentional or not, the effect is the same. The power unit spamming went unabated for a year before the FAQ...then whamo! GW concerns led to the FAQ. Then again, I have Ultramarines, so what do I know.

ValentineGames
18-06-2018, 19:58
I dislike 8th quite allot.
It does nothing new and adds things that are poorly implemented.

The turn sequence is still stupid.
The AP system needs at least a D10 to work.
And everything feels twice as slow to do.

Not for me at all.
And the community is very aggressive I find

shabbadoo
05-08-2018, 11:34
Well, 8E is sort of like a ship in space...

Somewhere in the depths of space, aboard the Apocalypse class battleship Gelt Plunderer...

Player: "I'm afraid we have a leak, sir."

GW: "By the Emperor's perfect teeth! A leak?! How long do we have?"

Player: "Oh, we have plenty of time! At least until next edition, because the leak is not in the hull."

GW: "Whew! You had me worried! What is leaking then?"

Player: "Just the plasma core. Some will die, but enough will survive. Probably."

GW: "Full speed ahead then!"


(Almost forgot! The Shooting Phase is the plasma core. Those that die are the armies that don't have BS 3+. And Orks. Orks are sucking all things suckable at he moment. Sadly, only some core rules altering b.s. codex rules will set things right for them. Only half the armies are majorly impacted by the changes to the shooting rules though, so, you know, no big deal.)