Rant/Whine: 8th Edition Ain’t No Fun (To Me)

Good day, dear reader. I come to you today after a long posting hiatus with sadness in my heart. Indeed, I am coming to the brutal conclusion that my days of playing 40k may be over, as I just don’t find it fun in its current iteration.

This revelation comes on the heels of the latest tournament I attended (Powerfists & Psykers 9, organized by the awesome Canhammer team). While I have to credit my opponents for being very cool and nice to chat with, I still have to say I did not enjoy myself much, if at all. I ended up with 2 losses and a win, but all three games were extremely lopsided: I got tabled in both losses and I  tabled my opponent in my win. All 3 games were pretty much decided by turn 2, and the rest of the turns were just me or them running through the motions.

This led me to think back on all the games of 8th ed I’ve had so far, and it made me realise that the overwhelming majority of them have followed this pattern. I don’t know if my experience is anomalous, but from what a lot of people have been telling me, it isn’t – and thus I despair. You see, beyond the obvious un-funness of getting pounded on for several turns when you already know the result of the game is a foregone conclusion (or conceding before the game is even halfway through), there’s just little satisfaction to be gained from playing a game where the only way to win is to outright kill your opponent – at least in my view. Despite its myriad flaws, at least 7th ed allowed for a more tactical style of gameplay, where a savvy general could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by “playing to the mission,” as the expression goes. Given that most games I’ve played have concluded by a tabling around turn 4, this style of gameplay is effectively dead. Objective Secured – a rule I love and have used to great effect in the past – could not be more irrelevant at the moment.

Right now, even victory feels hollow and unsatisfying, as watching my opponent flail around uselessly once I’ve gained the upper hand is no more fun than being the one doing the flailing.

I would love to say that lack of balance is at fault here, but all previous editions of 40k had pretty serious balance issues and yet still managed to deliver a more satisfying tactical experience than 8th does. No, the fault rather lies with the core rules that have allowed the damage-dealing potential of the various armies of 40k to skyrocket. I think this wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that 8th still uses the antiquated IGOUGO system; indeed, I suspect an alternating unit activation system would go a long way towards mitigating the potential for devastating alpha/beta strikes that completely cripple one player early in the game and makes continuing the match a rather pointless endeavor. I am strongly considering putting together a set of houserules to trial such a system, but I am scared this would be a waste of time as I am doubtful many people would want to diverge from playing “core 40k.”

And so I am at a crossroads: continue playing a game that is the tabletop equivalent of watching reality TV, or give up a hobby on which I’ve sunk immeasurable time, money and effort and to which I feel an actual emotional attachment. Either way, the road ahead is not going to be fun.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

171 Responses to “Rant/Whine: 8th Edition Ain’t No Fun (To Me)”

  1. Nick says:

    I feel ya, man. I felt that way, for not the same reasons, about the end of 5th/start of 6th. I still haven't played competitively since then, but I have tried to stay semi-current on things due to that emotional attachment. An emotional attachment I also mega loathe. Having been in since early 3rd edition (technically late 2nd but didn't learn the rules well enough for them to stick until 3rd ed came out) I have quite the financial and labor investment in my myriad forces as well.

    Been trying to get back into 40k with 8th with a buddy, I imagine we can mitigate the alpha/beta strike issue between the two of us. That's of zero use in a normal gaming environment. Even so, it's been a struggle to get back into the hobby tons of mixed feelings.

    Speaking just for me and my couple friends that might play, I'd definitely consider a set of house rules that provide an alternative to IGOUGO; however the ease of learning these rules and compatibility with codices would be critical.

    • Desc440 says:

      I think the core rules can be modified for alternating activation without a huge lot of hassle. I'm a bit more hesitant to say the same for codex compatibility but it would probably not be a huge deal more complicated either.

      • Prometheus says:

        I've barely touched my tau. I feel like a hammerhead group led by Longstrike should do wonders, but all that happens is either lascannons or darklances get him turn one. Hammerhead by itself is dramatically overpriced. Str 10 sounds good, but doesn't really do anything over str 9, and while the mortal wounds is actually nice 1 shot just doesn't really compare with the 4 that imperial predators get, or 3 that ravagers get, or anything else, really. Not interested in calling all my crisis suits HQs and riding it out until the new codex. Not getting revised points in CA was pretty bullshit. Yeah, codex is probably out in a few months, by why should I have to wait until then?

        Release all the books, at once, for free. Fuck your marketing.

      • Andy says:

        We've been playing huge games (8-10k pts) and divide the armies up into 2 or 3k sections (normally 2k but some of the titans cost too much), each one takes a turn to activate. It infinitely more balanced than the basic game is.

    • terto says:

      sy guys, whats the problem with alpha/beta strike atm i didn't experienced this ….should any army have access to scouts to form a dead zone of deep strike? i mean if you feel this is so much a problem for exemple pretty much 2 units of nurglings can from turn 1 guarantee oppnents cant charge on your first line.

    • JasonRed3 says:

      An alternative to IGOUGO would make the game a million times better in my book. Going first is often the deciding factor in a match.

  2. Prometheus says:

    8th edition has not been as different from previous editions as I was led to believe in June. It has been more deadly…which yeah, just leads to tabling.

    Mortal wounds feel like the inverse of previous invo save problems. They are not rare.

    I really did start playing again because they promised free rules. (I had quit since 7th) That's just how I believe a wargame should be run. But the rules were not free, not free at all.

    My friend re-started because he was happy that all armies were starting with a clean slate, and we thought they were all going to be updated simultanously. But that seemed more a strategy to sell $25 books….releasing codexes one at a time, quickly, but still piecemeal, isn't good I think. GW likes it because they can build marketing hype and sell the books. But they shouldn't be trying to sell the books. They should be trying to sell the models, and update everyone's rules all at once. Just make the game good and the models will sell.

    The fact that nearly everyone can shoot everyone else turn 1 (and often, charge) is just not good. Most games you're going to know who's going to win end of turn one….one guy got to go first, and the other guy either had a sufficient mitigating strategy, or didn't.

    I'm enjoying the hobby, and playing with my friends. But I haven't even really thought of going to anything beyond a local tournament. New GW seems a lot like old GW.

    • Desc440 says:

      Ref: "not free rules" : All fair points, though I will say I'm not too fussed about spending money on the rulebooks if the resulting game is both fun and satisfying (which 40k isn't for me, at the moment).

    • JasonRed3 says:

      I liked the idea of promised free rules. Chapter Approved 2017 is REQUIRED it seems… and it's certainly not free.

      Yes, GW is still GW.

      I know it's cynical, but I firmly believe that at least some of the cost reductions on units is directly based on how well/poorly their models are selling.

  3. SomeCallMeTim says:

    First couple of weeks, I jokingly said that every battle is No Mercy, regardless of actual mission, because pretty much every game ended in a tabling or nearly. Can't really play the mission if your remaining units are hiding from the guys that annihilated all their friends.

    One guy even forgot we were playing the Scouring.
    Still kinda feels that way, guess copious amounts of LoS blocking terrain is in order.

  4. muggins12 says:

    Do you think using fewer turns would help, or is that just lipstick on a pig?

    • Prometheus says:

      I think the problem is too few turns..i.e. everything is usually decided very early on.

    • Desc440 says:

      It would be a Band-Aid fix. Still better than no fix, but it would feel awfully weird to pour all the time and energy into writing a list, finding an opponent, going to a store/their place, unpacking your stuff, setting up the board, determining the mission, deploying your guys and then playing what? 2-3 turns?

      Like I said, better than no fix, but a more involved solution is necessary.

      • muggins12 says:

        Yeah, I think 40k has some inherent problems in terms of how far things can shoot and how fast they can move that makes it more deadly as well, but that should have been fixed with a new edition. Changing it now would cause tears.

        • Desc440 says:

          Another problem with playing fewer turns is that it completely buttf*cks assault armies, which are already struggling enough as it is vs shooty armies.

    • Scuzgob says:

      "lipstick on a pig" is the best version of that kind of saying ive ever seen

  5. happy_inquisitor says:

    Even when I had a communication mix-up and took a fluffy Tau list against a full-on Tournament Marines list in a kill points mission I did not get tabled. Sure I lost but I was well short of being tabled. Mostly I grind out wins on the objectives, I have only tabled two opponents in all of 8th and never been tabled.

    Are people just taking glass cannon lists and then either tabling or getting tabled? I really truly do not get it.

    • Desc440 says:

      My tournament list featured a pretty big contingent of Tactical Marines (30 of them, to be precise) and they still got swept off the table like it was nothing.

      • PuppetSoul says:

        There isn't much difference between Tactical Marines and Conscripts, to be quite honest.

      • terto says:

        30 tactical marine mean all and nothing; the best use you can do with meq is sit them in cover make them have a 2+ and thats it , thats the use for tactical , aside from that what you're list was made of how many points etc would help ppl get an idea of what happened., this is true also for desc440, if he may write down his list we may figure out if there was somethign wrong.
        I always played 30 csm from 6th and they never fooled me unless i made a mistake. While csm was infamous in 6-7th i disagree since i won most of my games (juggy+meq+termicide+bikers+mauler+turrets+inquisition conversion beamer )and when i lost i bringed 4fun list vs powergamers or i made mistake. My list always had the upper hand in buildings because the way i played it fixed apparently flaw only in csm design which in fact they haden't (exept HQ not have easy access to eteral warrior and shoot 72" weapons )..

  6. Rob says:

    Dont give in just yet 🙂 I played at the uk gt heat 1 I lost 50 veterans to a turn 1 girlyman alpha strike and wondered what on earth the point was but I sat down and figured out new tactics to mitigate that occurring again. Look at your army list again and work at it there are solutions to the current problems.

    My mate felt like giving up when he thought his eldar dex could not compete a few playtests later hes got them working. The main thing is fo adjust how you think the game works its very different to previous editions and you need to adapt to make it work 🙂

    • Desc440 says:

      If only it was just that. But as I said, even victory feels hollow. Missions don't matter enough right now for my taste.

  7. ManDollySavage says:

    I really need to write a article or some kind of blog for addressing these kind of subjects.

    Its really hard to gauge forum or blog comments like "this game is decided on turn 2" or "the alpha strike ability in 8th is too strong and everyone can be charged turn 1" or "my games are not fun cause reason A or B or C". I hear into this locally all the time, and unfortunately most of the time it has nothing to do with the actual game mechanics or rules of 40k.

    The number of cons/local tournaments/games nights iv just sat in on and watched games I can say that there are a few reasons for tabling or one sided battles where one player just gets wrecked and has a unfun experience. All the reasons are quite obvious but its hard to seperate your emotional experience from what really is the issue…its you (ducks wrench from being thrown at my head).

    A) Table set up – I should really start taking pics of tables here locally that people play on, games nights and tournaments. I shake my head in disbelief the lack of and line of sight blocking terrain. At a 32 person tourny recently (16) tables, i would say 4-5 tables had absolutely no large LOS blocking pieces, a few hills here and there, a forrest, a few small 1 level ruins. There was literally no where on the table you could hide from a gunline. Some tables didnt even have ruins, just a ton of difficult terrain swamps and rock formations that you could maybe hide 2-3 models at best. Please see Nova/ITC style table setups, I know its hard to fill 16+ tables completely full of 25-30% table coverage, but the issue is the table setup, no the game mechanics. If you play on properly set up tables, gunlines do NOT dominate.

    • Desc440 says:

      Having a lot of LOS-blocking terrain does help… but it shouldn't be necessary. Personnaly, I hate the stupid random walls arbitrarily plonked down in the middle of the board – it breaks immersion. Plus, getting the right balance can be tricky – if you overdo it, it's assault armies that run amok.

      • xvim says:

        I have to disagree, in part at least. The table/terrain is as much part of the game as everything else. Breaking LOS makes the whole game more challenging, I think,. Since setting up an amry on the table and thinking ahead then involves a bit more then pure target priority.
        I agree though, that there can be too much.

        And personally to me, a table full of nice terrain increases immersion a lot. The centerpiece should not be a bland wall in the middle. I agree on that

        • Desc440 says:

          Oh I love terrain too, don't get me wrong, but its just that non-LOS blocking terrain has so little effect currently that you need big, ugly LOS blockers to have any impact. THAT is what I don't like.

          • happy_inquisitor says:

            Yes, the Cities of Death rules are a lot better than the matched play "standard" terrain rules. They make games more interesting.

            Strangely while AoS broadly a far simpler game it actually has more interesting and meaningful rules for terrain.

        • terto says:

          i disagree with xvim, play with terrain is mandatory the game is balanced with haveing not few but a lot of blockign los stuff on a standard table till 1850 pt ther should be 6 ruins/buildings and 3 barraks/1 big buildings in middle.

          WHY? not because melee army stuff much more because shooting army otherwise never move, you will be surprise how much a shooting army need to move around when the table is set right.the game is not only balanced around melee or shoot, movement is a big part of the balance and having los blockign stuff balance a lot better the game, Since most shooty units have as weakenss a bad movement , when do not is a balance problem or the cost justify it.

    • Kirby says:

      I have to agree with this. While I have similarly had a lot of games ending in tablings, more so than previous editions, I still think there are either list building or play concerns that encourage that outcome. LoS blocking is so big as well as you are either forcing movement (reducing their incoming firepower) or completely out of sight to get a beta strike but then are moving yourself (so reducing your incoming firepower).

      I can relate to everyone's frustration over the IGOUGO system and that stratagems have tried to polish it a little bit (to varying levels of success) but that's what 40k has always been. I am not sure how an alternating activation system would go on such a large game but think more interruptions of a turn is not a bad thing.

      And that's not saying all tablings are based in needed improvements in gameplay – I have seen games with very little mistakes just end up that way and I do think that is part of 8th edition, the general damage across the board has increased even if it takes more lascannons statistically to kill things.

      • Desc440 says:

        Tablings are not in and of themselves bad, but 1) I find tabling-hammer to be a not very rewarding gameplay experience (like watching reality TV: it can be fun in small doses but too much of it gets boring quick) personnaly and 2) you can pretty much always tell who's going to get tabled by the end of T2, which makes continuing the game kinda boring and redundant.

        • Kirby says:

          I agree certainly with 1 but not always with 2. If it does happen, yes it makes the playthrough very frustrating and I have seen that happen (and experienced it myself) but even if 8th I have seen turnarounds where the mission does come into play.

          • Desc440 says:

            Well regardless of wether 2 is true or not, 1 is enough of a turn off for me. I understand that's a taste issue, though.

        • Andy says:

          This is, very succinctly i think the real problem with ITC.

          It is so bloody boring. At least in maelstrom, anyone can (probably) win til the end of the game, i mean they likely won't, but it's possible.

          I think another huge issue is you don't need much of a skill disparity, before tabling is almost certain. Especially when people run full codex armies into soup.

          At the end of the day, if you are playing warhammer 40k to win, you are doing it wrong, play to have fun and try to win, try to do the best you can and learn to deal with bad luck, but always accept that you might have been the better player with the better army, but that isn't enough to win.

    • akorndr2 says:

      Agreed that’s a real issue, sometimes you get a table of terrain others you’re playing in a open field with tree line or swamp. Now this is kinda fluffy but one day tournaments are hard the gouge real results play pool is to small

  8. ManDollySavage says:

    B) Game Type Scenario – Iv completely switched over to Nova/ITC champions missions from the book/malestorm missions now. The book missions reward gunlines so hard it scews results for scoring. The book missions dont force you to engage until the end of the game for scoring, so why would a gunline ever move off the back line till the last 2 turns? ITC and Nova mission packs bring a new light into how you play the game. Progressive scoring is the only way to punish armies that like to sit back and shoot from a distance. It forces you to manuver and take board control, allowing forces to engage and fight over objectives to score. The secondary style of scoring balances the skew armies out there. If they want to spam titans, you can tailor your win condition for that, they spam msu units, theres a secondary for that, they want to spam smite characters, theres a secondary for that, tank? yep, secondaries for that too. Maelstorm cards vary so much that sometimes your get a dud turn, no one like randomness…dice.

    C) Your List – Again, iv walked around cons and large tournys and I can just see from the terrain layout and the 2 lists who is 90% more likely to win. If you bring a new fun list with lack of options to deal with the meta, you cant complain that you stood no chance. Truth is, you didnt, and its kind of your fault (and sometimes its not) bar codex armies vs index, but thats another story. The amount of times iv head "he turn 1 charged my tanks with guys and tied them up so i couldnt shoot for 2 turn, this is dumb"…umm why were your tanks on the deploy line? why did you not have a sufficient sceening unit? are you not able to take scouts or infiltrators to deny movement options, or deepstriking defense? The amount of marine lists i see without 1 or 2 scout units stuns me. 60pt Eldar rangers/marine scouts cant kill shit, but if they prevent 2 sternguard droppods or 30 hormagaunt trygons from appearing 9" away from your expensive units and tanks, then are they worth 60pts, id say a hell of alot more. Just delaying combat for 1 more turn can make or break your chances.

    • Desc440 says:

      B) Not having played NOVA/ITC missions, I can't really comment. The tournament I attended used ETC-type missions, which didn't really help as you automatically got zero score for a game where you got tabled.

      C) and D) I'll address together. If it was really an issue with me or my list, games against less tactically-proficient with less efficient lists would have been less lopsided. But no, it was more of the same, except I was handing out the asskickings instead of receiving them.

      • happy_inquisitor says:

        ETC has always tended towards really extreme games – the current format really encourages ass-kicking which is no surprise from the ETC.

        I guess for team tournaments, which are at the heart of the ETC format, it might make some sort of sense but for individual games and tournaments I just don't think it is a good format at all. If you combo that with a lack of terrain then really it only takes one player to fully engage in glass hammer alpha-strike strategy to set the tone of the game: someone is getting tabled.

        40K is designed to support a wide variety of game styles and tournaments do not dominate the needs of its design more than other styles. We can play tournaments with it but to play in that style and it actually still be fun for most players takes a bit of care, restraint and concern about the whole setup, format and scenario. Planet bowling ball with a scoring format and scenario that encourage trying to maximise points by tabling your opponent is very much optimising for un-fun experiences for most players.

        OR – unless you are actually playing in the actual ETC team event you are probably best avoiding anything in an ETC format. Unless you happen to like smash-em-table-em games which apparently you do not. You will not find me anywhere near an ETC format tournament for exactly that reason.

      • Kirby says:

        I have not played NOVA but ITC is popular here and they are vastly better than the rulebook missions but also had several issues of their own. I have only tried a few of their new ones but they at least got rid of random mission objective crap. I do not know ETC missions so cannot comment there either but homebrew missions are one of my biggest pet peeves. The WA Masters and Australian Masters (so you know, events that are inviting the best…) have a rule where if you table your opponent you get one extra turn to score things. So here's a rule which encourages you to leave one little dude left alive so you can complete the game compared to letting the game finish naturally.

        • Desc440 says:

          I think letting the game end naturally is the way to go. Automaticaly going with 0 points for getting tabled makes the game where you ARE getting tabled even less fun. At least if you know you can minimise how many battlepoints you're going to lose, that at least gives you something to work towards…

          • Kadeton says:

            My main game is Malifaux, where being tabled doesn't mean an instant loss and the outcome is based on how well you've achieved the objectives. Coming from that "focus on the points!" mentality, the games of 40k I've played have generally ended with a huge VP lead for me… but I've been tabled, so it's moot. That's immensely frustrating.

            Honestly, I think the best thing for the game would just be to use VP to determine the outcome regardless of whether you've got any models left. Otherwise, the whole VP system is pretty pointless.

            I'd also be very interested in a system where you activate one detachment at a time, going back and forth, rather then the entire army at once. If you can cram your whole army into one detachment because you want to alpha-strike, good for you, but I think that would make for at least some interesting list-building decisions (trading off CP for fewer activations, having to activate Lords of War separately, etc). It would require very little modification of the game rules.

            • akorndr2 says:

              Itc missions help this. I tabled a player and nearly lost the mission. Turned a major win to a minor win. That’s a big deal and when we get to the extreme end of 40k of rock paper scissors then tabling happens. My list is a mix imperial force and the chapter approve stuff is about to drop so don’t count your eggs just yet

    • Andy says:

      I have to say i agree with an awful lot of what you say, and a ton of it makes sense, however i am not convinced on needing more terrain.

      There are a few units (normally on a 1 per army basis) that are melee based, and a ridiculous threat in melee glass cannons. These things do not need more terrain to hide in.

      the ITC rule of no los through first floor of ruins, basically means if you put ruins on the board, you gave up that space of the board to the melee monsters, and its bad, because the places the terrain is, is exactly where you want to put the psycho troops if going 2nd. It is also exactly where the troops you charge across the map in hopes of getting a psychic power off to give them the ability for a T1 charge end up, all told, it is quite quite horrible.

      The penalty for attempting T1 assaults with glasscannons has to be penalised by them getting cleaned up if it fails, or the risk reward is just too great in favour of the assault troops.

      I am not entirely certain on this, but it looks like you could see an army from eldar thats a threat to put 12 harlequins, 10 howling banshees and 10 fire dragons in an alpha strike position on T1, backed up by whatever other stuff they feel like coming zooming across the map to support it or just shoot up your army (crimson hunters maybe). The problem is that some is running across the map, and some is deep striking it is very very hard to screen against, and very hard to stop them tying things up in melee that can't untie themselves.

      My concern is Deepstrike Harlequins that then move with their psychic power, literally lets them be anywhere that there is room for a 20mm base, Deep strike Ynarri Harleqins aren't the same threat to just invade your deployment zone, but its 96 Attacks from a 242 pt unit that are S4 -3 1.

      i don't think good players will have an easy time dealing with this, average players will be like well fuck me sideways, i seem to be unable to get out of combat ever, and they have 3++, thanks this seems like a sterling piece of game design.

      Obviously the use of scouts to deny the deep strike is available, but the sheer mobility just scares me, at exactly the same time they fixed the number 1, i table you on turn 1, army they also introducded new and exciting ways to lose the game.

      I fucking love my harlequins, my solitaire is a model of Harley Quinn from one of the bat man games and she is the single most awesome thing in the world, but i can't ever play them, because omfg are they boring to play when they all got SiD procs, and now just as they become reasonable again, they get buffed to truly hilarious levels.

  9. ManDollySavage says:

    D) Your just a bad player? Harsh but the truth. Most people in any sport or game are bad, maybe not among your friends or small meta, but on a large scale across to players you are. There are going to be people who you will never beat, or will have a small chance of beating. They know dice math better than you, know the rules better than you, they understand threats and ranges better than you, and build more balanced and better lists than you. Most people cap out at learning and have a hard time progressing, i know players that have played the game for 15 years, and are still bad at the game, yet we all know that 18 year or or younger who has only played for a year or two, but now is top dog at the stores. This doesnt just happen in warhammer, warmachine is the same, some people just understand the game on a different level, and they always rise to the top.

    Conclusion…did you have fun? no…? analyze why and be critical of factors that may have contributed to it. Put your emotional bias aside and be honest with yourself. Did you honestly take the best list you could for your goals? where there blatant gaps that you need to fill for a more balanced list? did you play on a table that was sufficiently covered in terrain? Did you make sound tactical decisions that made sense? Did any decisions cost you the game, how could you have done it differently? did the dice go sideways…its a dice game, missing 8 out of 8 lascannons shots in a turn can suck, its happens, oh well, move on.

    • Frank O'Donnell says:

      Maybe the truth is that it's just a poor game with poor rules & it doesn't take much to work out that loads of mid strength shots are much better then a few high strength one's, sure that lasconnon might do 6 damage but it might only do 1.

      • happy_inquisitor says:

        The game is a toolbox. A fairly open-ended toolbox at that.

        Some tournament scenes choose to set things up for "decisive" results which are basically extreme games. Other tournament scenes carefully construct the scoring system, scenarios and terrain for less extreme game experiences.

        Relative stats for win-by-tabling across ETC and ITC would be fascinating, the design goals of the two tournament formats are so opposed it is almost not the same game. They are different games built out of the same toolbox.

      • terto says:

        or maybe a lot ot lascannons shoots like 10 x turn will obbliterate you ebwfore you even came in range sicne they have 48" of range you know outrange your opponent mean an advanatge ; you start first move and still cant shoot because too low range then the seond player shoot for first ebcause he have more range, results you're screw, this was in 6-7th muchmore bad than in 8th as 1 lascanon+ could oneshoot any vehicle

  10. CKuno says:

    Ok? I'm not sure what the point of this post is beyond personal catharsis for the author. You decided to try out 8th, played a few games, didn't like the results, decided the game isn't for you. This is a pretty common occurrence regardless of game or edition and not really newsworthy or anything.

    The only thing I'd add is that this is what 40k is now. The game is SUPPOSED to be a lot bloodier than it was in 7th. It was a conscious effort made to speed up games which were dragging on and on due to how difficult it became to kill other player's models. If you don't like that style, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not some inherent flaw in the game. Plenty of other players have seen how that works after failure and adjusted in order to fit in that style and counteract it with their own lists and play styles. But you have to be inspired by the game to do that and if you're not feeling it then you're not feeling it.

    • Alastores says:

      It's supposed to be bloodier.

      I doubt it's supposed to be "You can tell who is going to win by the end of the first or second turn", which I think is the point being argued.

    • ManDollySavage says:

      Im a fan of Kirby, and been a lurker here for years. This post wasnt directed at him in anyway, more to the general public that feel the same way. If anyone says "I had a bad experience" i love talking to them about why. maybe i can help them understand the cause of it. maybe its something quick and simple they can do to adjust that can alter how they play games or how much they get out of games in the future. Point is, most of the time its not the game that you have the issue with, its the people your playing with and how you play.

      • Kirby says:

        As a FYI – Desc440 wrote this not me.

        While I agree that often there are other factors in play, the game does have an impact. 6th / 7th edition for example – I had plenty of fun in many games but also anything featuring stupid layered upon layers of deathstar rules had zero fun for me and the fact that building a TAC list was close to impossible meant for me, the game was anathema. Even though I still was doing well (more 6th than 7th as I did not play consistently in 7th) my general enjoyment and engagement in the game was less because of those factors. I can fully appreciate anyone else not liking anything for many reasons and I respect Desc440 enough to know that there is introspection there.

        For example, even though I am enjoying 8th more than 6th / 7th, it is still not as fun for me as 5th despite 5ths obvious shortcomings.

        YMMV.

        • Desc440 says:

          For what its worth, I think the mechanics of 8th are a lot better than 6/7th, but the missions and IGOUGO are just not adapted to that much lethality, so the overall experience suffers.

          • Prometheus says:

            Well, yeah. That's what I mean by everything being decided by end of turn one.

            Deathstars were dumb, but just being able to kill anything critical turn one is also dumb.

            One guy goes…..and has probably destroyed his enemies capacity to fight.

            • Terto says:

              because instead fix 7th they should had probably fixed deathstar, and anyway detah star were ok, regarding models, not pshycic power, most of death star problem cames from lack of good listbuilding, exemple lack of deep strike stuff that cna hit enemy from back taking down stuff that suppose to be guarded by the hq in the front or stupid broken/OP pshychic power like invisibilty.

              SO much a lot codex unbalance not core rule

              • Prometheus says:

                Didn't play 7th edition, so I really have no idea. But no, 2++ was not OK.

                • MagicJuggler says:

                  FWIW, although Horus Heresy is staying in 7th Edition, Invisibility was replaced with a power called Mind Howl, a WC2 Maledicition that makes an enemy unit WS1/BS1 for a turn. This was intentionally done to make a power that discourages rather than encourages Deathstars.

                  Rerollable 2++ only became an issue in 6th (the only 5e sources of 2++ were DE Shadowfields, Ghaz popping a Waaagh, and Grey Knight Forcestaves). However, save mods make it still easy to get 2++; grab an Astropath, Celestine, and 2 units of Crusaders and you have yourself an annoying wall of cheap 2++ that can either heal itself, move twice or fight twice.

                  • Prometheus says:

                    It's fine that HH modified various 2++ shenanigans. If you remove it, it obviously isn't a problem.

                    Why are you telling me when 2++ started to become a problem?!? I know, I was there.

                • terto says:

                  where even they worth something in 6-7th?

                  that was still faction related , csm and deamon max was 3++ only few dex could achive 2++ and ghazkull

          • happy_inquisitor says:

            You could try some scenarios which add in elements of more fine-grained play sequence. Personally I would start with the least disruptive change possible and work up until you have something you are happier with.

            Perhaps as a first step you have a Detachment Turn instead of a Player Turn and you alternate between player detachments until the end of the Battle Round. With typical tournament lists that would be 3 mini-turns per player, alternating between players, per Battle Round. I suspect it would work better if you also do not allow "soup" detachments, as they would permit Imperium/Chaos players to game the mechanic a lot more than anybody else.

            A full-on activation system would be really cumbersome and probably too off-putting for most players.

            • Ravenbiker says:

              I think a pretty simple activation system would be workable.

              Example: Each player totals up the number of units they have, and receives an activation token for each unit. The player with fewer units receives a number of pass tokens till he/she has the same number of tokens.

              Determine who has the first turn as normal. That player activates a unit, and moves, psychics, shoots, charges, and fights as normal. The other player activates a unit, rinse and repeat. A player can play a pass token to skip an activation, if they have one. After everyone has activated all their units, everyone checks for morale, and the battle round is done.

              Treat all rules that refer to ‘turn’ as ‘battle round’

              The thing that would require tweaking would be the fight phase. Melee units would fight fewer times per game, but might not have to deal with as much alpha strike before getting stuck in

    • Desc440 says:

      Beyond catharsis, the point is to get a discussion going. The devs have demonstrated that they ARE paying attention, so perhaps my post may end up having a positive impact on the game further down the line. Perhaps that's wishful thinking, but beyond the relatively short amount of time it took me to write this post, not much lost either way.

      I have no issue with the game getting bloodier. In fact, I think it's a good thing, overall. The problem stems more from a) as Alastored pointed out, you can usually know who's going to win by the end of T2 and b) the missions are not functional in practice – there is little point in paying much attention to them as more likely than not, either you or your opponent is going to be dead by T4 anyways; this makes for an unsatisfying tactical experience, in my very personnal opinion.

      • CKuno says:

        If that's your experience then that's fine and understandable why you're not enjoying it. I think my opening sentence was a little harsher than I meant it to be, so I apologize for that.

        As I said, I understand that everyone is going to have their own view on the game and the mechanics and if you're not enjoying it there's no reason to force yourself to play. My group had a similar experience in the beginning of 8th and our solution was to play more open war style games with maelstrom of war objectives layered in, and state that tabling didn't constitute winning and just ended the game. This made the game more tactical since the goal was to wrack up as many points as quickly as possible while also trying to play to the mission in case you were able to play to the end. This actually increased the number of games where people weren't getting blown off the board because people worried more about points and mobility and less about killing the other army. We also implemented a couple of different preferred house rules. Of course, this is not tournament play but we're not big tournament goers so for us it worked.

        But the difference is we WANTED to keep playing and make it work since that's how we spend our weekends. If there's no impetus there beyond "I guess I'll play because that's what I do," then yeah, you should probably take a break to reassess where the hobby is for you.

  11. upsilonman says:

    If you're fed up with 40k you dont have to give up on the hobby. Plenty of other great games and gaming companies out there – we're in a golden age 😉

  12. MagicJuggler says:

    I pretty much came to the same conclusions when I analyzed the rules for cover, deployment, reserves, casualty allocation, Plasma and indirect fire as a whole.

    I’ve been using the last few months to write my own alternating activation system from scratch, while working to avoid the “extreme MSU” issues that assorted systems (Be it Malifaux with Haemlin going “I summon rat to skip a turn, neenerneener”, Bolt Action with die draw overloading, etc) have. Lemee know if you would be down to test on VASSAL or TTS.

    • Desc440 says:

      I would love to! Have you posted the rules somewhere?

    • terto says:

      not that hard bigger units have better morales; ork dont test morales till x+ modesl in units.

      dosent need a genious to make moral test less dumb. atm you have "fearless" stuff or go home, since any lucky shoot , just 1 simpple bolt gun can sent to hell 1+models.

      when i builded my csm 8th list i had to find a way to immidiatly bypass the dumbiness of this edition

      -find a way to bypass enemy cover save with stack with any meq army giveing them a 2+ …. (iron warrior base special rule check)
      -bypass moral test (iron warrior warlord trait on a sorc hq + play single modele units check)
      -make my juggy lord durable as much as in 7th (iron warrior relic)

      etc

      just some rules are better than others, everyone were joking on how bad iron warriror were…. turn out with nids that night lords are shit basically any night lords player can just surrender vs nids.
      Any iron warrior will just pass thrugh any army as maulerfiend, fearless troops, deeps strike plasma on raptors can deal with anything and everythign have special rules for cc or shooty or both. It will get down to quality vs quality or saturation potential vs zerg army but thats hwo suppsoe to be in the end.
      Stuff like the 8th morales tests is so dumb that instead fix MSU make it worst. You either play big fearless blob (or blob thata re not fearless but can just be restored to full capacity with CP or max 5 man units xD)

  13. Frank O'Donnell says:

    8th ed was a great chance for GW to really shake up the game but they didn't take it, while I can still play a game & enjoy it my over all feeling is that it feels old.

    • Desc440 says:

      I think sticking to IGOUGO was their biggest sin. It's a pretty antiquated mechanic by now.

      • Kirby says:

        I would be curious how such a "large" game would do without it or with just more interruptions.

        I.e. instead of 6-11 CP for the entire game with only one or two stratagems focused on countering alpha / beta strikes, you have XCP for use per game turn. They can be used offensively or defensively but are a lot more interactive.

        • Desc440 says:

          Would be a step in the right direction but honestly would feel more like a band-aid fix than a true solution.

          I really don't think going alternating activation is going to be that complicated. If you're worried about confusing which unit you've activated, just put markers next to the units you've used already.

        • Infinite_Monkeys says:

          We've played a variant for a while now.
          IGO movement
          UGO movement
          IGO psychic
          Ugo psychic
          – Psychic casualties removed
          IGO shooting
          UGO shooting
          – shooting casualties removed
          IGO charge
          UGO charge… etc

          It works pretty well.
          You do have to double up on combat turns, though, or combat armies suffer.
          We're trying to come up with a workaround on that.

  14. Tomguycot says:

    I have come to a similar conclusion (that I’m not enjoying 8th) but for different reasons.

    First the positive. 8th is absolutely an improvement over 6th/7th. Playing 6th/7th always felt needlessly tedious and 7th was just… wow… A mess. I definitely like that the gameplay is more smooth with less overall book keeping for things like psychic powers and warlord traits.

    Now the negative. The tablings. Lots of tablings. Part of it is terrain and part of it is list design imbalance and part of it is just general increased lethality over 7th edition. I think we’ve gone a little far the other direction from 7th where some things were practically invincible.

    I think another reason for the problem is the awful true line of sight terrain system. It makes it hard to have good Los blocking and when you do have good terrain the board gets completely jammed up with “stuff”. I think a better solution would be to go back to a 4th edition abstract style terrain system where units cannot draw Los through area terrain and sitting in said terrain conveys varying degrees of Armour bonus. Being able to get more than +1 save would help a lot and make the “ignores cover” legion traits more useful.

    The second major problem I have is, let’s be real, the codex and army building situation is a total shitshow right now. I mean, there’s a flow chart for how to build an army. I couldn’t do better if I wanted to create a parody. The constant shift of rules and codexes is just a bit much… Ok a lot much. I primarily play Imperial Guard and the constant nerfs since that book came out two months ago have just about completely demoralized me. GW really really needs to realize that while the way Blizzard handles updating their games may work really well for their PC games. Warhammer 40k is… get this… not a computer game. When a unit gets nerfed in statcraft you just change up your build order a bit and use a different unit or combination of units. In 40k when your forgeworld super heavy gets made unplayable. You have… Well you don’t really have anything. Suddenly you don’t have an army. This is not how you grow a game. This is how you piss off customers and have them go elsewhere which is where I’m heading at least in the short to medium term.

    • Desc440 says:

      For sure going back to 4th ed-style terrain rules would cut down a bit on the massacre.

      • Peter de Florio says:

        Well every tournament I've played it has the first floor of all buildings, LOS blocking. Which I think is largely being adopted everywhere.

        8th is a new game. Everyone needs to reset their ideas on everything, including terrain design.

  15. Coyote81 says:

    IMO, the tabling is a direct relationship to the lost of the old cover system and not installing an equally good system. I played warhammer fantasy which used the BS modifiers like 8th 40k does, however there were a lot more modifiers to regulate how deadly shooting was. -1 for moving, -1 for range, -1 for soft cover, -2 for heavy cover. These modifiers really prevent the crazy slaughter we see in 8th 40k.

    One large think I noticed, and I think is a big cause for the issue in 8th are the formations. I was extremely happy when I saw the Patrol/Battalion/Brigade formations. But I think the supreme command/spearhead/vanguard/outrider formations break the game. They lead to so much spam. As people play bigger and bigger point games, they don't have to look into taking other kind of units like they did in 5th ed competitive environment (Which I loved). Instead the just take another formation of the OP unit in their codex.

    I feel this is the the biggest problem with this edition.

    • The Mattler says:

      In the case, the problem is not the detachments, it’s the units. If there are a couple of units that are just clearly better than the others, they’re going to get spammed. A lazy designer would limit the number of such units, but a competent one would actually balance the units. Whenever you come across such a unit, write to GW and explain exactly how it’s either too cheap for what it does, or how it makes a bunch of other units obsolete on a tactical/strategic level by filling their role much better. Include some variation of the Lanchester square formula, which allows you to balance the points costs of any two units against one another. Just make sure you use a sensibly-costed unit as a reference standard. I’ll definitely be doing that with the Aeldari, since even though their new Codex is miles better in terms of both internal and external balance compared to the previous one, there still issue that need to be addressed such as Warlocks/Conclaves being hot garbage compared to Spiritseers, poor internal balance in the Craftworld attributes (they should all be roughly on par with the Ulthwe one, not Alaitoc, and they have awkward thematic problems), etc. The Webway Strike is a great idea, but why would you drop anything other than squads of 10 Wraithguard (w/Wraithcannons), 20 Guardians Defenders (w/2 platforms), or 10 Dark Reapers? Don’t get me started on the Remnants of Glory… A bunch of little tweaks here and there would makes the lists much more diverse and cut down on negative play experiences.

      • Coyote81 says:

        So there are going to be units that are better no matter how they tweak points. It's just the way gaming works. So as long as there are units that can be mathmatically proven to be better, people will spam those units because they've been told (True or not) that these are the best units. When played 5th ed, this was not a problem. Space Marine Devestators rocking you? well as point increase in the game, guess what, they aren't just bring more and more, they have to bring different units, or at least weapons on different platforms. This was actually one way they balanced the game imo (That as well as having 0-1 unit choices in the army.) This style of balanced also allowed troop units to come into there own. Which is something I rather enjoyed.

        • The Mattler says:

          Not necessarily. If there is a strategic basis for running a mix of units, simply spamming the unit that’s (for example) 10% better at dealing damage isn’t sufficient for victory (although a sensible designer would try to cap at 5% max). Your example of Troops shows that to certain extent. Another factor to consider is Command Points, which can be tricky to amass if you don’t go for multiple Battalions or a Brigade. Not all Strategems are created equal, of course, but there are enough strong ones to warrant diversifying your unit selection and/or including many Troops.

  16. Mike says:

    I’ve always thought that a turn should consist of alternating within the phase like we do deployment .. ie I move a unit then you move a unit alternating until every unit has moved.. then I cast a power, then you cast until all psychic powers are cast. Same with shooting and assault. Turns alternate who gets the first move/shot/assault etc.

    It would help engage players a lot more. It would be more fun. It would help balance the game and give each player a chance to act and react.

  17. Dakkath says:

    To everyone complaining about the standard turn structure, I don't think a straight up alternating activation system would work given the number of units in most armies can vary widely. However, we could take a page from that one new deployment type/mission in CA. Divide your units on the table into 3 equal-as-possible groups. Then each player alternates activating one of those groups.

  18. HoD says:

    Try Infinity the Game. 🙂 Most balanced system I have ever played.

    • Infinity is a great game, but it's not a great fit for everybody. The rules, while accessible, are dense. The learning curve is really steep. New players should be prepared to have their asses handed to them for a while no matter how successful they were in other games. Not everybody has the patience for that. I see a lot of 40k players chasing balance that quit Infinity within the first couple of months. That being said, I think it is a great game that is managed by an engaged company and it has an awesome community.

    • The Mattler says:

      If you want an excellent tactical game with minimal setup and few miniatures, I can’t recommend Guild Ball enough. 🙂 It has even better balance than Infinity.

  19. Cadian75th says:

    I completely agree about the alternating unit comment. from speaking to our playing group, I worked out that from the 30+ games of 40k we had played 29 games had been won by the 1st player. As you said, while 7th had many problems it didn't have the same level of Alpha strike as now. We don't play cheesy spam lists and the 2nd player is still likely to be starting his 1st turn with 30% less points than the 1st player. That to me is fundamentally broken. balance isn't about units being costed right. It's about player two not having to try and win a game that is technically 2000pts vs. 1300 pts (or worse) when he gets his go.

    Putting blocking terrain in place is all well and good but that is really just a lazy work around to something that shouldn't be that hard to fix. My friend and I knocked a unit activation variance together in no time and while it will need tweaks for certain situations it still uses the 8th ed core rules and is entirely functional (and is far more tactical and we both get to 'start' our goes on full points!). I don't understand how this could have been released as is.

  20. Ryan Scott says:

    Play 30k still uses the old rules. I live in south texas and they play that here.

  21. Tomguycot says:

    One thing that I think would help would be a return to the old “go to ground” mechanic so a unit could trade improved saves for a to hit penalty the following turn. Also more defensive stratagems could really help and maybe even some sort of universal defensive stratagem.

  22. Diversify. Box up your 40k and try something different for a while. There are a lot of great games out right now. Let the dust settle a bit for 40k. Maybe GW will sort the game out, maybe they won't, but either way you shouldn't play a game that you don't find fun. It's not your responsibility to fix 40k for them. As for the tabling, that's not a bug, it's a feature. They made the game more lethal to reduce game time. I don't think they are going to fix that. It's baked into the core rules.

    • Desc440 says:

      I've been thinking of dusting off my BFG Imperials… maybe its time.

      As I said somewhere else above, tabling isn't a problem in and of itself, but the way its done in practice makes the game not really fun for at least one of the 2 players involved, and makes the missions completely irrelevant. If GW can fix those two things, I don't really care about being tabled.

      • Infinity has a mechanic where if a player has less than 25% of their points remaining the game ends after their turn, but it's not used in every mission. However, I've seen people lose the game because they got too blood thirsty and didn't cover the objectives.

        • Desc440 says:

          This is more representative of war, too. Sometimes, you can still "win" even if every guy under your command dies.

        • AngryPanda says:

          Losing because you put the other guy in retreat before accomplishing enough objectives is one of the coolest and least noticed aspects of Infinity and seriously shows how that game is designed.

    • Kirby says:

      Diversification has been a great thing for me as well over the past few years when I was not playing 7th. Most specifically board games and WMH. I could never really sink my teeth into WMH, love the mechanics and game but the kingpin concept of losing a single model and the game is over never meshed with my general mindset. Board games were easy to pick up and play with a bunch of different people as well and that plugs in nicely still with 40k now.

  23. Paul says:

    Use the ITC missions. It make the game great!

    • Kirby says:

      The ITC missions are a sight better than the rulebook missions but are also not perfect. Again, I have not had heaps of playtesting with the current mission set but the old ones were still a poor band-aid on some of the biggest issues of rulebook missions (i.e. randomly rolling Malestrom).

      • Andy says:

        I disagree with this, i think Maelstrom was the one thing and the only thing that left tactics and skill something to consider. It benefits mobile armies that can adapt and change to shifting circumstances, and added another RNG element that could counter the i go first i win the game problem 8th ed has.

        If the ITC is serious about having a balanced and fair scoring system, it has zero choice but to run best of 5 tournaments, because that is the only way to learn who is the better player over who is the luckiest play.

        I have no army at all that has a better win rate going second, some like poxwalkers are much better than most, and when there is a deep strike on deep strike match up it is certainly noticeable that the two armies are much more evenly balanced.

        It is better to just understand that this is, and never will be a war game in which two people can go head to head in a game, and the better player will win.

        In both Hearthstone and MtG you can play perfectly (because the number of options and possible decisions you could make are finite) and still lose, in fact you know going into some matchups that you are on a 30% chance to win with perfect play, the same situation exists in 40k, stat crunching and min maxing can never change that, you can strike to play perfectly but its not possible.

        Having random missions with variables that appear over time, force you to be able to respond, you actually keep some of your deep strike troops in reserve, because wiping out the enemy is less important than seizing an objective.

        I mean, the whole reason you generate armies the way you do is to try to keep variance out of the equation as much as possible, why do you think aggressors performs so ridiculously well? its pretty easy to predict the outcome on 200+ dice rolls, but you shoot a las cannon at something you better sure hope lady luck does her bit.

        Sure we can control variance, and people are starting to understand how to, (ie its finally dawned on people not to reroll to hi and wound with the lascannon they just fired if they have another 7 to go), but if its the only 1 you got, then sure as shit reroll that sir.

        Why do you think smite batteries are so popular? its not just that they have high dmg per point output, they are also ridiculously reliable.

        I could continue this point for a while, but tired, any way, have a think, in a game where i am over 20% more likely to lose if i go second, is it a good idea to get rid of RNG factors that could rectify that?

        • Kirby says:

          Random is bad, it is not tactics or skill to account for any number of random Maelstrom or Tactical Objectives.

          There are many examples. A game against Imperial Knights and Magnus. Every "kill a unit" roll was nearly wasted for me while ever "grab objective" roll for him was wasted. I rolled lots of objectives and so did he. I stormed away in a Maelstrom win, not to mention tabling but for him there was no chance to win on Maelstrom because of dice rolls. Skew list and in an event that used that concept I would not have advised such a list but it's still a factor. Now imagine the reverse, where we both continually roll to kill units and I cannot get more than four and that means I've tabled him but still lost half the mission because of random dice rolls without a skew list. Bad.

          Best of 5 is not going to happen. Lots of professional sports have one game to decide them all (pretty much every football code). And lots have multiple games (basketball, hockey, baseball, cricket, etc.). All of those professional sports are still widely regarded despite luck playing a factor as well.

          Despite this, we still continually see the better players consistently at the top of tournaments. Why? Because skill outweighs luck.

          Having mission variables is important – five objectives counted at end game for every game is not great and missions have evolved a lot, generally for the better, from early days 5th edition. Having missions randomly determined mid-game is not good and while I do not agree with all of the ITC mission decisions, being able to identify and choose things at the start of the game that you need to score through each turn is a huge improvement over letting D6s decide.

          • Andy says:

            I think you would still see better players consistently win tournaments if you use Malestrom missions, you would just see a larger variety of armies do it.

            Whilst a bad player might lose a game 75% of the time going second, a good one will be closer to 60%. can't counter luck but will make better decisions in game to limit it's effect.

            Maelstrom missions just mean that the good player constructs an army that contains elements of board control and rapid response (just like good players build in deep strike protection now, whilst bad ones get wrecked) whilst the bad player sticks to static min/maxed stats. When two good players meet, the game isn't so heavily weighted on the first turn, i mean sure you might get good missions and go first, so what, every lascannon you fire might miss.

            The idea is that if there are enough events in the game that depend on luck, there is a chance at least for luck to balance out, if there is only one event in the game that skews the result 20% in either direction that is an inherent issue.

  24. 8th is actually very balanced if everyone is playing competitive lists. My first couple of tournies in 8th I got destroyed… and I the wall of GT wins to say I'm a pretty competent general.

    Most players are still playing craps lists though and those that are running good list don't quite understand how different 8th edition and how you have to complete change the way you approach the game.

    For example, Most lists I see at tournies don't have a Beta strike element. WTF!!!

    If your list does not have some sort of anti alpha strike element built into it, you might as well be flipping a coin.

    My point is really that I don't think it's the 8th edition game system… It's the 40K community. As a whole they just haven't really transitioned into a real competitive META yet. Everyone is still trying to make their old armies and old tactics work. It's hard to get your head around heavy bolters and mortars are top list choices!!!

    All that said, I played a game of 30k the other day and it reminded how shitty 7th actually was…

    Keep at it. I think you will find we are all still in an awkward adjustment period

    • Desc440 says:

      Pete,

      Would you not agree still that even when 2 competent generals commanding 2 roughly equally good armies face off, there is still a pretty high chance that one of them is going to end up tabled?

      • Peter de Florio says:

        Respectfully. No. I wouldn't.

        Since I've started building list for Betas strikes, I haven't been tabled in tournament or local play.

        Granted I tend to play list often built on speed or resilience. In my experience, its the slow alpha strike armies that tend to get tabled quite a bit.

        • Andy says:

          See this really interests me, because i've been working on a list that is purely focussed on out lasting and winning on T5 or 6. But my method was to run a really slow but steady army.

          I use Plague crawlers with flame spitters (kinda rubbish long range pewpew but at 140 a go it adds up, and they are T8 with 3+ 5++ 5+++). Then a screen of cultists and poxwalkers (paying 4pts for 2w) Mortarion brings some oomph but is also pretty good (not amazingly so) resilience wise, and he generally trades very well. Final piece of the puzzle I found was Nurglings, who deny deep strikes.

          Problem is GW seem to have upped the anti on the alpha strikes, and I am not sure i can really manage it now:

          Genestealer cults were never a threat to win a tournament, but were always a threat to win a game, 40 genestealers in your face is always going to be an issue and now they are much more consitently able to pull it off

          Harlequins got Deepstrike
          Dealing with the eldar deepstrikes was pretty terrifying, ynarri shadow spectres + fire dragons were brutal, but the solace was, their close combat troops really weren't that much to write home about (don't get me wrong, wraithblades are psychotic, but they are slow as all hell) adding Harlequins into the mix, who have fly, is just not nessecary

          they used to have to deploy the 12m squad on the table, which was too risky, lsoe the first turn b bye harlies, but now they deep strike in, so they get a 60% go at a charge even if they fluff the psychis stuff, a bit too consistent now i think.

          I am not sure this is a viable army to win a tournament, i think it can do well, but i am sure it is a viable thing to take a game off anything at all, if you roll well on the high variance psychic powers on T1 there's not many ways to stop you. My overall feeling is thats its about 50% more reliable than the old nid armies running genestealer cults and flyrants to try put everything in melee t1.

        • Desc440 says:

          Can you give me some examples of armies you've built that you've had good success with?

  25. Codi says:

    In my experience tabling is generally a list building issue/match up issue. Some lists are just going to table other lists, and I don't think that is necessarily a problem. I try to build armies that can survive going 2nd and still be effective. Your experience might be different.

    The game designers on Warhammer TV have said on at least two occasions that alternative activation doesn't scale up well (e.g. apocalypse). So they looked at it and decided it did not accomplish their goals.

    • Desc440 says:

      If that is true (that alternating activation doesn't work), then they need to come up with something different, because the current system doesn't work either.

      • GW has made it clear that they aren't going to change IGOUGO, whether it works or not. I don't think GW is going to try anything new because their designers just aren't up to the challenge. Alessio Cavatore and Rick Priestley are long gone, and whether or not you like their other games, it's hard to argue that 40k hasn't been hurt by that loss if you look at the game the last few years. There's also the issue that corporations with the market share that GW has don't generally innovate. They produce a similar product year after year with minor changes. 40k is like an iPhone, Boeing 737, or Ford F150. It simply makes no business sense to change it up that much.

        There are a lot of different options beyond just IGOUGO or alternating activations, and I'm sure that some kind of mechanic that would scale could be sorted out. Personally I'd like something that used an initiative score to sort the units into groups, and units would alternate within those groups. That would help elite units feel elite.

        • Desc440 says:

          The thing is they made huge changes this edition already that has just jacked up the dmaage-dealing potential of armies. IGOUGO was kind of ok when not everything in your army was rerolling to-hit (and sometimes to-wound) rlls, splitting fire to be extremely efficient in your target selection and being able to move and shoot with heavy weapons without too much worry.

  26. Prophet says:

    Some Cheese for your Whine?

    Really… 3++ once has been a Tactics and Strategy Website. I liked to read it alot. But Nowadays there are fewer and fewer Postings. Some are still good though.

    But i have to say, this posting nails the coffin for me. I am interested in good tactical advices, in battle Reports, in Mathhammer and so on.

    I am really NOT interested in someones Depressive Burnout Story. I had alot of really good games in this Edition. I managed to get on the top stairs in some tournements with mediocre armies just through tactical choices. If you get tabled by your Opponent2 times, you either played really bad or had a List that was not even mediocre. You tabled one Opponent of 3? Thats not really surprising if someone knows tournements. In the looser Bracket you get matched good opponents…

    Still thats not the fact. You may have been unlucky or not. Its still fact, that you expect strategies and Afvice from this website. If you want to stop the game, do whatever you want and dont use as waste disposal for your inner Problems.

    This is another Edition. You play it completly different. You need LOS Blocker terrain. You need Armies that are NOT All In. And still it is a Tabletopgame. Those will never be balanced. Play Starcraft if you want Balance.

    • Thank you for being an ass to a random stranger on the internet. The world doesn't have enough of that. I also appreciate the poor grammar. Nothing polishes a post complaining about an article like random capitalization and spelling errors. It really helps me appreciate how angry you were that someone didn't like what you like.

    • Kirby says:

      What sort of cheese are we talking here?

      3++ is still that. No we are not posting three times per day anymore – all of us are in different stages of our lives and we don't have 20 competitive authors anymore so quantity is down.

      I am sorry that you think quality is down but historically discussion pieces are an important part of the game. Emotion plays a role in gameplay. And this post has a lot of interesting comments and opinions from different areas which help other people reading them. It's not a rage filled post or a post that holds no substances, it's explaining Desc's opinion in quite a clear manner but it is still an opinion and he acknowledges that quite readily.

    • Desc440 says:

      If you don't want to read whines, why would you read a post clearly marked "rant/whine"?

    • kundalinihero says:

      thank you for making me laugh, its been a long week, I needed that.

  27. Marauder says:

    I understand most of what you said, but i rejected 8th ed just in 1 month. From 2 years now my group and me have been working on our own edition of 40k, full spanish of course, but already finishied (and now including FW units). More balanced, more tactical, funny and enjoyable. Of course, as you said, "core 40k" players usually dislike this kind of actions but, we got around 20 people to play in our edition and many more all around the country in their own play groups.
    I was unable to abandon all the years of collecting, painting and enjoying just because the company decided to became more kid-friendly.

    Good luck if you try. At least in our case, it worth the effort.

  28. I cannot disagree more with this as this has been the most fun and balanced edition I’ve played and it’s been since 3rd ed when I started. The disclaimer is that I’ve only played the ITC mission format. Eternal War and Maelstrom itself from the rulebook is widely unbalanced. The right amount of LOS-blocking terrain on the table is crucial for encouraging both gunline and non-gunline armies

  29. Strat says:

    I have to agree with one of the previous commentators, sufficient terrain coverage makes a huge difference in mitigating alpha strikes by both blocking line of sight and by denying space for deep striking threats. A couple pieces of area terrain and a ruin in the middle of the table just doesn't cut it anymore, tables really need at least 3 big line of sight blockers and a handful of smaller line of sight blocking pieces like the GW industrial smoke stacks or rock heaps, then maybe 1-2 pieces of area terrain or wall/pipe/barricade sections to provide cover in the open areas between the bigger terrain pieces.

    • Andy says:

      I get what you are thinking, but how does that help when 32 eldar deep strike 9" away then fly over all the terrain and models land wherever they like before shooting you (sometimes twice) then either charging and killing whatever infantry isn't already dead, or barrelling into your tanks. (sometimes both).

      33% of your army is dead, 33% is in combat and has to fallback (if it can) the other 33% you go deal with the other half of the eldar army, good luck!

      • Strat says:

        Haven't had much experience against the current Eldar codex, but how they are moving after deep strike? I know Ynnari can soulburst in the psychic phase for movement, but that was nerfed to only 1 unit a turn in the FAQ. Still, the main way terrain helps in that scenario is by limiting potential landing zones for the deep strikers and the amount of firepower the rest of the army can direct against you.

  30. Strat says:

    As for missions, our group has mostly been using the objectives from the Open War cards with fairly even results. There are two missions where the location of the objective(s) is not known at the start of the game and another with progressive scoring (3 objectives, each is worth 1 victory point if held at the end of a turn +1 extra if held the prior turn). Some of the Narrative missions are actually fairly fun too, such as the Rescue one (has 6 objectives, 1 of which is the "real" objective – both sides start with very little on the table and have their forces trickle in as reinforcements once the alarm is sounded).

  31. Desc440 says:

    I just want to take a second to raise my glass to you fine chaps for the overwhelmingly civil and constructive tone of the comments on this post. I was fully expecting a massive sh*tshow when I posted this but you guys have done yourselves proud. I salut you all o7

  32. Jason says:

    I can't really be called a competitive player. Malifaux is my main game, and even there I lose far more often than I win. That said, I like Space Marine Terminators, and Calgar's Terminator form, so in 40k I make use of Vanguard detachments in order to play the Ultramarines First Company. Basically only models from the HQ and Elite section, usually Terminators and Dreadnoughts, sometimes Command Squads/Biker Command Squads, Sternguard, and Vanguard.

    The 8th edition rules make it possible to play an army that I like.

    What might improve 40k is switching to objective based scoring only, with scoring counting at the end of each turn, as it is in Malifaux. Tabling your opponent might prevent them scoring, but it won't win you the game unless you can also achieve your objectives.

  33. swan says:

    "continue playing a game that is the tabletop equivalent of watching reality TV" dude I LOVE queuing up the

    Seinfeld Theme when either I or my opponent get to the flailing stages of the game. Enhances the experience immensely and helps me forge the narrative

  34. Nick says:

    I fall into the “box it up for later” camp. The large majority of armies don’t even have a codex. Go play Bolt Action for a few months and come back later.

  35. Rob Butcher (UK) says:

    Two points –

    The best players in tournaments are dealing with going second (Spider won the UK Heat 1 with five wins, yet went first only twice). Lists can be written with a degree of duplication; units can be placed in deep strike. Additionally, units can be bubble-wrapped etc and postioned in such a way as to stop them being reached in the first turn. I am killing many deep strikers using a strategem and a command point.

    GW siad last week on Warhammer tv that they had explored alternate moves BUT they found it didn't scale upto 2000 points. They were also worried players would forget which units they had moved (ie some folks would cheat).

    Other all, I like the speed of play of 8th edition. Yes it takes tactical awareness to survive a first turn, but it can be done.

    • Andy says:

      For sure, and a lot of building armies is to mitigate those factors, but it's all so polarised. There are armies who do very well going second, (altaioc wave serpents full of stuff with accompanying deep strike springs to mind as my best performing example), but even these are extremely unlikley to go 2nd given the choice (cos if you go first even if all you do is declare an advance with your wave serpents and not move them they got harder to hit).

      All close combat armies live or die on the first turn role, running a malanthrope in tyranids is simply to give you some protection going 2nd, everything else int he army is just geared around killing people as fast as possible.

      in any single encounter, heck in any tournament, you may win going 2nd quite comfortably, it is when the situation is looked at over a vast number of games it becomes readily apparent that first turn is a massive swing.

      My own statistics are on a tiny sample, and my tendancy towards aggressive cc skews my view of things a bit, but if i am seeing a 30% win loss difference on the first turn that tends me to believe it is a huge issue.

      The thing is, looking at the units on paper and realizing why some units are amazing is pretty difficult.

      Plagueburst crawlers for example look extremely lack lustre on paper, essentially a leman russ with a shit gun and medicocre weapons options that don't compliment each other. In game however they turn out to be total beasts, their incredible resilience compared to other tanks, and the fact you can happily field multiple cos they are dirt cheap, means you get a tank that will go toe to toe with much more expensive units for a long time. The bizarre weapon options actually mean at the end of the game, you've got decent weapons vs a variety of things. Add in to that you field them in an army with incredible cc options available to it, means that as the game wears on, and the glasscannons get wiped off the map, you start to take over the battle (whether it is enough depends on game length).

      It is esentially a massive learning process, that tells you at the start "the only good units blow people up instantly" and its not til later on you realise "if every games a coin flip on first turn, well if i can just stand a chance to win 1:3 when i lose the coin flip, then there's a chance i can win a tournament.

      Then the ultimate balance issue appears, what do you do about super alpha striking resilient models (hi mortarion). Cos there is -nothing- like him in the game, magnus is good do not get me wrong he is incredibly tough and a good back up, but he is not even close to mortarions league.

      The amount of firepower required to deal with him is so disproportionate to his cost, and his alpha strike is the thing of nightmares (so much more so if you are imperium). I am certain anyone who thinks mortarion is blanced atm, hasn't dealt with the buffed one flying over T1.

      The level of skill required by a player, just to position his army in such a way that Mortarian cannot get maximum value T1 is something possessed by such a small fraction of the people playing this game, the only reason he doesn't seem truly broken atm, is so many people do not run a sorcerer with warp time to back him up.

      Furthermore, they just turned round and went "everything that has high poitns value based on its high T and many wounds with 4++ or better is now more expensive"

      If that is a move that says to you they are trying to curb the alpha strikes then it certainly isn't for me.

    • Desc440 says:

      WHY is it that alternating activation doesn't scale well, though? Did they say? And seriously, if you are worried about forgetting which units have been activated already, just put a small scrap of paper or a marker next to them after you activate them so you don't get confused. It took me 2 seconds to come up with that solution.

      • The Mattler says:

        The only scaling issue I can think that is when a unit’s cost goes up, one activation for that unit is greater than an activation of a much cheaper unit. That problem could be fixed by scaling a unit’s number of activations to its cost, but not letting it spend more than one at a time.

        • Desc440 says:

          That or just accept that things will balance out differently. For example, an army consisting only of Knights is going to have a big advantage in the shooting phase vs an imperial guard army, but the IG army will able to completely wrongfoot the Knights in the Movement Phase.

          • The Mattler says:

            That works up to a point, but the bigger the disparity, the worse it gets. Let’s say you have two identical 1500pts Marine armies of mixed infantry and tanks with roughly 150pts/unit, then add 500pts to each. Army A gets 500pts of Marines, and Army B get a vehicle that’s roughly equivalent, in damage output and resilience, to 500pts of Marines. Without some measure for proportional correction in alternating activations, Army B can lead with the full firepower of that huge vehicle, which is like getting 3 activations of other units within either army. Making fire groups of weapons on the super-heavy models into distinct activations is one way to go without changing the there mechanics much, but you could also “borrow” and/or “delay” activations to function as windup or cooldown. For example, a particularly scary gun might have to “pass” on an activation to charge up, allowing the opponent to move a vulnerable unit out of the way or try to destroy the model mounting that gun. Similarly, if the scary gun fires and opens a gap in the opponent’s line, they now have the opportunity to responding before another enemy unit can exploit that gap.

            There are other ways to do it, of course, but I just wanted to present that sort of system as a way to balance between “swingy” actions that are worth multiple lesser activations (3 in this case).

            • Desc440 says:

              Hmm yeah I guess ideally an army list would include an "activation cost" associated with each unit. Each player then spends those points to activate his units during the turn. For example, A knight worth let's say 6 activation points is activated by Player A. Player B could then activate 2 Leman Russes worth 3 activation points each, or a Leman Russ and 3 Infantry Squads (1 point each), or 6 infantry Squads before the Knigh pler gets to activate his next Knight.

      • AngryPanda says:

        It is just one of their usual bogus claims. All the issues come up in small games too. A single elite dude translates to a single elite unit. Keeping in mind which ones you already used isn't much harder than remembering it in your own turn and it just takes any sort of marker or turning the sergeant around or whatever to mark it.

      • Strat says:

        Probably with team games in mind. I know our local Warmachine/Hoards group refuses to do team games since it takes too long to get through game turns with each player activating 1 unit at a time and alternating sides after each activation, whereas in 40k teammates do all their moves concurrently so the turns go faster.

  36. Tomguycot says:

    List building is definitely a part of the problem. I still see a lot of lists that are either completely built around alpha strike, or worse, are just sort of a battle force “good stuff” compilation of things intended to do a little of this and that and plod across the board.

    If your only game plan is alpha strike then you are setting yourself up to lose about half of your games.

    If you are playing durdely good stuff then you are probably going to lose all of your games against competent lists.

    This has always been an issue (I remember discussing “battle force” lists back in 5th edition) but with the increased lethality of 8th it is a huge problem because casual players just get blown off the board turn one and have a really awful experience.

    If you aren’t building your list around some sort of beta strike capability or with some sort of “don’t get tabled” defense like minuses to hit you’re going to have a really bad time right now.

    • Andy says:

      One of the issues as you point out is that there are two kinds of armies at tournaments:

      The awesome thematic and cinematic masterpieces with Stompas leading a load of orks, or the 1st legion of only terminators, man these things are totally in world, awesome, but….they have got zero chance to win a tournament. Even more so you have people with "my army" this is what i own i am here to play and have fun lets get it on.

      If these lists come into contact with min/maxed masterpieces combining units from 3 codexes and half the FW indexes run by a player who understands what order to shoot the guns in (or heaven forbid, how to use pile in and consolidate mechanics to maximise movement and limit exposure to firepower) then you start to run into a bit of a disparity. GW do their very best to balance things, but it isn't in the realm of possiblity something will always be broken something will always be OP, and someone will always have an army that exploits it.

      2 day tournaments have forever been 1 day of stomps, followed by a day of good games, and the community to its credit, is bloody amazing at making sure the stomps are as fun as possible. 90% of the players are there for the fun, to enjoy a day out and to show off their shit, winning would be nice sure, and it sucks to lose hard, but if you enjoy the game then great, and you get some actually tight games day 2 as you start to face off vs people of similar level.

      So i think the main issue, is as you say, understanding what units are good, are resilient, and you can field to make your army unstompable, and then, use that to learn to play the game then bring back the alpha strike.

      Obviously in Descs case as a Space Marine player, he is more than a little fucked, because the one thing he doesn't have access to is resilient units because he has to pay over 10pts per wound he can never have the amount of army that can with stand being tabled. I'd suggest using dark angels and a dark shroud+raven guard deep strike with scouts+grey knight strike squads, to try to screen vs melee armies and deep strikes, and give you a super resilient castle, protected from assault by the counter assault from the deep strikers, i don't know of a way to build more resilience into space marines, perhaps someone else has a few ideas.

  37. Paul B. says:

    Well, I'm late to the party, but I also think table-space is a problem.

    I think 40k actually would play fairly well on some huge 20×20 table that you could somehow phase through to move the models.

    but on a 6×4, everything is so cramped that annihilating the enemy is comparatively trivial, and the only maneuver options are "how do I annihilate my enemy"

    • AngryPanda says:

      Army sizes have gone bonkers. I still remember the shock on how crowded tables got from 2nd to 3rd. But even then you had to fit like 3 support tanks and maybe some transports on there. These days deployments zones are just full of models. I thought it would go down with how expensive transports have become but somehow it doesn't seem like it.

      • Desc440 says:

        PArt of that is just due to how trash elite infantry is. They did a really awful job with balancing those, so the only infantry really worth using is hordish stuff like poxwalkers, cultists, guardsmen and the like. I mean, if you think a Tactical Marine is worth over 3 times as much as a single Infantry Squad guardsman, you need your head checked.

  38. AngryPanda says:

    "I am coming to the brutal conclusion that my days of playing 40k may be over"
    I want to come to this conclusion so badly and just be free of this mess. But I've started two massive army projects, I absolutely adore them model wise, I put in a ton of work and money and yet if I tried to sell them right now ti would be nothing but a half-finished mess I could maybe get a third of it's worth for. But then the bile is piling up and I'm starting to get resentful at the same armies for being for 40k so I guess something is gonna break sooner or later. There is a ton of advice on how to get into games but I'm starting to feel like I'd need a guide on how to get out.

    • Andy says:

      I know right, i literally just finished painting a bunch of stuff for an army that can't be fielded now (jokes on you forgeworld, i can still use the redoubt as terrain) whether it's money or in my case time that's the issue, its sort of annoying.

      See, i can understand a 10% here or 10% there to balance things, but 50-100% swings in unit prices is just saying "we have no clue how to balance this stuff", and so time to check out of points based 40k games, build PL based ones instead.

      • AngryPanda says:

        Oh yeah, honestly it is less about the money. Being able to at least sell decently would just lessen the brunt of the impact. I absolutely adore these projects and put so much work into them. It's not quite as bad as with my old Necron army which had every single model converted but getting pretty close. And honestly just looking at them I'm like "this should be good.". As in even the old "oh well it is at least playable" games Gw used to release would be good enough for me to keep going. It is more about the models anyway. But we have moved so far from mediocre incompetence into full-blown garbage fire by now it just keeps ticking me off.

  39. Joey says:

    The Skyrocketing Damage is a big Problem to Alphastrike. In a friendly enviroment with lots of terrain the Alphastrike isnt that hard and Shooting Armies and (non Flying) Tanks have much more to move to get Line of Sight.
    I Think (way) more terrain helps with this Problems. But i would also like to see Weapons deal less dmg or models gaining more wounds. so that not half the army falls round one.

    • Andy says:

      See that's exactly it, if you playing a friendly game Chaos vs Space Marines, what point is there in the unit of Aggressors and the Unit of Alpha Legion Khrone Bezerkers?

      Yay roll a dice oh you went first, oooooh will you make the charge? oh you did hoorah gg lets set up again.

      Terrain does help, it gives cover and makes charge distances longer, but against a concerted effort to ignore the rules, known in the community as playing Eldar, nothing can stop you alpha striking if thats what you want to do, things are going to die.

      The game lasts precicesly one turn, because it is patently obvious after that if all the squishy eldar are going to die cos they are standing twiddlign their thumbs 9" from your army ahving failed psychic powers and charges, or you army is in tatters and you have to somehow get rid of a bunch of dudes sitting in cover in your deployment zone with -3 to hit and 10d6 of heavy flamer shots. (ie not a fucking chance in hell).

      Or you could put the Ynarri Shadow Spectres back on the shelf, grab yourself a couple of Swooping Hawks and enjoy a nice fun game.

  40. Christian says:

    Hi, I have to say that I love 8th Edition. I play Nids and every game in 8th Edition was more fun than the best game I had in 7th. Most of the games where very close on maelstrom points, and even if we had to stop at turn 3 or 4 due to time, the game was still open. But I have to say that I don't play tournaments, and my opponents / friends don't play super competitive lists. No Morti with warptime or stuff like that.

    I like the Action in Turn one, and I like that everything is dying fast. I remember when my Trygon prime was eating half a Deathwatch army and my Opponent started whining. But then one of his Thunderhammer guy started hitting back and smashed my Trygon. We both agreed that this is a good stile of Balance.

    Unfortunately, playing my Tau is not very funny. But I think that's because the new Tau are much more static and don't fit my playing stile.

    Anyway, I don't like the GW's book spam. But there are Tools out there with constantly updating battlepoint so that it's not needed to buy Index X + Codex + Caphter Approved.

    Thumbs up for 8th Edition.

    • Andy says:

      Ya, see this is the thing, as a casual game to play with friends it is amazingly better:

      1) game length is about 30% faster, which means you get to play a lot more games yay!

      2) stuff is cool, it is utterly unrealistic (any army in the modern world suffering casualties you take in turn 1 of 8th would surrender or flee, probably both) but who cares, dudes walk up to tanks and rip them to pieces.

      i would really suggest you try out a local tournament, in my experience you got 10% of ppl with min/maxed armies tryharding to do all they can to win 20% of people with armies they think are minmaxed, tryharding but are bad at the game so eternally frustrated and the other 70% of people who are all about the fun.

      I've had bad games against pricks at tournaments, but never have I been to a bad tournament. (k the one that banned my redoubt kinda sucked)

  41. kundalinihero says:

    I would go out and get a bunch of 8e games under your belt, keep losing and learning, adapt, perfect your list. If your idea of fun is winning all of the time you're better off doing something else. From a personal perspective as a Tyranid player I weathered two additions of being the underdog and I can tell you it only makes you a better player.

    Unfortunately when it comes to the tournament scene although there are alot of great people there are also alot of ego's and meta humpers, its immensely competitive, some people pretending like they are basketball players making six figures, the truth is it's just a bunch of fat nerds with flaming hot cheeto stains on their fingers, nothing to take all that seriously. Believe me when I say there are no Bobby Fischers in the competitive WH40K scene. I hope that makes you feel better.

  42. The Mattler says:

    Just in case you haven’t seen it yet…

    GW put together a decent survey to gather community feedback about everything from purchasing habits, to hobby practices, to game experience, to events/tournaments, etc. It takes a while to fill out if you take full advantage of all the space to type whatever you want, so if you have a lot to say, set aside ample time to fill out the survey.

    https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/30/sa

    • Toast says:

      Thanks. Filled it out.

    • AngryPanda says:

      It is mostly a survey about buying habits and I'm pretty sure that is the part they will actually care about. But hey good for them, at least they do those now.

    • Desc440 says:

      Just took the time to fill it out. Wasn't much space to discuss the issues I brought up but still better than nothing.

    • The Mattler says:

      You can squeeze in a lot of tangential (but still relevant) feedback by making use of the “Other, please specify” type of answers. It might be worth doing that in some cases just to explain your preferences. I drew a lot from comparisons with Corvus Belli and Steamforged Games, emphasizing the practices those companies use to compete with GW (most of which involve community involvement, game balance, and rules publication/development).

  43. JasonRed3 says:

    There is, as always, a distinct lack of balance in the game.

    This is nothing new. Still, I have to wonder at how some armies/builds are just being missed by the community at large.

    A well-built Salamander army is insanely good. Rerolling a miss and a failed wound roll for each unit is ridiculously good. RIDICULOUSLY GOOD. Seriously… my opponent (Salamander) in a recent 2500 pt game threw no less than 10 Kraks/Las shots at me on the first turn (yes, he went first) He didn't fail to wound once after rerolls. He didn't miss, either. Even though I rolled slightly above average saves, I still lost a Dread, a Land Raider, and a few other figures before I had a chance to go.

    The Salamander Chapter Tactic is nuts.

    Going first is also nuts.

    I feel like addressing the IGOUGO nature of the game would go lightyears towards making the game more welcoming and fun… and reduce tabling quite a bit.

  44. TheGM says:

    I haven't played 8th edition yet. The more I hear about it, the less I like. Still, I'm going to give it a go … if only so I can play with folks at my local store.

    But I got into 40K with 6th and 7th edition, and my buddy and I like it. So, at least between the two of us, we'll stick to that … unless we find 8th edition works for us.

    Sometimes you have to give a new rules change a while until you get used to it. If you can figure out how to reduce the "being tabled" problem through practice, you might find the faster pace worth the trade-off. I say never commit to a decision until you really explore things … and, if 8th doesn't work for you, then stick with 7th.

    Good luck.

  45. jimocallaghan1987gmailcom says:

    A couple of people have mentioned the lack of a BETA strike being nuts and I completely agree. From what I've seen people are setting up their armies with the hope of getting first turn (as close as possible to the enemy to maximize their alpha strike), lose the dice roll for first turn and then are shocked when they're practically tabled.

    If the enemy are within range of your guns THEN YOU ARE WITHIN THEIR RANGE!!! I get people don't want to diminish their shooting with a -1 to hit after moving (or lose grinding advance if you're a Guard player) but positioning your units out of LoS will mean that if the enemy gets first turn (which you should assume) they will have to move, receive a -1 to hit and then probably be in range of your stationary guns not to mention the possibility of drawing them closer to one of your assault specialists who, if successful in a charge, will tie up that unit and prevent them from shooting the next turn. This adds a huge element of risk versus reward which is what a good general is all about.

    "8th edition is all about alpha strike" is only the case if both players set out for an alpha strike. It becomes an old school duel where whoever draws first wins, tactics be damned. 40k was never about this. I'll admit I've mostly played against newish players but I've always given them first turn. If my army can't survive first turn then its because I set it up incorrectly and I messed up, not because of broken mechanics.

  46. Wake Up says:

    And another one wakes up. I have no idea why so many people still cling to Warhammer and GW. This is the golden age of wargaming. There are soooo many great games with superior rules, models and fluff that cost a fraction of the money and time.

    I guess if you want to play with substandard rules, mediocre models (compared to what other companies are producing these days) and read about some guardsman getting killed by something with a skull on it, keep on with mediocrity I guess.

Leave a Reply