Is 8th edition tactical and strategic?

[chapter master 454]

8th has added various things to the game that needed to be done. It is the edition where we decided to gut the house and actually address some foundational issues with the game.

 

One of the biggest improvements is the simplification of wounding rolls and the two skills of models (Weapon and Ballistic). Now people can look at their models stat sheet and know how well the model does in combat and range without having to know the roundabout method of finding the result (which was 7 - BS for range but for combat it was to the grid to find out). The wounding system I agree does need some tweaking, possibly making the wounding based on sums instead of factors (If the T of the target is X greater than the S then it wounds on Y) which can be broken into the same subset of categories that they have now (Their's is Equal, Greater and Double mirrored so you have 5 categories). possibly something like this:

 

If the strength of the weapon is 4 higher than the targets toughness, it wounds on 2+ and re-rolls failed wounding rolls

 

If the strength of the weapon is 2 or 3 higher than the targets toughness, it wounds on 2+

 

If the strength of the weapon is 1 higher than the targets toughness, it wounds on 3+

 

If the strength of the weapon is equal to the targets toughness, it wounds on 4+

 

If the strength of the weapon is 1 lower than the targets toughness, it wounds on 5+

 

If the strength of the weapon is 2 or 3 lower than the targets toughness, it wounds on 6+

 

If the strength of the weapon is 4 lower than the targets toughness, it wounds on 6+ re-rolling successful wounding rolls

 

 

This system means that all weapons get equal treatment in terms of their ability to deal with targets. It sharply hits a weapons ability to hurt higher toughness targets. This means even at strength 5, toughness 7-8 are a hard sell to get through even with massed fire.

I did add the two Extremes because I felt it would be nice for some weapons have that feeling. You are a guardsman that got struck by a lascannon...how are you NOT wounded? Granted it would require re-working the strength of all guns again but that could be achieved in a big FAQ for all codexes (and to be fair, a lot of guns got their strengths adjusted in this edition along with their AP. Some are only certain strength values because of the way wounding rolls are calculated like the volcano cannon).

 

Another improvement 8th edition had was falling back from combat. To be fair, this was a heavily needed change and well implemented as it was one of the most stupid mechanics to be abused. Don't want shot? Charge anything that you know can't win but will take two assaults to kill and you are sorted. Want to stop those orks charging across the entire board, have a dreadnought charge them and tie them up for the rest of the game into eternity. Good change and well balanced as you can now get out of combat to free up shooting the target but the unit falling back can't shoot normally so you can still use it to disable shooting units but can't use it as a "bunker" to hide from enemy shooting entirely now.

 

Line of Sight I think needs a little bit of human sense and I know that is found in sparse amounts in those who WAAC. It takes some talking and reason to win here as I think there needs to be a mix of what used to be and is now. Last week had a game that I forgot to move my knight. Was going to get denied to shoot until I decided to look at it and noticed the building it was behind had windows perfectly sitted where the guns would be position and fired from (the Rapid Fire battle cannon even poked through the window a bit!) and we booth laughed about it and considered it fine then...somehow he managed to hit most of his shots despite not having visual from the head!

Woods and more abstract terrain pieces that have to be shuffled around to allow models to move or even get access to them need some talking and reason put into it. Me and my friend sometimes have a board where there are marshs that have bushes for them. We rule it as a piece of terrain that infantry and small walkers (sentinels and dreadnoughts) get cover from and can reasonably hide behind and can't be seen behind it however tanks and other larger things can't use it for cover in any sense despite the fact the terrain is pretty much just a piece of plywood will some PVC painted to look like water on it! (it literally blocks zero LoS if using True Light of Sight).

 

Again, power gamers are a two edged sword: they help find quirks in the game that will likely need polished up and sorted. They help drive the game to become better but at the same time as many have said: never fun to be on the receiving end of their...ahem...nonsense.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Remember how pistols were just toned down versions of the bigger guns? Now they can be used in close combat! That actually gives me a reason to take pistols in close combat.

 

Remember how you had to fight to the death when your units got into close combat? Now you can tactically retreat if the situation doesn't favor you or you really need to fire on that unit that charge you.

 

 

Are these 'strategic'? It seems that, because pistols are only used in your shooting phase, the 'you can use them in combat rule' comes up shockingly rarely, as you have to go through 2 full rounds of combat before your first opportunity to blast the enemy in the face. The +1 attack for pistol and stick of previous editions was far more useful, and a better reason to take pistols. That said, one side effect of this is it makes a lot more sense now for characters to carry bolters or other long arms, which is something I do like regarding loadout design in 8th (though Guard Sergeants still being unable to take a lasgun is its own ongoing travesty).

 

The 'bow out of combat' rule isn't 'strategic' imo, it's more of a direct buff to shooting armies. Go through the rigmarole of getting your expensive melee unit up in the enemy's face, survive the overwatch and finally connect. Then if you don't wipe them in 1 turn they just automatically bow out of combat and your left in the open with all recourse as the enemy blasts you off the board. The idea of the rule isn't bad, 'we don't want to fight a combat we won't win, run away' makes perfect sense, but there should be some opposed test to make or more deadly consequence than 'can't shoot that turn', because why would the attacker just stand there while the enemy retreats?

[antique_nova]

My problem with 8th edition can be summed up like so.

 

GWS are listening to too many average gamers. People who don't really know what they're talking about.

 

It's like with the World of Warships community, where everyone is crying about how OP Aircraft carriers are, but everyone who says that has never played that class of ships and played it properly. So now, the aircraft carriers are seriously hamstringed, but still one of the most powerful classes, simply due to their nature (a sniping/support role without risking the ship). And they wonder why almost no one players aircraft carriers, because the community has gone down the drain in regards to that class.

 

That's why you have the weird rules to clamp down Tau spam, the horrendous Tau codex, the limit of 3 (which was poorly thought out), the cover system and other things.

 

Things have gotten smoother, but at a cost of stupifying the rules.

 

Instead of saying you can't snipe characters with any weapons and if they've less than 10 wounds, what they could have done is said that characters can still be sniped, but you suffer a minus 2 to all your BS when shooting and you can never reroll these shots, no matter what. However, you can always hit a character on a 6 and if the character is the closest unit, then you shoot normally. If you are shooting with a sniper, then you ignore this rule completely. That would have literally solved all character sniping problems. Making it damn near impossible to (due to the movement and chaos of battle), but still giving people the chance.

 

Simple, sensible and very quick to implement. It discourages sniping characters and only allows the best shooters a 50% chance to hit characters of which there are few who have a range of 24" or greater.

 

What GWS need to do, is hire the top 10 players in the world and have them all sit down and write the rules themselves with supervision from GWS.

 

Because the best players can lay the foundation that makes the game great for all armies at all points levels. Without overbloating the rules, because the guys who are writing the codex aren't doing that great of a job, except when it comes to the guard codex and sometimes the marines codex (although with marines being so poor this addition, I believe it was an accidental oversight more than anything else).

 

However, the game has gotten somewhat more strategic with the stratagems, chapter/regiment/cabal traits and warlord traits. It's a welcomed change without over complicating things. So has the game gotten more strategic and tactical? In many ways yes, but it's still filled with a lot of average non sense and simplified over the top in some areas, namely cover.

[Khornestar]

I say give it a shot. There are solid contributions from the frater in this thread, but one can not necessarily predict whether or not it will be worthwhile for you.

 

If you’ve been playing for a while, I’d guess you have enough models to build a functional army. If you have a gaming store with 40k players nearby, I bet someone has a rulebook you can read through or play an intro game with.

 

I have been into 40k for 20 years but only played for the past 6. Everyone has their opinion, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the rules may have subjectively been better or worse in x edition, but it was more than the rules that made the game fun. The models, the players, the shop/setting of the games, etc..

 

Give it a shot at 750-1000 points, see how it feels. Or don’t, as that’s a fine decision as well. It would just be a shame to ditch a hobby that’s been part of your life for so long because there aren’t vehicle facings (and such). The game is still fun.

[allfatherstudios]

I have played since Rogue Trader. 8th edition is by far the best edition of the game. You don't need six different books for each player to continually consult rules on every.single.phase. of the game. The wound rolls in 8th , the split fire and streamlined rules makes the game easier to learn, faster to play and yes there is still strategy and tactics.

 

The only thing really missing at this point IMO are rules to let you create your own vehicle and characters for matched play. 8th is the closest I can remember to whichever edition was Herohammer...I think that was 5th? that I can remember. Being able to create your own characters for matched play that are equivalent to named characters from the codex would be a huge boost.

 

My only other quibble with 8th so far is that I wish assault armies were more equally balanced against shooting lists.

That doesn't sound appealing. Especially the heroes hammer part. Pretty much hate heroes in the game.

I say give it a shot. There are solid contributions from the frater in this thread, but one can not necessarily predict whether or not it will be worthwhile for you.

If you’ve been playing for a while, I’d guess you have enough models to build a functional army. If you have a gaming store with 40k players nearby, I bet someone has a rulebook you can read through or play an intro game with.

I have been into 40k for 20 years but only played for the past 6. Everyone has their opinion, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the rules may have subjectively been better or worse in x edition, but it was more than the rules that made the game fun. The models, the players, the shop/setting of the games, etc..

Give it a shot at 750-1000 points, see how it feels. Or don’t, as that’s a fine decision as well. It would just be a shame to ditch a hobby that’s been part of your life for so long because there aren’t vehicle facings (and such). The game is still fun.

Well that's the thing. I'm not ditching the hoby. But I doubt that I will play 8th. Even after all that it sounds even more unappealing. I especially dislike the combat change. However there's other ways to enjoy the hoby. Painting. Playing older editions apocalypse games. Etc. I'm sure 9th decide weather I stop playing all together or it won't. I love that you guys are enthusiastic about it. I've skipped editions before like 6th. So no worries. I'm opening a hobby shop in the future so not leaving the hobby. I'm just not touching 8th yet.

 

Hmm well that's that I suppose.

[Beams]

So, I've seen a lot of things here I disagree with.

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

As for Flamers, I play sisters of battle. If Flamers we're as bad as people said, I'd know that. But I'm still murdering orks and Guardsmen a plenty with flames. Sure they aren't as good as 7th, but stormbolters fill the niche of high output low medium Str weapon and flamers fill the niche of multihit ignores minus to hits and overwatch weapon.

 

For the first time, I'm not having to check rules in the rulebook every five minutes, and am getting to turn five every game in less than three hours.

 

It's the most fun I've had with 40k since I started.

[Warhead01]

Is 8th edition Tactical and Strategic. 
I'd say yes. I see Movement as the most important part of 8th edition.  

I find that I am planning far more head now as far as what is my army going to do on the table before I play a game. During the game I am looking at where am I going to earn points as well as avoid giving up points to my opponent. I plan more about units working together to complete a task. I read a lot that some players idea of tactics is  only do I bring more anti tank guns or more close combat guys. To me that's not really a tactic, those are just things in an army list. 

I am sure I have more thoughts on that but they are note organized at all.  The big thing is I am able to do things now under this rule set that were basically not possible in the last few editions and I like that. 
 

[TheFinisher4Ever]

The strategy and tactics of 40k haven't gone anywhere. Although some of the core mechanics have changed, the missions, list building, positioning, and target priority are all still there.

 

Building list that can handle all comers and that get the command points you need still takes strategy and planning.

 

The missions can be as complex and complicated as you want. The Chapter Approved Eternal War missions are actually more complex and take more tactics to play with than the previous eternal war missions.

 

Contrary to what some say, positioning is still very important. It's how you take and hold objectives, how you keep some units from being shot at and how you dig out those pesky characters. It's also important for auras, consilidation tricks, heroic intervention and other things. The trick for this one is you do indeed have to use a lot of LoS blocking terrain to make it a factor. If you're on planet bowling ball, you're correct that positioning ceases to be important. Personally, I am happy that the facings on vehicles are gone since it was never consistent. Facing should either matter for everyone, like infinity, or no one, like 8th. The "facings only matter on certain things for no discernable reason" was always silly and did little to add to the tactics in the game besides contributing to no one taking vehicles if they weren't free. And on the positive side, your 300 point giant war maching can no longer immobilize itself on a shrub, ruining your entire plan.

 

Target priority is still important. Everything being able to wound everything didn't change much in regards to tactics because anti-tank weapons are still far better at taking on tanks than massed lasguns are. Just because one out of every 50 lasguns will wound a land raided doesn't mean that target priority no longer matters, it just means it's not an auto loss anymore for Orks to face knights.

 

They have also added further to the strategy and tactics with the creation of stratagems which are fantastic. Stratagems affect every part of the game from list building to every phase of the game itself. Picking the right stratagems to use at the right time is a massive addition to the tactics on the tabletop.

 

On an unrelated note, there seems to be far too many people on here talking about how bad the Tau codex is. The Tau codex is pretty damn strong in reality, it's just crisis suits that suck. But having a crappy unit in your army certainly isn't new to 8th.

[Panzer]

Is 8th edition tactical and strategic? Well ... not a whole lot, no. However 7th wasn't incredibly tactical and strategic either. If anything I think 40k is in a better state now than during 7th in that regard.

For the most part it's still just point&click/aim&shoot due long ranged super devastating firepower you can barely hide from.

[Leif Bearclaw]

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

 

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

[Happy-inquisitor]

My problem with 8th edition can be summed up like so.

 

GWS are listening to too many average gamers. People who don't really know what they're talking about.

 

It's like with the World of Warships community, where everyone is crying about how OP Aircraft carriers are, but everyone who says that has never played that class of ships and played it properly. So now, the aircraft carriers are seriously hamstringed, but still one of the most powerful classes, simply due to their nature (a sniping/support role without risking the ship). And they wonder why almost no one players aircraft carriers, because the community has gone down the drain in regards to that class.

 

That's why you have the weird rules to clamp down Tau spam, the horrendous Tau codex, the limit of 3 (which was poorly thought out), the cover system and other things.

 

Things have gotten smoother, but at a cost of stupifying the rules.

 

Instead of saying you can't snipe characters with any weapons and if they've less than 10 wounds, what they could have done is said that characters can still be sniped, but you suffer a minus 2 to all your BS when shooting and you can never reroll these shots, no matter what. However, you can always hit a character on a 6 and if the character is the closest unit, then you shoot normally. If you are shooting with a sniper, then you ignore this rule completely. That would have literally solved all character sniping problems. Making it damn near impossible to (due to the movement and chaos of battle), but still giving people the chance.

 

Simple, sensible and very quick to implement. It discourages sniping characters and only allows the best shooters a 50% chance to hit characters of which there are few who have a range of 24" or greater.

 

What GWS need to do, is hire the top 10 players in the world and have them all sit down and write the rules themselves with supervision from GWS.

 

Because the best players can lay the foundation that makes the game great for all armies at all points levels. Without overbloating the rules, because the guys who are writing the codex aren't doing that great of a job, except when it comes to the guard codex and sometimes the marines codex (although with marines being so poor this addition, I believe it was an accidental oversight more than anything else).

 

However, the game has gotten somewhat more strategic with the stratagems, chapter/regiment/cabal traits and warlord traits. It's a welcomed change without over complicating things. So has the game gotten more strategic and tactical? In many ways yes, but it's still filled with a lot of average non sense and simplified over the top in some areas, namely cover.

 

 

You lose me right where you think that the "top" players know anything about the game. 

 

Let's get this straight; a top player on the top table of an event thinks that a credible explanation for getting rules horribly wrong is that they never even read the rules for a unit they are spamming before playing it, despite being several games into the event. And half the internet and lots of the competitive crowd all go "yeah, perfectly reasonable explanation. Nothing fishy there at all". The level of utter incompetence that people assume and/or expect in the supposed top players is staggering.

 

You want this quality of mind to be writing the rules? Really? No thanks.

 

However I do agree that 8th is basically a decent game, it is not perfect and I doubt that any tabletop game ever will be but it is good enough to have a fun game and maybe even a tactical challenge if that is what you are after.

[Volt]

 

 

I think what we need more is just comprehensive, cheap cover. Like full trenches, multiple sandbag walls, etc. Lots of simple things to provide that +1 to armor saves. It's just difficult as it's expensive for the individual to make, so the board usually consists of maybe 3-4 pieces of terrain and is otherwise flat. Terrain is an absolute must and it should be prolific, not sparse.

 

Agreed. The third army – i.e. the board and scenery – is an element that has historically always been left up the players, with very little guidance beyond 'roughly X% of the board' or similar, and suggestions for how to apply some very broad rules to your terrain collection. 

 

My experience of 40k has always been very heavily terrain-led; but then I'm in the fortunate position of having friends who enjoyed this aspect of the hobby a great deal; and later coming to enjoy the challenge myself. As a result, I've never really been in the position of playing over planet bowling ball. 

 

I think a set of suggested or example terrain lay-outs – literally maps showing exactly how many pieces of terrain, where they're placed on the board, and what they do in mechanical terms – would be hugely helpful in helping people understand what GW think a typical board should look like. It would also go a long way to normalising a certain amount of terrain; and if the maps stated what effects the terrain piece had, would help to reduce the random rolls that a lot of people find a turn-off.

 

You could also just have board mats with "drawn" terrain. For example I'm (still) an avid fan of the Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures game. You don't have a board or such, you get a paper mat you fold out with color coded "terrain" on it telling you what's a solid wall, a door, impassable terrain, and cover. It's quite handy. 

[Vykes]

Eeeeh, everyone's gonna have some aspects which they value over another, and sometimes sacrifices are made to emphasize or de-emphasize individual components. Every edition and iteration of these kind of games are the same in that respect. Games and game design evolves, and thus there are going to be perceptions and judgment calls with respect to the emphasis placed on various individual components.

 

Rant below, but usual nerd cred, I've played since 2^nd edition and 8^th is my favourite so far. Of course, 8E's not without stuff that I perceive as flaws or failings, but I wouldn't be a wargamer or a Canadian unless I had complaints, right?

 

I started in 2^nd edition, I remember the charts... ooooh the charts, the damage locations on vehicles, the armour facings, the D12 damage dice, the separate psychic cards, supplements, and everything that's come and gone between 2^nd and 8^th edition (and the 7.5 that is 30K). And some stuff I really miss: I miss fleeing units, I miss armour facings. There's also some stuff I hate about 8E: the easy availability of rerolls that slow games down, smite spam, the consistent nerfs to aircraft that aren't Storm Ravens, and the cover rules.

 

But some stuff I love about 8E: the to wound system, the variable movement speeds for units (a la RT and 8E), the AP system (not necessarily all the values but the concept), getting rid of templates (which made the stupid fiddly movement phase just about spacing which isn't so much strategic as insipid micro management), most of the psychic phase that isn't smite, the squad split fire, the minimum drop distances for deepstrike units (drop pod melta vets.... ugh, I hated them being a one-time use eraser), more generalized force Orgs, pistols doing stuff, the little campaign game matrix, etc.

 

I was just having this conversation with a 3E vet who came back at the early part of 7^th and we came to the same conclusion: 8^th just runs cleaner. It feels tuned up, we weren't looking through the book to make sure how USR's interacted and after the mission roll and deployment type in addition to warzones, we never had to glimpse the book once and finished a 1500 point match in about 2 hours with the usual chatting and the like. Is that bad? I sure don't think so.

 

My only recommendation would be play a Patrol game of about 1250 points with no named special characters and 1 hero that allows a reroll. See what you think and don't worry about some perceived 'stink of the casual gamer' or what not. And if you don't like it, house rule it (we do with how cover is achieved and have been toying with making cover straight to-hit penalties). There is depth, there is tactics, it's just not the same ones that were necessarily emphasized before.

 

C'mon dude, don't be an Iron Warrior hoser, don't entrench!  Give it a chance. 

[Beams]

 

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

 

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

On my turn they move 24" fire four melta pistols, a plasma pistol and 14 bolt pistols, meltas and plasmas usually at a tank or hero unit, charge either a tank or something big, surround it to prevent it from leaving (fly, so easy to do) survive a combat 3+/5or6++reroll depending on if Celestine is near) survive the enemy tanks turn, AoF fire pistols and then regular fire pistols.

 

There's no special rule that makes them any better at pistols, but it allows you to surround and kill tanks.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

On my turn they move 24" fire four melta pistols, a plasma pistol and 14 bolt pistols, meltas and plasmas usually at a tank or hero unit, charge either a tank or something big, surround it to prevent it from leaving (fly, so easy to do) survive a combat 3+/5or6++reroll depending on if Celestine is near) survive the enemy tanks turn, AoF fire pistols and then regular fire pistols.

 

There's no special rule that makes them any better at pistols, but it allows you to surround and kill tanks.

 

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

[Warhead01]

 

 

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

On my turn they move 24" fire four melta pistols, a plasma pistol and 14 bolt pistols, meltas and plasmas usually at a tank or hero unit, charge either a tank or something big, surround it to prevent it from leaving (fly, so easy to do) survive a combat 3+/5or6++reroll depending on if Celestine is near) survive the enemy tanks turn, AoF fire pistols and then regular fire pistols.

 

There's no special rule that makes them any better at pistols, but it allows you to surround and kill tanks.

 

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

 

I would argue that this is better. Granted not better for ever unit in every faction but for that SoB unit it sounds amazing. several strong pistol shots in a completely different phase than combat. (And the mention of shooting twice to boot.) They may well wipe out what ever it was that they were in combat with before the charge phase meaning they can charge all over again. VS. +1 attack for ST3 Models.  no contests. lol

[TheTrans]

I want 8th to an awesome game.

 

But frankly its not.

 

The 'I Go, You Go' system is bloody archaic. Terrain rules really don't seem to do much at all and most games are just list building and target selection. There is some manavoureing yes, but when most guns have a decent range and can see and shoot you from where they start it doesn't take a lot of thinking. Also factor in a lot of missions are just kill bros, hold objective, its very samey and again leans itself to trying to leaf blow your opponent off. 

 

I've been playing 40k since 5th, also play Bolt Action, Infinity, Malifaux, Armada, WHFB 8th and have tried a variety of other games piecemeal.. 40k probably has some of the best fluff (prior to do-all-Cawl) and the most immersive and at the same time 'blank slate' universes available. It's just a damn shame that 8th is really just rolling dice at each other from across the table. 

Hell jumping back into 5th with some mates to do some 'Historical 40k' with just the Space Marine book and the Badab War series. Trying to finagle list selection and stuff is great! No more just jumping to another detachment to get what I need. 

TL:DR
I'd love 40k to be a tactical and strategic game, but IMHO it really isn't. 

[Ratherdashing]

I doubt anyone here is going to change their mind, including the OP who certainly seemed to come here with the intention of being told what he expected to hear.

 

But regardless...a common insult I've heard lobbed at 8th is that it plays like a board game. Speaking as someone who likes board games....maybe it does. But board games are a good example of the concept that Depth and Complexity are two different things. Euro games, which are very tight in their rules, are fun to play because every rule they have exists for a gameplay reason. Games don't need a million things going on to be deep. I can compare Settlers of Catan to, say, the Civilization board game, which is a bloated mess that just has mechanics in it to mimic the computer game, not because they serve a meaningful purpose.

 

I honestly don't think "bringing babies into the hobby" is the intention behind the reduced complexity. I think the idea is to diminish the quibbiling over things, and more to the point, eliminating mechanics that don't meaningfully add to the game. 

[antique_nova]

 

My problem with 8th edition can be summed up like so.

 

GWS are listening to too many average gamers. People who don't really know what they're talking about.

 

It's like with the World of Warships community, where everyone is crying about how OP Aircraft carriers are, but everyone who says that has never played that class of ships and played it properly. So now, the aircraft carriers are seriously hamstringed, but still one of the most powerful classes, simply due to their nature (a sniping/support role without risking the ship). And they wonder why almost no one players aircraft carriers, because the community has gone down the drain in regards to that class.

 

That's why you have the weird rules to clamp down Tau spam, the horrendous Tau codex, the limit of 3 (which was poorly thought out), the cover system and other things.

 

Things have gotten smoother, but at a cost of stupifying the rules.

 

Instead of saying you can't snipe characters with any weapons and if they've less than 10 wounds, what they could have done is said that characters can still be sniped, but you suffer a minus 2 to all your BS when shooting and you can never reroll these shots, no matter what. However, you can always hit a character on a 6 and if the character is the closest unit, then you shoot normally. If you are shooting with a sniper, then you ignore this rule completely. That would have literally solved all character sniping problems. Making it damn near impossible to (due to the movement and chaos of battle), but still giving people the chance.

 

Simple, sensible and very quick to implement. It discourages sniping characters and only allows the best shooters a 50% chance to hit characters of which there are few who have a range of 24" or greater.

 

What GWS need to do, is hire the top 10 players in the world and have them all sit down and write the rules themselves with supervision from GWS.

 

Because the best players can lay the foundation that makes the game great for all armies at all points levels. Without overbloating the rules, because the guys who are writing the codex aren't doing that great of a job, except when it comes to the guard codex and sometimes the marines codex (although with marines being so poor this addition, I believe it was an accidental oversight more than anything else).

 

However, the game has gotten somewhat more strategic with the stratagems, chapter/regiment/cabal traits and warlord traits. It's a welcomed change without over complicating things. So has the game gotten more strategic and tactical? In many ways yes, but it's still filled with a lot of average non sense and simplified over the top in some areas, namely cover.

 

 

You lose me right where you think that the "top" players know anything about the game. 

 

Let's get this straight; a top player on the top table of an event thinks that a credible explanation for getting rules horribly wrong is that they never even read the rules for a unit they are spamming before playing it, despite being several games into the event. And half the internet and lots of the competitive crowd all go "yeah, perfectly reasonable explanation. Nothing fishy there at all". The level of utter incompetence that people assume and/or expect in the supposed top players is staggering.

 

You want this quality of mind to be writing the rules? Really? No thanks.

 

However I do agree that 8th is basically a decent game, it is not perfect and I doubt that any tabletop game ever will be but it is good enough to have a fun game and maybe even a tactical challenge if that is what you are after.

 

 

I haven't put out the qualities that define the top 10 players in the game and that's the problem. Too many players think about the players and the game too much on the surface level. You don't even try to get into the details and actually ask questions, before blasting out comments like you just did. That's how the Tau commander limit was introduced, the max 3 units beta rules, the no snipe characters was introduced, because it's a knee jerk reaction, without any real research by people who try to understand what's happening. And knowing which sources to take from.

 

Plus, I think you're confusing top players with ass hats. 

 

So, do I want the top players writing the rules? Of course, that's how it should be done and always done. 

 

As for how you determine the top players?

 

Scoring would have to be one of the top things to look out for. A record should also be kept of their sportsmanship and how they interpret rules.

 

Plus, it being a group where the general aim is to better the game without pulling cheap shenanigans, the poor sporting players would get put in their place or kicked off the project real fast. The fact that it's a group project is what will prevent ass hats from making the game worse.

 

That being said, I am glad they introduced differing movements into the units, because it never made sense that an eldar was slower than a marine and yet, guardsmen are still as fast as a space marine. Like wth?

[OutlawSixActual]

 

 

 

 

I shoot pistols in melee *all* the time. That's basically the whole point of seraphim with inferno pistols. Jump up, shoot stuff, charge something, shoot at it in AoF, either move freely if it dies or Shoot at it in normal shooting and then charge something else.

 

Even my basic sisters use pistols in melee. It's a more powerful attack in addition to your normal ones!

 

But it's an attack you can only use every other turn, isn't used the turn you initiate combat, and is reliant on the enemy not choosing to bow out of the combat in your turn. Do Serpahim have some kind of special rule that makes them more effective at pistoling in melee? Because without some form of unit specific buff, I stand by my statement that the current pistol rules are far more unlikely to be used and more situational than the old +1 attack rule. Plus neither version of the rule is particularity 'strategic' imo.

On my turn they move 24" fire four melta pistols, a plasma pistol and 14 bolt pistols, meltas and plasmas usually at a tank or hero unit, charge either a tank or something big, surround it to prevent it from leaving (fly, so easy to do) survive a combat 3+/5or6++reroll depending on if Celestine is near) survive the enemy tanks turn, AoF fire pistols and then regular fire pistols.

 

There's no special rule that makes them any better at pistols, but it allows you to surround and kill tanks.

Fair enough. Though most of the utility there seems to be from the Seraphim's high movement from their jump packs (also it's kinda stupid that infantry can hold a tank in position like that, if a tank wants to go somewhere, the guy on foot's only real options are get out of the way, mobility kill the tank now or get squished, but I digress) rather than the pistol rules on their own. And even then, Seraphim are something of an extreme case, being the only unit in 40k off the top of my head deliberately focussed around pistols (I know you can build stuff like vanguard that way, but their 'default' is still pistol and sword). For a more 'classic' assault unit with pistol and sword, the current system seems to leave them worse off more often than not. Either way, I still don't see how shooting pistols is your shooting phase while engaged in combat is more 'strategic' than the +1A buff of previous editions.

The +1A buff exists on quite a few close combat weapons, chainswords etc. so the pistols DO give an actual extra attack. The weapons that dont give +1A give you an actual choice in what you use to fight, and having an inferno pistol or hand flamer actually gives you more of an affect than an extra swing with a knife. I think its great!

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

 

As for how you determine the top players?

 

Scoring would have to be one of the top things to look out for. A record should also be kept of their sportsmanship and how they interpret rules.

 

Plus, it being a group where the general aim is to better the game without pulling cheap shenanigans, the poor sporting players would get put in their place or kicked off the project real fast. The fact that it's a group project is what will prevent ass hats from making the game worse.

 

That being said, I am glad they introduced differing movements into the units, because it never made sense that an eldar was slower than a marine and yet, guardsmen are still as fast as a space marine. Like wth?

 

 

If you can create and manage a competitive format which sorts out the top players by your definition then good luck to you. Actually I think you would in that process fix most of the deep-seated problems with tournaments that keep the majority of players away from them. Most of those issues are constantly discussed and nobody has come up with a solution yet.

 

Whether those players would then be any good at writing rules is another matter. Games with supposedly tighter rulesets more suited to competitive play exist - how do they compare with the GW games commercially?

 

As for the idea that everyone will be positive and constructive because it is a group effort - seriously have you ever worked in any sort of organisation at all and still believe this? 

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't put out the qualities that define the top 10 players in the game and that's the problem. Too many players think about the players and the game too much on the surface level. You don't even try to get into the details and actually ask questions, before blasting out comments like you just did. That's how the Tau commander limit was introduced, the max 3 units beta rules, the no snipe characters was introduced, because it's a knee jerk reaction, without any real research by people who try to understand what's happening. And knowing which sources to take from.

 

Plus, I think you're confusing top players with ass hats. 

 

So, do I want the top players writing the rules? Of course, that's how it should be done and always done. 

 

As for how you determine the top players?

 

Scoring would have to be one of the top things to look out for. A record should also be kept of their sportsmanship and how they interpret rules.

 

Plus, it being a group where the general aim is to better the game without pulling cheap shenanigans, the poor sporting players would get put in their place or kicked off the project real fast. The fact that it's a group project is what will prevent ass hats from making the game worse.

 

That being said, I am glad they introduced differing movements into the units, because it never made sense that an eldar was slower than a marine and yet, guardsmen are still as fast as a space marine. Like wth?

 

Antique Nova

Perhaps rather than making a broad statement without clarification, it would have been far more helpful to put these thoughts into your original post?

[Deathwalker]

 

 

 

As for how you determine the top players?

 

Scoring would have to be one of the top things to look out for. A record should also be kept of their sportsmanship and how they interpret rules.

 

Plus, it being a group where the general aim is to better the game without pulling cheap shenanigans, the poor sporting players would get put in their place or kicked off the project real fast. The fact that it's a group project is what will prevent ass hats from making the game worse.

 

That being said, I am glad they introduced differing movements into the units, because it never made sense that an eldar was slower than a marine and yet, guardsmen are still as fast as a space marine. Like wth?

 

 

If you can create and manage a competitive format which sorts out the top players by your definition then good luck to you. Actually I think you would in that process fix most of the deep-seated problems with tournaments that keep the majority of players away from them. Most of those issues are constantly discussed and nobody has come up with a solution yet.

 

Whether those players would then be any good at writing rules is another matter. Games with supposedly tighter rulesets more suited to competitive play exist - how do they compare with the GW games commercially?

 

As for the idea that everyone will be positive and constructive because it is a group effort - seriously have you ever worked in any sort of organisation at all and still believe this? 

 

1: Seems with clarification, you agree, at least in part with Nova.

 

2: Commercial success has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules. People who are pure hobbyist/painters buy GW product and never play the game, People who read the BL and love the lore buy product and never play the game.

This is the unfortunate legacy of GW positioning itself some 30 years ago to be a -miniature- company, not a rules company.

It's made steps, but it still is in the mindset of being a Mini company. At least under Nova's conditions (now stated), it can work on both. I once hoped that with the advent of forge world, GW -would- concentrate more on rules, but it seems that was misplaced hope.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

Terrain rules really don't seem to do much at all and most games are just list building and target selection. There is some manavoureing yes, but when most guns have a decent range and can see and shoot you from where they start it doesn't take a lot of thinking.

 

The terrain rules aren't the problem in themselves, its that the rules shift the responsibility for a good experience onto the actual terrain models. This is why lots of events house rule in stuff to auto block line of sight, for example the 'block first floor ruin windows' rule in ITC or the 'sector mechanicus industrial smoke blocks shooting through them' rule at the warhammer world narrative events. I'd personally recommend using old forest rules if you have lots of those (eg forests can be shot into but block shooting through them).

 

Forests, ruins and craters are all area cover for infantry in the rulebook, when I hear people complaining about there being no area terrain in 8th and then showing boards with no craters, ruins or forests I just don't know how anyone is supposed to reply. Power armoured units of at least ten models in ruins can be almost immovable in 8th (not for the whole game but for long enough).

 

I've had lots of experience with stuff being unable to shoot because of positioning, if that's not happening to other people its because of circumstances the rules writers had no control over. The rulebook does literally tell you to make stuff up if you're using custom terrain, so its the 'everything by the book, matched play only' mindset that the rulebook writers actually tried to discourage which is part of the problem.

 

There's also the battlezone or city fight rules if you want terrain to be more important.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

1: Seems with clarification, you agree, at least in part with Nova.

 

 

2: Commercial success has absolutely NOTHING to do with rules. People who are pure hobbyist/painters buy GW product and never play the game, People who read the BL and love the lore buy product and never play the game.

This is the unfortunate legacy of GW positioning itself some 30 years ago to be a -miniature- company, not a rules company.

It's made steps, but it still is in the mindset of being a Mini company. At least under Nova's conditions (now stated), it can work on both. I once hoped that with the advent of forge world, GW -would- concentrate more on rules, but it seems that was misplaced hope.

 

 

 

Having competent competitive gamers involved in the rules writing process is something I agree is a good idea. I do not think that defining this as the top 10 - however you define that - is particularly useful. I really do not think that you would want these people as the lead rules writers but that is because I do not believe that the market positioning of GW is unfortunate, I believe it is the reason why they survived this long and they would be very ill advised to change their broad approach. Commercial success is important if we want the game to be alive in another 25 years and the GW focus on a wide spread of things - not giving top priority to rules - is a proven successful business model. In practice I believe that the set of play-testers they have (and we do by now know the names of quite a few of them) should be delivering most of the benefit of having top players involved in the rules development process. 

 

Honestly i think adding some really good technical authors to the process would be a greater benefit to the players but if someone wants to think that the competitive gamers add more that is a viable opinion too.

 

Lurching back towards the topic - there is an element of tactical and strategic play to GW games but their development priorities are spread across many aspects of the game so they do not and will not focus on just this. Their games have never been the most tight competitive rule-sets. I find that there is enough tactical nuance to 8th edition to satisfy me, positioning in the charge and fight phases is super-important now even if positioning in the shooting phase a little less crucial than in previous editions.