40K Tough Love: Why 6th and 7th were EPIC FAIL

Black Blow Fly here with some hard truths about the last editions of 40K and why you should be ecstatic about 8th.

Black Blow Fly swinging through your neighborhood again… this time around I am here to spread the truth about a game many of us have played and let’s be honest there’s some hate out there. Yes I’m talking about Warhammer 40k. So let’s get down to business.

6th edition was the lovechild of Jervis Johnson and Mat Ward. This was the edition that shoved Apocalypse down our throats… had the most messed up ally chart ever and strength D. Remember when Eldar and Tau were battle brothers ?! Taudar or Eldau anyone? 7th edition was released less than two years later as a bandaid solution going from bad to worse.

I have divorced myself from the game playing Horus Heresy exclusively which interestingly enough is a balanced game both externally and internally… the main reason why is that most of the armies draw from the same pool of units and special rules. Horus Heresy is often referred to as Space Marines 24-7 but it works and it works very well as a game. Very rarely have I ever had a game of 30k that devolved into long drawn out arguments about the rules. Forge World got something right and it’s kind of a big deal. What we can take from this as a lesson is if the armies are all balanced against each other it can work with most any external ruleset. Wrap your head around that concept.

Come on in, the water’s fine!

The Great Imbalance

40k 7th Edition to me is a huge disaster zone right now with the imbalance between armies and over-complexity of the rules. The funny thing to me is people who say that 8th edition will harken back to the age of 2nd edition… WRONG. 6th and 7th edition in their own way are both much more like 2nd edition with so many rules that are needless, add nothing to your experience, offer no immersion and just make the game take that much longer to play.

Can’t We Just all Get Along?

Another big deal to me which is a total turn off to playing 40k is the über competitive side of the game. Let’s be real… winning IS fun but come on let’s have some self respect. If it takes fielding Eldar and Tyranids to be competitive why bother ? To me the rules should be maintained SOLELY by GW… For any game out there I really don’t want to play by a set of house rules created by any third party according to how they think the game should be played – that’s the manufacturer’s job. What you end up with is a Frankenstein’s monster that for the most part that just makes the top four armies that much better and yes there is a lot of collateral damage – how many times have you been asked to play by a set of house rules when you just want to play a pick up game for fun?! Screw that.

The King is Dead – Long Live the King!

So now the shoe finally drops… 8th Edition is coming and what can GW do to bring back a game we used to all love? Eradicating all current codices and supplements is a huge step in the right direction. If your arm is irreparable then lop it off. The game needs a fresh start much like 3rd edition when GW did the same thing. 3rd edition was a golden age in many ways. Get rid of needless rules that add nothing to your experience or immersion in the game. Every army should be as equally competitive as possible. Get rid of formations and the current ally matrix. How messed up is Ynnari… you kill one enemy model and your opponent’s entire army gets to shoot and assault you – really?!!

3rd was a solid game. Let’s get back to basics.

I am VERY excited about 8th edition. GW said they are going to give us what we really want and they have a lot of people onboard with them. Make it a hobby again. Make it about having fun over the tabletop – for every player. Über competitive gamers should not dictate how the game is played.

~Give the game back to the people again.


  • Nyyppä

    6th was fine before forced apoc. Sure, it could have been better, but at it’s worst it was a lot better than 7th at it’s best.

    • Heinz Fiction

      6th was fine if you played it without allies, fortifications and flyers. But then you could have just played 5th instead…

      • ZeeLobby

        This. Take all the things out that we’re added in 6th and 7th and then you were at least back to the im balanced codexes of 5th as the only issue.

      • Nyyppä

        Without allies…yes….

      • Michael Ambrose

        Vehicle damage & Hull Points were added in the game, which went a HUGE way in fixing vehicles.

        Fortifications, Allies, I can do without

        • Heinz Fiction

          I consider the introduction of hull points as a rather half baked change. While it did make vehicles more consistent, it strongly shifted the balance from high strengh amror piercing weapons to medium strength high rate of fire weapons which generate glancing hits. This was (like so often) not reflected in point values, leading (among other factors) to an obnoxious abundance of scatter lasers and the like.

          • Muninwing


            and the wound allocation…
            and the allies matrix…
            and the 7th ed psychic phase…

            lots of the changes were bad or incomplete attempts to change things that may have needed to be changed.

            too bad the new version was only marginally better — or occasionally (psychic) worse — than the old version.

            and yes, the major project that they needed to implement in order to actually fix or finish the game is to recalibrate (or, i suspect, actually create and implement) a quality points-algorithm that would create balance between units.

            most of the abuses in the game have been (directly or indirectly) when people realized that something was much more worth taking than its points, then spammed that super effective thing. increase the points to a proper weight, or add a disadvantage or either-or choice, and the units would not be seen as quite the same level of auto-take.

            but that’s been a problem since forever, and some of the designers have actually been staunchly against the idea of balancing the game — and sometimes for really foolish reasons.

          • Drew_Da_Destroya

            Also, GW deciding that a model would have the options that were on its sprue, so we had Eldar Jetbikes where every single one of them got a heavy weapon, instead of 1-in-3(or 5) that other armies were stuck with.

          • Muninwing

            they have added a ton of extra bitz over the last 5-6 years when they have redone kits. now we have access to far more various kinds of weapons, if only because we can buy one box and not worry about metal blisters to get the stuff that isn’t included.

            look at what the Dev squads come with for full proof. the old ones used to come with like four heavy weapons (one of each, before grav, and no missile launcher since it was in the tac kit). now, it’s nuts with extra bitz, meaning with two boxes you have more than enough to kit out a full company (if you vary as per the Codex Astartes).

          • Eldar 😤

        • vlad78

          Random charge I can do without too.

      • Muninwing

        flyers weren’t actually as big a deal as people claimed… a couple dedicated antiair units and it was really only worth using flyers if you invested a ton of points in them.

        and even then, it was basically one more factor to juggle.

        i liked a lot of the concepts that came out in 6th and 7th. a psychic phase was a curious attempt. the removal of casualties from closest on was a great visual tool, but a hit-or-miss as to whether it was better than anything else. well, it was better than the silly wound shenanigans of 5th, which it was created to mitigate.

        6th brought me back to the game. i quit because of the Ward-era ridiculousness of the 5th ed imbalances. but i had the most fun back in 4th, and it is my sincere hope that 8th can bring back that joy.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Problem was: when flyers appeared most armies didn’t have anti air outside of an aegis defense line (adding insult to injury, Tyranids weren’t even allowed to use the gun that came with it).

          Later on anti air was often (intentionally I’d assume) overpriced. An Eldar War Walker with anti air missiles was more expensive than an aegis line with AA-Gun, less effective and more fragile. (It didn’t bother Eldar though, because their vastly overpowerd serpent shield happend to be a solid air-defense as well, but that’s another inglorious story…)

          • Muninwing

            i had a strange local meta experience with flyers, so i suppose my views are highly biased.

            where i played most of my games of 6th, they had an escalation league the first summer that 6th debuted. i discovered early on that the DA (my primary army) had access AND fluffiness with the Mortis Dreadnought… and the FW rules gave it interceptor and skyfire.

            in every game i played against flyers, i downed them the round they came on. half of this was luck half was everyone stumbling through the new rules.

            as a result, all those players (some of whom were the more proliferate gamers in the immediate region) just stopped bothering with flyers. and this just kinda continued.

          • Heinz Fiction

            I don’t know much about Forge World as their publications aren’t available in my language…

          • Muninwing

            that’s… unfortunate.

          • Good on you sir 👍

          • Spacefrisian

            Flyers were around before 6th, those rules for firing at them should have stayed, eg ranged weapons minus 12″ range.

        • Xodis

          Yeah, Ward ruined 5e for me too. Havn’t really played since. Hoping to jump on the 8e train since I like AoS.

          • Muninwing

            see, i developed an irrational hatred of AoS for awhile due to trying to read the non-novel fluff.

            i’m actually hoping that the similarities between 40k and AoS will help me take a new look at the game. especially now that the GHB has fixed some of the bigger problems.

        • Flyers were a big deal in 6th with Necrons.

    • Jay Barton

      No 6th was fine if you played space Marines eldar, necrons or for a short time tau but especially Marines.

      • Nyyppä

        Whine all you want. Even CSM were ok without FAQs.

        • Muninwing

          ok, but as usual severely underpowered in comparison…

          • Nyyppä

            That is true.

    • Zingbaby

      7th (and to some degree every previous edition) relied perhaps too heavily on the unspoken “social contract”. The so-called “competitive” tournament types were never going to follow that though. It seems that GW is finally putting those cards on the table now, which should be good for all in theory.

      If you respected the social contract with 7th edition it was still a very fun game… but expecting everyone to be on that same page was clearly unreasonable.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Well with a ruleset as bad as 6th or 7th, even as a friendly non-competitive casual gamer you need a profound understanding of rules and the the meta game to not accidentally ruin your opponents day with your fluffy Eldar force…

      • grim_dork

        I agree with you wholeheartedly about the connection between 7th edition and social interaction, it has been a fun and robust rule set for a group of friends who enjoy playing games with toys.
        I will say though that it becomes a burden on the experience when one player brings an over-powered army, even if that’s his/her army. It can be work to keep things upbeat.

      • Nyyppä

        Well, the current rules deny games from all Khorne/nid/other melee armies. The “good” seems to stop at the theory. Sadly. It could have been great.

  • petrow84

    The doom of the 6-7th was the bucketful of formation, datasheet and other madness. With FOC out of the window, it pretty much invalidated the ally chart AND unbound, as you could bring whatever you wanted, and got huge bonuses from the datasheets/formations by default. My only beef with the 8th edition rumors so far is, that I cannot see, how they gonna rule it out with the command point system, and the 14 kind of FOC they advertise.

    • Honest Kairos

      I actually really enjoyed Formations and hope they don’t get rid of them in 8th.

      That said; Good lord, some of the Formations out there were like Old Testament levels of OP Wrath and Fury on the battlefield.

      I’d like Formations to remain, but not get out of control.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Formations are like communism: a good idea in theory but – oh crap – look at the practice…

        • Nostok

          …but some are more equal than others.

        • Muninwing

          pretty much every -ism is like this, until it is tested and refined

          what’s sad though is that GW as a large multinational corporation has always had access to the resources needed to properly test their product. heck, plenty of gaming groups would do it for free.

          but past leadership has not particularly cared about the quality of the product in practice. and then blamed plenty of other factors for declines in sales.

        • Spacefrisian

          The peeps using them are part of the problem, eg 5 men marine units to spam free vehicles maxed with grav weapons.

      • ZeeLobby

        The problem is I have no faith in GW ever costing or writing them correctly. The fact that some worked in 6th/7th was purely due to the fact that they released a thousand of them. You get to be accidentally right sometimes.

        • kloosterboer

          I don’t think there’s any doubt formations will continue to be a part of 40K – (ref: AOS battalions). However, GW has created a mechanism of annual re balancing via the GH.

          While I don’t think it will ever be perfect, it’s a substantial upgrade to their current ability to manage/ balance points. Which is negligible, if we’re being honest.

          • ZeeLobby

            Oh no. I totally agree. My big question is what happens throughout a year. Will it just be yearly power creeps? Haha. I mean honestly I can’t blame them too much, there are just way too many factions, sub-factions, etc. in the game right now. Although that is technically their fault.

          • Vachones

            Even a “balanced” game like 30k has power creep, its inevitable over time as they try to make new units unique. I think what I’m optimistic about is the Generals Handbook and the FAQ that is updated constantly as methods of re balance, PLUS the fact that they are in constant contact with TOs and the community at large as methods of feedback.

            I think we will see great balance out of the gate, and I say enjoy it and not worry too much about what might happen. Broken stuff will happen and will be identified and within a year it will be updated. I’m cool with that.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’ll definitely be lightyears ahead of where we are now, haha. I’m not as confident about balance out the gate. Even a year of playtesting by a team of 100 wouldn’t reveal broken combos that the thousands of playerbase will reveal in week 1. That said hopefully they FAQ issues before waiting a year for GH.

          • Muninwing

            FAQs have existed for a long long time.

            GW is only now discovering how useful a tool they can be if used properly.

            it causes some hope for betterment, but some head-slapping at their dense stubbornness.

            and, besides, did you ever read the 5th ed FAQ? it was the opposite of what a FAQ should look like in some places….

          • Vachones

            Oh, GW is not doing anything other gaming companies have not done, for sure! In many ways, they are just catching up. The difference is that they have a lot of resources and are committing to this radical idea of “community engagement” that does not involve a lawsuit.

          • Spacefrisian

            You realy should play bolt action, than you will figure out what a balanced tabletop wargame realy is.

        • Honest Kairos

          I think that’s GW’s mottto “Accidentally Right Sometimes.”

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. They need to print that on the inside of rule covers.

      • Parthis

        I think you’ll see formations for narrative play only, and that’s fine.

        They seem set on competitive matched play having a level playing field for all.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        The formations if balanced were fun. Harlequins, IG were both good examples of this. You had to jump through hoops to get the benefits and those hoops could be on fire so it wasn’t always easy to do it. Eldar, Marines, Necrons, Tau all have it easy to get amazing benefits for almost not downside, or no downside. Insanity.

        • Muninwing

          well, Tau started the “free extras” nonsene when their primary disadvantage (bad at melee) was a justification to keep the points-cost low per model… but then they gained a free advantage (overwatch shenanigans) that could mitigate the disadvantage for free.

          but again, it all comes down to points. a proper and balanced points-algorithm would have solved so many of these arguments years ago.

      • Muninwing

        if formations were organized, it would be a fine way of doing things.

        same with detachments

        what i’d rather have seen is that the FOC, the CA detachment came with ObSec, and it was slightly more useful. no other formation or detachment would get that special rule.

        then each alternate chart used to replace the CAD would gain a different rule, though none of these rules would give freebies like 0-point transports. just give a different option of the same power and importance as ObSec. anything more powerful would require a surcharge.

        then, your choice is in fact one of how to organize your forces, not how to exploit the system to get the most out of it.

        formations too would benefit from power-surcharges. a minor power (+1BS when shooting at a unit that another part of the formation has already shot at) might be a measly 5 points. others might offer multiple point values (if you want it more complicated), others might just require a hefty point investment. but make it a choice rather than a convenience.

  • Doug Crawford

    HH was far from balanced sure it was beter than 40k but it also had its killer combos. The base armies where the same but the armies specific units could be so overpowered. As for the forge world 40k that takes overpowered to a new level but thats to be expected if the job could be done by a GW model why would you pay 3x the price.

    • Walter Vining

      FW 40k isn’t that bad. Sure there are somethings that are stupid bad (supremacy suit is that you?) but for the most part the FW units aren’t as over the top as their stigma carries.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        They used to be but not anymore, for the most part. The Marine speeder with the assault cannon and missile launchers is a great model and I own three but no one complains as first of all it’s a speeder and second it is high cost for what it does.

  • Honest Kairos

    Ok, I’ve been trying to formulate a way to say this that doesn’t come across as combative or something like that, that’s not my intent, here goes –

    Horus Heresy isn’t more balanced, but I do strongly believe the player base is. 30k carries all the baggage of 6th edition, even managing to throw in it’s fair number of issues itself, along with a 7th edition FAQ that rendered some legions bordering on neutered and others became godly.

    My point here is that, at it’s core, the Hobby and Narrative aspect of 30K dominated the ideology of the player base, this is great.

    However, almost all complaints you can throw at 6th / 7th edition do exist within 30K, in some cases, it’s a more exploitable sub-system. The benefit is that not many competitive purists play 30K.

    • Eldar are Chaos now

      You hit the nail on the head with this post. Not having an “invent your own chapter” mentality distilled the 31st millennium right down.

      • Muninwing

        it made it more like a historicals game… the mindset is different, as are the fanbases.

        • Honest Kairos

          I accidentally downvoted you… stupid clumsy finger..I think I fixed it though, but if it shows as a downvote, I promise I didn’t mean it!

      • 30k is not DIY.

    • This is 100% true, im seriously hoping they keep 7th ed as a living rulebook for HH, I know they’ve said it will go to 8th ed but there’s still time to salvage the existing game and years of material

    • Muninwing

      the reason i really dug into 40k was first the lore. i remember sitting up and reading Horus Heresy info online one night, following links and seeing all the insanity of the setting in one place.

      the idea of having to paint was always a fear of mine, and had prevented me for years from getting involved. but after i jumped in, i learned how to paint almost by default.

      then i fell in love with the customizability, creativity, and hobbyist pride of the game. in fact, the lack of that encouragement to kitbash and personalize was what alienated me from really getting involved in Warmachine.

      when White Dwarf was a quality encouragement for hobbyists and that creative side, it was at its best. and so was the community (in my experience).

      the community is what has carried GW for awhile, and when they started neglecting that community (the “we’re a model company, not a game company” era) they allowed certain decay to affect their product as well as all that surrounds their product.

      HH has never suffered from that. if anything, that’s where the serious gamers and the proud collectors went when the quality of 40k decreased. so there might be a number of components, but the community and all that it values (or in some areas, used to value) is definitely a part of it.

    • Sorry but you are wrong for multiple reasons. 30k is for the most part SM vs SM. It is internally balanced.

      • Honest Kairos

        Ok, but if that’s the one argument your presenting out of my apparent multiple reasons for being wrong, I’d point out that nearly every Black Book contained an Army list that wasn’t SM – Knight Households, Militia, Cultists, Solar Auxilia, Legio Custodes, Titan Legions, or even the shattered legions and black guard. I may have missed a few.

        My point being is that it’s not that 30K is more balanced, seeing as the template it’s based on (6th ed.) wasn’t “balanced” this becomes an impossibility.

        However, the mentality behind the community of 30K changes the focus of the game. It does feel like a different game all together, I agree, and a better one at that, but that has everything to do with the player base accepting it for what it is (a Campaign/Narrative/Fluff/Hobbyist masterpiece) instead of a competitive game.

        One way or another, somebody wins a game. To 40K, for a long time, this inevitable aspect became the end all be all of the hobby. To 30K, this was just an obvious result, games end, but the reward was everything else involved.

        • The vast majority play Legions and you see some Mechanicum. I go to a lot of events… you never see things like militia or cult except for the odd video batrep. Like I said it’s basically SM 24-7

  • Crevab

    Unfortunately, I have high hopes for 8th. Which is going to make any disappointments deeper. At least they can’t make things worse, right? Hahaha…ha…

  • David

    This article reflects the problem with a section of the player Base not 7th. fussing at the use of units in a valid way is not a problem with 7th. What’s wrong with mixing elder and tyranids if you have fun? The best thing in 7th is you can sandbox the army you want to play. I have 3 armies I often inter mix them not to be broken (but because it gives me greater variety on the battlefield) and most often the person fussing at the combination is not my opponent who is also having fun but someone else unrelated to the game who snears at the combination because of some unwritten rule

    • Crevab

      New Chess rule. Black armies may add White units to replace any of Pawn, Rook, Bishop, or Knight. If they do then instead of the White player going first automatically, the players flip a coin

      • Charon

        Which is no a problem if it was an actual rule. Or both players agree.
        Is it more fun to roll and on a 4+ you may actually kick a piece?

    • How can there be any immersion versus super cheese dick unfluffy armies?

  • Eldar are Chaos now

    3rd was a waste of space. So generic i may as well have been playing chess. Standardized missions, Standardized force org, and more tactically rewarding terrain rules would help the game immensely.

    • Seienchin

      Indeed. Nice to see someone else remembering the third. I still think its the best edition (although I paused for 6th edition) because of being generic and at least a little bit fair in the beginning. Power creep through codex was also a thing in third. The necron armies broke my space marine heart when they came out. Maybe I wasnt clever enough at the time but the combination of hard to kill, respawning guys with armor value 14 obelisks and completely overpowered characters broke my 40k spirit for a while and I started playing fantasy again. (Where in my first game I took out the enemy chaos general in one lucky high elve bolt thrower shot – much better)

      • Heinz Fiction

        The game always had balance issues but the core rules of 3rd-5th edition were pretty solid (each with it’s own minor advantages and disadvantages)

  • Valbarca

    7th was one of the best rule sets for a long time. Just seems like a small player base didnt like it. 8th is looking quite good now though. BOLS just producing more crap.

    • Karru

      It really wasn’t. If you look at the core rules, not the horrible balance of codices mind you, just the core rules, you quickly realise some major problems with the game. First of all, Assaulting was turned pretty much useless. They removed vast majority of the rules that allowed Assault Units to reach CC while giving Ranged units more defensive options to protect themselves.

      The balance between shooting and melee was horrible. Melee wasn’t an option outside deathstars or units that had rules which allowed them to charge on the turn they arrived. Shooting was given loads of buffs and benefits while Assault lost everything. You have a Random Charge Distance which charging through cover can mean you won’t be able to charge the enemy that is little over 1″ away from you since you deduct 3″ from your roll, so if you roll 4 or less, you fail the charge. You can’t Assault from transports that stood still, you can’t assault from Outflank, Transports cannot disembark models if they moved over 6″, even if it is a Fast Vehicle. All these things made the game horribly unbalanced for some armies right out of the gate.

      Then you had the Psychic Phase. The defences against Psychic Powers was a joke. Most powers that got used were Blessings, meaning they never targeted the opponent. This meant that they could only stop the power on a 6. You also needed to stop ALL of the successful dice, so if your opponent rolled 4 successes, you needed 4 6’s to stop it. The powers were unbalanced as well. Telepathy and Divination were the kings with Biomancy getting the third place. Later on when the Psyker formations rolled in, Malefic powers started to take their root in the top 3, dropping Biomancy completely.

      • Justin Adams

        “assaulting was turned pretty much useless”, come again? Assaulting has been a viable and important part of nearly every competitive army in 7th since day 1.

        • Crevab

          “wasn’t an option outside deathstars or units that had rules which allowed them to charge on the turn they arrived.”

        • Karru

          As long as you had Deathstar units, yes. Or units that could get to CC without getting shot, by turn 1 preferably.

          Most competitive armies I’ve seen focus on ranged combat, psychic dominance and possibly a single, extremely powerful, unit that once buffed with enough Psychic Powers is untouchable and can wipe out entire units before they can even hit back.

          The only assaulting I’ve seen outside that is hindrance from Summoned things. Basically things that were free to the player so could be thrown away to tie up something.

          So no, Assaulting isn’t really viable. If you wish to be competitive, you go almost completely ranged with major Psychic Support and if you wish to Assault, you make a Deathstar or get something that can charge on the turn it arrives.

      • Hendrik Booraem VI

        Assaulting not being possible on the turn you arrive was probably done to prevent genestealers (and to a lesser extent Vanguard Vets) from owning the table with outflank. Move on 6″, charge up to 12″ = 18″ thick band on either side of the board that’s a “danger zone” for units, leaving a 12 inch strip down the middle that you have to move everything through.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah. But that used to be called something like tactics. It made taking outflank units actually worth something for combat armies. It was also narratively pretty fitting.

          • Karru

            Indeed. While I understand that it had to be somewhat nerfed, especially against Space Wolves and their pesky Scouts, but removing it outright was bad.

            Without outflanking assault units, fortifying one corner of the table became a very popular tactic and extremely effective for some armies, like Tau.

            Especially with 7th edition Charge rules, making it so that Outflanking units could only move 6″ and then charge normally would have been okay. That would have made a POTENTIAL 12″ charge, but on average you are looking at a threat range of 13″ from the edges of the board.

          • Hendrik Booraem VI

            Except with all the re-rolls and WAAGH! and various other shenanigans, it made genestealers and outflanking orks unstoppable.

            Personally, I think they should’ve used Fleet as a way of partially fixing that (allow units with Fleet to charge D6 inches on the turn they arrive from reserves, or something), but it was definitely a problem. 2 units of genestealers in reserve shouldn’t restrict you to a 12″ stripe down the middle of the table, but they also shouldn’t be something you can completely ignore, either.

            Vanguard Veterans arriving from Deep Strike shouldn’t be a distraction, they should be a threat. But they also shouldn’t have an 18″ danger radius.

        • Jabberwokk

          Shown: A unit deep striking and not being able to assault


    • Hendrik Booraem VI

      Agreed. 7th gave us the ability to use super-heavies, warlord traits, and detailed info on terrain, all included in the core rulebook.

      • ZeeLobby

        Terrain most people rarely used, super heavies only several factions actually received and warlord traits that we’re so random, it’s like your general had multiple personalities.

        • Graham Bartram

          Everything I loathed about warlord traits. Anti-Narrative and unhelpful for competitive play. What was the point?

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. It was really odd. And just like psychic powers, there were usually one or two which could swing games while the rest were useless, all at 0 extra points cost. I mean it was just a bad mechanic period.

        • Hendrik Booraem VI

          Had you ever considered maybe, I don’t know, not using warlord traits? I didn’t for the first two years I played 7th edition, and things were fine. In casual play, there were a lot of ways to control for these things you complain about, and some of it clearly didn’t even impact you.

          In tournament play, it was almost as simple, since you could have reasonable expectation that everyone would know most of what they were doing. And the rules clearly allow for you to settle disagreements on a dice roll, if you don’t have (or can’t rely on) a Tournament Organizer to make a call.

          It looks to me like the biggest problem with 7th Edition was that it didn’t have rule #1 as “Don’t be a D!CK,” and it seems like a lot of you ran into people who really needed to hear that message.

          • ZeeLobby

            LoL. Calm down buddy. The problem with 7th edition is just that it had bad rules. Like the rules are just bad, not even from a play perspective, but just from a rules perspective. Random != fun/balanced. Add to that the rampant favoritism some factions had over others, and it really is just a poor example of what a game system should be. Even if people aren’t being d!cks and power gaming, you still feel disappointed when you play Dark Eldar, and look at what Eldar get in comparison. Why some factions have fliers, SHs, GMCs, good formations, etc. and others don’t is just the icing on a bad rule cake, lol.

            Just curious as to what faction you play? Cause usually that’s the delineator between a fun and dismal 6th/7th. I mean clearly there must have been a large part of the community who weren’t satisfied with the rules or the way things or going, or why completely flip the table in 8th. Clearly GW understand this.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I play Eldar and I had to put them away so my friends would play against me. When one book keeps getting more and more powerful that even a toned down list can eat other armies…time to play other models. My IG were happy for a while but I had to go to a foot slogging list as my tanks and vehicles died too easily to grav, D etc.

    • foulestfeesh13 .

      I don’t agree that 8th is looking good. I do however agree with the rest of your comment.

    • Agreed, 7th was amazing, I’m sad they’re throwing out all the awesome aspects of the game for a restart.

    • Straw man

  • Karru

    Both edition had some huge problems that originated mostly from the books that were added later. The core rules weren’t perfect but you could work with them.

    The issue always was the bloat. Instead of “fixing” things, GW just added more and more stuff to “balance” things out. In 6th they started to add things like the Stronghold Assault and Escalation. Both of them were nice back then as they were expansions and not automatically included in the game. Then they added them as part of the core rules in 7th. Next up they added formations to “balance” things out with Super Heavies as some factions didn’t have Apocalypse units to field so they had to have something.

    Then they added the “Alternative Detachments” like the Decurion and Gladius. These added more rules into the game. Once they started to add more and more formations into the game, the fate of 7th was fully sealed. Thanks to the army building system, Formations could be taken “freely” as an additional detachment to any allied army. They completely circled the Allied Detachment part. Imperial Knights got the “Oathsworn” Detachment (or whatever it was called) that allowed them to be added into any Imperial Army without needing to take an Allied Detachment.

    The issue was that GW started to add in rules that circumvented their old rules. There was no longer any need for the Allied Detachment as you could just take a Formations instead. Then these formations themselves got out of hand very fast.

    I still love my 5th edition. To me it was as close to a perfect 40k game as I could hope. Everything felt viable to an extend, Assaulting was useful but not broken, Shooting was viable but not overpowering. Psychic Powers were fair and acted in support, not as deciders. All armies had a fair shot at winning.

    Sure, there were many problems with 5th. Only thing that originated from the core rules was Wound Allocation, everything else came from the codices. Lash of Submission and Jaws of the World Wolf for example were things people were very afraid, for obvious reasons, but those could have been fixed with a simple “removal” from the codices had they not been the latest in the edition. Wound Allocation was the only real problem with the core rules. It is understandable as it is very easy to exploit. Taking a unit of 10 Nob Bikers, all with different equipment, a Painboy and a Warboss was ridiculous. You needed a minimum of 11-12 wounds before that unit lost its first model. Having Toughness 4(5) and 4+ save followed by a 4+ FNP was a tough nut to crack, but not unbeatable. You could still Insta-kill them with things like Battle Cannons, which ignored the FNP, so they only got Cover Saves.

    Overall, 5th will remain as my favourite edition. I am still waiting to see how 8th turns out, from what I’ve seen, it does look to be pretty solid. I just hope that GW and the Community realise problems quickly enough to compensate all major balance issues fast before they spin out of control. Then you have the thing where GW has to start balance out its releases a bit more. They really should just make it something like one for each faction per release, until they’ve updated everything.

    For example, first they release something for Imperium, the new SM codex for example. Then they release a new Chaos Space Marine Codex. Then they release a new Eldar Codex. Then they release an Imperial Guard codex and so on. Currently we’ve seen the unbalanced releases going on in AoS as well. Order has the most releases and continues to climb up the ladder with Chaos swaggering behind. Meanwhile Destruction learned how to climb the ladder recently and is not that far of the ground and Death is yet to get out of bed and learn what up direction is.

    • Heinz Fiction

      5th edition with wound allocation from say 4th edition and balanced codices would be a dream.

      • ZeeLobby

        And really, when 6th was showing up I was like, sweet they’ll fix wound allocation and we’re good to go, lol. My mistake indeed!

    • Jabberwokk

      Give me 5th ed rules with 4ed Nid dex and we’re good. every Nid dex after 4th is burning horribad trash.

      Nids were most powerfull/playable in 4th with 4th ed rules, 4th with 5th ed rules, and 5th with 6th ed rules.

    • It’s good that every army is getting rebooted. Ground zero and armies like DE, Orks and Tyranids might be viable again.

  • Hazamelistan

    “that’s the manufacturer’s job” not long ago Games Workshops Business Model said, that they want to produce the best miniatures in the world. No word about rules.

    • euansmith

      But it didn’t stop them charging an arm and a leg for rules and codices 😉

    • Jabberwokk

      I read that part as “Im buthurt they went to the guys at Frontline and Nova which I secret hate for being much better at this game than me.”

      Did anyone even win Frontline’s taudar challenge?

      Where me, I’m super happy they went to people who know what their doing to get some oversight. It shows some humility that realizes they aren’t perfect.

      It’s amazing how many “narrative” player’s simply can not grasp that all their hatred for “power gamer’s” is a direct result of catering to “narrative play”. 6th and 7th we’re a power gamer’s wonderland.

      • That’s a big part of the problem because the devolved around a small subset that actually play the game but it affects everyone else like it or not… collateral damage.

        GW most likely wants people like FLG buy in… the designers didn’t hand over the task of writing the actual rules.

  • SYSTem050

    Total fail? Why do we exist in such a binary world these days was 6th/7th perfect? No of course not was it a total fail no. Better article would have been one that looked at the aspects what the intentions were why they didnt work possibke solutions.

    To much nuance though for the current mindser

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Too much nuance for the BoLs 8th ed sales drive.

      • ZeeLobby

        Lol. Yup.

      • It’s optimism.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I’m trying to be optimistic. Actually most of the latest reveals are good.

    • Seienchin

      That is actually a really sane and fitting comment. Total fail is something on the line of warhammer fantasies 7th and 8th edition which destroyed the playerbase and sellings but 40k never had such a total fail.
      From a rule point of view a total fail is hardly possible for a game this tested anyway.

      • ZeeLobby

        I dunno, at least locally 6th and 7th edition 40K pretty much killed our player bases. The difference was GW still did a significant job supporting 40K with new factions, mini campaigns, and side-game box sets, while they really just let fantasy flounder. Nothing makes this more obvious than the end times. They finally show creative interest in fantasy, and boom, player base and purchases pick back up. That’s not to say 8th was a good edition. It introduced horde unit sizes and spells that simply removed armies from the table. But it’s not like GW showed much love outside the occasional faction model update.

    • Parthis

      Because inciteful articles bring in more ad revenue than insightful articles.


      • Jabberwokk

        Clever. +1

    • Heinz Fiction

      Well it failed hard enough for me to stop playing. 7th edition rule book was the only one in 25 years of Warhammer I didn’t even bother to buy.

      • I bought it and read it, but never played 7th. Same with 6th. Those would be the first editions since RT that I didn’t play. I truly enjoyed 5th though. Really looking forward to 8th, but I am wondering how “streamlined” the rules will be

    • Mindser ?!

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    You contradict yourself BBF. If 30k is good (which uses the 7th ed core rules except for army building and scoring) how can the problem be with 7ths core rules? Doh. What makes you think new core rules will fix anything when they aren’t the problem?

    • Gorsameth

      Because the issue is in the army building core rules as BBF mentions?

      formations bringing OP combo after OP combo. Free units for formations
      breaking the supposed balance of equal point armies.

      The “this is how you shoot, this is how you charge” part of 7th wasn’t broken.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        the army construction rules could easily be changed in the army releases. Its not a justification for a radically new edition. There are reasons for that, but the failure of 7th isn’t one of them.

        • Gorsameth

          It could yes, but GW would still have had to invalidate the current broken material out there. At that point you might aswell make a new edition to both justify the invalidating, and make more money.

          As for why to go towards more AoS rules? I don’t know. Seems current GW designers prefer them.

    • 30k works in 7th because the armies are balanced… there is no eldar cheese equivalent

  • Mr.Fister

    7ed IS still an epic fail…it is the current version we have for some months to come…so why the past thense? By the way, do you know why 6ed sucked? They changed it too fast to 7ed, so the rulebook I had was obsolete in less of an year.

  • Henry Blake

    Just want to mention, that’s not how ynari work.

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    “Very rarely have I ever had a game of 30k that devolved into long drawn out arguments about the rules.”

    I can do you one better. I have literally NEVER had a game of WH40K devolve into long drawn out arguments about rules. So your reasoning is invalid.

    • Parthis

      Indeed. It’s almost as if he believes the system is at fault for long drawn out arguments amongst the man-childs.

      I’ve never played a game of, well, anything that involved arguing… unless marriage counts as a game.

      • Marriage is indeed a game. A very long, drawn out game.

      • davepak

        while the player and their temperament is a major contributor – poorly written or ambiguous rules help foster that situation.

    • Your last game was like two years ago or you don’t when yer getting cheated amirite ?!

  • BigGrim

    Eh, I enjoyed the hell outta 7th until the bloat set in. Up until then, it was a good edition.

    Saying that, I am getting more and more excited about 8th with every new piece of info GW give us. I might get playing again!

    • Parthis

      Agreed entirely. 7th was good. You could tell 8th was coming as they threw everything into later-7th. The Ynnari? Quite.

    • ZeeLobby

      Most of who did or didn’t enjoy 7th depended completely on which factions you played, and what your meta was like.

      • BigGrim

        Perhaps. Our meta was fine until some of the properly silly formations came out. One or two of our number went for that.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah. As a primarily xenos player facing large amounts of SMs and Imperial Knights, it really just wasn’t a fun edition for me. The addition of fliers, SHs, GMCs and formations/detachments wouldn’t have been much of an issue, if xenos had received the same quantity as others (outside Eldar).

          • BigGrim

            Eh, I’m an Eldar player but never really bought into their new power formations. I have a Wraithknight and my Jetbikes are one ShuriCannon per 3 Catapults, like the old days. I have Wraithguard and Blades waiting to be built but I lost the spark somewhere. 7th just got horrible.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean just the pure Eldar codex was way better than other codexes. Pretty much through all of 6th and 7th. First you had wave serpents, which would just demolish other armies, and then everyone was like, it’s OK, the 7th edition codex will bring them back in line. Nope! Haha.

            That’s not saying anything bad against you. It’s not like you chose for those things to happen, and clearly you still like to play fun and fluffy lists. But It’s almost universally split down the middle as to who did/didn’t enjoy these editions based on their faction selection.

          • The 7th Eldar codex was my breaking point. That’s when I started seriously looking at other games. I realized I could make an Eldar list, give it to a 12 year old who had never played the game with 3 or 4 instructions, and it would be very unlikely that I could beat them without spending a lot of money on allies I didn’t want.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s crazy right. I mean where was the internal thought process in any of that book… Even my Eldar friend shelved his army. He just didn’t enjoy playing it anymore, and bringing it down to sane levels required him taking a bunch of units he wouldn’t even have wanted to play if they were the best due to aesthetics/fluff. A real shame.

            I remember the BA, Orks and DE books were all a bit somewhat disappointing, but everyone was like, this is the new power level, it’ll be great when everything is at this level. Then Necrons came with the decurion, and we were like eh… it’s a little OP, but manageable, and it can be FAQed if needed.

            Then Eldar dropped and our whole group was just like, WTF, haha.

          • davepak

            This is true. I have to intentionally tone down my tau and necrons thanks to the new books (necrons are more broken than tau).
            I played both these armies back in 5th, and honestly, it was almost better to play the underdog than and army from an OP crap codex. Well, if you have a soul at least….

      • I agree. The factions I enjoy are really bad in the game, so I have little incentive to play any games knowing I’m about to be the equivalent of a jobber in professional wrestling and get mudhole stomped on the basis of my faction not being broken.

        I suppose if my factions were broken powerful that I may not hate it as much since I could be having decent games instead of one-sided pimp-slap fests.

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. Exactly. It’s really why I’ve avoided half of 7th. DE, Tyranids and Orks just always felt several leaps behind. Sure I could win some games, but most of the time it was turn 3 forfeits as most of my armies were gone.

          • Jabberwokk

            I thought about coming back when the spore cyts and venomthrope/maleceptor came out.

            I noticed le imperial knight

            I look at le rules for nids then le rules for knights


            And im out.

        • davepak

          Good point, but as a person who played both its almost worse.

          You are just on the other side of the “one-sided pimp-slap fests.”

          I have played necrons since before the shard debacle (thanks matt ward) – and honestly, its very sad now. If I want to play my crons now, I have to deliberately build lists that are not annoying to play against, or not play them at all.
          (the new book has terrible internal balance, and many units are just not-fun to play against).

          • Jabberwokk

            It’s to bad cause ‘crons are cool. They always were powerful and IMO always should be. but yeah when your options are take 11 flying croissants and be labeled a paraih but you local meta or lose playing the way you want and be labeled a newb.

            I solved one of those problems by not giving a flying termagant what other’s think of me. I’m fine being the nerd’s super villain.

  • Can’t we all get along… brutal.

  • From a balance standpoint, I don’t feel this edition is any worse imbalance wise than the end of 5th edition was. I feel both were a train wreck. A flaming train wreck filled with flaming faeces.

    From a competitive player standpoint, the edition was worse than 5th because 5th was the pinnacle of GW’s tournament edition. The current edition introduced a lot of random elements, which tournament players hate because you can’t fully optimize and guarantee your tactics when so much is out of your control.

    From a narrative player standpoint, 6th and 7th were one of the greatest editions, because GW made FW official, and things like city fight and apoc were not shunted off to a dark corner never to be seen again because they weren’t tournament-approved.

    I’m ready for less rules now and killing off things like the death stars. I know 8th will still be a broken mess when the powergaming comes into play and the holes are blown wide open, but my hope is that the powergaming holes will be fewer and easier to manage.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      You nailed it Auticus, a few holes a managable, but when there are too many holes, the game becomes much too complicated (just like for my other hobby hah hah)

  • PrimoFederalist

    “Über competitive gamers should not dictate how the game is played.”

    Major tournament organizers in the U.S. are the ones who helped them balance the rules. womp womp

    • Exactly, nothing against Reese and co but the game they enjoy just isn’t fun to me, and if they had input on this edition I just have no faith it will be good.

    • Not really… it only helped the top tier get even stronger.

    • Not true… GW simply wants their approval. It’s not the designers turned over writing the rules to them.

  • David

    Mostly you enjoyed 7th if you liked a combo sandbox and played it for what it was.
    You hated 7th if you restricted yourself arbitrarily to playing one faction and ignored the allies section then lost
    Don’t blame the game for your failure to adapt

    Also for anyone saying it made me quit it made me go from casual to competitive and many new players started in my area. It’s probably people having a go at people for not playing the way you want that’s harming your player base

    • Goatsplitter

      ‘Failure to adapt,’ huh? Wow. You know this is a game right? You know I have thousands of other options on which to spend my money and time? I don’t have to burn my money at the altar of GW and ‘adapt’ to their idiotic rulesets (I ‘failed to adapt’ because I didn’t jump on the soulburst bandwagon?) And if ‘playing the way I want’ is so bad, why is GW going all scorched Earth in the 8th?

  • I just want a game where 2000 points against 2000 points is actually balanced and operates like 2000 points vs 2000 points, not 2000 points vs 4500 points.

    • ZeeLobby

      Which I don’t feel like is asking too much,.

  • 40KstillRulesTheTT

    Lots of little, well though out rules, which, when put together, made a 1500 game last 4 hours. That was 7th ed. And that is why early 7th all was kinda ok with 40K.
    The bloat progressively killed the game, but the bloat came a lot from the “formations + USRs” principle/combo.
    8th is gonna be much better for not having USR, and even if it is a clusterfudge of imbalance at first, GW will be able to hotfix a few of the most glaring issues.

    That has never been possible before, and that is why this will be the most balanced edition, both among units of the same faction (no more autoinclude units, at least they will change faster over time) as well as among factions (Eldar, Tau and Necrons will stop getting, in turn, the most hate).

  • 6th and 7th were the best narrative ruleset Gw has done since RT. The online community is so obsessed with competitive play that it ignores this element of the game

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      Untrue, a non competitive top tier army would crush a non competitive tyranid, dark eldar or ork army. It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise, come on Crimson 😉
      The were not “exploit issues”, 90% of the Necron units were simply more optimised “by design” than those of the codexes I mentioned

      • First of all, that’s ridiculous and silly, second of all it’s irrelevant to whether the game is a good narrative ruleset, because balance is not an important factor in narrative gaming. If someone is outperforming the pack the GM should just disrupt them so they’re at a disadvantage

        • 40KstillRulesTheTT

          If you have a GM for 40k game, then yes balance is no issue, you are right, as the GM will indeed disrupt them te “restore balance”. I don’t think many ppl play 40k with a GM though…

          • What we do is a GM for the campaign not the actual games, but GM’d games are hella fun too

          • Very people use a gm that’s far outside the norm.

          • Or play an asynchronous mission, or whatever, the point is with narrative play balance is really not important, and balance generally means much blander rules.

  • NagaBaboon

    It’s like they read my wish list for the game to be honest, I never thought they’d get me back into 40K again because I didn’t think enough people wanted what I did.

    The last thing left I dislike is formations so I hope they’re gone but they’re in AoS so I’m pretty sure they’ll be staying, I can definitely deal with that with all the other improvements being made though.

    • ZeeLobby

      Especially if they have a points cost associated with them. Makes them so much more reasonable.

    • davepak

      The concept of formations was fine – it was the fact they had silly OP bonuses associated with some of them.

  • Grand_Master_Raziel

    6th edition was a vast mess, but my gaming group found it much better balanced with some house rules. I genuinely had more fun playing 6th-7th edition than I had previous editions.

    I always thought the rapid change from 6th to 7th edition came about because the community as a whole was rejecting Lords of War. It was fairly easy to have a house rule denying Lords of War. GW’s response was to make many of their named characters Lords of War, so one couldn’t have a blanket ban on LoWs and allow people to use Marneus Calgar, Dante, Logan Grimnar, etc in their lists.

    As for formations, they could have worked if they’d stuck with rewarding players for playing faction-typical lists (aka the Gladius), but GW jumped the shark with things like the Riptide Wing, allowing players to field already-overpowered units in multiples and gain advantages for doing so.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      “with some house rules.” -> For such a large gaming company, no one should have to house rule two entire editions to have fun 🙂

  • Chris Boyle

    I think the game just grew to unmanageable proportions. GW kept adding to it, and every new thing had to have the unique factor to make it something people wanted to buy. The steady accretion of new and novel made the game a nightmare kind of like The Homer. http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c3c67b7bbf8e7a3addfd1604322749b7cba170ffb3d6fd9948c98fd8588e341.png

    • ZeeLobby

      Haha. Great reference. The real question is if they stop now, is the current size still manageable? I imagine we’ll actually see some factions combined/phase out as 8th progresses.

      • Chris Boyle

        That’s why I’m not excited about 8th edition. It can’t be worse than 7th so that’s good, but the game is still trying to do too much and, GW/FW needing to sell product, will continue to grow. I hesitated to say it because of all the hate it would bring down on me, but you’re right; some of this has to go, OR be used in a completely new game, otherwise the fundamental problem remains.

        • ZeeLobby

          True. Well. Based on the 8th edition map I’d say that it could be likely. In the “end times” we’ve already seen Eldar kind of get grouped together, etc. Now that they’re no longer afraid to advance the story, I imagine they’ll have to be some pruning. That said, they’ve done very little of this in AoS. I mean there’s factions they no longer even sell anymore that still have rules. I know it’ll make people furious, but they really do need to trim at some point.

          • 40KstillRulesTheTT

            It won’t make any ‘normal player” (meaning non-geeky/ragy/etc.) furious if their “army” gets “combined” with another into one single faction… It will if it gets squatted though…

            We all hope marines and eldar get all bunched up each into one single faction lol.

            Top selling products being bunched into one faction might get in the way though, which was not an issue as warhammer was no longer selling much when AoS came along

          • Chris Boyle

            It’s not just about the differing armies/factions; it’s the constant additions of new weapons of all types and individual characters, all with special new rules. They’re great for sales but hell to balance across such a diverse game. Even terrain isn’t just something to hide in, it has unique rules too. Too me, it’s just ridiculous excess, in what is, or was, a tactical level skirmish game. That’s what it worked best as.

          • Chris Boyle

            I haven’t played Horus Heresy, but perhaps one reason Black Blow Fly is loving it so much is that it is a “cleaner” game, lacking all the bloat of 40K.

        • ZeeLobby

          LoL, why was your other comment removed?

          • Chris Boyle

            The Horus Heresy one? Because it seemed obvious.

      • davepak

        Technically, all the marine factions should be combined. Then just have variant keywords for the “chapters”. Sure, write all the fluff you want, and sell “upgrade sprues” to have custom units.

        • ZeeLobby

          I’d be cool with that. I still feel like they’re going to want to add “new” factions in 8th (it’s become like their thing now), so I still feel like there might be trim down the line. Or it’ll just keep expanding to the point where you’ll never know if it’s balanced or not, haha. That works too.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      Hah hah I remember that episode ! And its fine having a game grow “out of proportion” as you know when to reset all rules. People are really attached to their minis more than to their rules, anyway.

      • Chris Boyle

        Too me, and this is heresy to many I’m sure; the game began to lose it when flyers were added. You took a game operating successfully in basically one dimension–ground level combat–and added a new level. After that it seemed the flood gates burst. It’s like chess. Chess is a wonderful game–which I can’t play well at all–but can you imagine what Chess would be like if GW did it?

        • generalchaos34

          the good news is flyers will now simply be another unit on the board, sure they lose a little bit of the mystique but at least they will work in the frame of the rules

      • Chris Boyle

        You’re correct that people are more attached to their minis than the rules. That’s what brought us to this point. The miniatures drive the rules and the miniatures are the primary reason people are interested. The actual gaming experience seems to come a distant 2nd. If players wanted a good gaming experience that maximized skill they’d be playing historical miniatures games. As it is, they’re hooked on the constant stimulation of the new that GW is happy to provide. That’s also why, as you noted, rules bloat is inescapable. I’m not saying any of that is wrong, it’s just the reality. Gamers are why 7th ed. became the beast it was. They wanted the latest and greatest and seemed surprised when it became so difficult, time consuming, and expensive.

  • Xodis
    • Muninwing


      • Xodis

        I could do without the Psychic phase. A “command” phase prior to movement fits better, and I honestly can’t think of a psychic power that wouldn’t be a better fit for 1 of those phases.

        The idea of each army being able to utilize the psychic phase is neat as long as it doesn’t rewrite the fluff.

        • Muninwing

          i liked the old version. use the power in its appropriate phase.

          shooting powers are rolled when shooting. movement powers are used when moving. melee powers are used in melee.

          though i like “command phase” powers for anything not applicable for any of the above, or for issuing orders, or for using command traits, or for deepstriking, etc.

          • Xodis

            Exactly, seems simple, and we dont have to worry about someone just dominating all phases by Psychic shooting, bolt pistol shooting, then charging.

        • Muninwing

          that being said, i like going back to a single roll without all the “deny the witch” stuff…

          WHF was interesting and fun for its larger units and wider battlefield, and the battle wizards being in the rank-and-file was always an interesting mechanic. up until they fundamentally changed the magic phase in 8th, it was one of the more interesting parts of the game.

          but they really lessened it when they made changes into 8th, and it’s possibly one of the many factors that contributed to the lessening sales of 8th (though massive game imbalance was probably the most-cited and most prevalent one).

          so copying the system from 8th (iirc) instead of finding one that fit with the actual flow and flavor of the game was never going to work.

  • ctFallen

    While I’m a little excited for 8th I loved 7th, imo it was the most thematic the game had been since 2nd edition. I returned to the hobby in 5th after leaving at the end of 2nd and had a hard time getting excited as I couldn’t believe the game had become so boring and flavorless. The only thing that kept me was Forge World and then 6th came and it started to get better. Then 7th came bringing everything I wanted, new armies, campaigns, ways to play and build thematic armies, ways to use all your models, it was great until it was broken by some people.
    You are right about how wrong the people comparing 8th to 2nd are its way more influenced by AoS the 2nd. 2nd was a very thematic game and while 8th seems intersting they are sacrificing thematic elements to achieve streamlining and “balance”.

  • Andrew

    3rd was a horrible edition. Huge downgrade from 2nd and finaly after almost 2 decades GW made their best edition ever with 7th. And after all this wait that actualy got alot of older edition players back to gaming, their going to downgrade the game once again. 8th edition is going to be horrible, the game doesnt need to be simplified because a small minority of players are intelegent enough to understand the rules or do basic math (seriously at 7 years old i had memerized, the hit chart and wound chart, its not that complicated). Also apocalypse was never forced down any ones throat, if u wanted to play apoc you could, same thing with flyers, and formations it added extra ways to play the game. Instead of whining about all the options 7th edition had, just find a like minded player and agree to play a certain way. I have never has any issues with an opponent when it came to rules, and i play in a lot of different locations with different types of players.

    • ZeeLobby

      Thank god we aren’t all identical people living similar lives, amirght?

      • Chris Boyle

        You’re being very kind in that response.

        • ZeeLobby

          haha. I mean I feel like some people really don’t get that. I’ve had horrible 6th an 7th edition experiences. I’m sure some people have had good ones. GW obviously has a better handle on this than any of us, and is clearly making changes due to the fact that people have not been happy with the game. IF it was universally praised world wide with no issues, we wouldn’t be getting this massive of a change.

          • Andrew

            All I’m saying is that 7th edition allowed for the most variety of any edition, I have literally never had to bring the same list twice, every time I played a game I throughout my army list and made a different one next time. And as far as win at all cost players I haven’t really encountered that many, maybe it’s because I never played 40k at a tournament setting. But even if I did play one or two games with someone who played like that, then no big deal I lose one game, one game compared to all the fun games and options in 7th edition. Some of the best games I played where ones where I lost, it’s a make believe game, it’s not like it’s a poker tournament and someone just cracked your hand on the River or slow rolled you.
            PS.Also so far all the 7th edition releases where pretty even with one another, yea the armies that where still waiting on their release where at a disadvantage, but I’m sure when their releases came out most things would have balanced out. Also another issues was GW did a great job of doing release after release which some people had trouble keeping up with all the new rules. But instead of dumbing down the game, GW should have finished all the releases and given at least a year for everyone to enjoy the full extent of 7th edition before even discussing a new edition.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean you could do all that before. Just play for fun! Then you can ally whatever you want, skew the game however you want, etc! You could have done this in 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Thank god the new edition has narrative play, so people who just want to do whatever the heck they want can go do it, but organized events and PUGs will have some structure. I’m so glad the 3 ways of play are coming to 40K.

          • Andrew

            3 ways of play where always around.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, so why drag us people who want balanced games down into your anything goes world? haha.

          • Andrew

            Age of Sigmar has 3 ways to play and is about as bland as a game can be. What made 40K fun was the variety, the detachments, formations, chapter tactics, Traitor Legion Rules,…. all these is what made every game fun and allowed you to build a fluffy list. Seriously who would want to go play in a war-gaming tournament, I love the game and all but if I’m driving hours to participate in a tournament it’s going to be a poker or blackjack tournament, not a make believe tournament where first prize is a Dark Vengeance box set.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I don’t see why you can’t still build fluffy lists. It’s not like allies are going away. And the majority of people don’t play in tournaments for the prizes, lol. I give mine away when I win. I go to play competitive games against strangers, meet new people, share beers, and find new and creative builds.

          • Jesse Hupp

            my issue is as a long time nid player i have my doubts that 8th will fix anything for them the option to fix the severely broken list has existed since 5th edition as 4th were playable now with assault being so nerfed the one thing they are good at no longer has a heavy game effect. 7th at least made it possible for my friends to play again and brought back my favorite genestealer cult army which 8th will likely kill again to stream line stuff then they are killing the templates which i also fell kills some of the tactical aspect of the game just so far not every thing i am hearing is making me excited to spend another hundred freaking dollars on rule books and stuff.

          • So orks can hang with eldar lol ?

          • Chris Boyle

            Have Orks ever been a winning choice? I played them for fun. I don’t think they’ve ever been a strong competitive choice.

          • Chris Boyle

            It wasn’t that, it was the attitude of Andrew’s post. I don’t doubt it was possible to enjoy 7th ed. God bless ’em. But I just had no interest in it. I felt like GW had “jumped the shark” and was tired of the money sinkhole.

      • Matthew Pomeroy

        yeah you dont wanna be me some days, notably those 18 hour work days 😛

    • Imperial knights, wraithknights, storm surge… that’s all apoc and you don’t need permission to field them so you’re wrong.

      • Andrew

        Apoc, is bringing every model in you collection and fielding it, being able to include monstrous creatures or super heavies was an awesome addition to 40k and didn’t even remotely resemble the scale of an apocalypse game. Secondly you need permission to field any unit, let’s say I didn’t like assault squads then my opponent would need my permission in order to field them, any board game ,table top game, or game in general is a social contract between two or more players, if you don’t want them to use a certain unit you just don’t play them. That’s why 7th edition was the best edition so far, the amount of options available allowed people whom enjoy variety to play many diverse games, but at the same time if you wanted a more structured game then all you had to do was speak about it with your opponent, I have never competed in a tournament but I have seen plenty of anoucments, and their where tons of tournaments with plenty of restrictions( only allowed to bring one HQ and troops, No Flyers, No super heavies,.. the list goes on) But the vast majority of players didn’t care about the imbalance and overall enjoyed the options that 7th edition provided, that’s why when you go to a store or gaming club only 2 people are playing AOS and everyone else is playing 40k.

  • SprinkKnoT

    I don’t think 6th or 7th were “bad”, I think things like formations and different types of detachments were cool (even if they were often broken). There were definitely trip ups and playing the game became an exercise in checking books for rules, but for what it was worth as a casual player, I had fun most of the time.

  • Ray Lairmore

    Games workshop should never get praise for making there game more blanched. it should be balanced to begin with.

    • generalchaos34

      true, but they also can’t with any amount of playtesting (which they used to not do) plan for some jerk finding the most obscene and loosest interpretation of the rules to field a power combo. Also they cannot plan for people who actively argue things like the meaning of “the” in a sentence when interpreting a rule despite what the RAI is vs the RAW

      • Ray Lairmore

        RAW vs RAI is just something that happens in a game. but you can play test things, you can play test the crap out of them, which they need to do much better. and play tesing is not just balence but to sort out interpretations of rules. you can also just look at something and see they are broken. (eldar). “its hard.” is no excuse.

  • DaveTycho

    I will most likely be accused of heresy of saying this, but I reckon if the new 8th ed armies are appropriately balanced, then it would be possible again to do 30k vs 40k matches, as long as FW updates the 30k armies for 8th ed too.

  • Spit-Burn

    Edition 2 was my first, and was a wonderful, quirky little thing, back when GW was still a crunchy hobby. Edition 3 was a masterpiece of streamlining and compelling gameplay. All else was footnotes and needless meddling.

    So, Edition 8, are you going to breathe new life back into the beast?

    • Chris Boyle

      2nd ed. was my first too and I have missed it. At least I understood it! I bought all the codices. They were good, full of fluff.

      • Spit-Burn

        Codex: Chaos (2nd Edition) is still my favourite GW publication. (Can’t get my hands on either of the Realm of Chaos books, so they don’t count.) So evocative and full of ideas – and Cypher’s first appearance!

        • Chris Boyle

          It was a bit overpowered when if first appeared, but a great codex. I still have it.