8th Edition: What Are You Loving So Far?

We here at Frontline Gaming are curious as to what you all are enjoying or not enjoying about this new edition so far.

8th ed 40k has gone bananas, that much is obvious. Stores are selling out of the new books and kits, leagues and clubs are swelling in numbers and we anticipate record breaking attendance to Games Workshop events this year. So, the edition is obviously a hit!

But, what do you all like so far and not like? For me, it is very interesting to see folks go through the ups and downs and adjustments to this new edition that I have already gone though previously. When I read some of this information from community members I simply nod and say, yeah, just be patient that stage will pass quickly. Some of it I have to agree with as I see things from another perspective. I’ve also been fortunate enough to teach some players totally fresh to the game how to play, and see them pick up the rule-set quickly and easily.

As a Gamer What I Love:

  • The removal of un-fun (IMO) elements of the game such as “Deathstars” which were too durable, powers and rules that tended to dominate the game (Hunter’s Eye, Invisibility, etc.) and bloated lists with free points which took hours and hours to play.
  • The streamlining of the game and emphasis placed on in-game decision making as opposed to optimal list writing (although that is still very important).
  • The move to units and armies that play closer to their lore but are still effective on the tabletop in a competitive setting. I’m looking at you, Berserkers!

As a Retailer What I love:

  • The reasonable price point to get started in the hobby for a new player. As you tend to have less units on the table, the new player can get rolling easier which lowers the barrier to entry. As we all know this hobby keeps you hooked for years, so as a retailer I am confident that customer will continue to purchase goodies as they start new armies or expand existing armies, but now it is a lot easier to get them going.
  • The ease of teaching new players the game. Much as with 8th ed Fantasy; 7th ed 40k was a morass of rules that was very difficult to approach for the new player and often we saw customers choose a simpler game as their eyes glazed over while we tried to explain how to simply build an army in 7th ed 40k.
  • We brought vastly more new hobbyists in with Age of Sigmar during this period of time due to the two above reasons and it convinced me that this was the right business model for a successful miniatures game.

As a Tournament Organizer what I love:

  • A rule set that is vastly more streamlined. This means less judging staff needed to run an event, less rules debates, more time spent enjoying an event.
  • A responsive Games Workshop that wants this edition of the game to be great, and is willing to support it with speedy and clear support.

However, it isn’t all rainbows and sunshine, of course. Some material is a bit unclear and units here and there could be better or worse but much of that is subjective. In general, I am just thrilled with 8th ed and am so happy to see others sharing that enthusiasm.

I am a bit close to this project though for obvious reasons.

~What are all of your opinions at this early stage in the new edition of the game we all love?

  • ZeeLobby

    Man, a lot of the rules changes in 8th are really REALLY good. I mean they make a lot of sense, logically. It’s definitely an improvement.

    That said, I still think it has a fair amount to go before internal/external balance exists. I think they could also re-introduce USRs (ugh, deepstrike), and maybe re-introduce some flavor into some mechanics that feel pretty superfluous at this point (terrain, etc.). Last game I played seemed almost board gamey rather than battle simulationy (if that makes any sense). Still, anything is better than the state of 6th/7th so I guess we should be grateful! Thank you GW overlords!

    • KingAceNumber1

      I agree that terrain could have a bit more to it. It feels weird to have no functional impact other than cover if you’re in it and LOS blocking.

      • ZeeLobby

        It’s even more awkward when you go from a terrain-loaded 40K table where it had minimal impact to playing on a 2D terrain WMH table where it can make a big impact in game play, haha. I mean hopefully they update the core to make things more interesting. And not in the “standing next to this rock gives your guns +1 strength” way, but more of the affecting movement/visibility/stealth way where trenches, ruins, woods, etc. have some flavor to them.

    • benn grimm

      The city fight rules seem to make terrain a fair bit more interesting.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. I’ll have to take a look at those. We’ve done very little outside of the advanced rules + matched play.

      • orionburn

        I want to try that soon. Tables look awesome with lots of city terrain set-up.

        • benn grimm

          Definitely, and nowadays with all the imperial sector kits knocking about it’s easier than ever to put together a nice dense board.

    • rtheom

      No, no USRs. I don’t want to spend 50% of every game looking them up again…

      • ZeeLobby

        Yes. I’d rather spend 5x more time having my opponent tell me which units are “deepstriking” and what their silly name is. Print the USRs on the data cards like the “special” rules are now. Your problem solved, game much more streamlined. Boom.

      • Horus84cmd

        You kind of have USR’s it is just that there are printed onto only the datasheets it needs to be e.g. ‘Hard To Hit’ on flyers. Although, there are exceptions to this; for instance, I think ‘Interceptor’ as descriptor has three different uses in the rules – which is not a problem as there written on the datasheet!

      • AircoolUK

        I’m with you here – we have core rules, keywords for interactions and bespoke rules for each unit.

        No need for USR’s at all. 8 page rulesheet and datasheets are all that’s needed. You need a bit more when setting up, choosing a mission etc…, but once you’re going, you only need the rules and the datasheets, which is awesome.

    • AEZ

      I doubt a b etter internal and external balance is very easily attained with the number of factions and the tons of unit choices in factions.

      • ZeeLobby

        Well, it would take significant effort. Effort that doesn’t easily translate to increased profits, so I doubt we’ll ever see it, but it’s a hope, lol.

        • AEZ

          I really think even with effort it’s hardly possible for big games like this, but I guess you think differently.

          • ZeeLobby

            Why? I mean there’s more factors, sure, but there’s also tons of overlap in every faction. Every faction has a “basic transport” or “heavy weapon squad” or “assault troop”. Most of the lack of internal/external balance is that GW looks at each of these in a vacuum, rather than considering where they fit within the faction and when opposing other factions. You also need to promote faction synergy that makes some units better than their basic stateline. I mean many other games do this, and they might not have exactly the high number of units 40K does, but they still have a very significant number (infinity, WMH, etc.). That’s not to say anyone should ever expect perfect balance, but there’s usually only 2/3 units in a faction that are questionable in those games. Compare that to GW where there are still half of factions that are clearly just inferior to other choices.

          • AEZ

            Well I don’t play 40K and haven’t nearly read enough on that so I can’t just if that is the case in 40K.. but in AoS I don’t hink it’s that bad really. THere is powercreep.. sure it’s a business plan I understand.. not loving it but seeing their need for it when people have 30 year old armies and they still produce rules for them. (I will not be starting another army.. if GW doesn’t make new Sylvaneth units or Elf units that synergize with my old woodelves (even if only somewhat in aesthetic) then I would not be buying anything except if there was a reason (powercreep) for me to do so (and probably even then I won’t.. but ok).

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean it all depends on the players and how much they care. I mean personally there are units in my armies I’d love to take, but I’d have to do so knowing that they’re just inferior, and that there’s little I can do to make them shine. Powercreep is something that keeps me from playing a game period. Powercreep = pay to win. And other companies seem to get by just offering new releases, or new characters that make old releases attractive again. GW could do this as well, it would just require moving away from a codex every 4 years and that’s all you get.

          • AircoolUK

            I dunno, some games like X-Wing can be considered pay-to-win as some people buy models just for one card… People coughed up £70 or whatever it was for C-3PO in the Tantive IV box.

            A few years ago, whilst in my LFGS, someone came in, bought and Enterprise (can’t remember which model) for STAW, opened it, took out two cards and then asked if I wanted the rest for free.

            Powercreep in AoS has been negligible in my area. I started a Khadaron Overlords army ‘cos I thought the models were amazing, but despite what ‘the internet’ says, I don’t find them overpowered at all. People take time to adjust to new units in the game and there’s always going to be ‘power lists’ because it’s impossible to make a truly balanced game.

            The one weakness in AoS’s rules is the points, but they’ll be getting a balance pass in the new Generals Handbook.

            And the same will apply to 40K. Every year (supposedly at Christmas), there’ll be a Chapter Approved book which works like the Generals Handbook buy changing rules that need changing and balancing units/points etc…

            So power creep can’t really be a thing when everything get’s a balance pass every 12 months.

          • ZeeLobby

            I never said X-Wing was a good example. In fact it’s a game I won’t play purely because of that issue.

            And sure powercreep can definitely still be a thing. It’ll just exist for 12 months before it’s reset. I just wish GW took a more before and after approach rather than break/fix, break/fix, etc.

          • tylran

            To be fair, FFG is releasing fixes (=boxed sets) for some of the weaker ships in the game, for example the Starviper, or as it was formerly known as: the Autothrusters expansion. Still, there are OP cards that FFG seems to have difficulties balancing (Biggs, Jumpmaster-5000), but meta is still quite varied and winning lists of big tournaments tend to be really different from each other. Although it seems most of the competitive scene is made up of Scum and Villainy… At least X-wing rewards great players better. Veteran players always have an advantage against less advanced players, even with an inferior list.

          • ZeeLobby

            This is true. I guess it’s more pay to have a chance to win, which is better.

  • Raven Jax

    I’ve enjoyed the streamlining of the game. I think it will be healthy in the long run. I’m hopeful it’s an opportunity to bring in lots of new players.

    I’m not a big fan of the fluff changes, or of the fluff surrounding the Primaris Marines.

    I also dislike the removal of a lot of unique stuff that gave some armies flavor. Inquisitors lost almost everything. No one will regret the loss of servo skulls, but they also lost access to unique equipment and rules for the different Orders. Tau lost JSJ. Marines and Chaos lost Chapter Tactics, though I’m hoping that will remedied with the next Codex.

    • Karru

      When it comes to fluff, I just do the same thing I do with AoS. I ignore it and go with a mixture of the old lore and my own.

      The removal of flavour is the biggest problem I have with the game as well. The second is the pricing of many units that makes horde armies even less common than they already are in the future due to the “point per €” policy they like to do with them these days.

      • ZeeLobby

        Easier said than done for me. It’s fun living in the past, but I have trouble investing in anything where there’s no future, haha.

        • BaronSnakPak

          Everyone has different taste, but I’ve never quite understood how fictional backstories can detract from real (cool looking) minis and fun rules.

          “I love the minis, and the game is fun! But man…that completely optional fiction that has no impact on gameplay has really killed my interest in it.” Makes no sense to me, but to each their own.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean back when I started playing, as a kid, with limited painting experience and playing our own quasi-interpretation of the rules, fluff was definitely the most important aspect of 40K. I mean my friends and I read every novel and bought every new codex to read more of the lore. Honestly 40K is one of the many games I play where players know more about the lore than any other. It’s a huge part of the game.

            I mean just look how important and how big their narrative community is. I find it hard to believe that somehow this narrative majority is playing narrative games with no lore knowledge, hehe.

          • BaronSnakPak

            I respect that, and my example wasn’t calling you out specifically. I’ve seen people say things like “the minis and game are awesome, but I’m done with it because this one non-gameplay book was bad” and it just seems silly to me.

            When my friends and I got into 40k around 20 years ago we knew some baseline things about the fluff, but we never read the books or the fluff sections of the codexes, we created our own stories and settings for battles.

            It’s a hobby that lends itself to player created content, more than any other gaming genre, imo.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. True. We just went to the local GW a lot, and the battle bunker, and to events (Games Day) etc. So while creating our own personal lore would have worked when playing at home, it would have been hard to wall it off when we were inundated with other players who knew the actual lore. That probably explains why we knew it so well. And man was it good, especially compared to other games at the time (which were almost non-existant).

            Honestly looking for solid lore makes more sense today, imo. There are plenty of game systems that have solid rules. But finding one whose models and background speak to you is probably the biggest deciding factor for play.

          • BaronSnakPak

            I’ve always been a SM player primarily, so any personal fluff that I created could be easily accepted with one line: “they’re one of the two missing legions”.

            If someone didnt like it, then A: it didn’t impact gameplay anyway, and B: they’re probably someone I wouldn’t want to play with if theyre that much of a curmudgeon.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well Space Marines were a great catch all. You could literally come up with any reason for their existence and their purpose. It’ll be interesting to see what the new codexes look like, cause a lot of the lore driver rules were lost for factions in the transition.

          • AEZ

            It’s probably the fact you read those books as a kid though.. the lore was never really better than it was now. It’s just that real good fantasy books/series are more common now.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I was also reading good sci-fi and non-fiction. When I say kid I mean mid-teens. It may have not as been as good as those books, but it’s definitely better than it is now.

          • AEZ

            IMO only very few of the old books are really good. Most is just acceptable to read, the recent books I’ve read are the same. I admit I’ve not yet seen a really good book recently.. but we are talking about like 2-3 series in 40 years so can’t expect them every decade 😀

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. I’d say 3rd/4th were the best era of codex lore. The Necron and Tyranid books from that era were really good. I still have them and read/flip through them occasionally.

          • AEZ

            Ow codices.. well… there I have to say: my sylvaneth book is probably the best one I have. I like it better than all old wood elf books. So can’t agree there either (haven’t read much armybooks/codices lately now we can’t browse them anymore).

          • ZeeLobby

            I know very little about the fantasy army books in that regard. The older 40K codexes just focused more on short fiction and unknowns. The modern alternative answers all the questions and follows around a bunch of purchasable characters. It just used to be more “define your own narrative” and now it’s “here is the narrative to play”. It’s hard to explain to someone who hasn’t read the older books though, but most people who have get it.

          • OrksIsMadeFerRockin

            For me the fiction isn’t optional. I play the game yes but I play in the universe. It’s the whole package which is appealing. there are other gaming systems with nice minis and good rule sets but they lack a setting as deep and developed as 40k so I stick with 40k. So for example the loss of the chapter master or apex of humanity super soldiers becoming the little brothers of double marine marines, or the new writing style taking the setting away from the aspects that were deeply appealing it makes it tough. But I’ve already spent too much time/money so onward I go. You can always pretend the stuff you don’t like didnt happen and make your own fluff but you can’t pretend that other people will know which limits your shared in universe experience.

          • Koen Diepen Van

            You don’t understand ho bad fictional fluff can be a detraction. Tyr this experiment next time you see your army think of them as having official full that reads: Thes soldiers where the most epic of epic every thing they did was so major epic that it was a event on a galatic scale. The never lost a fight and where never treathend. They where just the best of the verry best.

          • BaronSnakPak

            Their fluff could be about a galactic quest to rid the universe of poo-flavored cupcakes and it wouldnt matter to me. I like the gameplay and I like the minis.

            When Im playing the game Im interacting with the minis, the rules, and my opponent. I’m not reading a book.

          • AircoolUK

            I have a friend who, like myself, is a big fan of Rogue Trader. Not so much the rules, but the setting, where everything was a lot more high-tech vice grim-dark.

            Any edition of warhammer/40K can be used in whatever context you want. After all, even though GW has made some really interesting an unique background to their games, all the ideas are still influenced by one thing or another.

            40K was basically, the Warhammer Old World mixed with Dune (and a bit of Laserburn). Space Hulk was inspired by ‘Aliens’, the Imperial Guard from WWI. Even Genestealer Cults were a bit Call of Cthulhu with some prohibition era Gangster flavour thrown in.

        • Karru

          That’s where my own lore kicks in. You could think that while one could say I don’t follow the new lore, I actually take current lore and make it “better” by making it much more faithful to the old lore and way more interesting. That way the thing keeps being fresh.

      • AircoolUK

        Same here. We’ve played AoS games set in the Old World, and our attitude to AoS fluff is that it’s all set in the Realm of Chaos (which essentially, it is).

        As someone who’s be playing warhammer on and off since about 1985, it’s about time that 40K pushed the timeline forward. We’ve had 30 years of back-filling, which has been great, but the game was starting to stagnate. If new races or even new units were to be introduced, there’d be terrible nerd-rage if those units and races hadn’t already appeared in the fluff.

    • Wilhelm Enberg

      Just wait for individual codexes

  • Xodis

    So far just the models, haven’t gotten a chance to put the rules to use yet. The rules look good, but cant make a decision on that alone.

  • NagaBaboon

    I think it’s great so far, there’s some bad points balancing (but no worse than 7th) and a few rules in some of my armies that don’t seem quite refined enough but I think that’s all going to iron out once army codexes start appearing, I think we have a chance as a community to put in our feedback and tweak the game the wya it stands now.

  • Heinz Fiction

    I like the streamlined rules overall, though some clarifying examples or even just an additional sentence more here and there would have helped a lot in my opinion.
    Point values however seem a bit rushed to me. I stumbeld over a lot of things that are clearly over or underpriced, from single weapon options to whole units. I hope this will get solved with the proper Codex releases.

  • Horus84cmd

    I think it’s thrilling and refreshing set of rules. The core rules seem really solid framework to grow the game from. I’m impressed what GW have done with the Index books; to produce a Datasheet for every unit/model is a feat in itself and which, broadly speaking, appear to be well balanced/fun play wise. Yeah we’ve lost some individual army flavour right now; however as codex’s roll out that will all come back into the melting pot.

  • Ross Webb-Wagg

    GW still need to fix the transport issue with Adeptus Mechanicus. They build all them just can’t own them.

    • KingAceNumber1


      In the fluff, Skit use Chimeras and Valks all the time.

  • Wilhelm Enberg

    The only thing i dislike is that tanks cant shoot after they move out of close combat

    • BaronSnakPak

      It stresses tactics and placement. If tanks could retreat from combat and shoot, then there would be little reason to worry about keeping them out of combat to begin with.

      Bubble wrap them with chaff, or keep them moving.

      • ZeeLobby

        It’s probably also just overly abstract. Tie up a tank with grots in the treads and now it’s guns won’t fire? I mean making that mechanic more flavorful would have required going over 8 pages of rules, so I understand why they did what they did.

        • BaronSnakPak

          The grots climb all over the tank and stick various appendages in the gun barrels. :p

          Tbh, I think vehicles that don’t have pintle-mounted weaponry should have a minimum effective firing range, to simulate the fixed nature off their weapons.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well, and then we’re getting back into drawing LoS from the weapons, and facings, etc. (which honestly I thought was a great mechanic). Now it’s sounding more like a war game than an abstract war game :D.

          • BaronSnakPak

            I don’t think so. Flyers have a min-max movement range, I don’t see how that would be impossible to have for certain weapons while keeping the core rules the same.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well, it’d take them past page 8. Hence NO! LoL

          • BaronSnakPak

            Not really, it’d be an extra 2-4 characters on the weapon profile line, and one sentence in the rules.

            Battlecannon: range 36″

            Battlecannon: range 6-36″

            “If a weapon has a minimum firing range, it cannot fire at any unit below the minimum distance.”

            *I don’t know the actually battlecannon range, I’m just using this as an example.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, my whole point was that there’s a bunch of little places where better rules could be added (and in some cases re-added) back in.

    • Diomedes1

      Yeah that bugs me too.

  • benn grimm

    I’m just liking the newness atm, might sound a bit vague, but it’s the fact that it’s a new game, with loads to yet discover and the removal of the certainty of the dominance of certain builds/units. It feels a bit like the early days of second before it became clear that my 20 goffs, 40 grotz and one cardboard cut out dread weren’t going to last long without reinforcements…)

    • vebepede

      Played 1st game of 8 ed. on Sat (direct jump from 5ed.) After battle discussion was that it ‘felt reminiscent of 2ed. Weapon ranges are effectively longer (than 5ed). e.g. lasguns/bolters can move and shoot at 24″. Dark reapers deployed on hill in corner of battlefield as no longer worried about running off the board. I like tinkering with rules and will be testing alterrnative terrain rules, tweaks to LOS and switching blast weapons (as they used to be) to a single to hit, followed by die roll for number of hits (but only after a few more games of RAW first!)

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    I’m hoping that Death Guard and Thousand Sons either get some proper, main-list reinforcements, or that the new codex gets rid of the stupid acceptable units lists.

    I like that Vehicles are relevant again.

  • Defenestratus

    I’m loving the delicious tears of destroyed expectations.

  • Nick1080

    As a someone who is mostly a modeler I’m loving the vehicles rules – no vehicle ‘types’ anymore – If I want to make a walker Leman Russ for instance, I don’t have to worry about the mis-match between the rules for tracks and the rules for legs anymore. No fire arcs means I don’t have to compromise a new design to fit weapons in places that give vaguely the correct fire arc.

    • Otter

      I totally agree since 8th dropped I have made so much progress on my exodite army since the rules are so much more flexible for conversions!

  • BaronSnakPak

    Things Im loving:

    -list flexibility. It’s a lot of fun coming up with new lists, and utilizing the plug-and-play nature of keywords, as opposed to the old allies system.

    -no more templates and scatter dice. Thank the god emperor, no more template cheesery, and scatter dice suicide.

    -no more D-weapons, and “gets hot” is optional. nuff said.

    -heavy weapons are worth a damn. Sure, they suffer from -1 BS when moving, but I’ll take that over hitting on 6’s any day.

  • orionburn

    To be honest my first game was really disappointing, but also realized after the fact one of my gaming friends really only cares about winning and set up the table in his favor. Right now I have a sour taste in my mouth, but playing another game this weekend with a guy that’s more into the fluff/fun like myself.

    Since my buddy ruined it the first two games I’m going to pretend I haven’t played a game yet in 8th. 😀

    • Defenestratus

      Your story is the perfect example of the expectation-smashing that I’ve been relishing.

      A lot of people (not you necessarily) had this completely unrealistic expectation that 8th edition would resolve every aspect of 7th edition that they found objectionable – even the aspects that are completely unaddressable by a set of rules, written on paper.

      The core issue of 7th edition is that people broke it. Now the argument will be made that “oh 7th edition made it EASY to break the game!” …. well guess what, people are already breaking 8th edition and in less than a year we’ll be getting articles from BoLS about “How did GW get 8th so wrong?”

      Fact of the matter is that there is a large subset of the gaming community whose sole purpose is to figure out how to make the game miserable for whoever they’re playing against. That’s just the fact of the matter. There is no ruleset that can be devised that would completely resolve every issue that the community can produce.

      It’s simply not possible, unless we turn the game into chess – and even that game has its faults that are exploitable.

      • BaronSnakPak

        For a lot of people expectations and reality will never align. For all people experiences being good or bad are subjective.

        It sounds like you want the game to be hated? Which seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

        Anecdotally speaking, everyone in my gaming group agrees that 8th is a better game than 7th. It has it flaws, but it’s an arguably better experience than the game gave for several years.

        • Defenestratus

          I don’t want the game to be hated.

          I wanted people to realize that 8th will not be the panacea to what ailed them in 7th.

          “Orks suck in 7th!”

          will just become

          “[Faction to be determined] suck in 8th!”

          • BaronSnakPak

            It seems like it when you say you relish in people being disappointed. Also, your examples are less about the core rules, and more about faction representation.

            8th HAS definitely cleaned up a lot of the bloat from 7th, while still retaining the core 40k feel.

      • orionburn

        I don’t disagree with your assessment. I wasn’t going in thinking that I was going to crush him because we’re in a new edition. Some things I realized afterwards (like the terrain issue and a few other things) made me realize that’s how he’s always going to be, and because of that the enjoyment of playing him continues to go down. No rules are going to fix that.

  • Karru

    My feelings of 8th edition compared to 7th edition is like comparing a seven course meal in a fine restaurant compared to a dinner at a friend’s place.

    7th edition offered a delicious selection of food, but in this case I didn’t get to choose everything in the meal and some were not to my tastes and I also had to finish the entire thing, even if it meant I was going to be sick later that day.

    8th edition on the other hand doesn’t offer me much of a choice in that regard. I can discuss before hand with my friend what we should be getting, but in the end it won’t have nearly as much flavour compared to eating in a restaurant.

    My point is that 8th edition feels a lot more bland and boring than 7th edition. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t like 8th edition, I love it, not as much as 5th edition, but still I enjoy 8th a great deal. My issues mostly come from my lack of trust towards GW, something that are still completely reasonable, and certain rule decisions with the game. Rules like the modifiers/re-rolls, the amount of confusing wording on certain rules and the uselessness of most Blast weapons are the biggest issues I have on the rule front. The trust issues comes from the Codex releases that need to happen really, really fast or there will most likely be either a mass exodus of many veterans, which could very well lead to many dead communities, or certain armies go utterly extinct. AoS has given me amble reasons to be worried, that is all I’m going to say on that topic.

    Now, to the things I actually love about 8th edition. Okay, my first bit is going to be slightly negative, but hey, if you are a regular here, that should be expected of me. The great thing, my Guard Infantry army is very fun to play and ridiculously viable this edition. The bad thing, I’m radiating the Eldar/Tau/SM – Neckbeard thing to many people that see I play Guard Infantry. Guard was one of those armies that got buffed to kingdom come this edition to the point where their Infantry is so stupidly powerful and numerous that it can basically win through sheer numbers alone as a last resort. Having chosen Guard as my “main” 40k 8th edition army, it can get very rough for me to get proper games going with them without feeling like utter sh*t after the game when I notice that most of my opponent’s gets utterly f*cked by my army.

    I try to ease the pain so to speak by giving plenty of advice before, during and after the game on how they can deal with my army as I enjoy playing it very much, I have since 5th edition and continue to do so now.

    Positive things are in plenty this edition. Facing Tyranids is great fun. They feel like a threat now and it is very cinematic to watch them charge my frontline, eating volley after volley of fire before going down properly. Many armies are starting to feel balanced, as long as they play “balanced” list and not the type we saw with the tournament article before this one. The games overall feel much smoother and fun to play. They no longer feel like work to play and I don’t feel exhausted after a game.

    • AEZ

      Well I’d wait a few more games and ask people to specifically tailor against your lists a few times… some armies are less easily defeated by the standard lists which is in a way a “meta problem” unless it turns out they are really unbeatable.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      You should really force yourself to use leman russes (which are crap, whereas the infantery is brokenly effective) to even the playing field, I also play Imp Guard so I would know. If you make a powergame list your opponents will quickly just stop wanting to play with you.

  • Luca Lacchini

    Units work (mostly) as intended.

    Assault/melee is VERY viable in most armies.

    Rules (mostly, again) streamlined but not necessarily dumbed down.

    Reduced game lenght and ease of navigating the various situations rules-wise.

    There’s a few issues such as cover that doesn’t click right, vehicles without facing and shooting side weapons in any direction, techpriests that can’t fix Imperial vehicles aside for a few faction-specific rules, cheap mobs that make massive tanks unable to shoot… OK, mostly vehicle-related stuff.
    The land bound ones, especially.

    But the rules are very much OK overall, and I enjoy the game a lot.

  • Commissar Molotov

    I ain’t loving it, frankly. I’ve tried to learn to accept “vehicles-as-creatures” but it just seems stupid.

    • Crablezworth

      It’s hard to defend a tank firing 5 weapons from its track while exposing about 3% of its hull to the enemy.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        Long whippy radio aerials are the new must have accessory…

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah, I haven’t fully decided yet, not enough games. But it did seem rather dull at times.

  • maxmania

    Ok, my friend plays custodes and he use’s guiliman and a knight errant and than some filler. I play orks have not yet played them in 8th and play death guard played 1 game and i got totally rekt. I killed guiliman with just smite spam and that is just desperate in my eyes so does anybody have any good counter to in his eyes a lore heavy army. XD

    • BaronSnakPak

      Choppa Boy spam, power klaws, and lots of Trukks.

      a 30 boy unit puts out like 120 attacks in melee. It can get nasty in a hurry for your opponents.

    • AEZ

      Well in AoS against high armored stuff trying to kill them with all the MW you can usually is a good idea (not as viable for some factions though).

  • OrksIsMadeFerRockin

    Only played one game so far. I had a good time but I have managed to have a good time with every edition I have played. Just spent all my new edition money on getting into blood bowl instead but I will keep using my friends books. The game is shorter which is nice so there is that…

  • Majere613

    I like most of it. I’m still not keen on the Flyer rules- skimmers are fine, but for fast strike aircraft I’d prefer it if you just put the thing on the table, resolved its attacks and the enemy shooting back at it, and then next movement removed it as it circles round for another pass. Allegedly supersonic aircraft turning on the battlefield is silly.

    On a related note, not keen on the removal of arcs of fire on vehicles, particularly those flyers. Something like a Dakkajet or Stormhawk simply shouldn’t be able to shoot backwards.

    • Crablezworth

      100% agree, I’m not even sure why they’re still forcing movement if every plane can shoot spherically.

  • Boba Vette

    LOVING IT!!! Good by formation and effing stupid DS squads.

  • I love not having to look up rules every 10 minutes in a huge 300 page rulebook.

    The balance of the game is beginning to show that its the same as always. But at least I don’t have to look up rules every 10 minutes.

  • I’ve really enjoyed a strong first turn charge. Fantastic! My Orks have had a Blast so far!

  • Andrew

    We’ll why don’t I list everything I lover about this new edition
    1- I only have 3 psychic powers per faction to choose from, because of course psychers in the 40k universe only know 3 powers unique to their faction
    2- I love that they got ride of chapter tactics and traitor legion rules, cause after all I want to play my Iron Hands just like someone would play their Ultramarines and I want to play my Night Lords to exactly like all other Chaos Space Marines.
    3- They got ride of formations and detachment of formations, because of course I don’t want to promote unit synergy and I want every single unit to feel like it’s doing it’s own thing without any cooperation from other units in the army, also who wouldn’t want to go back to Force Organization Charts instead of a unique way of building your army.
    4- The fact that templates are gone so it doesn’t matter how I place my units, after all having to remember not to group up your units to tightly was such a hassle
    5- Tanks now have wounds and you no longer have any benefits for outmaneuvering them, because again it was too much work having to keep track of where enemy units where.
    7- The fact that every game is extremely predictable and their is little variety between armies.
    WAIT… These are all the things I hate about this edition, and the list goes on and on. I never once had a boring game of 7th edition, yet I have nothing but dull games of 8th edition. But at least the petulant children who couldn’t handle having a slight disadvantage have nothing to complain about anymore.

    • Horus84cmd
      • Matthew Pomeroy

        wrong emperor but I am good with this 😀

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I have to say I agree absolutely. Lets not forget Deep Strike, I used to hate having the fun of a risky deep strike, now every deep strike is perfect and predictable, much better.

      Also my fast but fragile troops or the ones who could fight really well used to make combat complex and deep with their damned fluff reflecting tactical rules. Now chargers just go first unless you spend a magic fix everything dice. Much better.

      I used to hate it when tanks could just push grots around. Now a grot can stop a huge tank from shooting just by punching it, well that is so much more realistic.

      I have played 6 games so far. Found them very dull. Regretting buying half of the starter and the Chaos Index which is just a big piece of cràp.

      • Crablezworth

        Yeah the single grot stopping a baneblade in its tracks is one of the worst aspects of 8th.

        • Horus84cmd

          But it does stop it? does it? The tank can simply drive away. Heck no units are locked in combat at the end of the fight phase – that’s not a thing in 8th. Also it can still fire certain weapons when within 1″ and when it does fallback it can still shoot.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Actually baneblades arent stopped from shooting, but other tanks withdrawing from combat can’t shoot so they are taken out of the game. If you have enough fast units of chaff you can stop your opponents army shooting. Its bloody stupid, gamey and unrealistic.

      • Andrew

        Yea I know, the vast majority of gamers I have spoke to find 7th edition to be a much better game, I have only spoke two 2 people who liked 8th when it first came out, and if you ever met these two people they are the type that start crying the second a dice roll doesn’t go their way, I once watched one of these players chuck his models across the room because he failed a bunch of saves. The funny thing is even now that these two guys got a few games in they are even realizing how boring 8th edition is, and after years of complaining about 7th, one of them actually sent an e-mail to GW expressing how displeased he is with 8th edition. Also what people failed to realize is that yes 7th edition might have had some slight balance issues(and when I say slight I mean real slight), but slowly every new release started to balance out these issues. The game in it’s current incarnation is heavily reliant on luck, you roll to see how many shots you get instead of outmaneuvering your opponent, you just need to roll two dice for psychic powers, at least before you could devote a certain amount of dice if you really wanted to cast a power.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Its the Dreadfleet school of game design. Include enough luck and no-one can tell if the armies are balanced or if they are a bad general!

  • Jose Delgado

    Good: games faster

    Cons: horrible balance,eldar dire avenger 17 points and some ig mens cost 2 points or orks too much cheap also.

    Taus in general as 1d4chan said are overpriced.

    I said i like as games are faster but some units have been too much homogeniced(i dont know if this word is in english) as in 8th many armys have the same unit wih same stats and so only change the mini

  • vebepede

    There are no rules for buildings! In the grim dark of the far future there are only ruins. And fortifications. Which i will use as a basis for some buildings rules
    Terrain rules are too bland for my taste. Will try out some amendments soon. Already misread rules for woods and assumed -2″ move. After game discussion we prefer that and are going to keep it at -2″ for moves and charges.
    Warp spiders shoould eb able to do 2d6″ jump after shooting. Just make it really dangerous. Roll double and lose number of models shown on 1 die. e.g. roll double 3 lose 3 models!
    Blast weapons should be single die to hit then roll number of hits. With a small bonus vs large units.
    Bastion has 4 heavy bolters. One on each side, but they can all target the same unit. Seems a bit weird…
    Other than that it”s a really good job with 8th. Iwas happy with 5th ed for many years – didn’t need a fix from that as not broken, but the new edition persuaded me to dip a toe in. Good news GW, i might now consider buying models i previously did not have rules for!

  • Jack Boland

    none of it really. I really think its a boring simplified rules set, can’t imagine i’ll play much longer.

  • I love the new Primaris design and can’t wait for fully customizeable sets.
    I hate having to spend money on Death Guard figures. No one wants to trade for them and most want to trade them away. I would buy a couple of the smaller starter sets if not for the DG figures.

  • Marcus Langdale

    The games are so quick and brutal! I love it

  • AircoolUK

    All good. The rules represent units in a combat situation. Whilst the game is broken down into phases, the rules work when you look at the outcome of each round.

    For example, random charge range. If you fail the charge roll, you don’t get to charge. Some people think this is daft because you don’t decide to charge, make it halfway and then teleport back to where you begin.

    However, that’s just one phase of a turn. Everything happens at once in real life; Soldiers don’t all move at once, stop in their tracks, shoot their weapons and then decide whether to charge an enemy, it all happens at once, and all the rules in the game work great when you look at them from the correct perspective.

  • Spacefrisian

    I love the rage and salty tears some already have towards tournament players who try to win a tournament by using a list that spams.

  • Chris Stevens

    I’ll tell you what I am NOT enjoying. Embarked units can no longer defend their transports from assault. an open topped trukk full of shoota boyz, has to stand there like cheerleaders as a unit of Marines beats on their new trukk!

  • Marc Berry

    I think the only things I don’t like are the measuring Los from the hull of vehicles which creates some weird scenarios and vehicles like predator tanks being tied up indefinitely in combat by infantry poking it with bayonets.

  • Kayreios

    I love that all the old boys are getting back into the game and that I can trounce them with any of my armies… Really enjoying this moment before the codex creep kicks in again. And getting rid of kill points was GENIUS, waiting 5 editions for that….

  • Matthew Pomeroy

    I don’t like this new edition, at all. I don’t find any of the “improvements” to have made the game any better. Fortunately I still have Shadow War Armageddon to play, still loving that.

  • zeno666

    The Movement stat is back.
    Modifiers for armour saves as well.
    I like these, but this game still has a looong way to go.