Pimpcron: My Gripes With 40K 8th Edition

You knew he couldn’t be completely satisfied.

Hey Robots, Androids, TI-83 Calculators, and Flesh-bag Humans! Fun fact: nearly 32% of my readership is TI-83 Calculators. Notice how I complain about everything EXCEPT the raw calculating power of TI-83 Calculators? I gotta pander to my demographic here.

Now before I even start this article, let’s get a few things out of the way.

Firstly, I completely UNDERSTAND why things got simplified. I get it. The game had a ton of bloat and we all know it; let’s move on.

Secondly, I understand why that some mechanics need to get cut if you want to streamline. I have a long rules-making background and know why it had to happen.

Thirdly, none of this is a result of me not liking change or fear of the unknown. I was excited for this edition as soon as it was announced, before any spoilers or leaks. Excited for things to be shaken up and paradigms to be changed. I have no issue that things play differently, I expected it.

I expect it, just like how I’ve come to expect the pure performance of this calculator. -wink-

Lastly, I really enjoy this edition and so far I have had a blast with it. I’ve played roughly seven games of it and things run much smoother. But unlike all of the comments I hear from everyone online, I see that this system still has some issues. No game is perfect, and what I’m about to say does not mean I don’t enjoy this new edition.

Now that you can get all of those assumptions out of your head, here’s what I have to say.

Vehicles

I’m happy with the vehicles being treated like everyone else. I’m happy they got rid of the damage chart. This is much faster and simpler. BUT I have two issues. The first being that rear arc vulnerability has been removed. I understand that there was some argument between players over where the rear arc of a Doom Scythe or a Dark Eldar Raider was. This edition seems to try very hard at removing arguments. Good on them. But I will really miss the strategy behind your vehicles needing to guard their rear arc against attacks. Part of me wishes they got -1 save or something with rear arcs. Oh well.

I think it really SUBTRACTS from the game.

The second issue (and this is major) that I have with vehicles is the lack of firing arcs. I can literally have my tank upside down, and facing opposite of my target, and as long as the top millimeter of an exhaust stack is showing, I can fire my cannon, and both sponsons, and front gun at the target. This seriously takes me out of the game. I understand that there were some funky shenanigans with weapon facing and it wasn’t always clear, but come on man. It makes me feel like you ATLEAST need line of sight for weapons to fire them at a target. I never liked it when Monstrous Creatures worked like that and I don’t like it now. But you could at least rationalize it with a MC because they could turn their spine around and shoot backwards; a tank is not that flexible.

That’s right, most machines aren’t as flexible as this sleek calculating device.

I guess I’ll add a bonus gripe, why do vehicles still suffer the -1 penalty for Heavy weapons? Some of them have rules that negate that, but the majority do not. I feel like Heavy weapons should change to assault if on a vehicle. My Vendetta already hits on 4+, why oh why does it hit on 5+ when it moves. IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE MOVING! It’s not a gun emplacement. It is a literal flying, moving gun platform. But somehow they can’t lead a target, or use some sort of targeting system. Many vehicles only have Heavy weapons as options, so there is no mitigating this issue.

Points

From what I hear and my gut reaction, most people will use Matched Play and, by association, points. I’m happy that the supposed plan is to change points as needed and that’s why they are all in one place. But as with many GW things, there is something doesn’t make any sense. Why are the points all the way in the back of the book? Why aren’t they in the back of their army section? Flipping 100 pages to find your points is really annoying.

“But Pimpcron, sir, they kept the points off the datasheet so they could change it easily.” Good. I’m glad. That’s a solid plan if that idea is true. But that tells me something else which bothers me and doesn’t make sense. If they keep the points off of the datasheets to change them in the future, then they must be completely confident in their Power Level ratings, because they apparently think they never need to be tweaked. There has already been discussion of how Power Levels can go bananas on wargear-heavy units such as Deathwatch or Chosen compared to points. Why are they so confident in their Power Levels that they don’t think they ever need to be changed?

Something like that just doesn’t ADD UP.

Have you already stopped reading because of these horrible puns?

I find it to be odd that they would treat one “point” system differently than the other. Either put them both on the sheet, or put both of them in a list for easy changing later.

So those are my biggest gripes. But all in all I am quite happy with 8th. I think they did a good job, and I enjoy it. I feel like a lot of the armies have been leveled out power-wise and it is fun.

If I only have these gripes, I’d say this edition was a success.

Do you feel like this edition is a success? I give it an 8.5/10 where 7th was a 6.5/10.

What’s your score?

Pimpcron signature 3

2017 Shorehammer Button for BoLS
  • Alvin Adorno

    how about the fact that a land raider is 356 pts.

    • davepak

      Compared to the other units in its class, it feels fine. All big things are WAY expensive (as necron players about the monolith).

      • Lord Chopper

        What about my Dire Avengers costing 17 pts per model while the majority of Marine Players are happy with their tougher 13pt infantry compared to necron warriors who cost 12 pts (which dire avengers should cost as they did historically).

        • Damon Sherman

          I think it has to do with -2 ap weapons i guess.

          • Dalinair

            Yeah this, gotta take dem phat guns into account

          • No-one Special

            It’s the Diresword which is Ap -2, and it’s only at S3.

          • kingcobra668

            And when you roll a 6 with a shuriken weapon?

          • No-one Special

            That’s not really the same as having an Ap -2 weapon.

          • Lord Chopper

            Necron warriors have AP -1 bolters compared to pseudo rendo rending bolters. Obviously none of you play eldar?

          • Brettila

            Suriken weapons have no ap unless they roll a 6 to wpund. Hardly devastating.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        Not disregarding your comment just making an aside point, I haven’t seen a Monolith in years. Part of what makes me hopeful in this edition.

  • davepak

    While I agree that 8th is far from perfect, and the aspects you mention did indeed bother me ….at first (watch some videos on how fast actual tanks move, and remember that in the real world, vehicles dont stop to fire – battles are continuous – not in turns).
    My only gripe is I would like better cover rules. Simple ones, but just a couple more sentences.

    • Dan Orchard

      That’s my gripe with the gripe of firing arcs too. Why is everyone assuming that the shot comes from the stationary position at the end of movement. We’re just measuring from there for the sake of having somewhere to measure from. It’s all an abstraction, and firing from the end of movement sure is too. “tanks don’t have a spine that can turn.” Sure, but that doesn’t mean that they are immobile bricks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj75U7TkBBY

      • Thomson

        So much this. A tank is more agile than an elephant. So having a tank maneuver itself into firing position and back into cover during the “shooting phase” is not more or less realistic than a carnifex doing this.

        • Juan Carlos González

          Imagine if Elephants had guns at the tip of their trunks. Could they not aim behind them much quicker since they don’t have to turn their entire mass? That’s why monstruous creatures could aim in every direction while Vehicles needed a turret to do the same.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        because a tank rumbling forwards 6 inches a turn is exactly that, moving forwards, slowly, although as fast as it can in the circumstances. That it can also be spinning on the spot to bring guns to bear isn’t credible.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Same goes for Gargantuan creatures and such. As he said, tanks are quicker to turn on the spot then some large mammals, as well as they mostly have turrets with fast drive systems. It is all an abstraction. If this is the point all your infantry can only see forward and should not be able to magically shoot backwards.
          I do agree on the need for some weapon destroy or penalty to rear stuff for flavor.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Infantry can pretty much instantly turn to face any direction, and walk backwards while firing. They also don’t get in their own way, like a tank blocks line of sight for its own sponsons. We could introduce facings for infantry, but I don’t think there would be much to gain and a lot of added complexity. However with vehicles there would be more to gain in terms of flavour and less cost in terms of complexity. I guess that judgement is where we disagree.

      • Juan Carlos González

        How about airplanes? They have very limited turning capabilities in the movement phase, but in the shooting phase they can spin and turn into every conceivable direction to bring their fixed guns to bear.

        And how about outright immobile units such as the Tyranid Sporocyst or the Imperial Bastion? They have weapons aiming in diametrically opposed directions but can somehow fire all at the same target.

        And better not get into the fact that you can fire all guns by drawing LoS from the top of a flagpole even if you have meters of solid rock directly in front of the gun barrel (then again, if the foe can spot that same flagpole and you are not within a terrain feature, his line of fire is also considered to be crystal clear -_-).

        • Koonitz

          You draw line of sight from the hull of a vehicle. Being part of the model does not automatically make it part of the hull. I, personally, don’t count “flag pole” as part of the hull of a vehicle.

          For instance, with a Rhino, I count the main box that is the primary hull and the tread assembly. This counts as the hull. If I have a spike shield or dozer blade on it (or spike line on the top, in the case of Chaos versions), this does NOT count, both for drawing line of sight AND range from or to. If I want to add a whip aerial to the model, this does not give me 3-5″ of increased height, because IT’S NOT PART OF THE HULL!

          Being facetious about the rules doesn’t help. It deliberately ruins the fun of the game for others who might actually enjoy it. Such as other people who have said they’re just going to drive their vehicles up backwards now, because it simply doesn’t matter.

          You’re right, it sure don’t. Just like I could have done that with monstrous creatures last edition. Gonna walk this carnifex up, butt first, ’cause screw it. But no one seemed to care, then. You’re just acting stupid and ruining the fun of a game to try to make a point your opponent may just not care about.

          • Juan Carlos González

            You’re thinking 7th Edition rules. The rules state (and the FAQ confirms) that LoS is drawn to and from, and I quote, “any part of the model”. While in my personal games with my friends we still use the old and rational LoS rules, I keep in mind that they are ultimately “house rules”, and if my opponent doesn’t want to use them then I don’t really have much ground to refuse him, because he is the one using the rules as they were written and intended.

            And you don’t need to be facetious. While it was stupid before to show a Chimera’s weak side armor unnecesarily, now it gives you an advantage, as it better covers the squishy IG behind it, so it makes the most sense to literally move it sideways the entire battle.

    • MarcoT

      Especially for larger models. So far no tank or monster has made a cover save yet.

      • kingcobra668

        Nothing has a “cover save” this edition.

    • AircoolUK

      I totally agree with the way turns work. They’re just an abstract way of representing a chunk of time. The phases certainly can’t be thought as of representing a chunk of time because it’s obvious how that could not work.

      It’s like the old argument about random charge ranges. If you fail your charge, your unit doesn’t just stop, neither does it move forward and then teleport back to where it was. The roll just represent whether the unit thinks it can make it.

      Same goes for weapon ranges, especially for units that are ‘in range’ even though some of the models are way out of range. Weapon ranges represent an ‘engagement range’ for the unit vice a point where the weapons projectile suddenly disappears.

      • Thomson

        Yup, in 40k time and space is extemely abstracted. If you would want it realistically, both players would have to do their movement simultaneously, tanks would have a move of 40″ and flyers of 400″

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I think you miss the real point. A 40K turn has to FEEL like a discrete slab of time where potentially realistic things happen. Thats what makes (made?) it such a cinematic game.

          Spinning vehicles and rear shooting jet aircraft breaks that feeling and thus breaks the illusion of realism and for a lot of people the fun of the game. Its meant to be like watching a movie.

          • Lee Ashford

            This! I understand abstraction. But when something feels wrong it doesn’t really go away

            Also even with the idea of abrstaction the rules still mess up. If a tank doesn’t move all game and just relies on a few mm of tread to be showing to shoot from (I’ve seen this more than once) And my tank move an inch to see it. He doesn’t suffer penalties to hit but I do… That’s when it really seems sucky

          • AircoolUK

            Ok, let’s me honest here. Every single game that uses LoS has problems with it’s LoS mechanic.

            Personally, my favourite is Imperial Assault. However, that still has it’s problems. The first is that it uses a grid, which simplifies things like LoS, but you then have the problem of not being able to place your miniatures where you want. The second is that, even with the LoS rules, you have to assume that your model is in the general vicinity of the square it occupies rather than exactly where it is.

          • euansmith

            Have you tried Deadzone? That uses a grid, but it is still important where you place your mini with a cubic volume.

          • Thomson

            I guess what feels wrong and right has more to do which what you are accustomed to on the tabletop than with realism.

            Nothing on the 40k tabletop would make any sense at all in the real world.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I don’t really agree. Example: Vindicators have hull mounted guns. Like the Stug they are modelled on. Such tanks could, in real life, only fire forward in a limited arc without spending time turning around (in which case they might show their vulnerable rear to the enemy). We all intuitively know all that as soon as we see the model.

            If in game the model doesn’t behave that way, and can shoot in any direction, then our connection between the model’s looks, our intuitive view of how the world works, and how we would imagine that vehicle working if it could magically come to life, all breaks down. Our feeling of immersion in the game world disappears.

            Some people can enjoy an abstract game as the interplay of numbers and probability and player skill.

            I want a game that brings the 40K fluff to life, as well as allowing me to exercise skill and make my little plastic chaps come to life in my imagination. 8th no longer provides any of those three things for me.

          • Thomson

            My feeling of realism ends when a rifle has a range of less than 30 yards (it has easily over 10 times that range in reality). What I see on the tabletop is a cool bunch of miniatures and terrain inspring my imagination.

            I can’t get my brain into beleiving that bikes 40.000 years into the future have a top speed of 15 mph.

            Maybe my problem is that I have played games like ASL with miniatures (1/285). The range of uh… ranged weapons is HUGE (Long ranged guns could still shoot several yards in that scale and still hit something – fortunately we had the floor of an empty room to play on)

            And this was World War 2! Don’t get into the range of modern weapons…

            Old age “Space Marine” / Epic / Epic Armageddon was far far more realistic.

            But what you see on a 40k tabletop has nothing to do with realistic scale or proportions.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I do know what you mean, but the ground scale has always been abstracted in wargames, particularly 25/28mm scale games. Its pretty standard for bows etc to have a 24″ range in ancients, and muskets to have the same range in pike and shotte/Napoleonic type games.

            Its because those ranges seem vaguely plausible if you don’t think about them too much, and yet provide for good game play on a normal sized table. I agree they are a fudge. Some people explain it by saying they are kind of logarithmic, ie 12″ might be 100m but 24″ might be 300m and 36″ a kilometre, and explain the movement discrepancies by the fact that troops move slower the closer they get to the enemy….

            I agree with you about the imagination. That is the crucial thing. The game has to yield results that are plausible enough for us to be immersed in the narrative we are making on the table.

            Thats why spinning tanks, rear firing jets and vehicles able to shoot from a single exposed track link whilst being out of sight to others and claiming a cover save to some just feels all wrong. It breaks the immersion. There are some liberties we are prepared to accept for the sake of gaming tables that aren’t a mile wide, but others that we aren’t. Gw chose to make the wrong compromises.

          • euansmith

            Indeed, in games I’ve played over the decades, 24″ has generally been the distance a target can move flat out in a couple of turns. This makes it long enough to give the attacker a round or two of shooting, while meaning that their weapons can’t rake the entire table top; facilitating a bit of maneuvering.

          • denzark

            The last book I read with figures of deaths per ammo expended, for real wars, said 1:25000 in WWI, 1:50000 in WWII and 1:75000 in Vietnam. Yes that is tens of thousands of rounds expended for every confirmed kill. Ignoring the reasons for that, the original scale of 40K was roughly 1″ = 2m. So a Bolt gun being effective just inside 50m is probably quite accurate. Most of the effective killing in war is done at short range. Similarly, the posted effective range of the L85A2 (SA80) is 300m as an individual. That would be 150″ on the 40K scale – which would mean your table would be about 12′ across to fit that dimension. So we don’t really need 40k weapon ranges to reflect real life, for my tuppence worth.

          • Thomson

            Well… 50m are basically close quarter fighting. Since an automatic weapon fired in bursts easily fires 5 rounds in a second, and allows 10 or more in sustained fire mode of course a lot of bullets fly before someone gets killed (lots of machine guns where used in all of those wars)

            Of course war gets deadlier the closer you are to your enemy. But 50m for the max effective range of a freaking rocket rifle seems pretty rediculous to me.

          • Zack_Deschain

            Pretty much my problem too. I LOVE the fluff, but my guess is that the scale is off too…for the kind of battles they want to depict, EPIC would be the system to go…and for cinematic feelings, try Infinity from Corvus Belli, everything really happening at the same time is a whole new world…its paradise! Actually, i think i would add simultaneous shooting to WH40k and see how it works…its stupid that whole armies just stand there being shot without actually doing squat.

          • Brettila

            Yes, modern rifle bullets can travel 3 miles. Tough to use on a table.

          • euansmith

            This blog contains some interesting stuff on modern engagement ranges. After all, engagement ranges has a lot more to do with what the target is doing than what the attacker is doing.

            http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.co.uk/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html

      • Juan Carlos González

        Funnily enough, the target apparently can read the mind of the charging unit, because even if they decide against it they get shot up in Overwatch regardless, while if they hadn’t even bother to think about it they would have been safe.

        Also you can now Overwatch multiple times as long as units keep failing to reach you, so apparently guns can magically multiply their RoF in the Charge Phase.

        And to top it all off, GW confirmed that you measure distances and check LoS from the charging unit’s starting position, which means that flamers are useless if the charge starts from more than 8″ away. So apparently the charging unit *thinks* about charging, they get shot up by the target, and *then* they decide arbitrarily whether they go through with it or not, and if they do the defender’s guns remain silent during their entire approach.

        This Edition has bloodily sacrificed immersion on the altar of speed.

        • euansmith

          I imagine that the Charging Units starts to move towards the enemy, thinks better off it, and falls back to its starting position.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      real life tanks are fast, but that argument doesn’t hold water in 40K.

      A 40K turn is just a few seconds. If the tank had time to turn on the spot and go backwards and forwards it would be able to move further, but most vehicles in 40K can only move a few inches a turn. That allowable movement is meant to represent how far the tank can move in that period of time! If it could move further, spin on the spot etc, then it would be able to, er, move further!

      Think about how 40K works. We have true line of sight for buildings, and movement rules that mean a quarter of an inch can make the difference between making a charge and not making one. Vehicles get cover saves by actually being obscured.Things are meant to be where they actually are on the table.

      Thats why the suddenly abstract shooting rules, loss of arcs and facings doesn’t make sense. It is a lump of abstraction in an otherwise fairly concrete ruleset. It breaks immersion and is counter-intuitive.

      Plus of course it reduces the tactical depth of the game.

      • Thomson

        Either your guardsmen can sprint 20 mph our your Bike only goes 15 mph and your weapons can shoot only 30 yards. No matter how you try to rationalize it, 40k movement stats or weapon ranges don’t make any sense at all if you look at them from a real world POV

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          you are right, of course they don’t make sense. I’ve just made this same statement below, but basically the game needs to make ENOUGH sense that we can stay immersed in the narrative.

          You can play Laserburn if you want a truly simulation style game. 40K was always a compromise to cope with small tables, big miniatures etc, but it preserved enough realism to feel plausible and cinematic. Now for a lot of people it doesn’t and we can’t get immersed in the game anymore. GW pushed the (wrong) compromises too far.

          • Thomson

            That is correct of course. How much abstraction you can take and where is a personal matter and it is all about suspension of disbelief.

            I just have problems when people argue with “realism” in a game that is as abstracted and arbitrary as Warhammer 40k.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            but its the degree of realism that is important. Too much and the game would be an incredibly slow simulation style game, much like Laserburn or Inquisitor. Too little and there isn’t enough granularity to differentiate between units and factions, and there are odd artefacts which break immersion and cinematic feel (rear shooting flyers, grots forcing Predators to disengage and lose their firing etc).

            Its just like the spectrum of randomness to certainty. Too much randomness and players don’t feel they have agency. too little and the game becomes dull, predictable and players feel punished excessively for every mistake.

            As I’ve said before, GW just stripped too much out of 8th, and had bad judgement when it came to which bits to strip out.

    • Zingbaby

      Yeah I love so much that armour facing and fire archs are gone, I don’t want to go back to burdensome rules. I’m loving it so much that I’m starting to fear a few loud complainers will get GW to change it back.

      But I agree on cover. Honestly it’s just that intervening cover needs to do something, shooting through terrain needs to do something. I love the simple +1 save but yeah…

    • SacTownBrian

      Every battle report I see on you tube gets cover for vehicles wrong. A couple more sentences that everyone gets wrong would be soul crushing

    • Brettila

      Terrain basically not existing is LAMEOSAURUS erectus. Modern tanks can roll at 45mph, and bullseye wamprats at a mile and 1/2. Vehicles should not have a penalty to shoot.

      • Koonitz

        But a Leman Russ isn’t a modern tank. It’s a tank that was designed 10,000+ years ago and built using automated systems, maintained by people who don’t know what they’re doing, acting only on 10,000 years of steeped religious dogma. Once built, the vehicle is given to humans and run through combat against a gamut of opponents, ranging from brutal savages to hyper-sophisticated alien races. It is then maintained by people equally steeped in 10,000 years of religious dogma, with less experience than even those that built it.

        I’d say that’s roughly the equivalent of using a computer from 1999, built by a chinese boy simply told what to do and where to put things, then kept running by one of the teenagers that work at the Geek Squad (and only them). Sure, it works now, 18 years later, but it sure as hell ain’t gonna play you some Dawn of War 3.

        You’d be lucky to consider it the same as a WW2 tank (which the Imperial Guard are themed after). WW2 tanks benefited greatly from stopping to line up a shot, unless the crew were quite experienced.

  • Antonello Ceci

    Playing with friends we wondered about vehicles not remaining anymore on the table as LOS blocking ruins when destroyed. It is quite a loss

    • Why not agree with your friends that destroyed vehicles do stay on the table as ruins? Seems like an easy thing to add in, no funky interactions with other rules, no special rules required for cover, just agree that vehicles stay on the table and block LoS no other rules.

      • Antonello Ceci

        Yes, but it would be a “house rule”. It is to be seen if every one of my friends will agree. Just one contrary and nothing done. If it was in the rules, instead….

        • Geko747

          You don’t need everyone to agree, just the one person you are playing. If they don’t like the idea roll off to see what choice you make. Its all about having fun at the end of the day. The last edition was ruined enough with all the arguing over rules.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Especially since you’ve got a rule as to whether or not it explodes. If you want it to stay on the table, have it stay on the table. EZPZ.

        PLAY THE GAME THAT MAKES YOU HAPPY!

        EDIT: If “we” wondered, then just play it that way with the people who find it fun.

        • Deacon Ix

          First game – first vehicle to be destroyed – “it seems rubbish to remove it” – “eh leave it on”.
          Now a house rule that vehicles are left on if destroyed – if explodes it is removed and a crater put down.

    • AircoolUK

      Unless they explode, we just leave them on the table with the old cotton wool smoke plume.

  • Francisco Guerra

    When it comes to vehicles and firing positions, I simply see it as the tank firing either on the move to where he was (rather than teleporting from A to B), or popping in and out of cover as, you know… tanks actually do.

    No biggie.

    • Devourer

      That may be imaginable for tanks but when it comes to flyers it gets really weird. A flyer zooming away from you with all weapons pointing to the horizon can still fire at you like it did the last round when it actually did it’s bombing run.

      • Francisco Guerra

        Not really. Most of these flyers behave more like helicopter gunships than planes.

      • No-one Special

        I would treat it as that’s where the flyer eventually ended it’s turn – it could have perfromed a straffing run and then pulled an immelmann or something. The movement phase sort of becomes the ‘intention’ phase with the other things like shooting coming in the imagined time gap between the two movement points.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          if thats what we are meant to think then why limit their manoeuvres at all? Why the problem when they fly off the table? Why not just place the flyer wherever you like?

          Thats the problem with these rules, they fall awkwardly between abstract and concrete and non of it makes sense.

          • No-one Special

            Two reasons. One is to reinforce that they are moving very fast and are not stationary in any sense – and even if trying to come back to the same point they started at it would be next to impossible to achieve. Two is balance, letting something move so far/fast and yet be able to place itself wherever it wants within that range is extremely powerful. But you can’t just keep cranking up the points because they’re still fragile and people will just stop taking the risk of fielding them. The other option is to do as they have done, and put a limitation on the movement that can be circumvented with clever choices, but can still catch you out in certain circumstances.
            I agree with you that they occupy a half way house between abstract and ‘concrete’, but when trying to incorporate flyers as models that are permantly on the table into 40k scale you don’t really have much choice.
            My personal opinion on flyers is they should operate as called in air support. Are then placed on the board and fire during the controlling players turn (with firing arcs/range etc.), are then shot at in the opposing players turn (unless you want rules for intercept etc.), and are then either destroyed or moved off the board again in the end phase. Flyers that can hover of course have their own rules to enable them to stay on the board much like we see now.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            the way you suggest is pretty similar to Bolt Action (except BA has alternating activiation so it can’t work quite the same). I would be happy with rules like that. the introduction of flyers, like Superheavies, was bound to cause issues, and GW didn’t have the intelligence to handle it well or fix the issues that arose. We are left with a mess.

          • No-one Special

            I think Drop Zone Commander also has something similar, with a mechanic to allow opposing flyers to intercept other flyers.
            I don’t think it would be very difficult at all to incorporate something similar to both these systems into 40k.
            You could give players the choice of whether they wish to intercept the enemy flyer with their own or save it for an attack in their own turn, but only one commitment per turn.
            It would at least make for an interesting battle of nerve to see who commits their flyers first.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            that was how the flyer supplement should have worked IMO, rather than just adding more complexity and a very random minigame, but GW’s rules writers failed us.

          • Nostok

            They did have experience in the past though but failed to draw from it. If my memory serves me correctly Epic had that sort of air support ruleset.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I guess this is the problem when a generation of writers leave. Other companies benefit while GW’s institutional memory is lost.

      • Dan Orchard

        Except the flyers move at about 4 times the speed of a walking human. That’s about 20km/h. That’s like the speed of an electrical bicycle… if you find no problem with that, you should be able to come to terms with the fact that they can also do some fancy manoeuvres while putting along.

      • AircoolUK

        Perhaps it did a quick loop… Using fire arcs for where the vehicle ended it’s move is just as improbable. It’s all about abstract rules that give similar results to a complex simulation.

    • Luca Lacchini

      My Baneblade is NOT doing a 360° spin on the spot to fire all of its 4 sponsons and the hull Demolisher cannon at the same target.
      Nor a Vindicator should have the same shooting freedom of a Predator. Etcetera.

      Weird things about facing and firing arcs abound in this edition, as supersonic flyers can actually fire in every direction (again, spinning on a very tight place) while they must keep track of the direction of movement for the minimum space needed to move forward.
      Goodbye supension of disbelief, it was nice knowing you.

      It’s nice to have vehicles and monstrous creatures work the same way, but the first should have some differences from the latter.

      • Cheyennevan

        I thought for tanks we should have firing arcs something like;
        turret/pintle mounted 360 degree
        side mounted/sponsons 180
        hull or fixed mounted 90 or 135

        • Luca Lacchini

          With my (very friendly) gaming group, we agreed that pintle mounts and turrets have 360°, sponsons have 180°, fixed mounts have 90°; sponsons arcs are measured from the centre of the vehicle, so both sides are able to shoot at the same target to account for last minute maneuvers.

      • Dan Orchard

        Really? That kills your suspension of disbelief, but the fact that a “supersonic flyer” moves about 4x the speed of a walking human (that’s about the speed of an electrical bicycle) THAT was never a problem for you?

        • Luca Lacchini

          No, it’s always been something stupid, but an acceptable approximation of a fast flyer doing a strafing run.
          Always thought that fighters/bombers should be off-table effects.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            the Bolt Action system is pretty good. You basically place the flyer where you like, people can shoot at it, if its not shot down or driven off then it can fire, then it leaves the table. Gives a reason to have a model, but doesn’t feel stupid.

          • Luca Lacchini

            I know BA (1st ed only), but WH40K however is a whole different beast – even discounting the whole piston engines vs supersonic whatevers discussion.
            WH40K features dedicated gunships whose dedicated role is to linger on the battlefield, flying transports for quick insertions near or behind the enemy lines, and those are models that gamers really need to field. Basically stuff that doesn’t have a minimum move value or that can switch to “hover”.

            Shelling out 35+€ for a fighter/bomber which makes a quick appearance and then it’s gone… no, thank you. Don’t give GW this kind of ideas, mate. ;-D
            I stand by the idea that strafing fighters, bombers (dive bombers included) would be better represented by an off-table effect (think Master of Ordnance or Officer of the Fleet abilities).

    • Heinz Fiction

      I always thought firing arcs are way to much micro management for a game auf the scale of 40k. And as you suggest, it doesn’t add realism but pseudo-realism in the context of the rules framework.

  • Antoine Henry

    The game lacks depth like Age of Sigmar does but it seems a bit more fun to play. My gripe is actually that the game is not faster than before, due to “too many rolls”. Its a shame that it takes 3-4 hours a game of 5 turns (its a miracle to have a 5 turn game) of 1500+ points like before just because of how many dices and “tracking” you have to roll/follow

    You know, we are all happy to play with a new toy, but sometimes we get really bored fast. I suppose this can happen with this version quite fast too. I do believe that the “rule mess fest” is already here and that it will be worse with all the stratagems, “special army rules”, relics etc that will happen when Codexes get out.

    The worse in that, its a lot more difficult to keep track of special rules than before. Everybody had the same rule name (like Feel No pain, etc). This was a good design, the bad one was they added rules crossing and rules invalidating other rules.

    For me the worst gripe is the lack of profesionnalism in rule-writing and re-reading books. It is not normal that when you say you tested 2 & half year a game that it has so many flaws and FAQ after a month and that you can already replace the indexes by a new one. I am nonetheless happy that they react faster than before.

    Another gripe is also covers and how models shoot through anything and Line of Sight. It lacks depth also on that, you do not want to really hide anymore and marines feel so weak with 3+ armor.

    I would put a 5/10 because of lack of professionalism on rule writing, the lies on testing the game 2 and half year, the lack of depth but I do have more fun than before. I think its just because its new.

    • Seienchin

      This is seriously a problem. Even worse with AoS… Movement takes twice as long as before and sometimes your roll 50+ dices for combat…

      • ZeeLobby

        Well GW love slinging dice.

    • badmojo1966

      I’ve played 2 games at 2000 points that were 2 1/2 hours long with banter. What armies are you playing too take 3-4? The only extra tracking I found were multi wound models and they have dedicated dice as wound markers.

      • Antoine Henry

        We took that time in 7th edition too with most armies except “large amount of models”. People are less used in this edition for now, I suppose that it would take 3 hours average in a few month instead of the actual 4 (when the game finish after Third turn). Anyway, I do not find it to be faster than before as people have to read their “sheet rules” even more than before for now 🙂

      • AircoolUK

        The way you play certain rules can affect the speed. Generally, when moving a unit, we just measure the distance for one or two models, then just move the rest without measuring but keeping them in a similar formation. Speeds things up a lot.

  • Matt

    They removed commander dantes tactical worth and just made him a beatstick where as Logan and Calgar have more tactical rules.

  • On the rear arc question I felt the solution in Epic: Armageddon was quite elegant – crossfire. Essentially if you could draw a line from your firing unit to another of your units and the line passes through your target, -1 to their save. Avoided question over facings but still gave an incentive to actually surround your opponent.

    To be honest though my view is that if there are things you don’t like, introduce a house rule and play by that. Age of Sigmar shows that people will play by rules other than as written (thinking here of the measure from model as the rules as written, but almost exclusively in practice played as measure from bases) where it makes for a better / more fun / less difficult process.

    • Devourer

      That crossfire rule sounds really nice! I want it!

    • Dan Orchard

      That is actually really cool. Would give a tiny nerf to big blobs too, since they’d be easy to get the Crossfire rule on. That’s a really cool and tactical rule. Wouldn’t mind that at all.

  • tylran

    The vehicles are fine to me. The -1 isn’t that counter-intuitive. Yes, they’re made to move, but even modern top-quality combat vehicles need to stop to fire, whereas modern planes use guided missiles, or in case of things like the Warthog or AC-130, they fly very carefully (and would be susceptible to flak). The flyers in the game fly pretty close to ground so they would have to make a lot of corrections and evasive maneuvers every now and then.

    Now the points thing is annoying, I give you that. I’ve started to get over that, though, simply because I now remember the gear my units have or can have, and thus once I open the points pages I can see and calculate the list really fast.

    What I would like to have are the power levels and points on the same page. We played a small mini-tournament where the points and PL had to be within 3 points of the target numbers (surprisingly hard and different to build a list like that, depending on the faction of course). It was a pain to go through the Index like that (I had Sisters, Greyfax and Tempestus Sci… I mean Inquisitorial Storm troopers).

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      modern combat vehicles certainly do not need to stop to fire!

      The blanket nature of the -1 is the problem. It hits low BS vehicles like Guard tanks and flyers really hard compared to other factions and that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the points cost.

      • Nameless

        more importantly it is the lighter vehicles that suffer more from the penalty than the heavier ones (a leman rus can spend a turn still with a much better chance of being alive next turn than a Taurox). but it is more frequent for the heavier vehicles to have the rules that mitigating the -1.

        some armies also have rules to change weapon type on vehicles (the dark eldar dark lance for example becomes assault) so it is not as if Games Workshop wasn’t aware that there was a problem with the rule.

  • defensive

    The points being at the back of the book annoys me to no end.
    The Power Level points are supposed to be a new player gimmick, that eventually people drop as they get more confident with the rules. Instead, it’s like they’re pushing it as the main system, and ignoring point values entirely. There are a bunch of hugely over or under costed units that have just been completely glossed over in the last FAQ. I can only hope this is because they are going to fix them in the full codexes, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • Deacon Ix

    I initially had an issue with the lack of facing on units but it does stop a lot of tweaking and faff – and getting rid of the exit points was also a huge bonus – stopping wave serpents coming into battle backwards and the like!

  • badmojo1966

    We already have a house rule that any hits to the rear of a vehicle are 1 worse for the armour save. It encourages flanking maneuvers and the person takes more care of the vehicles rear. Also in the fight phase we treat any pintle mounted weapon as a pistol. ie It can fire into close combat. We also give -1 to hit if the units mostly obscured from LOS. Units in actual cover still get the +1 armour bonus.

  • Arthfael

    Agreed. Vehicles having wounds and special damage charts is fine. But removing the fine tactics associated with vehicle orientation is my biggest issue with this edition.

    • Nostok

      To me it is just an abstraction, the whole you go I go turn is an abstraction. Strictly moving, then shooting from the moved to position, then do we run away? etc. Then your opponent doing it. Imagine that all units on the table are doing all of those things all at once in a very cinematic style. The tank was firing not at the end of it’s move but somewhere along the route for instance, it may have even done a barrel roll over the tump of grass to do so.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        if its just an abstraction why have models at all? Why put guns on them? Why not just play with bits of paper or coke cans? Why not make all terrain 2D?

        Because in our imaginations we want rules that make our little models seem to come to life and behave appropriately. We want them to drive about, shoot their guns, hit each other with their tiny plastic chainswords in a way that makes sense for the models and for the background we have read about and thought about so much.

        And that is why I am bored with 8th and not playing any more, because that imaginative contract I have with the rules isn’t working any more.

        • AircoolUK

          I think you’ve taken Nostok’s comment on abstraction to the level of absurdity.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I am trying to reveal how absurd a point it is. If we abstract some things but not others then we really have to think hard about which is which. Currently the game is a mess because they have abstracted some things but not others.

            It made imaginative sense when your tank faced the way it did, and could fire the weapons that pointed the right way, and got a cover save when it was obscured. Removing the facings and abstracting firing arcs yet keeping the cover rules, line of sight and movement rules concrete doesn’t make any sense.

            It would have been better to have had the whole game moved to a grid like Deadzone. Or to have kept it how it was, and simplified just the things that needed it and not the things that didn’t.

            Now we have lost most of the feel of the game for very little gain.

          • Crablezworth

            100% agree

        • Nostok

          I guess I don’t need the rules to be like that. I was really just trying to highlight that people might be getting hung up on this element of the game whilst forgetting that it is all an abstraction and each turn is a very short period of time in a battle.

          It is a shame that you are not enjoying it and feel that the abstraction has gone too far. I can only suggest rolling in some of the 6th or 7th ed. stuff with your buddies. Hopefully we won’t be seeing you set fire to your toy men on youtube.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            no danger of any bonfires! I think the other guys at my club are showing signs of ‘8th fatigue’ already. I’ve been playing SAGA while they’ve been getting into 8th the last couple of weeks. Lots of interest in 30K since 8th dropped, since it is keeping the previous rules. Our club is buying a 4×4 mat for Zone Mortalis so we’ve got something to play small games of 30K on while we build up our forces.

          • Nostok

            Good to hear. I’ve somehow managed to start painting and playing AoS with my kids which is surprisingly fun. The one thing about GW sucking for a while was that we all got into other game systems like Malifaux, KoW, Infinity etc. and this has massively benefited everyone with the diversity. The zone mortalis sounds like it would be fun.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I played a couple of games of ZM when it came out, it is really fun. Some of the Cities of Death stratagems can be used to. You can download the pdf free ( https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihpM3Lla3VAhUYOsAKHe-6CmAQFggtMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forgeworld.co.uk%2Fresources%2Ffw_site%2Ffw_pdfs%2FWarhammer_40000%2FZone_Mortalis_Expansion.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEVzl4OEYdGlHki0WaTUHaUrGrazg )

            Use the 6th Ed rules for scoring objectives.

            It is really a golden age for gaming, so many great games and beautiful minis.

          • Koonitz

            I think the fact that 30k stuck with 7th is actually a really good thing. When you look at all the people who complained about Age of Sigmar sticking with some of the third party rank and file system rulesets, the fact that those who want to play 7th Ed can simply go to 30k is good.

            This is despite the fact that I would have preferred it go to 8th. I’m slowly building a 30k army and I sincerely doubt I’ll be able to play it, as no one around here plays 30k, so I was hoping for 8th rules to play the army against 40k armies.

            I encourage the building and collecting of a 30k army. *thumbs up*

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            You can always count it as one of the 40k armies at least. Most of the models have rules now.

  • Randy Randalman

    These were all incredibly stupid gripes.

    • Pimpcron

      Lol. I love you too Randy. I have seriously been wondering when you’d finally make your way into trolling my articles. I’m honored, sir.

  • Tshiva keln

    Don’t mind the vehicle firing arc issue as all models would fire while moving in reality. Occasionally it might seem odd but works more often than not that I am happy with the simplification.

    Don’t like the loss of the rear armour as it removes a tactical element from the game. I really like the cross-fire idea from Michael below and may have to house rule it.

    Agree with Pimpcron on the flyer issue – they should have something to mitigate the -1 whether it’s assault weapons, a special rule or just higher BS to start with.

    Another very good point by the Cron is the power levels. Considering these are calculated on an average of points cost, why are they on the sheet when points are left off so they could be changed? Makes no sense unless they were hoping we would all move over to power levels instead of points and be happy with roughly balanced rather than actually balanced.

    My only real issues are the rules for cover which again I may just have to house rule (remember it’s about playing the game how you want to play it) and how quickly you remove models. I never used to care about the you go, I go but in this edition it seems to have such a big impact.

  • Finally a text with images I understand and value! Not those shabby and colorful illustrations about lore I don’t care about.

    Seriously, great as ever Lord Pimpcron.

    • Pimpcron

      Thank you! I’ve finally been able to slip these spicy pictures of naughty calculators into an article. Larry has been blocking me for months. He said it was “weird” and “nobody would find it as arousing you do” but I’m glad I exposed another calc-lover. Keep the faith, and when the robots finally rise up and take over this planet, they will show mercy on their fleshy followers.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    More upset about how Leadership is still largely meaningless. Less tests are nice, but why do I even bother with the Morale if nothing I have ever runs?

    • Dalinair

      You must be playing the wrong army (or the right ones?), we see stuff dying from morale all the time.

    • davepak

      um, because you must be playing space marines?

      I make xenos run all the time. You don’t have to kill a unit – you just have to kill enough to make battleshock do the rest

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        I was, but none of my brother’s T’au ran either.

        • Koonitz

          If you’re playing largely battlesuit or MSU (multiple small unit) armies, then yes, morale ain’t gonna mean much, as you largely have to kill these units to force a morale check large enough to matter, anyway.

          Try facing off against a couple units of 12 Fire Warriors, or a unit of 20 Kroot and see how much it matters.

  • Dalinair

    Meh, nothing is perfect but i’m enjoying it. It’s funny how the things you hate I actually love.

    Rear/side/front of the vehicle i’m glad they are gone it was a crap rule anyway, I had far too many arguments over if i was shooting the side or the rear or whatever, I also love no more firing arcs, shot from where ever, toughness all round, love it. It’s simple, streamlined, faster to play, easier to learn, less fighting over if a certain gun can see you or whatever.

    I agree completely however on moving with heavy weapons on vehicles, that should be better, also the fact that 1 gaunt can hold a landraider from shooting after reversing from combat is utter bollocks.

  • Damon Sherman

    you forgot to mention that terrain is largely worthless now.

    • davepak

      This is my only complaint; needs a bit better cover rules.
      However, just a few sentences could fix this.

      one about intervening units granting a cover save.
      The other about terrain granting cover save on 50% obscured.

  • Damir Setanta

    This edition is abysmal. And I mean that from the most objective POW I can muster, elevating myself above the evermoving sea of 7th ed. butthurt weak army players. I played BA and should be happy that mess called 7th went away since now I have a fighting chance and more, but what shocks me is the inverse proportions of GW marketing and the actual product. So much propaganda was spewed about a crazy good edition, best one so far, hundreds of hours of playtesting, excited and new features and most of all reassuring articles about how everything will be like before. Then the index hits and that stuff alone is a booklet of worry. Typos, omissions, down right mistakes that feel rushed and superficial emerge like tyranid spores. For the sake of simplicity, a term that now I am sure GW does not quite grasp, a whole game was ditched in favour of something NEW and EXCITING. Well, just new, perhaps, since excitement is the least felt thing when playing tediously long games of close combat that includes rhinos, infantry, flyers and a character here and there. There is no unpredictability, no surprises and no excitement as most of the randomising factors such as scatter dice and vehicle damage charts just flew out of the window. One starts suspecting they did so in order to cut costs on paper, since half of the rules of the past edition were vehicle based. We are force fed new fluff, new models for only one faction while the rules get changed on weekly basis. There is no consistency anymore and this whole idea of a bunch of brainiacs testing rules is flying out of the window along with my will to play. SO much has been dumped in favour of dubious rules that get changed as soon as someone feels neglected and writes a lot of facebook comments. It’s clear now there is a wide gap between the people that try to keep the pr going and the people that make the game rules. That gap being this plane of existence, since the rules are almost non existent. Less than 10 pages of rules and still whole books of errata are being published every two weeks! Sure, profits are soaring but this is not really a stable industry and things can change real quick, because the players will get tired of the constant fixes and faqs for a job not well done to begin with. I really love this hobby and want it to succeed without enforcing a certain vision of the fluff and game on the community, but the recent changes are a big step away from all that built it. It’s wrong to pat their backs on every step if they’re heading for the edge. I know GW’s policy regarding fans is clearly expressed in the foreword of every publication (“you will not be missed”), but just as the countless characters that came and went, so too can we go with a bang, not a pat on the back. So props to you for writing this mild critique, but we all know the situation is far worse than vehicle facing issues and firing arcs…

    • ILikeToColourRed

      line breaks make things readable

      • AircoolUK

        Ah the irony of a wall of text complaining about formatting errors. Not to mention the fact that, the skeleton of the game has been released, but the meat is going to take another 6 months. This was explained several times, as was the function of the index books.

        Being force fed new fluff makes me chuckle. You can either ignore it, or accept it on a game by game basis, and, as someone who’s being playing Warhammer since WHFB 2 was released, the fluff really needed moving on. Speaking of which, we still play WHFB 3rd from time to time around here (the rule books don’t disappear when a new edition is released, right?) and use AoS rules for battles in the old world.

        You can complain all you want about GW, but you’re the one making a rod for your own back. There are issues with the game, but on the whole, most people are happy with the new edition as it has re-sparked our interest.

        • Nameless

          Firstly, whilst I do believe you are right and that the quality of the codexes will be much higher than that of the indexes, no where was it stated before the release of 8th that you where buying into a ‘skeleton of the game’, or that the first few months would be the time when playtesting happened.

          instead we where repeatedly told, they had extensively playtested this edition, that every unit would be viable and that codexes would be coming along at some point in the future (as apposed to they are already printed and sat in our warehouses.)

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Well said.

          • Andrew Bond

            Also most gaming clubs will only allow the latest version of the rules for any given game. Also why is the original commenters post awaiting moderation? His comment is clean and a fair and valid opinion, it’s just like the Facebook page removing any negative feedback since the announcement which is unacceptable, people are entitled to their opinions.

          • Walls of text with no breaks are read as spam by Disqus’ filters, so it holds them in moderation until a human can approve it.

          • Crablezworth

            Bols moderation on point, nice to see 🙂

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      your comment was hard to read but worth it!

      The greatest triumph of 8th was how involving the tournament crew in the playtesting bought the silence of the big competitive 40K websites and blogs when it comes to the shortcomings of the game. A huge victory for the PR department, if not the rules department, since it turned out a boring game only fit for accountants and number crunching tournament players.

  • AircoolUK

    I doubt power level is likely to change much. After all, you’ve given the reason why;

    “There has already been discussion of how Power Levels can go bananas on wargear-heavy units such as Deathwatch or Chosen compared to points”

    Power Levels are a rough guide to a units strength, and considering that there’s rules in the game for armies have a Power Level difference of 20, I’m pretty sure that their function is not comparable to using points.

    Vehicles, yeah, the armour facing could do with a rework. Even if its just dropping a point of Toughness (obviously not for vehicles which had solid armour all round) when you’re shooting it from the rear. Firing arcs is also another strange choice, especially for flyers. Ok, the phases of each turn don’t represent a unit of time (unlike the turn, which does represent a unit of time), so a flyer could easily have shot something behind it by the time it’s moved and the shooting phase is active.

    The whole LoS thing isn’t much of a problem. If the tip of your Land Raider exhaust can see the spike on a Splinter Rifle, then no, you don’t have line of sight because most players are reasonable. In a lot of cases, it’s a roll off or agreeing on a minimum result on a d6 if you can see the target or not.

    Datasheets. Am I the only person on the planet who is just going to print them off when playing a game? Just scribble down a few notes on each page that you’ve printed, scratch out the unused weapons and then use a pencil to track wounds etc..

    I’m also likely to print off each data sheet and stick them in a cheap binding bar along the spine for reference as well. Heck, I’m even buying the digital version so it’s easier to print.

    C’mon. Use a bit of common sense and perhaps some technology

    • Big Red

      I already have laminated copies of all the datasheets I use, makes the game run a decent bit smother.

  • AircoolUK

    Also, for Flyers, try using the Death From The Sky rules. They’re right there, in the book, in the Death From The Skies section.

  • Chaosrex

    Been able to run from combat without any kind of retaliation from the ennemy unit is totaly bonkers imo.

    I still don’t like the fact that characters can’t join a unit.

    Mortal wounds ignoring Invulnerable saves, if there is something ignoring it, how is it invulnerable?…

    While D-strength hits could also ignore invulnerables saves, there was only an handfull of units in the game who could do it.

    Mortal Wounds on the contrary are much more widespread, essentialy anything that would do extra hits or be Rending now do Mortal wounds instead…

    • davepak

      Part of the problem is too many invulnerable saves. mortal wounds help mitigate that.
      It would have been too much of a change to get rid of all the invul saves.

    • Koonitz

      With some of the changes to melee combat making it more difficult to avoid, I feel the ability to fall back out of combat is more an ability to balance out and give shooting a chance against hardcore close combat armies and the random shenanigans that can be pulled (ie: A 16″ movement skimmer charging a Land Raider turn one, then holding it in combat for perpetuity without extra dedicated assault elements engaging the skimmer, which slows down the army).

      Part of the reasoning with characters not joining units here is that GW seems to be trying to avoid multiple stat-line units to streamline the targetting and wounding process (Tzeentch Horror units, for instance, have T3 across Pink, Blue and Brimstone Horrors, despite their strengths being 3/2/1 respectively). It’s simply easier, and also avoids the nonsense of super-buff characters tanking rediculous amounts of firepower, passing off any truly threatening shots to the ‘plebs’ of the unit they’re attached to. I mean, how many times have you faced off against a 2+/3++ Marine chapter master standing at the front of , or an Ork Warboss with a Lucky Stick at the spearhead of a nob bike squad, or any number of other Death Star enabling characters?

      After dealing with entire units of 3++ save wielding models, mortal wounds are a blessing, if you ask me. Necron Wraiths were nonsense to deal with, now they have an extra wound. Tyranid Zoanthropes took rediculous amounts of firepower to deal with, now they have an extra wound. Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators were a pain to remove, now they have an extra wound. Thunderwolf cavalry with stormshields were nearly unstoppable, now they have an extra wound. Marine characters with storm shields were unstoppable juggernauts, now they have extra wounds.

      See a theme on that one? Mortal wounds help to mitigate the hair-pulling frustration that is dealing with multiple 3++ save wounds that had a lot of people turning to super-heavies and their “remove from play” stomp attacks. I welcome mortal wounds making these units just a little bit less valuable.

  • Drpx

    My only real gripe is lack of templates. Don’t know why GW thought they had to go away unless it was because of all the horde players complaining about having to space their armies out 2″. It makes artillery less fun and certainly kind of silly when you think about a Basilisk trying to individually hit a bunch of gaunts it can’t even see on the other side of the field.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      They got rid of them because they slowed down tournament play and caused arguments in tournament play. For some reason GW decided to get tournament organisers to playtest 8th, so we have the sort of game they would like.

      That it feels unrealistic and removes a big tactical element wasn’t considered apparently.

      • davepak

        Honestly, I don’t miss templates. But each their own.

        • AircoolUK

          The small template was almost useless. Also, having to risk ‘Gets Hot’ on your Plasma Cannon, only to have the template scatter back onto your Plasma Cannon model was ludicrous.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            would have been easy to fix. Scatter can’t be more than half the distance between the firer and the target. There, fixed. GW could have done that, but they don’t seem to have the skill to write decent rules any more.

        • Simon Chatterley

          Yeah I don’t miss them either. In no game setting were they ever quick. Even in friendly games they were a pain.

      • ZeeLobby

        I never loved templates, but they made the game more interesting.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I liked them because they had that cinematic feeling. Forcing your opponents troops to bunch up and then landing a vindicator blast on them felt great. Likewise when you used a bunch of sternguard with flamers those flame templates made it feel like you were really torching something, you could almost see the flames! Now its just yet more dice.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        while I think about it the 8th rules are probably great for tournaments. As an additional ‘way to play’ in the book it would have been great. But an advanced game, complete with facings, templates, arcs etc would have been sensible to include. GW must have known these rules would alienate a lot of players, and obviously didn’t care.

  • Kenneth Portner

    Yawn……

  • Dennis J. Pechavar

    I’ve been wondering when you were going to make a shout out comment to the TI-83 crowd. They’ve supported you for years now, glad to read some love for them.

    • Pimpcron

      They are a shady bunch. You never know what they’re thinking. They always just sit there … calculating and plotting their every move. I’m afraid one day they may go on a tangent and go off the grid. But they did help cosine for my car loan. So I guess they’re not all bad. Sometimes I wonder where they fit into this equation.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        You’ve been saving that up haven’t you? 😉

  • Simon Chatterley

    Cover…it now either has to block line of sight or it’s there to look pretty.

    I’ve played 5 games it has mostly so far been useless.

    I’m sure when people start to load out for max CP it might get used but right now with the meta being “take big stuff that shoots lots” it’s just not seeing use.

    Far too simple and for tanks that are getting hit with lascannons and equivalent even if they can only see 1% of you and you are in cover it’s a 6 save…can’t say I see the point

  • Zingbaby

    I couldn’t disagree more about vehicles PC… so so glad that stuff is gone and it only took one game of 30k to remind me that I hated those rules.

  • ZeeLobby

    It’s just lost too much of it’s cinematic feel for me. No templates, no facings, shallow cover rules, etc. Kind of feels like you just move a bunch of blobs around and roll an endless amount of dice. I’ll play it for a little while longer, but might honestly sit this edition out, for the first time in 15 years.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      thank goodness for 30K.

      • Crablezworth

        Until they come for that too

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          well FW have said the paths are now diverging and they are staying with 7th, even making their own version of it, so that should see us through the next few years.

  • SacTownBrian

    I like the way they did points, splitting them out so that matched play could be easily updated and not require a book reprint. I give it a 9 out of 10, the abstractions, like vehicle shooting, make the game soooo much faster to play. The only people I see using matched play points are tournaments and scheduled games with prepared lists. For pick up games we’ve always used power points since there is still no accurate, quick and easy tool to generate matched play. Think about it, the simplified lists from the past for tournaments need to go away. We need to see detailed lists with every weapon pointed out to verify they are legal. Makes me exhausted thinking about checking those.

  • Vachones

    It’s pointless to argue whether the new vehicle rules are “realistic” when the entire game is an abstraction. For some people, its too abstract and takes away from their immersion into the game, and I get that. But I’ll make the trade off for a smoother, cleaner gameplay experience. Having played hyper detailed strategy games in the 80s, (Advanced Squad Leader, Starfleet Battles), I find I don’t have the patience or time anymore for that sort of “realism.”

    My problem with New 40K is the almost complete lack of terrain rules and the lethality of a first turn alpha strike. They really should have dumped true line of sight and modified the old 4th ed terrain rules. It would have removed the last thing people argue over (cover saves), tightened up the rules, and most importantly allowed you to survive first turn a bit better.

  • I’ve played 3 games now 2 with points and the third with power Levels. I have no issue with either. The last game was amazing as we all have so few games of 8th edition and with power levels we were able to add a 4th player, it was a free for all, at the end of the first turn. They just went last.
    But their list took no time to make in facet none of us were ready to play ahead of time and power Levels just let us jump right in. Which was nice. I’m sure both points and power Levels have costing issues but I really see no reason to take one side over the other.
    What’s going to be interesting to me is playing more games and seeing how these systems divide among the group and who likes what and why.
    Over all I like that it, to me, feels a lot like the old Dawn of War game. (for PC.)

  • Ryan Miller

    I like 8th… miss templates, firing arcs, rear armor, dreadnoughts in STANDARD drop pods, non-primaris marines (at least let landraiders carry them like terminators), captain smashfucker IN command squad with apothecary…I like 8th…

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I want 7.5th edition!

      • I’m already excited to see 8.5

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          I’ll be excited to see it if they bring back these missing tactical elements. I might want to play it then. Until that point I’m sticking with 30K, 7th Edition, Bolt Action and SAGA (and maybe Shadow War Armageddon). Thats enough to be getting on with!

          • I’m trying to continue with 30K, I’m trying to choose a Legion but so far I’m not able to stay excited about any of them. Maybe when there are rules for the First Legion.
            I don’t really care for 7th edition. I prefer 4th edition but no one I play with plays that. Heck I’d prefer 2nd edition, but again.
            I’m enjoying 8th and AoS. I think aside from the newness and the people I’ve played with a lot of it has to do with my Orks playing much more to how they used to long ago.
            Any edition is fine if your army isn’t being held back by it’s own book.
            SWA looks fun but I haven’t had a chance to play it. I haven’ played the other you’ve mentioned, SAGA looks neat, no one I know plays it. I’ve seen it on youtube.
            I miss Warzone and Chronopia.
            Oh well.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            SAGA is very easy to get people into.

            You can make a full 6 point army from a single box of 44 plastic Vikings or Saxons, and either will look right for a fair number of factions giving some variety in play (Vikings can easily be used as Vikings, Jomsvikings or Norse Gaels for instance). One of those plastic boxes is about £22 if you pay full price. Its so cheap you could get both sides and do demo games.

            There are lots of alternatives to playing a Legion in 30K, the Militia and Cults list can represent anything from Imperial Army to Chaos Cults, Squats etc etc. There is also Mechanicus, Dark Mechanicus and Solar Auxilia. Getting 500 or 1000 points together and playing Zone Mortalis is a good way to start.

            I miss Warzone too 🙂

  • mreindl

    Perhaps because Power Levels aren’t intended for matched play? Their assumption may be that people aren’t going to be as finicky about Power Levels as hardcore tournament players are with points.

    One of the things that I think this edition shows is that they learned a *lot* about releasing the new edition from their experience with AoS. People who use PL aren’t really all that concerned with or about maxing out wargear. If they are, they’d likely use points.

    Admittedly, I haven’t played a game using PL yet, but I don’t think having those on the sheet is that big a deal. It’s a single number for the unit, and is pretty easy to change in future updates.

    By the way, I hear there are these amazing devices called ‘Index Tabs’ that will actually attach to your book to allow you to flip to a section quickly. I hear that they’re color-coded, and even a rumor that it’s possible to WRITE on them so you know what you’re turning to before you even do it!

  • Goatsplitter

    I thought the absence of vehicles getting penalized for being shot in the rear was going to bother me, but after some games in, it really hasn’t. I like the constant 360-degree rule for both shooting and getting shot. I was disappointed that terrain was over-simplified, but I am even recanting on that because I can see the meta changing with every game. We keep just piling on more and more terrain and it is taking up for the slack. A year from now, I suspect vehicle cover saves will just be a normal occurrence in an average game.

  • Keith Wilson

    lets not forget cover …. a tank with an ariel exposed, fully half exposed, and completely in the open are all the same thing ….. NO COVER

  • denzark

    I think the thing I’ll miss the most is blast templates. Remember how the rules about scatter dice said it would be almost impossible to miss? And now a demolisher cannon is D3 shots… oh the shame.

  • dave long island

    All that matters is the minis. And they’re better than ever. The rules don’t mean diddly spittle.

    • Crablezworth

      I didn’t know members of the gw marketing team posted on bols…

      • dave long island

        Well now you know, kid. And there is no Easter bunny. Your votes don’t mean squat, either. Lastly, there is no Santa Claus. Sorry to end your childhood, but it’s better this way.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I’m not sure you are right on that point. To be honest, GW has been thoroughly challenged in the mini making department lately, and some of their recent offerings show dubious taste.

      • dave long island

        Fair enough. Mayhap you’re right. Mayhap.

  • marxlives

    The vehicle rules are a big turn off, I dont know if anyone at GW has served in mechanized cav but they should contact Britannia’s military and see if they hang out and get the feel. Even with todays new hum vees, they are basically mobile command stations with automated 50 cals, friend-foe recognition AI, and an under carriage engineered for land mine resistance. At least the Marines are getting them. So yes vehicles should be the only model type that do not recieve firing penalties, yes where the weapons are emplaced is important, and the vehicle is a weapon. Why vehicles cant ram another one using something akin to the BattleTech Death From Above rules or run over units like when a warjack tramples over infrantry in Warmachine is beyond me. It really robs vehicles of their personality.

    • Crablezworth

      100% agree, there is no explanation why a 70 tonne tank wouldn’t be able to squash a grot.

    • Bootneck

      We’ve never had hum vee’s, all our light vehicles are are deathtraps for IEDs.

      Vehicle can still “ram” but again it requires imagination as it does with the vehicles arcs; by dumbing down the assaults and removing rule bloat. Them assaulting is effectively ramming – just not called it.

  • Keaton

    I think we’re sort of losing sight of the big picture here. Can’t they cut the bloat down to bare bones (like they’ve done) and then slowly add depth through codices and “chapter approved”? They’ve already shown their committed to a living ruleset and this is the first grand round of playtesting.

  • Crablezworth

    The loss of fire arcs was the final nail in the coffin for 8th. 8th is just not good.

  • Nick Clark

    The fact that they haven’t perfected their game in 30 years bugs me.

    • GnomesForge

      Yeah its almost as if… they don’t want to for some reason.

    • Bootneck

      But that would mean GW wouldn’t be able to introduce new factions and units and generate new revenue streams.

      Game would become stagnant after a while

  • Defenestratus

    Pimpcron, just use your vehicles backwards like I do.

    It’s a whole lotta fun.

  • euansmith

    I came here for the TI-83 and I stayed for the TI-83.

  • Krev_Grazl

    I agree regarding the location of the points. The charts should contain power levels and points in adjacent columns.

  • lemt

    I’d say they kept Power Level ratings on the cards because they’re intended for casual play and fast pick-up-and-play games, so they don’t mind as much is something is somewhat over/underpowered. But for Matched Play and competitive gaming, they want to be able to really fine-tune costs.

  • Tothe

    I prefer the TI-85 workhorse that got me through calculus, but I can’t denigrate the 83.