Author Topic: My thoughts on 8th editio  (Read 2308 times)

Squeeker122 and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Celerior

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
My thoughts on 8th editio
« on: June 29, 2017, 09:24:54 AM »
I recorded a video of my thoughts on 8th edition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CRzdpl6cV8

Summary:
All the things we argued about most and wasted the most time on (like templates) are GONE!!!
Deep strike is better, weapon skill, ballistic skill, armor saves, and AP matter more, strength/toughness and range matters less.

Online Eryx_UK

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
    • March of the Damned
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2017, 03:04:33 AM »
So after a couple games and plenty of studying the new edition how do I feel about it? Well, it is certainly a lot of fun to play. I loved 7th edition even with it's flaws and there were times in the run up to the new edition where I didn't like the sound of where Games Workshop were taking the game that I love. But I did the right thing and waited and watched. I have not been disappointed.

Pros:

When I say it is fun that covers so much of the positive elements. It is always easier to describe the negatives than the positives and that is the problem. Both games that I have played so far under the new edition have been so much more enjoyable than the recent games of 7th. Part of that is because of how much simpler Games Workshop have made the game. The system works well for Age of Sigmar but I think it works much better for 40K. So much smoother and easier to get your head around. There are some slight issues with that but give them time and those issues or questions will be answered. For now, you'll just have to bear with me when I say that is is fun.

The armies feel a lot more balanced towards one another now. Previously I may well have rolled my eyes and slumped my shoulders had an opponent turned up to a 7th ed game with tyranids, craftworld eldar, thousand sons, blood angels... you get the picture. Certain armies were far too good. That isn't the case now. Every army and faction looks to play nicely with each other. Each unit is now a potential option, where as before you only saw the same few units being played. Now I don't know what to expect my opponent to bring to the table and that is a good thing.

The psychic phase is much better. I'm not going to get stomped just because my opponent brought a psychic heavy army (eldar, thousand sons and tyranids, I'm looking at you!) and I may as well not have bothered turning up. Now, the system for using those powers is straight forward and the powers have been brought down to a more reasonable level, although on some occasions I feel that powers are a little underwhelming in how they play.

Vehicles are a lot more survivable now. Wounds and an armour saves have really helped there. Previously I would be very cautious about my vehicles but no longer. Now I can zoom them around the table taking the battle to the enemy.

Six deployment maps and something like 13 detachments is exactly what the game needed. The new deployment lay outs can help shape the basics of a game a lot by the look of things. Some favour shooty armies and some favour those who want to get up close and personal. The detachments are something that I've been suggesting for ages. Rather than just the basic HQ and troops, now the required units could be fast attack or heavy support. The variety will certainly have a strong impact on what certain armies could take and make the games more than just a forgone conclusion again.

Command points are a nice mechanic and seem balanced. I'd like to see some more abilities become available as the game advances and army specific ones as codexes are released.

Much more cinematic. I'm one for using my imagination regardless of the games that I play. With how 8th works I can much more easily see in my mind how something works and how it drives a narrative game playing experience. Part of the problem is that most players view 40K as just a game and crunch numbers. They miss out on the cool bits in their head as they complain about things.

Characters now seem to be a lot better across the board. I used to take Typhus purely for fluff reasons but now he's a HQ option I'll always take. Especially as he's cheaper than a Lord of Contagion and better.

No more templates or scatter dice! For one it is something else that I don't have to remember to bring but it also speeds up game play. A welcome change.

Cons:

Not so convinced on the armour save modifiers. I find that a lot of weapons have been reduced in effectiveness because of it. Take Lightning Claws for instance. Previously they were AP3 and great for carving through power armour troops. Now they just give a -2 save modifier and doesn't seem to be worth the effort. I can live with it but it means that there are options that I probably won't bother with now.

Close combat seems to be making a comeback. A couple deployment maps are really geared for it and looking at some armies it is going to hurt when they come a' knocking. For a game that is all about who has the biggest gun I'd rather not see a return to over the top assault again.

I don't like the alternating combat system that comes from Age of Sigmar. It doesn't work for me. I'd rather the charging units go first but then the active player picks a combat and everyone fights simultaneously. I would find it a fairer then but I know that is just my opinion.

Re-rolls and then modifiers. Don't like this at all. Let me give you an example. A space marine with a heavy bolter hits on a 3+. He moved so he'll have a -1 to hit. Let's say that some effect gives him a re-roll. So, three shots fired and he gets 3, 4 and 6. Three hits. No need to re-roll so the modifier kicks in and only two shots hit but he can't now re-roll because that comes before modifiers. It needs to be modifiers and then re-rolls.

Too much negativity from the community. A lot of it is coming from players who liked 7th and don't want to change or they didn't like Age of Sigmar and think 8th will ruin the game. They won't even try it and that really gets on my nerves. If it's not that then it is the players who feel hurt because they army isn't what it was under the previous edition. They need to understand that the game is a whole new animal and that they must unlearn everything they new and instead, embrace the new.

On the Fence:

Games Workshop copied over the summoning rules from Age of Sigmar. In other words you have to set aside some of your points to try and summon anything. I hate this as it just feels like wasting your points. Since games are limited in game length anyway so if you just make summoning something you can do once per turn then where is the damage? As I stopped summoning under 7th ages ago anyway I just consider it a nuisance and put it in the grey space between pro and con.

Power levels over points is an interesting addition to the rules. It looks like most players want to play under a points system and I can see why as it more accurately reflects unit strength and balance but I'd like to be able to try a points level game or two just to see.

It looks like Games Workshop have sped up the game by introducing high levels of model death. A mix of armour modifiers, multiple wounds and mortal wounds sees lots of models being removed as casualties. This is part of the new game but I want my armies to survive dagnamit!

Death Guard:

Disappointed that there are units that I can't take as Death Guard. I guess that it is because when the Codex: Death Guard comes out we'll have our own versions, but for now I can't field terminators, bikes, raptors, heldrakes and most daemon engines without breaking the pure Death Guard legion.

Disgustingly Resilient is a nice approximation of the old Feel No Pain, but it is also a bit of a curse. No longer a 3+ armour save and then a 5+ FNP. Armour save modifiers are reducing our saves and if the damage causes multiple wounds we have to roll for all of them meaning we are still likely to lose the model. I see what Games Workshop are doing but it rubs me the wrong way a little bit.


And so...

Overall, 8th edition gets a big old thumbs up from me. I hope that it is going to change the direction that 40K has gone in the last few years and will draw in new players and reinvigorate established players.  Now is the time to seize the galaxy by the horns and take what is yours!
  • Death Guard / Nurgle Daemons
My Death Guard narrative blog: http://thedeathguard.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Kvekan

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2017, 11:24:37 AM »
I feel like the hype for assault armies that GW tried to push really hasn't converted to table top performance. It's too hard to get enough volume of dice to kill stuff while also being too hard to get morale into effect. Losing the extra attack on the charge is a huge cut. And since enemies can just fall back you are never safe from shooting either.

Sad Blood angel thus far.
"For those we cherish, we die in glory" ...And we die a lot.

Online Eryx_UK

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
    • March of the Damned
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2017, 04:29:54 AM »
I had a game against Tyranids a couple nights ago and they, under 7th and before, were one army I hated playing against. This time they were still a really good horde army but not so overpowering that they just mashed through me like they used to. I think assault is still really good but has been properly balanced out under 8th to prevent it being too good.

As for morale I find that once a unit drops below a rough certain size morale becomes less and less of an issue. it's more a problem when the unit has a fair few models to lose and does so.
  • Death Guard / Nurgle Daemons
My Death Guard narrative blog: http://thedeathguard.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Kvekan

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2017, 08:42:37 AM »
Properly balanced out? Assault hasn't been good since 5th edition. It's still super weak compared to shooting. Even as a Blood Angel I perform much better just spamming bikes and intercessors staying at medium-long range rather than taking underperforming assault units.
"For those we cherish, we die in glory" ...And we die a lot.

Online Eryx_UK

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
    • March of the Damned
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2017, 10:15:59 AM »
Properly balanced out? Assault hasn't been good since 5th edition. It's still super weak compared to shooting. Even as a Blood Angel I perform much better just spamming bikes and intercessors staying at medium-long range rather than taking underperforming assault units.

I can only report on my own experiences and assault based armies crushed me every single time in games between 4th and 7th edition. Even if I knew what  I was going up against and could plan for it (something I've tried with opponents agreement), once those tyranids or massed orks hit my lines I am screwed. Sheer weight of attacks wins out every single time. I've always found assault far too good in a game that is really about shooting more than anything.
  • Death Guard / Nurgle Daemons
My Death Guard narrative blog: http://thedeathguard.blogspot.co.uk/

Offline Celerior

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2017, 07:35:52 PM »
Assault got less killy, but NOT less important. Tanks can now be denied the ability to shoot next turn by assault. My conscripts have definitely taken advantage of this. Surrounding an opponent's models so that you decide when the assault ends. Firing rapid fire weapons and then charging the near-dead enemy unit just to finish it off.

Assault units got less useful, but as a guard player, I've deliberately started assaults weirdly often in my game today against Tyranids. For example, near the end, 2 infantry squads and a company commander and a sentinel and Yarrick all into 2-wound Swarmlord. Yarrick rolled poorly and only took off one wound, and then my opponent used his last two command points to kill Yarrick out of the normal order, and then the other troops finished Swarmlord off.

Looking at some battles online, units like harlequins that can jump happily into and out of the assault can surround enemy non-flying models with their pile in and consolidate moves so that they can't fall back, making the harlequins potentially unshootable once they're in the assault. I'm imagining a troupe surrounding a rhino.

Rules that let an army play with falling back and still doing stuff (Tyranid psychic power, Guard orders, Harlequins' flip belts and special rules...) are a big deal.

Offline Kvekan

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2017, 05:04:26 AM »
I can only report on my own experiences and assault based armies crushed me every single time in games between 4th and 7th edition. Even if I knew what  I was going up against and could plan for it (something I've tried with opponents agreement), once those tyranids or massed orks hit my lines I am screwed. Sheer weight of attacks wins out every single time. I've always found assault far too good in a game that is really about shooting more than anything.

I don't know what meta you've been in. But Orcs, Tyranids or Blood angels haven't been competitive at all since 5th edition. Look at any tournament and you'll see that. Especially not if you've tried to run an assault based list. Tyranids were only useful spamming flying hive tyrants with twin-linked devourers for example.

I also find it strange that people say that 40k is mainly about shooting? Why? All the books and artworks depict brutal close combat engagements. To say that assault is secondary is somewhat offensive to me as a blood angels assault player. Half the space marine type units are also assault oriented, are they not as important? Terminators, vanguards and all the heroes of the imperium beg to differ.

I'd agree that assault is even more important now just as you say Celerior, but to me it is important for all the wrong reasons. Close combat should be a gory and heroic maelstrom. Not about preventing a vehicle from shooting a turn. I couldn't be more disappointed in the close combat mechanics after my first 20 odd games.
"For those we cherish, we die in glory" ...And we die a lot.

Offline Celerior

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2017, 07:03:35 AM »
Adjusting to 8th edition: Here are a bunch of things I've learned.

Item: This edition will be much more cinematically appropriate! Last edition, weaklings like guard or nids or Orks wanted to hide in cover because 4+ cover saves (and 3+ GtG saves, or even better with the right warlord trait) were serious upgrades. No longer. But marines (and often other heavy infantry like Tau suits or striking scorpions) will now double their survivability by being in cover.

Item: A year or two ago, Fritz was talking about how while playing All Quiet on the Martian Front, he used a single annoying long ranged weapon to get his opponent to advance out of cover. Meet the 8th edition lascannon on the guard infantry squad.*

Item: Considering how many lascannons it now takes to take out a vehicle, the ability to tie up a non-flying vehicle and prevent it from shooting** by assaulting is a big deal.

Item: Predators with 4 lascannons vs. 2 Razorbacks with twin lascannons each: I'd rather pay 29 more points for 9 more wounds, transport capacity, and the tactical flexibility of two separate units. Why does the same chassis (OK, 1 more wound) cost about 35 points more without transport capacity?

Item: If your weapon barely misses a crucial cutoff, then the target probably isn't your weapon's intended target. What's a crucial cutoff? Any situation where if you had 1 strength or AP or ballistic skill more, your efficiency would improve from a 1/6 chance to a 1/3 chance, or to some extent from a 1/3 chance to a 1/2 chance. This is what makes Ravenwing Darkshrouds so good against armies without BS 3+.

Related item: As a player, you want to make your opponent miss their crucial cutoffs. You have several opportunities:
  • Hitting. If your opponent has an army with poor ballistic skill, like Orks or non-scion guard, something like a flyer or Dark Angels Darkshroud can manufacture a key cutoff out of hitting.***
  • Wounding. Vehicles survive by making everything do poorly here. Just make sure that whenever possible you're barely over the key cutoffs, or at least not just under them. Don't fire bolters at land raiders; they'll be no more effective than lasguns. Autocannons are meant to shoot at multi-wound foes with T5-6, like Tyranid big bugs or land speeders or bikes or militarum tauroxes & sentinels. (Someone must have thought the meta would be bike-heavy when they points-costed the autocannon.)
  • Saves. Marines in this edition will get a lot of extra mileage by sitting in cover, making most light arms fire bounce off. Vehicles somewhat less so, since the weapons fired at them will most likely not be small arms.
  • Damage. Get your opponent to waste lascannons against 1-wound models, or shoot light arms fire against 2-wound models (like terminators or primaris psykers). Sniper rifles are generally going to be wasted against characters because just when you think you have them killed, they'll hop out of line of sight and keep buffing their neighbors.
Each defensive cutoff you can take advantage of increases the survivability of your unit exponentially. Imagine a Ravenwing Nightshroud in cover against conscript spam: 216 shots needed to take off one wound. Maybe negated by 1 command point.

Item: One major idea in Warhammer is target priority. A lot of wins and losses can be explained thusly: One player attacked the right targets, the other player didn't. In this new edition we have to figure out what works where all over again.

So after some mathhammer and seeing some examples in the field, here's some conclusions for ya:

Lasguns are for targeting light infantry. Anything with T5 or T8 is also a valid target, because your opponent is paying premium points for no benefit there. If you're facing 2+ saves, expect to do only cosmetic damage. You should probably advance, instead!
Boltguns: Similar to lasguns, but can also strip a wound off a vehicle every 13.5 marine shots.
Heavy bolters: Half-decent against everything, but optimally cost effective against marines in cover at long range.
Plasma: is great against heavy infantry, and if you have some way to reroll ones to hit, good when supercharged against tanks, too. (Better than melta at ranges 6"-24")
Mortal wounds are good for hitting tanks and heavy infantry, especially those with invulnerable saves (I'm looking at you, terminators!).
The scatter laser just got nerfed.****

This is why bypassing the marine 3+ save (or 2+ in cover) is a big deal. The best anti-marine weapon is plasma, or whatever has good AP but mediocre strength in your codex.


Footnotes:

* I was plinking away at an imperial knight who was sitting behind other units for fear of my scions. My lascannon hit him and did a bit of damage. He returned fire, killing 6 guardsmen. My nearby commissar BLAMed a 7th guardsman, leaving the lascannon and one plasma gunner. The lascannon hit and damaged him AGAIN. He couldn't take it anymore and brought the knight out, using his own deep strike forces as a screen. Yes, I couldn't get to the knight himself, but I didn't have to worry about any more enemy deep strikers, and brought my own scions in to destroy his screen. The knight survived, but his trump card was spent.

**If an opponent's non-flying tank can be surrounded by models in an assault then it can't move free. This is especially useful for horde armies that can fall back and still act at will (Guard with orders and tyranids with one psychic power, and to a much lesser extent harlequins).

*** I've done the math on a decked-out Shadowsword shooting at a nightshroud: Its main volcano cannon, four lascannons, and 8 heavy bolters together will leave the nightshroud unscathed 8% of the time and alive about 43% of the time, even though "on average" it kills the nightshroud. Cue your opponent to start complaining about his dice. End statistics teacher rant.

**** Marines in cover will now last more than twice as long against scatter lasers. Also, vehicles' armor saves and increased wounds make them about 9 times longer lasting against scatter lasers. Scatter lasers are still pretty good against marine bikes, though.

Online Eryx_UK

  • Battle Brother
  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
    • March of the Damned
Re: My thoughts on 8th editio
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2017, 09:57:38 AM »
Quote from: Kvekan
I don't know what meta you've been in. But Orcs, Tyranids or Blood angels haven't been competitive at all since 5th edition. Look at any tournament and you'll see that. Especially not if you've tried to run an assault based list. Tyranids were only useful spamming flying hive tyrants with twin-linked devourers for example.

I also find it strange that people say that 40k is mainly about shooting? Why? All the books and artworks depict brutal close combat engagements. To say that assault is secondary is somewhat offensive to me as a blood angels assault player. Half the space marine type units are also assault oriented, are they not as important? Terminators, vanguards and all the heroes of the imperium beg to differ.

I'd agree that assault is even more important now just as you say Celerior, but to me it is important for all the wrong reasons. Close combat should be a gory and heroic maelstrom. Not about preventing a vehicle from shooting a turn. I couldn't be more disappointed in the close combat mechanics after my first 20 odd games.

Again, I can only report on my experiences. I've always found, right back to 3rd edition, that the sheet number of dice that an assault based army, especially orks and tyranids, can put out vastly exceeds the number of shoots that in comparison can be put into them. Even now, once those units hit my lines I'm screwed. I play with people who are both casual and competitive, and the outcome is always the same. Put me up against an equally shooty army and the game balances out. With 8th we all have a lot to learn and unlearn, so as time goes on maybe this is the edition to compensate for that.

The problem is that the novels and short stories are all about the action and nothing is more exciting than a description of mass slaughter and carnage. Firearms and static gunlines don't make for interesting stories. It's way the game tries to play as shoot then assault. It's one of reasons why I prefer the Tactical Objective cards. They drive the game in different ways and force you to move about the battlefield and win in ways other than murder, death, kill.
  • Death Guard / Nurgle Daemons
My Death Guard narrative blog: http://thedeathguard.blogspot.co.uk/