Help support TMP


"Warhammer 40k 8th edition" Topic


24 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the SF Battle Reports Message Board



778 hits since 17 Jun 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

noigrim17 Jun 2017 12:30 p.m. PST

I got my first games with the new edition, its better in all aspects than the previous one. Where 7th was stressful, 8th is relaxed. Before you couldn't finninsh any games due to having to check the rules every second, now you can play several games in no time.

That's what a game is supposed to be

link

CorpCommander17 Jun 2017 12:43 p.m. PST

Nice write-up. It took hours for me to download the rules, as part of the Rules Bundle, this morning. Hoping to give the rules a try this evening!

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2017 12:47 p.m. PST

That's what reboots are for, to make the old seem fresh again.

Neal Smith17 Jun 2017 7:53 p.m. PST

I got to play the starter set scenario today and it really was a lot of fun. Relaxed is a good word for it. Things were just so much more streamlined.

I'm a little concerned about flamers, but we'll see.

Now to read your blog post!

Edit: Yep, I see flamers are pretty rough… :)

basileus66 In the TMP Dawghouse17 Jun 2017 11:16 p.m. PST

Had my first game yesterday, too. I have mixed feelings.

In the plus side is that the game is more streamlined and easy to follow.

In the negative side is that some things have been excesively dumbed down. My main criticism is how vehicles are treated. Now they behave just like infantry. It is irrelevant if your vehicle is shot by the flank or rear; you always have the same armor save. Therefore there is not an incentive to try protect the rear or the sides of your vehicles.

Also, as they have not firing arcs for their weapons, with the rules as written, you can shot all the weapons of your vehicle regardless the facing. The rule for LOS says that you need to check it by looking from the weapon, and at first I thought that was a perfect way to avoid the absurdity of having 360 fire arcs for spontoon weapons, for instance. However it also says that models in your own unit don't impede LOS, therefore if the only thing blocking the LOS of a weapon in your vehicle is the vehicle itself, the LOS is not blocked and you have the silliness of 360 fire arc.

My son and I will try other approach. We will use facings as described in the section of special rules for dogfights. Also we will modify armor saves for vehicles, depending on the facing of the vehicle. Thus, for example, a Leman Russ will retain its 3+ armor save for hits in the frontal arc, but we will reduce it to 4+ in the sides, and 5+ for the rear. Also we will apply the rule for LOS as written but with the proviso that your own vehicle blocks line of sight of its own weapons if it passes through it.

noigrim18 Jun 2017 5:56 a.m. PST

Yep the vehicle rules don't have much sense, no damage charts also

chuck05 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian18 Jun 2017 6:58 a.m. PST

I dont like the simplification of the psychic phase or that anything can wound anything.

ordinarybass Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2017 7:46 a.m. PST

Looks like alot of fun. None of the drawbacks I've seen listed by other players really seem like drawbacks to me. I like I love the idea of getting my figs on the table with as little fuss as possible.

Trying to download the free starter rules now…

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2017 9:52 a.m. PST

I think the new vehicle rules redressed certain issues in previous editions. Vehicle versus infantry isn't "all or nothing" any longer. I lost count of the number of times all my heavy weapon-equipped infantry were taken out by opponents who knew that once I have no heavy weapons left their armor can operate with impunity for the rest of the game. I feel like conceding defeat right there. Now small arms have an admittedly slim chance of luckily hitting a weak spot on something they previously wouldn't even have bothered shooting at.

Armor is also more resilient in the new edition. By ditching armor values in favor of toughness and wounds, tanks and walkers are no longer lost after just one hit. Now it takes multiple hits to remove them. By dispensing with side and rear armor vulnerabilities, tank conmanders should rejoice and be more aggressive in advancing their vehicles.

Yes, these revolutionary changes will require a paradigm shift on the part of 40K vets who's been playing the game the same way for so long, but we'll get used to it before long.

Codsticker18 Jun 2017 10:04 a.m. PST

Hmmm… shame about tanks being the same toughness on all facings. I like the idea of different saves per side.

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2017 12:05 p.m. PST

If armor facing is an issue for you, it can easily be house-ruled.

Just halve the vehicle's Toughness value to the rear and reduce side facings' Toughness by 25% rounding up.

Likewise the firing arcs from previous editions can be kept.

noigrim18 Jun 2017 12:06 p.m. PST

true vets played with thoughness back in roguetrader ;(

Neal Smith18 Jun 2017 12:34 p.m. PST

basileus66 said:
Also, as they have not firing arcs for their weapons, with the rules as written, you can shot all the weapons of your vehicle regardless the facing. The rule for LOS says that you need to check it by looking from the weapon, and at first I thought that was a perfect way to avoid the absurdity of having 360 fire arcs for spontoon weapons, for instance. However it also says that models in your own unit don't impede LOS, therefore if the only thing blocking the LOS of a weapon in your vehicle is the vehicle itself, the LOS is not blocked and you have the silliness of 360 fire arc.


Can you point me to where it says you can see through a vehicle?

The rule, that I read, said that OTHER models in the unit don't block LOS. I think your interpretation is a bit strange.

Der Krieg Geist Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2017 10:12 p.m. PST

Neal Smith, I was thinking the exact same thing. Some folks seem to fly way off into left field and out of their way to misinterpret simple concepts. ;D

Neal Smith19 Jun 2017 7:43 p.m. PST

I have found that you really do need to read the rules thoroughly and sometimes I've had to read sentences multiple times to make sure I got the nuance.

It's a similar game to the past, but it IS different.

basileus66 In the TMP Dawghouse20 Jun 2017 4:15 a.m. PST

LOS rule as written: "if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting MODEL to see if any part of the target is visible".

Not the "weapon". The Model. As long as I see the target by tracing the LOS from behind the model, the actual position of the weapon IN the model is irrelevant to LOS purposes. Therefore, a sponton mounted weapon in the left side of a tank can target an enemy unit located in the right side of the tank, as long as a LOS can be traced to them from BEHIND the TANK, not the weapon.

That is the rule as written. Yes. It is a good idea to read the actual rule.

You welcome.

basileus66 In the TMP Dawghouse20 Jun 2017 9:28 a.m. PST

I was thinking the exact same thing. Some folks seem to fly way off into left field and out of their way to misinterpret simple concepts.

You one of them, apparently. LOS is not traced from the weapon, but from the model.

basileus66 In the TMP Dawghouse20 Jun 2017 9:34 a.m. PST

By dispensing with side and rear armor vulnerabilities, tank conmanders should rejoice and be more aggressive in advancing their vehicles

I use an armored heavy Imperial Guard army. That my tanks are more resilient and difficult to take out doesn't make me happy. I don't dislike the idea of Toughness or Armor Saves. What I dislike is that trying to use your vehicles in a sensible way by protecting your weaker armor is now irrelevant. That dumbs down the game too much for my tastes, regardless how much my tank army benefits from the change.

Der Krieg Geist Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2017 1:19 p.m. PST

basileus66, yeah sure, play with your toys any way you want and enjoy the ensuing arguments.

Der Krieg Geist Supporting Member of TMP20 Jun 2017 1:23 p.m. PST

they, more then likely dispensed with the armor facings because it had little effect on the game. Most armies had troops that moved so far and so fast that they could fly/run/jump/teleport behind vehicles and punch holes in the rear armor anyway. Silly tactics evolve from silly rules. :D

basileus66 In the TMP Dawghouse20 Jun 2017 1:52 p.m. PST

basileus66, yeah sure, play with your toys any way you want and enjoy the ensuing arguments

I see that you have no commentary to the fact that you did also mis-read the rule in question.

Bleeped text

deephorse23 Jun 2017 8:15 a.m. PST

I don't have a copy of these rules so cannot read basileus' quote in context, but simply going from the quote I don't see how you can interpret that as being able to shoot through the firing vehicle. Still, he calls them spontoon (sic) weapons so maybe 'spontoon' weapons can do this?

138SquadronRAF Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2017 8:45 a.m. PST

Gentlemen, basileus66 not a native English speaker, and he misspoke here. His "Spontoon" weapons are i believed "Sponson". Think of the side mounted guns on the Land Raider. A restricted arc of fire for such weapons is sensible.

Personally I'll miss his input on TMP during his termporary, enforced absence.

Der Krieg Geist Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2017 1:38 p.m. PST

Sad you have to be bleeped in a civil discussion. I did not mis-read the rule, I think your interpretation of said rule is flat out wrong and silly to boot.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.