Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: TWD on 18 June 2017, 09:52:52 PM

Title: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 18 June 2017, 09:52:52 PM
We played a game of new 40k on launch day - nothing too taxing, just a simple line up and fight affair.
Dice were rolled.
Plastic (and a few metal) men were pushed around.
One rule thing was unclear.
Fun was had.

(http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r195/webdeak/40k/40K%208th%20ed_0003_zpsamp3mny4.jpg)

More pictures, brief AAR and some thoughts over on my blog
http://tomstoysoldiers.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/40k-8th-ed-first-game.html
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Elbows on 18 June 2017, 10:10:31 PM
While I'm not fully convinced I'll be diving into 8th, I've got an index on the way and will take a crack at it later this week (there is a large group here who plays, so it's a way to roll some dice).

It can't be worse than 7th. :D
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Sir_Theo on 18 June 2017, 10:59:24 PM
Inwanttm to reserve judgement till I've seen the indexes but so far I'm feeling pretty positive. Seems entirely the correct direction.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Hobby Services on 18 June 2017, 11:43:00 PM
One rule thing was unclear.

If you mean burnas hitting automatically on overwatch, you played it correctly.  Figuring out how to deal with flamer weapons during assaults is a new tactical puzzle.  Some units (like the 20 burna mob) just cannot be safely charged by much of anything, but you can get around it by throwing a sacrifice unit in first to eat their overwatch shot.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 19 June 2017, 05:18:27 PM
If you mean burnas hitting automatically on overwatch, you played it correctly. 

Whilst I agree with your interpretation I wonder how you can be so sure that's the right version of the rule. I can see how it can be read as the opposite.

Quote
Figuring out how to deal with flamer weapons during assaults is a new tactical puzzle.  Some units (like the 20 burna mob) just cannot be safely charged by much of anything, but you can get around it by throwing a sacrifice unit in first to eat their overwatch shot.

Except there's no Overwatch "shot" any more, you can fire multiple times at different chargers as long as you're not in combat. So if your sacrificial unit dies on the way in or fails to complete it's charge then the burnas can continue to Overwatch fire against any subsequent chargers.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Hobby Services on 19 June 2017, 05:58:09 PM

Whilst I agree with your interpretation I wonder how you can be so sure that's the right version of the rule. I can see how it can be read as the opposite.

I'm assuming the GW demo guy I saw doing it that way knew what he was doing.  Which admittedly may be a risk.

Quote
Except there's no Overwatch "shot" any more, you can fire multiple times at different chargers as long as you're not in combat. So if your sacrificial unit dies on the way in or fails to complete it's charge then the burnas can continue to Overwatch fire against any subsequent chargers.

All you need is to get one "sacrifice" to get into combat and the target unit is shut down.  It's not much of a challenge IME, although you can't pull it off with very small/squishy units or (most) lone characters.  A 20-ork burna squad will probably require some thinning down before you charge them, but the more normal 1-3 flamer weapons you'll be facing just isn't enough to reliably kill every single charging model even with help from the other hit-on-6 guns in the target unit.

Hmmm.  20 burnas = 20d6 autohit S4 0AP shots = 70 hits = 35 wounds on a T4 target.  Average kills a full Marine squad if they don't have any outside buffs at all.  Won't completely roast a five-man Terminator squad (because yay, 2 wounds apiece).  Might or might not stop a six-model Tyranid warrior squad.  Certainly won't stop a 30-strong tidal wave of termagants cold, and then the genestealers behind them have a safe stroll into combat.

Even the extreme cases don't make overwatch totally reliable.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 19 June 2017, 06:38:59 PM
Ork burnas are also only D3, not D6 like Flamers, so even less reliable. Still pretty scary though!
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Agis on 19 June 2017, 08:00:10 PM
Hmm, Overwatch still bugs me also.
It still favors low BS armies like Orks.
You only hit on 6s, not much of a deal for Orks, but why are SM also hit on 6s will never make sense for me.

Simple house rule: treat all Overwatch shooting as if shot by a Heavy weapon after moving, = -1 to hit.
SM would hit on 4+, Tau on 5+, Orks on 6+.
Makes IMO more sense and is equally simple. In addition no auto hits on overwatch.

Just imagine a SoB Retributor squad with Heavy Flamers...  ;)
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Hobby Services on 19 June 2017, 08:37:06 PM
Hmm, Overwatch still bugs me also.
It still favors low BS armies like Orks.
You only hit on 6s, not much of a deal for Orks, but why are SM also hit on 6s will never make sense for me.

It's probably a balance issue.  Unlike 2nd edition you don't give up anything to get your overwatch shots, they just happen automatically if you're charged.  If you had to skip shooting (and could respond to any enemy movement, like the old days) then sure, hitting on BS or BS-1 would be fine.  But for free defensive fire that can (in theory) happen multiple times in a turn?  Too strong in a game that wants melee to be viable.

Now you could debate why or if melee should be viable in a scifi game, but I have a Tyranid hive fleet worth of models that says it needs to be.  :)

Quote
In addition no auto hits on overwatch.

Nah, charging face first into a flamethrower should be a painful experience.  Even my hormagaunts wouldn't argue that.  Besides, flamers need a clear role now that templates are gone and being the go-to weapon type for defensive fire seems reasonable.  That's especially true since the cover rules bizarrely apply a bonus to the target's save rather than a penalty to shooter accuracy.  If it was harder to hit troops in cover then flamers would have that going for them as well, but as it stands they're actually pretty bad at bunker clearance due to low AP values.

Now that I could see house ruling.

Quote
Just imagine a SoB Retributor squad with Heavy Flamers...  ;)

My wallet can't stand the strain of dreaming about Sisters.  Why oh why didn't I buy an army of them back in the Nineties?   :'(
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Elbows on 19 June 2017, 09:11:20 PM
Overwatch in 8E is much like other overwatch uses in 40K...it's a bit of a mess.  I agree it doesn't make much sense that it evens the playing field for everything in the game.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Pictors Studio on 20 June 2017, 01:36:50 PM
I agree with Agis about the overwatch thing.  It seems that it could be better if there were some acknowledgment that a unit that is better at shooting is also going to be better at shooting quickly, even if that weren't always the case. 

There is no initiative score anymore so you couldn't use that to determine overwatch or snap shots.  If you had initiative and the BS was like it was you could substitute initiative for BS for overwatch. 

They were often the same anyway, but could be different.  A model with a BS of 4 and an initiative of 3 would hit on a 3+ normally but a 4+ on overwatch.  Alternately give them a penalty to it so it is Initiative -1 or something. 

I'm not sure that a -1 would be enough, as even at 4+ charging into a squad carrying weapons would be tough.  Maybe half it, so 3+ goes to 5+, 4+ to 6, 2+ to 4+ and so on. 
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 20 June 2017, 03:04:54 PM
If you change the overwatch rules you'd have to adjust the points values of the troops -  Marines suddenly get a lot better at defending obstacles and given quite a few scenarios require the taking and holding of objectives....

I'm not terribly bothered about "realism" in a game involving Space Orcs and gravity defying vehicles. I just wanted the rule to be clear :)

One other thing, if someone wants to use 20 Burnaz against me he darn well better have 20 Burnaz. That's five (only four in each) boxes of Burnaz he needs to buy assemble and paint.
If you turn up with a single (old, metal) Burna and 19 undercoated Black Reach Ork Boys three of which you've bluetacked oil cans to the back of then you'll be looking for someone else to play against 😁

Theoryhammer is all well and good but you need to spend your money and paint your soldiers (mostly - I know some of mine are wearing very black uniforms :)  ) if you want to put your tactics into practice.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Elbows on 20 June 2017, 08:25:38 PM
That's always a bugbear of mine with 40K.  The "flavor of the week" meta army which is all counts-as models.  Make your models and use them.  If you're tactically inflexible, that's your fault. :D
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Inso on 20 June 2017, 08:54:03 PM
Surely, if they pay the points and have made it clear what they are, why should it matter if they are counts as? I have a Squat army, tailored to the Astra Militarum codex... EVERY miniature is counts as.

Also, unless you try stuff out, how are you going to learn?

Seems a bit snobbish not to play someone just because they haven't spent all their money on something just 'because'...
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 20 June 2017, 09:04:48 PM
So you want to take some unit that the Interweb has told you is made entirely of Cheesy win but you don't want to put any effort, or money into actually modeling those soldiers? :?

And then when someone works out how to beat it you'll just proxy the next latest UberWin unit? :o

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable being a massive snob about that kind of WAAC nonsense. Buy your soldiers, paint 'em up and we can play. Otherwise you can look elsewhere for "learning"

Fortunately I only ever play with about six people all of whom meet my rigorous standards, so this is never an issue.  lol
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: Inso on 20 June 2017, 09:18:31 PM
Power gaming doesn't sit well with me either but I would play against them (if I gamed). It would be a challenge to take them down... make it more of a game.

But I guess it's horses for courses.

I sort of see miniatures as playing counters so I would happily play against paper standees as long as they clearly represented the troops they were supposed to.
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: AWu on 20 June 2017, 10:06:12 PM
Gentlemen.. few burnas are really not worth your disagreement when interwebz are tinkering with 192 Dark Eldar Razorwing flock bases :)
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: TWD on 20 June 2017, 10:26:39 PM
Gentlemen.. few burnas are really not work your disagreement when interwebz are tinkering with 192 Dark Eldar Razorwing flock bases :)

I have no idea what any of this means but it sounds bad.
 ;D
Title: Re: A first game of 40K 8th edition
Post by: AWu on 20 June 2017, 11:11:10 PM
Worth.. worth damn correct :P

And its sound worse than is in reality (most probably)

But on the paper: army of 4 beastmasters and 192 Razorwing flocks is impressive..
Each base of birds has 4 wounds and 8 attacks..
So, the worst minds in Dark Eldar community re really tempted to try it.. fortunately nobody have models for it :)  So far..  :o