The new 40k

I haven't tried the new 40k, so I can't answer your questions, but I agree with your assumptions. I would assume that 40k is still vaguely the same game as it was before, or rather, that GW's core design style hasn't changed. 40k might be different in this edition than it was in last edition, but it still comes from the same approximate culture that creates all of GW's games.

The people that want sharp, precise, consistent, streamlined, tournament-focused and competitive rules will most likely be better off staying with WM I imagine. It would really really really surprise me if anyone insists that the new 40k is a more sharply balanced tournament game than WM.

I assume that if anyone wants to go back to 40k, then they will do it because they find the GW style more *fun*. More creative. Which I can relate to. But then I don't understand why they would have migrated from 40k to WM in the first place.

No in short.

In long.
Remove focus/fury and assassinate mechanic from WMH, up the pts limit to 150-200 to get a logistical nightmare, and 40k 8th edition is what you'll get. You place your armies, roll dice and then who has better stats per point\rolls better wins. That's it, that's the game.

I've played a couple games. Its far, far better than 7th, but there's still some very goofy stuff. Tank Shock is gone, and tanks can now flee from melee - which, if you partially like the theatricality of 40k (a large portion of its appeal, imho), seeing a landraider run from a swarm of gaunts is kind of stupid. There's narrative justifications for why its good or bad, but its just a little odd to me.

Targeting is still very, very abstract. A sliver of your model can see its target? Good to go for shooting.

Terrain is as loosey goosey as ever.   Rules as written,  tanks can go up sheer surfaces of certain terrain if they have movement to get completely to the flat section beyond the sheer surface.  That requires a very literal and liberal application of the RAW,  but it is indeed,  arguably RAW.

Former template weapons now just doing singular target masses of multiple wounds makes crowd control difficult. I forsee swarm armies being pretty decent for the forseable future in 8th, or until counter-crowd control comes out.

THat's most of the bad that i can tell from the very small samples of games i have played. There's also a lot to like.

Mortal Wounds vs. normal wounds is a good mitigator to invulnerable save craziness as long as mortal wounds stay prevalent on stuff that requires a roll of a 6 to invoke mortal.  Of course promulgation of mortal wounds incautiously would be bad.   The allies matrix is gone and replaced by a sense making, intuitive, and fluff aligned keyword matrix for force composition.   Armor penetration modifier system is back rather than 4th? 5th?  through 7th AP threshold system.  If you're an old salt that still chases the halcyon days of 2nd ed like me,  this makes you smile.    

THey are listening to fans and giving them what they are asking for (... crazy i know!). THe game is a lot ore streamlined, and the various forms of play do make for quite a lot of options to play the kind of game you're in the mood for. I'm on the fence... a part of me still loves the Dark Angels that got me into wargaming in the mid nineties, but i'm still just a teency bit cautious when it comes to GW. They've been making a lot of really good moves recently and its getting hard er and harder to keep on ignoring them.


There's other stuff that is good or bad depending on your take.   Silly stuff and min/maxing is still present  -  Taking Rouboute Guillieman allows for all to hit and wound rolls to be re-rolled coming from any unit within 6" of him (yes partial unit = still counts,  so this enormous bubble of re-rolls is larger than it appears).  

Deathwatch has a terminator dude that passes out a 5++ to every model in his unit rather than just to himself.  I do not believe he's a character,  though i forget if the item that does this is unique or not.

I played marines vs. marines so i'm naturally picking out stuff only from that context,  at the risk of someone invoking SPEHS MUREENS or something similar.  All the games i tested were marine vs. marine,  but i'm sure like shit exists from other codices or indices or whatever the hell they call them.

You can quickly get this up to stupidly abusive levels by taking lots of small model count,  but high shot yield troops and bubble-wrapping Guillieman in it.   Some people like this combolicious sort of thing,  some dont.   Its still very much present.


My take on it is this:  If i had existing WH armies,  i'd probably like.  Not sure if i would love it, but i'd like it,  particularly if i were of a mind that i liked AoS.   I didn't particularly love AoS,   but this is better done than that was and certainly better done pre-general's handbook.   It still has issues,  and i'm not sure i like it to invest in a 40k army again.   The depths of tactics and strategy seemed deeper,  but still not anywhere as deep as WM/H.    I did not get the feeling that the game was decided at list generation step,  but then,  i played a few games with not very much diversity in force, so that's really a tough call.

Oh snap I literally just said this exact thing the other day!

I looked long and hard at 8th ed. I came to the conclusion that while it was a step up from 7th, it was still too shallow to hold my interest for long, so the monetary investment was best spent elsewhere.

But the models are gorgeous.

But I hate painting.

I agree with both of you. WMH has a tighter ruleset, but has a very tournament/league focused core, at least locally.

40K also is very competitive locally, but GW is still loosey-goosey with it's writing style. The fact that so much required FAQ on launch is a good indication of this.

The sad part is that there are people who are willing to overlook the fact that GW still doesn't care enough about the game to be tight with their rules that it seems Stokholmish.

I've read the rules for 8e, and while simpler and easier to get in to, it does nothing to convince me I should redevote any purchasing power to it. I might if the community's attitude changes (they have been as tournament-focused as much as the WMH crown) to it being about having a fun game. But that's more about enjoying a game with friends over root beer than any actual desire to play 40K in general.

From someone who played 40k for over 10 years and then went over to warmachine at the end of MRK.2. And having tried the new 40k:

The new 8ed are better then ever, and GW is into a positive trend with better and faster faq, and trying to be more active with the community.

The same old different are there though;

- warmachine have better clear tight rules, better balance and are just supurb for competetiv play.

- 40k have the greatest and deepest fluff (may be some subjective ) and supurb models. Overall looks better on tabletop with all the 3D terrain.

I still think you have to choose between; competitive play with dull metal models on dull playing field with 2D terrain.
Or
Great looking models on nice tables, but with some cluncky rules and balancing issues.

Moving this to the area made for Non-WMH games