Following the belated success of Age of Sigmar, it was only natural that Games Workshop would make efforts to bring 40k more in-line with that ruleset. Whether this was a positive change is up for debate, but I don't think anyone can blame the games design team for trying to simplify and unify their different games systems. 40k and Fantasy have always had fairly similar rules; but the rift between them grew exponentially when Age of Sigmar was released. And to say the release of AoS was tumultuous would be an understatement. To put it bluntly, it was very ham-fisted on Games Workshop's part, and caused a great divide in the community. With the release of Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition, its clear they did not want a repeat of that whole backlash.
The result is a game that feels like its stuck in some sort of weird limbo. 8th Edition has clear inspiration from AoS, but is still trying to be its own game; a 'natural' evolution of 40k. Let's be real for a second, Fantasy was a fairly stereotypical/cliche high fantasy setting, and it was hard for Games Workshop to create their own niche in such a scenario. That is perhaps the reason they gutted the original Fantasy background and replaced it with something different in Age of Sigmar; the fact the rules changed so drastically was probably in response to other companies' simple and approachable rules syetems, and by that point Fantasy was far too complex for its own good. But they could not do the same for 40k. The grim darkness of the far future is a truly beloved franchise, and many of its facets, although heavily inspired by various pop culture sources, are iconic in their own right. They could not simply "Age-of-Sigmarify" 40k without suffering heavy, if not company-destroying, losses. So yes, 8th Edition is a natural evolution of 40k, though in many cases it feels a bit like a step backward.
One of the chief reasons I feel 8th Ed took a step backwards was in the 'additional' rules and all the bookkeeping that entails. I don't mean supplements. I mean the core rules that feel like they have been simply added to the system to make it feel complex, but instead just make it feel bloated and frustrating.
I think my biggest bugbear with this whole 'additional rules' thing is the Stratagems and Command Points system. Firstly, why was this system introduced? Well, in previous editions it was perfectly acceptable for players to take units and models from various different armies and codex books to create uber-powerful forces of destruction. This led to the whole "deathstar" unit debacle and generally made the game unenjoyable. 8th Ed introduced a system called "battleforged armies". If your army was built of entirely of models from a single codex, and pertained rigidly to one of the many detachment tables, your army was "battleforged" and gained additional Command Points. That's all well and good, but this system was added to persuade players to build codex armies and reward players who built armies entirely from 1 book. But surely that was the whole reason they added in the keyword system as well?
The keyword system ensures that certain abilities (such as special rules belonging to a character) only affect models from the same codex or with the same keywords. And it goes even further, right down the individual chapter, regiment, legion, craftworld, clan, etc. So what's the point in adding the battleforged system? Its redundant when the keyword system has all of their bases covered anyway (or at least it should if the writers are diligent enough). It feels like having a battleforged army just adds even more benefits to an army that already has the benefits of having the same keywords. It should have been one or the other, not both.
This brings me to the Stratagems themselves. In a nutshell, if your army is battleforged it gains a few bonus command points, which can be spent during the game to use stratagems. Stratagems are special rules that can greatly impact the game in various ways. They seem like an interesting idea in theory, but they just add more bloat to a game system that was apparently supposed to be a simplification of the rules.
I'll come back to this briefly, but to illustrate my point I'd like to mention faction abilities. These include chapter tactics, which give your army bonuses depending on the Space Marine chapter you have taken, legions tactics, which are the Chaos equivalent, and so on. These rules were missing in previous editions but have been brought back, and are a very welcome addition. They are another way you can choose to customize your force for both a strategic and fluffy addition to your army. Wasn't this enough?
Now, not only do we get faction abilities but we also get Stratagems, codex-specific Stratagems, and now also faction-specific Stratagems and unit-specific Stratagems. Its just layers upon layers of extra rules and things to remember. Whatever happened to just making units good and synergistic in their own right? It feels like they are simply adding additional trump cards into each army to cover the fact each unit isn't that interesting anymore, even though that isn't the case. I'm sure the rule came from a good place, but its just clunky and wholly unnecessary.
Another few tidbits I feel have removed from the experience is the lack of tactical choice. What do I mean by this? By "tactical choice", I mean those little moments in games where you have to make a decision that could change the future of the game in some small, but ultimately meaningful way. For example, your devastator squad only has a few of its lascannons in-range to fire at an enemy tank. Do you move the lascannons that aren't in range closer but forego their shooting for a turn? Or do you shoot at something else that is in range with all of your lascannons to maximize efficiency? Or do you still fire at the tank with reduced efficiency in the hopes of bringing it down? Or do you break from your entrenched position to move closer but lose the cover bonus? These are no longer tactical choices as you can overcome any of these situations.
Now, you can move and fire heavy weapons (albeit with -1 to hit) so that is no longer an issue. Or you can split your fire between enemy targets, so that is no longer an issue. Say an enemy unit are also baring down on you and will charge next turn. Do you forego shooting entirely to charge that enemy unit and rob them of their momentum? This, again, is no longer an issue as you can freely charge after firing heavy weapons now.
This is what I mean by removing tactical choice. Another example is cover: do I run through cover for a bonus armour save but risk not moving as far, or do I stick to open terrain and cover ground more quickly but risk being shot to pieces? Do I move my transport through cover and risk immobilising it? This is no longer an issue as cover doesn't slow movement anymore, so there really is no choice: free cover always wins.
I understand why they changed this - its lowers the skill ceiling and makes the game more approachable. Or does it? They tried to unify and condense the rules to a point where everything works on a very similar level to reduce the rules you are required to remember, but that is moot because you still need to remember that heavy weapons fire with -1 to hit if you move, so the rules are still there, they are just different. There are still things you need to remember, they've just removed the tactical choice. Its a reduction of the skill ceiling without streamlining the rules at all. Now there's no need to think ahead.
The removal of templates is another example. Not only did this drain the fun and flavour from a lot of the weapons in 40k, but it also removed tactical choice. Do I place this large blast on a vehicle - it'd most likely scatter but if it did land on target it would mess that tank up. Or do I place it in the middle of all this infantry so even if it does scatter it'll most likely hit something? Now, even blast weapons are basic point-and-shoot weapons with nothing to set them apart. I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we accidentally put our flamer at the back of our unit when disembarking from a transport. Before, we were punished for our mistake by being unable to place it's template to maximize its carnage (if we could place it at all), but now its no problem; it fires just like any other gun.
In general, I feel like 40k 8th Edition doesn't know what it wants to be. It feels like its arms don't know what its legs are doing. Does it was to simplify the rules? Then why bloat it with unecessary and flavourless extra rules that should be built into the units they are used for? Does it want to be more complex? Then why remove a lot of the flavour of the weapons and make tanks operate the same as infantry in an effort to 'streamline' the rules?
8th Ed is a transitionary phase. Nothing more. They clearly were inspired heavily by AoS to drastically simplify the rulesset and lower the skill ceiling, but were trying to avoid the same level of backlash AoS recieved for being so gung-ho about it. The result is a strange mishmash of ideas and concepts that seems to contradict one another. On a base level, the rules are fine and they work, but they feel like a first draft. It feels like they were toying with a lot of these ideas, but instead of refining them they simply wrote all the core concepts down in a word document so they wouldn't forget it and published that instead of a true rulebook. There is no nuance, and the flavour has been sapped from the rules in ways I don't think benefit the game in any meaningful way. The rules have potential, but so far 8th Ed has squandered that potential.
Still, on the plus side at least 9th Edition will learn from these mistakes...
So there you have it. My thoughts on 8th Edition and where I feel like it could improve. If you made it this far (and read it all) thanks, and please leave feedback in the comments. Did you agree with me? Did you not agree? Is the review in general any good? Should I do more reviews or not bother? That kinda thing.
I already have an idea for another article; one that has bugged me even more than these core rules gripes, and that is the shitshow that is the new codex format. If they change nothing else in 9th, they should change the format of each army list back to what it once was, but I'll cover that at another time.
Cheers, guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment