Episode 164: 8th Edition, Six Months In

The latest edition of Warhammer 40K is now six months old, and this edition came with a lot of promises. Simpler rules, faster games, more ways to play – GW set some lofty goals for 8th Edition. Now, six months in, have they delivered? How is that balance shaking out? Are games faster? Are rules simpler? And how well have they stuck with the challenge of creating and managing a living rules set? As we wrap up 2017, we take a look back at the last six months and talk about how the game has played out so far. Also, news and new releases – including the new FAQ announcements – and your listener mail, as well as talking about a couple of special games with listeners!

Link: Midwest Conquest 2018
Link: UnderCon 2018
Sponsor: Preferred Enemies on Patreon
Sponsor: KR Multicase
Sponsor: GameMat.eu

Theme: Metal Slug 2: Super Vehicle-001/II ‘No Need to Reload’ by RoeTaKa, courtesy of OCRemix.


5 Replies to “Episode 164: 8th Edition, Six Months In”

  1. Zingbaby

    Good episode guys. I think this podcast has definitely shifted to a more competitive mindset, it seemed more-so at the end of 7th, perhaps because now you’re mostly discussing all the new and shiny… but I’d imagine your podcast has a wide listener base; I’m definitely a narrative player, love the narrative missions and I also love power level, but I love hearing about what each codex and unit can do – not because I care about winning or beating that unit – but because it’s awesome to know, especially now that the rules seem to reflect fluff more than ever.

    Also you guys kept talking about Alpha Strike as a major issue, and I wonder if you are doing an injustice to that particular style of play… going first seems to statistically result in a win – ok, but that doesn’t necessarily have ANYTHING to do with Alpha Strike. New Eldar, or Imperial Guard going first will destroy you, and that has nothing to do with “Alpha Strike” …on the other hand, a Blood Angels player struggling to make assault viable, get’s one “Alpha Strike” Death Company into combat on turn 1 (more reliable now with stratagems) against some chaff – still has an uphill battle to fight. In fact, I really can’t think of any dominant “Alpha Strike” strategies atm, perhaps I’m just missing something obvious?

    I get that people don’t like getting Alpha strike-d turn 1, in the same way that everyone else doesn’t like getting shot to pieces on turn 1, but is that [Alpha strike] really winning competitive games? Because the armies I see winning – are not “Alpha Strike” armies… what am I missing here?

    • Munn

      What you’re missing is that ‘Alpha Strike’ means ‘doing a large amount of damage very quickly before your opponent can react’. It doesn’t refer specifically to melee or ranged, just how much crap dies early. They likely emphasized blood angels because they’re the newest alphastrike heavy army, but that doesn’t mean ‘alpha strike’ is limit to close combat.

      • Zingbaby

        Ok well that would certainly make more sense… since when did Alpha Strike come to mean anything other than assault, I definitely missed the memo… ??

        • William Schuy

          It’s not in the context of 40k, but the video game MechWarrior Online has a button to fire off all of your ‘Mech’s guns labeled “Alpha Strike”. Notably, MWO has zero melee functionality, so Alpha Strikes are exclusively ranged.

          Wikipedia also lists Alpha Strikes in the context of gaming as All-out attacks that are meant to deal large amounts of damage but may leave you overextended if they fail to do enough damage, with no distinction between ranged or melee methods.

          I’ve always referred to my Stormtrooper Drop Party lists are being an Alpha Strike reliant, and that’s due to the massive amounts of plasma and melta guns that suddenly show up without counterplay. My GK Buddy is a melee oriented Alpha Strike army due to GK’s Warlord trait allowing the rerolls of failed charges

  2. Munn

    I had to stop the podcast to talk about mortal wounds in AoS. Mortal wound output in AoS is FAR FAR more than 40k, example:

    Stormfiends can shoot 6d3 autohitting mortal wounds per turn, Skyfires with 1 buffing character can generate 2-6 on their own. The Gaunt Summoner will do 20+ mortal wounds to a large unit by itself, Stardrake has D6 chances to do D3 mortal wounds to anything on the table. LoC are pretty much guaranteed to do 8 mortal wounds between gateway and Arcane Bolt, warpfire cannons average 3 and can do up to 6, a buffed up unit of bloodletters can do 15+ mortal wounds, Thundertusks just do a flat 6 on a 2+ and these are just individual units.

    Skryre and Changehost lists can easily double the typical output of a 40k ‘smite spam’ list with lower model counts, keeping in mind that Sigmar has a much higher premium on wounds and saves than 40k does in many cases (Stardrake 560pts 16 wounds 3+ no invil, compare that to Magnus or Mortarion or most Knights)

    The issue with mortal wounds in 40k is actually that high rend is far too common so conventional saves become heavily devalued in favor of -to hit, which most mortal wound abilities bypass; or invul saves, which ALL mortal wounds bypass. And that 40k has a much worse imbalance in terms of access to mortal wounds. In AoS several armies with 0 wizards can have very high mortal wound outputs.

Comments are closed.