Guest Post- 8th Edition 40k as a Tournament Game

Hi everyone, Innes here. Following Caledonian Revolution, Michael asked me to put together an article about what I thought about 8th as a tournament edition, so I’ve put together a short piece on the strengths and weaknesses of 8th Edition for tournament play.

For me personally, I was a massive tournament player in 7th, and I very much enjoyed all the game had to offer in terms of list building, tactical depth and options available; whether it was in the psychic phase, or the intricacies of multi-charging and list design. Moving into 8th then, it became obvious from the articles that Games Workshop were attempting to reduce the level of over complication in the game. As a person who thrived on that over complication, I’ve been very much concerned about where 8th edition would be as a game for tournaments. 

Now, 4 weeks into 8th Edition (and 6 weeks after we’ve had rules), I’ve played around 40 games, and 3 events, and I think a number of general trends have emerged, both positive and negative. 

One positive aspect of 8th Edition is that the game is much faster, and easier to just get on with. Over 3 events, I have only consulted the rulebook once, and I don’t even think it was for my own game. I’ve spent a lot more time checking indexes just to make sure I have my unit rules down, but as more games are played by everyone, that time slowing factor will go down. The speed of the game is also helped out by the following:

Everything dies. I’m not sure if this is a positive or negative factor, it’s just how the game is now. There are absolutely no units with even close to the resilience of 7th Edition, between Ironstar, Veil of Time, Invisibility and even Jink, all units go down to firepower at a much easier rate. The change in Twin Linked, combined with the easy access to rerolls means that many units can put out twice the effective firepower than in 7th. 

Alpha Striking is almost certainly a problem that exists because of how easy everything is to kill. By going first, as most armies have such high firepower, they can absolutely rinse opposing armies in a single turn, crippling their effective output. Whether it’s 5 Stormravens, 6 Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks, 50 Plasma Guns or 10 Tau Commanders with Fusion, Cyclic Ion Blasters or Missile Pods, all of these armies possess the capacity to table opponents in 3 turns, and it often comes down to simply whoever has fewer deployments, or if you seize. I played two games in an hour and a half with Ravens vs AdMech Gunline. In both games, it was over by the end of the first player’s turn 2. 

This is an issue that I’m not sure can actually be resolved given the games current state. Firepower outclasses defensiveness by such a margin that there’s no way to restate that balance. If you put that balance in psychic powers, only some armies have access. If you change twin linked, armies that don’t rely on it such as Knights or Tau remain powerful. There are possible solutions like increasing the cost of ranged weapons across the board, etc., but they’re large changes that will drastically affect how the edition plays, and at 4 weeks in, how likely are such changes to occur?

Unbound in 7th Edition was practically a dirty word, you’d never see an event use it, and even casual games generally stayed away from it. In 8th Edition, however, unbound feels like the order of the day. Take whatever units you want, pay a 30-100 Point Tax for a HQ if that unit is an Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support, or none if they’re Fliers or Superheavies, and laugh as you deploy 1500 points of the same 2 units with some buff characters and scoring. 5 Stormravens and Guilliman, 3 Knights and Scoring, 10 Commanders and 7 Squads of Drones, all of these armies come across as formations from 7th. You have very few downsides and almost no restrictions due to the wealth of detachments available which make spamming not only the best option available, but also the easiest way to go about playing 8th.

Another thing that arises due to the lower complexity is that many armies and characters feel the same, or similar. With Characters in Imperium, Chaos and Xenos having very similar rules, a small buff, generally Reroll 1s or to hit or wound, or a buff like +1 to hit. This complexity could very well be added back in with Stratagems, Relics, Warlord Traits, etc. in the upcoming codices, but at present the game sorely lacks depth. For example, the Dark Apostle and Chaplain differ only in And They Shall Know No Fear versus Death to the False Emperor. At a tournament level, what this means, is that since armies are so homogenised, it’s very easy to dismiss entire sections of armies due to their options for units, allies and such being so much weaker. Any Chaos list wishing to use a Dark Apostle and Chaos Marines may as well use a Chaplain and Space Marines as the support available to the Imperium is so much better

Obviously, with the state of 8th being as it is, comp systems have already arisen. No duplication of detachments is a big one that helps to limit spam in a lot of ways. Another is mixed Maelstrom and Eternal War missions which give armies multiple avenues to compete. 

An interesting mission development we've seen from the ITC is using Power Levels as a unit’s ‘kill points value’. While I like the idea behind the system, rewarding players for killing tougher units, I don't think the power levels system is developed enough to support it, and has some glaring issues such as 10 brimstones having a PL of 5 and a points value of 20, well outside the normal 20:1 conversion rate. Another such issue is the fact that Imperial Knights suffer greatly compared to Renegade Knights, as all Renegade Knights have the same power level of 23 compared to IKs which range from 23 to 27 for the same loadouts, punishing certain armies. With further development to get rid of certain edge cases, it could certainly be turned into a viable and interesting system.

Another change that ITC have made is modifying the first turn system to being a dice roll, with an advantage if you finish deploying first. While I understand the idea behind this, having neither player know who's going first until after deployment removes any ability to plan for the eventualities, effectively meaning players have to hedge their bets. I don't think that removing the list building criteria for going first is an appropriate way to curb the alpha strike problem, as it effectively means that players can freely spam units with very little punishment. Combined with the kill points system benefitting MSU armies as their units are worth less VPs, the ITC system definitely moves towards punishing mid-sized armies, rather than accommodating for them, as there are benefits to being only at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Expect to see armies with either 5 or 20+ deployments take the lead in ITC. (Especially things like 8 point acolytes that can deploy in any vehicle that don't give up very many VPs at all). 

Overall, I think 8th Edition has a long way to go to become the same caliber of Tournament Game that 7th Edition was, whatever the flaws of 7th. The game comes across as much simpler, faster and more deterministic than armies of 7th Edition did. Even in the worst matchups, at a competitive level, powers, random rolls and in game mechanics could allow you to win a poor matchup, whereas in 8th, it feels like it’s purely down to list composition and seizing, and I’m not sure how much long term viability that will have. With the European Team Championships coming up in just a few weeks, we’ll see exactly what lists rise to the top, and start seeing exactly how well balanced this edition is. 

Thanks once again to Michael for allowing me the opportunity to put something together for his fantastic blog, and I hope that this article gives everyone here something to think about going forward!.