There are a limited number of issues I and other have found to date:
1. They put out a longer and new list of common magic items but then put on page 500 and in the FAQs comments that are difficult to interpret and effectively say, if taken literally, that the old points for the common magic items in 7th edition still aplply for every army that has the common magic items listed with points in the army book. This has led to a number of debates among experience players as to whether that makes any sense. The enchanted shield is now much lower cost in 8th edition but the army books still list its old 7th edition cost, so, for now, people are saying you have to use the old cost given the FAQs and BRB. Similarly, they increases the costs of most of the other 7th edition common magic items and deleted one of the items and, yet, the army books list the old 7th edition costs and the FAQs say follow the army book costs where listed. Does that mean I can't use the item not listed in the 8th edition book or not? Do I pay the new price or the old price for the common magic items? This needs an FAQ to be clarified.
That being said, I like the larger list of common magic items in 8th edition, it just should be the case that the new common magic item points costs rule unless the magic item appears in the army-specific (race specific) lists for magic weapons, armour, arcane, talismen, enchanted items.
2. The rule for stupidity is poorly written and can be seriously misread, leading to arguments about whether a model subject to stupidity tests is always ITP or only ITP if it fails the stupidity test. This needs an FAQ to be clarified.
3. The random charge distance is kind of interesting but they way they implemented it wrong (swiftstride is goofy and not much of a benefit). Effectively, rolling 2D6 gives an average flee or pursuit of 7", while a model with swiftstride will average 7.9". So, being swifter means only a slight benefit. You're telling me my 10M flyer and 9M fast cav can only flee an average of 8" while the infantry charger on foot gets a charge of M + 2D6", which is an average of 12" for elves. Also, a M4 infantry can charge an average of 11" as compared with 8" before, whereas a flyer now charges an average of 18" as compared with 20" before. I'd have liked to see GW be more creative, like vary the random charge, pursuit and flee distance in some way based on the M.
4. The new BRB specifically required 2 crew members alive to shoot a bolt thrower, but RBTs for High Elves and Dark Elves only come with 2 crew members. The FAQ and rule in 7the edition that allowed RBTs to be shot with 1 crew member needs to be fixed. I kind of like the change to reactions to failed panic but would have preferred that they retained the old randomization rule, rather than a combined profile for warmachines. Now, a lucky shot on an RBT that kills one crew member will disable it. So, the RBT has 3 wounds on it, but only two crew, so it effectively can be disabled with one wound, instead of 2 wounds.
5. The new FAQs have lots of goofy changes and good changes, especially with respect to certain items.
Now, a lifetaker is now properly a magic weapon,
but then they made a steam tank T10 but made it more vulnerable to magic. The problem is that an army must have specific spells in specific lores, specific types of attacks, cannons or stone thrower direct hits to have a hope of wounding the thing. Expect to see double stanks in empire armies.
On the other hand, they did not use the new rules to limit the LOS of the Hellpit Abomination to match the new BRB rules or classify it as unqiue and, instead, made it even better by giving it thunderstomp.
The FAQs also did not have to make Anvils for Dwarves and Cauldrons for Dark Elves war machines (given the unique category) and then force the profiles to fit a combined war machine profile. Why not just say that the Anvil and Cauldron have T10 and all magic and shooting hit the object and must roll a 6 unless a cannon or direct hit by a stone to wound a crew member? Furthermore, the FAQ for the cauldron was initially wrong and had to be revised and now apparently does not allow hags and death hags with a cauldron to have poisoned attacks. How do witches not have poison?
6. A lot of the players in my area at the regional Indy GT circuit are older, like me, (except my son who plays older than his age) and sportsmanship and fair play enters into scoring. Also, people respect interesting and creative modeling and that is scored at many tourneys. We did not want and did not ask for true line of sight. Now, we will have the jerks arguing about whether they can see under you dragon to the model hiding behind it and shoot or cast at it because they can see its feet. The last thing we want is someone trotting out a undersized daemon price as a bloodthirster or lord of change, so it can hide behind a building, and a short mage as a lvl 4 so it can't be seen behind a unit while someone that put a lot of time and effort into building and modeling a creative model gets penalized for have extra bells and whistles and height or width. Also, the degree of abstraction with respect to forests made perfect sense and was uniformly understood. Now, every model behind a forest has no real protection from magic and limited soft cover protection (except a large target) from shooting with BS.
7. The new random terrain rules are over-the-top. Fortunately, 2D6 chart is optional and players can, instead, just roll for the number of items of terrain and then alternate placing terrain of their choice up to the 4+D6 number. I like more terrain but having to remember of consider all kinds of strange terrain items, including mysterious terrain will slow down the game.
8. The victory conditions in the book as written are not well-thought out and contradictory. In one place, a victory is as simple as earning more points than the opponent; in another place it is "recommended" to b e 2 times to Vps of the opponent; then an insert says 100 VP difference is a minor victory and 2 times opponent is a crushing victory (but one could have a crushing victory and yet not a minor victory in a very boring game where only a few characters and small units die).
9. The all-or-nothing rule for victory points is annoying. Killing half or more than half of a unit ought to count for something. Now, we'll have depleted units with one or a few odels running around trying to hide at the end of the game.
10. Unit size and size should matter. Steadfast should be based on unit size, not ranks. Also, I should be able to disrupt rank bonuses by hitting a unit with a large monster or five knights. Similarly, a monsterous beast as a mount should confer more protection to its rider than a simple steed. Now, Juggernauts, pegs, and daemonic mounts don't pay off and take away look out sir benefits. Additionally, a character on a monstrous beast counts as one model as compared with a 20mm rank and file model for determining the 25% panic rule and such.
1. Step up rule and striking based on ASF, iniitative and ASL makes logical sense and balances the game.
2. The percentage army allocation rules work well as long as one is playing games of 2400 to 2500 points (below that some standard lords get nerfed). It really balanced out the armies and took away or reduced the benefits of some of the broken strategies
3. The horde rules are interesting.
4. Allowing 40"mm and larger infantry and cav to rank on 3 models makes sense and is very interesting and more fair. I would have even liked to see something like a rank is 100mm wide (4 models of 25MM, 5 models of 20mm, 3 models of 40mm).
5. The supporting attack concept is interesting, including the ability to shoot in two ranks.
6. Steadfast for ranks is interesting.
7. Reducing captured banners (not Battle Standards) count only 25 points VPs, which is more fair and interesting.
8. Removing table quarters from victory points makes sense.
9. The new battle scenarios are interesting and often fun, but the watchtower scenario is too all or nothing and does not provide for stratified victory conditions needed for empires campaigns.
10. Now fear and terror are no longer so overpowered and force fewer LD tests than before and the tests kind of make sense.
11. The new magic rules work really well and balance out the game a lot but makes magic a bit too random.
12. Really like the new BSB and general rules.
13. Really like no guess range.