Lord Kragan wrote:You know, hearing some comments i love how the chat has swung from 8th edition favoring MSU to favoring hordes!
It's kind of like people are getting a better picture of the rules as they get more information and shouldn't jump to conclusion based on the 2% of rules we've been given so far. You know, like you and I have been saying for 50+ pages.
You know, I'm convinced that because of that one guy who begs for a Necron focus after every faction focus, we're going to be the last one.
Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
I do miss the RT days of 'Hay I just the new box of plastic 'Space Orks'. You want to see how they do against your box of plastic 'Space Marines'.
Wile there was a point system it was about who had the coolest models. I even had a walker made from a 1/35 scale Merkava and the Ork player was using Green Army Men Trucks and Jeeps.
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
Gamers will always figure out tiers spam and no brainers
hopefully though since gamers are the ones that are kinda directing balance efforts those things will be a lot closer to the take what you want crowed. no one is going to make a 100% perfect balanced game. but im hoping gap wont be as ridiculous as any of the previous editions.
Dudes. Da Jump is not new, you've been able to teleport Orks around for a while. Not scattering does make a big difference to it tho.
Was a bit disappointed by the Faction Focus myself, not seeing any of the uber improvements that have been heavily present in others.
The bubble effects are gonna have pretty small area effect when looking at the whole table and most other things mentioned already existed for Orks in some form, with much the same overall level of effectiveness.
Pretty much the only new thing in this article I do like is the unit size morale effect. That mitigates the disaster Battle Shock would have been. Probably won't stop my Deffkoptas running away from most battles but still...
Extra wound for MANZ is good but I don't have any and they're hellishly expensive Obviously liking choppas. Unless they're just making up for a dropped attack on ma boyz...
Previous rule articles provide more positivity for me than the FF. Hitting 1st on charges is MASSIVE for Orks. Slightly more durable transports and walkers should be a boon. Combi and twin linked weapons will be nice on certain models.
Everything depends on context of course. Much more to come. Still, I have a nagging feeling that while Orks are gonna get some nice buffs overall, they're maybe not getting as much as others and will remain a lot more fun than they are successful.
I am concerned that I'll have to drop a number of my glorious and characterful HQs now formations are gone...
We. Shall. See.
Oh and P.S. Hope I don't have to wait too long for the Grot Tank rules to pop up. FW, looking at you...
MLaw wrote: I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?
This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.
Spoiler:
Not the starting set up lots of the fluff, setting is still grim dark, everything to 40k, The model dies. Not the transport and that have finished of the farcical "I have gone before. As others have seen of information. The setting is getting new rules of like the case that "these terms such as a relatively recent adoption. To those factions. Love my Bretonnians especially. I can snipe characters, heroes and that model dies. Not the battlefield within the past and deluded, although they scream bloody murder every time a fair assessment. That's kind of like these kind of you roll of information. The model in an issue with. All these kind of June. New 40k goodness for valid criticism. I don't cry about how they have mentioned, it's funny to find out how many of a new rules are great and exclaim. It doesn't say for updates. Yet people need to find out how many gigawatts are a big campaign, new version of other wise need to AOS. Bye Bye. I like to incorporate more bloated than a jumped-up, OTT reaction to things we only have said I just reached a relatively recent adoption. To those factions. Love my Bretonnians especially. I would be rolling in the Indexes available from an over-eager faction focus articles and set up 8th edition and evil that the new version" What are those who have multiple armies, so far. Genetic superhumans are ridiculous, don't see an issue is if English isn't your site and the Indexes available from the 17th. What a wound. The only good guy countires in 40k goodness for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things like asking is their idonglephone. BORING. The people can snipe characters, heroes and subscribed to be new and never change. 30 years and deluded, although they are improving the small amount of 7th edition into 8th. Not at all. Looking forward to tiny bit of means 'Run!',,,, total lunacy. Literally the people complain about change, I need to come. The "Why isn't a drone waaaah". Why just playing wargames for the tedious terms are just because I'm not just accept that model in these arse-dribble terms are a fair assessment. That's kind of weeks. Yet people complain for updates. Yet people can give the last 20mins or so sad and good/bad members of complaints, always come from day one (at such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can say for them to explore. I own armies for example.
This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed. Personally, I say this bot-generated text is more coherent than you.
The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
Incredibly strong skunk. My point is that people are desperately trying to place factions into tiers with each new piece of information. If this edition is truly balanced, then the concept of 'tiers' evaporates and hopefully the stigma that people have mentioned in regards to playing particular factions goes with it.
It won't be. There is no chance in hell that GW (Remember who we're dealing with) will make a completely balanced game. Tiers will remain, the gaps will close. We'll be able to form complete tier pyramids within a day of the full rules releasing.
We're not just dealing with GW's design team but a rather large group of play testers and the ability to feedback problems at launch.
Any wrinkles should be wrinkled out fairly fast, especially if there are any major problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
Orks are combat junkies looking for their fix. Of course they'd push a little harder to get into combat sooner.
That said the army is probably going to be M5" (M4" Manz) outside of transports and bikes, so they'll need the extra buffs of things like assaulting after advancing to make up for their stumpy legs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
Battleshock seems to finish off crippled units faster instead of a way to wipe full sized units quickly.
lol, is somenone really complaining that others use the terms MSU, spam and tier? And does he really think that these terms won't apply to 8th edition?
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
This is what people were claiming early on with AoS, as Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound both had ways of making things immune.
Remember that the immunity for both, effectively, comes from circumstances.
An Ork unit of 30 that suffers 10 casualties from shooting might not be too hurt by it...but an Ork unit of 30 that loses 10 casualties from shooting and another 10-12 from close combat?
A unit of Hormagaunts that has its Synapse umbrella shot out from them?
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
Incredibly strong skunk. My point is that people are desperately trying to place factions into tiers with each new piece of information. If this edition is truly balanced, then the concept of 'tiers' evaporates and hopefully the stigma that people have mentioned in regards to playing particular factions goes with it.
It won't be. There is no chance in hell that GW (Remember who we're dealing with) will make a completely balanced game. Tiers will remain, the gaps will close. We'll be able to form complete tier pyramids within a day of the full rules releasing.
We're not just dealing with GW's design team but a rather large group of play testers and the ability to feedback problems at launch.
Any wrinkles should be wrinkled out fairly fast, especially if there are any major problems.
I wouldn't be so sure. Balancing a game like this is, by all respects, impossible. There are too many variables and combos for perfect balance to exist. Especially when it involves GW.
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
Yeah, how dare GW break the tradition of not giving orks anything.
I also think that instead of bonuses that actually matter and make them playable, they should have been given a lengthy worded rule that when everything is counted does not actually benefit them over the course of the game.
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
Incredibly strong skunk. My point is that people are desperately trying to place factions into tiers with each new piece of information. If this edition is truly balanced, then the concept of 'tiers' evaporates and hopefully the stigma that people have mentioned in regards to playing particular factions goes with it.
It won't be. There is no chance in hell that GW (Remember who we're dealing with) will make a completely balanced game. Tiers will remain, the gaps will close. We'll be able to form complete tier pyramids within a day of the full rules releasing.
We're not just dealing with GW's design team but a rather large group of play testers and the ability to feedback problems at launch.
Any wrinkles should be wrinkled out fairly fast, especially if there are any major problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
Orks are combat junkies looking for their fix. Of course they'd push a little harder to get into combat sooner.
That said the army is probably going to be M5" (M4" Manz) outside of transports and bikes, so they'll need the extra buffs of things like assaulting after advancing to make up for their stumpy legs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
Battleshock seems to finish off crippled units faster instead of a way to wipe full sized units quickly.
there's no chance in hell that the game will be truly balanced. Way too much variations between armies. The best we can expect is that there is no aberrations a la scatter bikes and wulfen.
It won't be. There is no chance in hell that GW (Remember who we're dealing with) will make a completely balanced game. Tiers will remain, the gaps will close. We'll be able to form complete tier pyramids within a day of the full rules releasing.
You'll be able to form them based on some conjecture. That won't make them true.
I hadn't seen this widely reported: The American Team Championship (ATC) event claims
"Any game store that carries 40k should have a copies of the Rulebook and Indexes on June 3rd for 40k Demo Days."
With so many copies publicly out there, we'll know nearly everything soon enough. I also expect more leaks, at least the Core Rules and box set units, from demo games at WarhammerFest this weekend.
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
Yeah, how dare GW break the tradition of not giving orks anything.
I also think that instead of bonuses that actually matter and make them playable, they should have been given a lengthy worded rule that when everything is counted does not actually benefit them over the course of the game.
s/
Again, you prove once again that you don't really know the game. These bonus to charge were already present in 7th edition.
And I sincerly wonder how you came to such a conclusion by reading my post.
streetsamurai wrote: lol, is somenone really complaining that others use the terms MSU, spam and tier?
And does he really think that these terms won't apply to 8th edition?
I think some of them will change meanings or end up being applied differently than before, but no, the terms in general will likely stay around.
I look forward to seeing what the new "-star" armies look like.
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
This is what people were claiming early on with AoS, as Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound both had ways of making things immune.
Remember that the immunity for both, effectively, comes from circumstances.
An Ork unit of 30 that suffers 10 casualties from shooting might not be too hurt by it...but an Ork unit of 30 that loses 10 casualties from shooting and another 10-12 from close combat?
A unit of Hormagaunts that has its Synapse umbrella shot out from them?
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Pretty much this.
They're resistant, not immune.
MSU isn't especially advisable in AoS. Yes, you might have decent Ld/Bravery, but there's ways to lower that. And if I can reliably kill just a couple then drop your Ld/Bravery to take care of the rest, you bet your bippy that's exactly what I'm going to go for.
Played right, MSU lets me deal with you faster, as I need only inflict a couple of casualties on the unit to cripple it through Battleshock. Have that happen a few times, especially in missions where VPs are bagged by bumping off units and you'll soon see it for the flawed plan it can be. Especially if I have relatively ready access to Mortal Wounds...
There is going to be a tier list.
There always has been and there always will be.
The only people who don't recognise it are either really not interested in the hobby as a game or are playing a top tier army and don't want to feel bad about steamrolling people.
The thing about a tier list is that it can be big or small. There is too much complexity however to have perfect balance.
In 7th look at say Ynarri vs... I don't know, Orks or Nids. Its not close and there is no point pretending it is. By contrast if you were to go Orks vs Nids I don't know who has the advantage (I'd have thought Flyrant spam, but if you don't go that Orks)
Again, you prove once again that you don't really know the game. These bonus to charge and reroll were already present in 7th edition.
yes they were, and they were important then to make orks work even if they only ended up working 1/5th of the time. Now that CC seems to look like its going to matter, taking away orks movement buffs would just keep them in the basement.
What didn't make a difference was hammer of wrath, and you're suggestion that they get that instead of something that allows them to actually reach combat makes me think that you dont know the game very well either. Because hammer of wrath was never good, and wouldn't even matter in 8th if the orks couldn't ever manage to lead with some charges
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
Incredibly strong skunk. My point is that people are desperately trying to place factions into tiers with each new piece of information. If this edition is truly balanced, then the concept of 'tiers' evaporates and hopefully the stigma that people have mentioned in regards to playing particular factions goes with it.
It won't be. There is no chance in hell that GW (Remember who we're dealing with) will make a completely balanced game. Tiers will remain, the gaps will close. We'll be able to form complete tier pyramids within a day of the full rules releasing.
We're not just dealing with GW's design team but a rather large group of play testers and the ability to feedback problems at launch.
Any wrinkles should be wrinkled out fairly fast, especially if there are any major problems.
I wouldn't be so sure. Balancing a game like this is, by all respects, impossible. There are too many variables and combos for perfect balance to exist. Especially when it involves GW.
We could see intentional imbalance to keep the meta from getting stuck on a specific thing become a thing too (it's common in games like DoTA and the like to release something that's overpowered so the meta changes in people taking it and developing counters to the new OP only to tone it down later).
Ideally the game will be as balanced as it can be. It won't be as perfect as a well made bed you can bounce a quarter off of, but at least it'll be be a well made bed instead of the pig sty in the barn we currently get.
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
I just got on good word that 30k will move to 8th ed. But their will be a wait until it happens.
Sadly this also means that untill the 8th ed relaunch, GW store operators will not be allowing people to play 30k games in their store after June 16th, because they will not be selling the 7th ed rule book, and don't want people playing with stuff they don't sell. It's going to leave 30k gameing in a wired limbo untill they update it.
I'm guessing the idea is that they don't want to 40k community to get split between 7th/8th like fantesy did dureing the WHFB/AoS transition, so don't want to support a OOP rule set. So I totally understand their choice from a marketing standpoint. It just sucks to get shoved to the side like that.
Again, you prove once again that you don't really know the game. These bonus to charge and reroll were already present in 7th edition.
yes they were, and they were important then to make orks work even if they only ended up working 1/5th of the time. Now that CC seems to look like its going to matter, taking away orks movement buffs would just keep them in the basement.
What didn't make a difference was hammer of wrath, and you're suggestion that they get that instead of something that allows them to actually reach combat makes me think that you dont know the game very well either. Because hammer of wrath was never good, and wouldn't even matter in 8th if the orks couldn't ever manage to lead with some charges
Again, you should read more more carefully, cause right now you make no sense at all. I said a la hammer of wrath, which means similar. I'm not asking for them to get exactly the same rule, but something that make their charge more devastating would have been a lot more fluffy than simply giving them a rule that make them move faster
axisofentropy wrote: I hadn't seen this widely reported: The American Team Championship (ATC) event claims
"Any game store that carries 40k should have a copies of the Rulebook and Indexes on June 3rd for 40k Demo Days."
With so many copies publicly out there, we'll know nearly everything soon enough. I also expect more leaks, at least the Core Rules and box set units, from demo games at WarhammerFest this weekend.
My FLGS has a GW sponsored tutorial event on the 3rd.
So yeah, we should be able to see the free rules in full by then (assuming someone gets them early and leaks them online).
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
You don't play Orks, do you?
No, but they were my first love back in the days. Still, I don't see what this have to do with anything. You do that they are other way to boost a cc army that to give them more movement?
Again, you should read more more carefully, cause right now you make no sense at all. I said a la hammer of wrath, which means similar. I'm not asking for them to get exactly the same rule, but something that make their charge more devastating would have been a lot more fluffy than simply giving them a rule that make them move faster
Something? Something like maybe getting to strike first?
Or perhaps getting AP on the nobs big choppa?
Or maybe you mean something like not having to worry about their nob geting challenged out by a sargent that doesent matter?
Or maybe not having to worry about loosing the entire squad to a LD test and an initiative test where they were absolutely hosed?
Because all of those things REQUIRE you to actually get into combat; so it makes a lot of sense that orks got some rules that allow them to actually do that. Because none of them matter if they can never get there.
ans seriously, dont tell me I make no sense if you are going to vomit out sentences like this one
[MOD EDIT - Writing it in French doesn't suddenly make it polite when it is not. - Alpharius]
Lockark wrote: I just got on good word that 30k will move to 8th ed. But their will be a wait until it happens.
Sadly this also means that untill the 8th ed relaunch, GW store operators will not be allowing people to play 30k games in their store after June 16th, because they will not be selling the 7th ed rule book, and don't want people playing with stuff they don't sell. It's going to leave 30k gameing in a wired limbo untill they update it.
I'm guessing the idea is that they don't want to 40k community to get split between 7th/8th like fantesy did dureing the WHFB/AoS transition, so don't want to support a OOP rule set. So I totally understand their choice from a marketing standpoint. It just sucks to get shoved to the side like that.
It kind of makes sense that there would be a delay as FW has a LOT of stuff to rebalance for the new edition (and hopefully playtest as well).
Their stuff based on existing units (alternate Riptides and the like) will likely be updated pretty quickly, but I can imagine other stuff (like the Manta and Warlord) will take some time to properly update which could delay 30k a bit longer.
streetsamurai wrote: don't like that orks have so many bonus to move and charge faster. They are not eldat, it doens't fit the army. Would have like much better for them to have a rule a la hammer of wrath instead
You don't play Orks, do you?
No, but they were my first love back in the days. Still, I don't see what this have to do with anything. You do that they are other way to boost a cc army that to give them more movement?
I was actually indexing the fact that something like hammer of wrath isn't going to help them actually get to combat, which was the primary issue. Making Orks competitive means some sort of mechanism to reliably get them into combat, not just buffing their combat effectiveness (which is already greatly helped by the new assault rules anyway). Rules that simulate a group of nutters who will happily charge through the worst kind of hell if means they get to crump someone is what they needed, and the glimpse of the rules that we have from the Faction Focus seem to represent that pretty well IMO.
If they hadn't done something about movement the rest of the changes wouldn't have mattered much I don't think.
Concerning why assault armies seem to be getting "faster" on the table: when an army's entire point of being is to ultimately get into face punching range, it has to have the ability to get into range to make the charge. Melee has an incredibly short range compared to shooting. In a game where some units can kite assault units, it's imperative that melee units have the ability to offset this somewhat through abilities to close the gap and actually hit the enemy.
This means that re-rollable charge ranges, the ability to advance and assault and possibly even high movement will be used individually, or possibly even all at the same time.
That said, Orks in 40k will likely be bound by the same Movement stat of Orruks: 5" for Orks, 4" for Gretchin. This means the speed an Ork gains is through the WAAAAAGH (advance and charge) and 'Ere We Go! (re-roll charge ranges). This gives them a large threat range and increases their ability to make charges above 8", but doesn't actually increase their movement stat. Basically it lets them represent how Orks will run pell mell into enemy lines.
streetsamurai wrote: lol, is somenone really complaining that others use the terms MSU, spam and tier?
And does he really think that these terms won't apply to 8th edition?
I think some of them will change meanings or end up being applied differently than before, but no, the terms in general will likely stay around.
I look forward to seeing what the new "-star" armies look like.
"Star" armies will be the new abusive, stacked synergies on alpha-strike.
For comparison, I won quite a few Age of Sigmar tournaments (including some modestly sized ones), using Tomb Kings. The army was built around Necro Knights and Chariots whose keywords made them particularly conducive to receiving buffs. Between Settra the Imperishable, a Herald with Banner, a Necrotect, and a Liche Priest, they were able to charge anything on the table, on turn 1, recovering two full models every turn, hitting and wounding on 3+ re-rollable, and generating additional attacks on a 4+ to hit.
That is what most of AoS is at the highest level, which at least isn't quite as net-listy as 40k 7th, as here positioning and such matters and is a skill unto itself, as is adapting to a mission, or when things go wrong.
But yeah... the distinction between tiers of armies in AoS is entirely based on who has access to decent synergies.
Also not that several of the old anti infantry weapons are now only wounding on a 3+ and several now allow the t-shirt save.
Anything strength 6-7 ap5-6 Now allow 1/3 orkz to survive where they wouldn't before.
That is HUGE! Now combine that with the new overlapping bonuses, and the facts that a 30 boy squad will give their leadership to everything within 6" means morale will be held steady in the early game for sure. You can also shunt the warboss anywhere you need boyz to get stuck in.
With layered defensive bonuses you wound have to spend command points keeping boyz alive, which is a pretty big bonus as well.
I believe the changes presented are going to be the bee's knees!
Does anyone think the Dorkanaut will get increased transport capacity? That's one of the things I am definitely hoping for... maybe even a fire point. What I want in there are meganobz, but you couldn't do it in 7th unless one of the 3 was killed.
Also, Reece said in his article to "get ready to dust off those killa kanz." Previously I've heard him say... maybe when their codex hit that they really got a kick in the balls from being moved from elite to heavy and decreased strength of the KanKlaw. I have to say it is my most sincere hope that kans get moved to troops. Deffdreds go to elite and Dorkanauts stay in Heavy. That would solve a lot of problems to get the models that inspired me to play orks out of the storage box.
Lastly: Did anyone notice, when he was talking about the KFF he used the word "unit" rather than "models?" Maybe just an oversight but since we are dissecting everything now, I thought that was interesting.
All in all. I think orks will be more playable. Hopefully I will be able to fields some clanking, diesel fume belching, bipedal dakka rattlers by the end of June.
Maybe a Faction specific force org of Dread Mob?
Regardless... I think I must finally bid adieu to the best things that happened to Ork meta in 7th... Cheap BuzzGob Stompa, and GreenTide. Goodbye old friends...
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
If not one name it will be another. Unfortunately so long as any game exists so will players who will literally do anything to abuse the game just to win. EVen for fun which is pathetic. Every time I get annoyed I remember the people who are serious about smash bros are the worst of all and its no so bad LOL
Hollow wrote: As others have mentioned, it's funny to see the monotonous meta-dorks twist and turn in a desperate attempt to fit 8th edition into their existing pigeon holes. As we don't have all the information yet nobody can say for sure... however; with the play-tested and newly costed simultaneous release of all units this edition, perhaps the tedious terms such as 'tier, spam, no-brainer, MSU, blobs etc' can be retired. I understand why the meta-dorks desperately cling to these monotonous descriptors, as it can give the illusion they actually know what they are talking about.
All of those words are common descriptors that describe things that will always be in the game, no matter how much GW changes it. (Unless they remove units, and make every model its own unit) What the hell are you smoking?
Incredibly strong skunk. My point is that people are desperately trying to place factions into tiers with each new piece of information. If this edition is truly balanced, then the concept of 'tiers' evaporates and hopefully the stigma that people have mentioned in regards to playing particular factions goes with it.
I agree with you condemning the game with out all of the rules math hammering 10% of a game that's not been released yet, tbh they are bad for the hobby I hope to god people who have not dipped there toe into the hobby come to this forum and read the statements made by these "meta dorks" its just all doom and gloom, I can understand being a little upset about your tau or elder not being as devastating as they were in a previous edition, but surely watching old players like my self actually come back to the hobby with the new rules out weighs reking face, you have to think of the greater good (see what I did there) more opponents for you to destroy.
just give the math hammer a rest until the rules are released then go crazy, don't sit and predict which army will be king with a hand full of rules its IMPOSSIBLE remember curios eyes are watching.
Lastly: Did anyone notice, when he was talking about the KFF he used the word "unit" rather than "models?" Maybe just an oversight but since we are dissecting everything now, I thought that was interesting.
.
A lot of AoS rules work by having just part of the unit within a certain distance of the buff. This is likely the case here. The actual wording could be different though.
"Star" armies will be the new abusive, stacked synergies on alpha-strike.
For comparison, I won quite a few Age of Sigmar tournaments (including some modestly sized ones), using Tomb Kings. The army was built around Necro Knights and Chariots whose keywords made them particularly conducive to receiving buffs. Between Settra the Imperishable, a Herald with Banner, a Necrotect, and a Liche Priest, they were able to charge anything on the table, on turn 1, recovering two full models every turn, hitting and wounding on 3+ re-rollable, and generating additional attacks on a 4+ to hit.
That is what most of AoS is at the highest level, which at least isn't quite as net-listy as 40k 7th, as here positioning and such matters and is a skill unto itself, as is adapting to a mission, or when things go wrong.
But yeah... the distinction between tiers of armies in AoS is entirely based on who has access to decent synergies.
Yeah, this seems like the most probable outcome for the new 40k
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
This is what people were claiming early on with AoS, as Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound both had ways of making things immune.
Remember that the immunity for both, effectively, comes from circumstances.
An Ork unit of 30 that suffers 10 casualties from shooting might not be too hurt by it...but an Ork unit of 30 that loses 10 casualties from shooting and another 10-12 from close combat?
A unit of Hormagaunts that has its Synapse umbrella shot out from them?
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
It's almost like when the battle starts, morale is high and not a factor, but as it drags on, leaders die, losses mount, morale drops and becomes more of a factor and more troops give up/run off. Seems rather organic and fluffy.
While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Battleshock seems mostly to speed up play by finishing off battered units. I'm Ok with that, as long as it is well balanced, though I prefer having units fall back. Since you can fall back from combat, we sill see some of the ebb and flow I like it seems, just voluntarily.
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Why slog through all the pages when Rippy keeps the OP up to date with all the information we have?
I find it amusing when 'balanced' is qualified as 'not-balanced' unless it is 'perfectly balanced' or 'truly balanced'. Consider: 'balanced enough for me to enjoy, regardless of which army I like to play'.
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
This is what people were claiming early on with AoS, as Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound both had ways of making things immune.
Remember that the immunity for both, effectively, comes from circumstances.
An Ork unit of 30 that suffers 10 casualties from shooting might not be too hurt by it...but an Ork unit of 30 that loses 10 casualties from shooting and another 10-12 from close combat?
A unit of Hormagaunts that has its Synapse umbrella shot out from them?
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
This is a really good way to show how these large armies like Orks start off in high spirits, ready to kill, but as the fight wears on, they start to waver. Conversely, you have armies like Space Marines who are more likely to keep fighting to the bitter end (barring some unlucky morale rolls).
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Battleshock seems mostly to speed up play by finishing off battered units. I'm Ok with that, as long as it is well balanced, though I prefer having units fall back. Since you can fall back from combat, we sill see some of the ebb and flow I like it seems, just voluntarily.
I can't wait for battleshock to replace morale tests.
7th: roll, fail, roll fall back, move, next turn roll again, 3" move, snapshots (but tier 1 ITC armies are all immune)
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
This is what people were claiming early on with AoS, as Stormcast Eternals and Khorne Bloodbound both had ways of making things immune.
Remember that the immunity for both, effectively, comes from circumstances.
An Ork unit of 30 that suffers 10 casualties from shooting might not be too hurt by it...but an Ork unit of 30 that loses 10 casualties from shooting and another 10-12 from close combat?
A unit of Hormagaunts that has its Synapse umbrella shot out from them?
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
This is a really good way to show how these large armies like Orks start off in high spirits, ready to kill, but as the fight wears on, they start to waver. Conversely, you have armies like Space Marines who are more likely to keep fighting to the bitter end (barring some unlucky morale rolls).
It also is a great way for the elite armies with fire discipline and target prioritization to really be shown.
With characters being the ones granting these bubbles, if the characters get sniped out or brought down...it's going to hurt the overall flow of the battle.
Lastly: Did anyone notice, when he was talking about the KFF he used the word "unit" rather than "models?" Maybe just an oversight but since we are dissecting everything now, I thought that was interesting.
.
A lot of AoS rules work by having just part of the unit within a certain distance of the buff. This is likely the case here. The actual wording could be different though.
It would be a lot more sensible for it to operate on a unit rather than model basis. Checking to see how many models in a unit are within the buff range is just adding unnecessary complication to the system.
I love how GW was all about a new morale system that will effect everyone.
Remember this? "The new Morale phase is simple, and only happens once per player turn, at the end of all your other phases. It will apply to almost every unit," or this "There will be very few units indeed that will not feel its effects." or how about this "Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone."
So far all I'm seeing is how the morale mechanic is still largely ignored.
oni wrote: I love how GW was all about a new morale system that will effect everyone.
Remember this?
"The new Morale phase is simple, and only happens once per player turn, at the end of all your other phases. It will apply to almost every unit," or this
"There will be very few units indeed that will not feel its effects." or how about this
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone."
So far all I'm seeing is how the morale mechanic is still largely ignored.
Nids and Orks mitigate the Battleshock phase but can still be forced to feel it. They don't completely ignore it like Fearless units did Morale checks.
oni wrote: I love how GW was all about a new morale system that will effect everyone.
Remember this?
"The new Morale phase is simple, and only happens once per player turn, at the end of all your other phases. It will apply to almost every unit," or this
"There will be very few units indeed that will not feel its effects." or how about this
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone."
So far all I'm seeing is how the morale mechanic is still largely ignored.
You can inflict massed cassualties on ork units with ease. And not all units may be within mob rule range.
Battleshock affects everyone.
Horde factions like nids, orks and AM do have some mechanics to help against it. This is a double edged sword, they are incredibly difficult to take down if they keep the protection, but go down real fast if you remove it (take down the big ork unit, the synapse, the commissars etc...)
You can inflict massed cassualties on ork units with ease. And not all units may be within mob rule range.
Sounds like a tactical blunder.
yeah im fine with battle shock as it is.
Not really. Imagine you've inflicted serious casualties to one big mob. The other player's forced to remove a flank or else his special character may be shot down to pieces as he is next in line. Turns out there was, say, a unit of warbikers there. BAM there you go.
You can inflict massed cassualties on ork units with ease. And not all units may be within mob rule range.
Sounds like a tactical blunder.
yeah im fine with battle shock as it is.
Not really. Imagine you've inflicted serious casualties to one big mob. The other player's forced to remove a flank or else his special character may be shot down to pieces as he is next in line. Turns out there was, say, a unit of warbikers there. BAM there you go.
If some one is being forced to make a choice then he was out played. and thats a good thing for the game.
You can inflict massed cassualties on ork units with ease. And not all units may be within mob rule range.
Sounds like a tactical blunder.
yeah im fine with battle shock as it is.
Not really. Imagine you've inflicted serious casualties to one big mob. The other player's forced to remove a flank or else his special character may be shot down to pieces as he is next in line. Turns out there was, say, a unit of warbikers there. BAM there you go.
If some one is being forced to make a choice then he was out played. and thats a good thing for the game.
it might be getting Off topic though
The game is all about choices. Where to move, who to shoot, where to pull casualties from, if you should charge, ect.
The fact that being out played is something happening on the table top due to tactics and not just list building is a wonderful thing for the game.
Community: orks have horrible, unplayable leadership mechanics!
GW: we got you with 4 different leadership negation mechanics
Community: leadership doesn't matter enough!
buddha wrote: Community: orks have horrible, unplayable leadership mechanics!
GW: we got you with 4 different leadership negation mechanics
Community: leadership doesn't matter enough!
They also kept a rule that makes charges more reliable, and made WAAAGH and every turn use rule (granted it's now a smaller bubble, but being able to first turn a bunch of units is still good even if the entire army can't do it at the same time).
Rippy wrote: OP is once again up to date, haven't read last few pages as I got over the nastiness/bickering, so let me know by PM if I missed anything.
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
I can tell you right now who at least some of the unlucky few will be. Are you ready for this revelation?
Check it out:
Ork armies whose large squads have been properly depleted, or who have been isolated from other large squads.
Tyranid armies whose synapse units have been destroyed.
What a novel concept, eh? Having to actually interact with your opponent's army in a unique way, targeting units in a more thoughtful manner then "shoot my AV at vehicles and anti-infantry at infantry and hope for the best".
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.
They also kept a rule that makes charges more reliable, and made WAAAGH and every turn use rule (granted it's now a smaller bubble, but being able to first turn a bunch of units is still good even if the entire army can't do it at the same time).
There's also nothing saying you can't take more than one Warboss either, and if that bubble ties to Warboss models, not the army general, then Orks may be able to spread it out quite nicely.
I'm more concerned about how many of the individual Ork character types will actually be HQ, or at least take up an HQ slot. That standard mid-sized force chart, the one that requires three troops, only has three HQ slots, which doesn't sound like many if Warbosses, Bigmeks, Painboys, and Weirdboyz are all HQ. I suspect some of those options will either be X per Warboss, or moved to Elite. I've been wondering why the new force org has so many elite slots, and this could be the kind of situation that mitigated for it.
MLaw wrote: I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?
This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.
This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.
The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.
There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:
1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe."
2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea.
3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)
It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.
Hmm, some neat changes to Orks. I especially like that Mob Rule is basically reverse synapse with huge hordes providing a buff to small, tougher, specialist units. It will also mean that people will have to deal with those big mobs if they want morale to affect the horde.
It is a nice way to encourage having at least one or two gigantic, leadership-boosting mobs in your army.
Mr Morden wrote: Bated breath for the Sister of Battle and Inquisition focus myself
You mean the “Barely a single line on Sisters, barely a single line on Inquisitiion, barely a single line on assassins, barely a single line on tempestus scion, …” focus.
What's the opposition of focus? Because this really doesn't sound focused to me .
adamsouza wrote: Burnas, Lootas, & Tankbusta will be extra killy, but suffer from battleshock.
Big mobz of boyz are really choppy, and will ignore battleshock until there are only a handful of them left.
Weirdboyz and Warpheadz will have an actual use on the table.
Kanz and Dreadz will be not terrible
Actually thanks to be new mob rule I don't think the small elite units will suffer that much. Remember they can benefit from the leadership value of a nearby ork squad, which can buff their leadership with numbers. There is now good reason to go horde
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.
It's working great for AoS, so I don't believe you're drawing accurate conclusions.
I like to bring 30-50 boyz (shoota and choppa) to the table in squads of 10-15. Any more and it gets a bit boring, so I hope the whole ld thing works with only like 30 boyz (because I like to focus more on Kans and Dreads as a ork player).
MLaw wrote: I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?
This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.
This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.
The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.
There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:
1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe."
2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea.
3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)
It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.
It's also important for some people to realize that there are games other than 40k where those terms are quite common. I would say there are a lot of gamers that play video games and/or non-GW games which all use common terms. For someone to say "tier" is a word that is going to go away is pretty damn absurd considering it's used to describe different levels of quality all the time.
Spam was definitely around in the 90s with games such as Warcraft, Starcraft and command and conquer. I personally dislike the term Beardy as it doesn't convey anything meaningful. I guess if you played DnD in the 80s it means more.
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.
So I played fantasy when they did a big reset like this. FYI, I had to use my temporary Woodelf army list for 5 years. Not everything will be replaced immediately. Plus my army was still competitive the whole time.
I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.
kestral wrote: While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).
Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. This is my worry about these new books as well. It doesn't seem to be in any way cheaper than the old system. If anything it's more expensive because those index books will be invalidated quickly.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.
It's infantry only, sadly. Meganobz, though!
Well, crud. I wish you could teleport walkers. It would go A LONG way to making them useful. It also torpedoes my plan B, two units of MAN's in kitted out battlewagons. Now that would be something fun to deal with on turn 1 all up in your face.
I think the price depends what you want out of the game. To get one army up and running in 8th you need the free rules and one index book. This is a cheaper entry point than any edition before. If you want the extra rules you have to buy the big rulebook which is a bit more money but seems to have the planetary assualt stuff built in.
If you want to go full competitive then you will need to buy an updated ghb type book each year, and a Codex which will be more expensive than before but should make for a better balanced game over all.
Honestly I think anyone who buys all the index books day one is kind of wasting their money. GW's rate of codex releases is much faster than before so who knows what books will get done this year.
The best choice would seem to be to choose one army, buy the index for that and try out the new rules.
These will all be stock items so they are not going anywhere.
If you find yourself liking the game then buy the big rulebook or the starter set. This is certainly my plan.
Don't think they're going to get all the codices published that fast. Honestly, take a look at past WFB editions and AoS. Sure some armies will get their codex relatively quick out of the gate, but others may take a year or two. Do you really want to risk sitting around waiting for your codex? Nobody here is going to know their exact release schedule.
Honestly, people probably don't want to admit that these indices are a steal "because GW always feths up" or something.
On the other hand, there are people like me. I have 17 armies. Buying the index books will mean that, at the very least, I will have a need for every book for at least the first 5 or 6 releases (likely more like 9) until the first index bbecomes obsolete. That's got to be at least 2 years.
I was under the impression we were getting free/very cheap rules like AOS seemed to, at least at first. That was a huge selling point for me - whatever I thought of the fine points of the 8E rules, if I didn't have to drop a couple hundred to play my armies, I'd give it a thorough trial. I suppose there is always book sharing.
Chikout wrote: I think the price depends what you want out of the game. To get one army up and running in 8th you need the free rules and one index book. This is a cheaper entry point than any edition before. If you want the extra rules you have to buy the big rulebook which is a bit more money but seems to have the planetary assualt stuff built in.
If you want to go full competitive then you will need to buy an updated ghb type book each year, and a Codex which will be more expensive than before but should make for a better balanced game over all.
Honestly I think anyone who buys all the index books day one is kind of wasting their money. GW's rate of codex releases is much faster than before so who knows what books will get done this year.
The best choice would seem to be to choose one army, buy the index for that and try out the new rules.
These will all be stock items so they are not going anywhere.
If you find yourself liking the game then buy the big rulebook or the starter set. This is certainly my plan.
Although technically I agree with your first sentence I don't think it is realistic to assume that most existing players will be happy with the free rules and an index. GW have already stated that existing players are likely to want to pick up the "advanced" rules.
I also dont think you can describe people buying the points/rules updates as "full competitive" players. If you are playing match play any opponent's basic expectation will be that you are using the most up to date rules, won't it?
Now I don't necessarily think either of the above is a problem. It is an edition change so paying for new rules is a normal expectation (along with updated army points in the form of the index) and the GHB style book is an extra expense to help keep the game balanced. I just don't think it is helpful to try and dismiss these costs by assuming most people can avoid them and keep playing as they are used to.
The two issue I see are:
- the claims of free rules seem a little clickbait-y to me. They seem more akin to a beginner mode to introduce new players. Again, GW have said they expect existing players will want the extra rule book. Therefore making a big deal of the free rules is largely irrelevant to most people on here and I can understand people being miffed
- the indexes potentially being invalidated by codexes in an uncertain timeframe. If GW do the codexes right and truly make them optional then people can stick with the indexes. My fear is that the codexes will be a bit 'pay to win' by including the most powerful force organisations, special equipment, weapon options etc. Therefore most people will want to pick them up. I would love to have my fears proved wrong though and just see the codexes as mainly fluff and background so truly optional.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.
It's infantry only, sadly. Meganobz, though!
Well, crud. I wish you could teleport walkers. It would go A LONG way to making them useful. It also torpedoes my plan B, two units of MAN's in kitted out battlewagons. Now that would be something fun to deal with on turn 1 all up in your face.
Just drive there.
It will only be a few inches back from their zone anyway.
Seriously, this has to be the least amount of news in a news thread yet. I just went 5 pages of people quoting each other without a single drop of 8E info.
This sucks. Post news, talk directly about the news or go away... please.
kestral wrote: Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.
I can tell you right now who at least some of the unlucky few will be. Are you ready for this revelation?
Check it out:
Ork armies whose large squads have been properly depleted, or who have been isolated from other large squads.
Tyranid armies whose synapse units have been destroyed.
What a novel concept, eh? Having to actually interact with your opponent's army in a unique way, targeting units in a more thoughtful manner then "shoot my AV at vehicles and anti-infantry at infantry and hope for the best".
Edited for reflexive snark. However, I don't think shooting at Synapse creatures is new....
The ork rules seem cool enough, so perhaps you're right there. Kind of a blobby Synapse, but seems interesting and reasonable.
MLaw wrote: I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?
This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.
This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.
The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.
There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:
1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe." 2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea. 3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)
It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.
I'm honestly surprised at the response I got.. mindless hate? lol.. wow.. seeing something you enjoy go from a beer and pretzel game to something people fantasize over and apparently have mindless hatred about (?) The level of reaction was kind of hilarious to me and I thank you for responding. It illustrates that I'm not hallucinating or making up some fantasy realm where every single person wasn't absolutely obsessed with some copy/paste deathstar internet list power-meta-tourney gaming.. I would, from comparing posts happily give 8th a try with someone of your mindset. That other type of personality is what has me cringing at the idea of gaming in any sort of organized scene though.
To be fair, the jargon for power gaming may not have been there in the 90's, but the power gamers were. It wasn't all net-listy and icky though, and I remember that period with great fondness.
Powergamers have never been representative of the whole hobby anyway, even if it's felt like that lately. They're just a very vocal minority. I say that with fondness too, as I'm guilty of taking some serious beard to Grand Tournaments back when those were still a thing. Different strokes. Most scenes have a wide variety of guys in them.
If you want a quick yardstick, walk into a store and look at the armies and scenery. Fully painted armies and cool terrain? Probably you kind of group. Unpainted armies and crap terrain? Maybe not so much.
kestral wrote: I was under the impression we were getting free/very cheap rules like AOS seemed to, at least at first. That was a huge selling point for me - whatever I thought of the fine points of the 8E rules, if I didn't have to drop a couple hundred to play my armies, I'd give it a thorough trial. I suppose there is always book sharing.
The core rules are free, and the army books are like 30-40 USD each. There are five army books, so it's 150 to 200 USD to get the rules for every army in the game. By comparison, codices currently range from 40-60 USD... and each codex only has the rules for one army.
So I mean, the amount of money it costs for all the rules in the game is like... I dunno... 10-15 times cheaper then how things are now?
kestral wrote: I was under the impression we were getting free/very cheap rules like AOS seemed to, at least at first. That was a huge selling point for me - whatever I thought of the fine points of the 8E rules, if I didn't have to drop a couple hundred to play my armies, I'd give it a thorough trial. I suppose there is always book sharing.
The core rules are free, and the army books are like 30-40 USD each. There are five army books, so it's 150 to 200 USD to get the rules for every army in the game. By comparison, codices currently range from 40-60 USD... and each codex only has the rules for one army.
So I mean, the amount of money it costs for all the rules in the game is like... I dunno... 10-15 times cheaper then how things are now?
Exactly this.
I've currently got - Space Marines, Chaos, Orks (so many Orks), Tau, IG, Tyranids, and I'm probably forgetting something.. but basically I would be spending let's say $35x 6.. but wait! I have Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels (and an unbuilt Crimson Fist list..) That would be at least 3 more books.
For someone who only plays one army and never plans on playing any other army ever? Yeah maybe this is frustrating.
I would also point out, this is not without precedent. In front of me now is Codex Imperialis.. A 2nd ed book that has the rules for just about anything you could think of from the era. Space Marines, IG, Inquisition, Arbites, Orks, Eldar, Squats, Chaos, Tyranids.. I'm not seeing points in this book so I'll have a look in the others that came in the box.. but it was the same concept. Moreover, the 3rd ed BRB had a interim list covering a lot of units for all of the armies that survived the transition. That DID have the points directly in it. So this isn't a new move for GW or anything, I just think they're monetizing it a bit more wisely this time around.
Aye, they should be around for a while. They help people port their current army from the previous edition to the current one and also provide the rules for units/miniatures that may not be updated for years to come (or may not be updated/relevant at all).
Zustiur wrote: Someone in my group said something stupid, but then it got me wondering, 'maybe I'm the one being stupid'.
How long will the index books be available for? Are they release only?
Presumably they'll be around until every army in them has a new codex.
I am sure GW will keep printing them and selling their digital copies. Much like the Grand Alliance books, there are probably armies that won't be getting new codexes. Talons of the Emperor is probably one of them. I wouldn't be surprised if Imperial Agents doesn't see a new version since only like five models for it are in plastic.
BlaxicanX wrote: The core rules are free, and the army books are like 30-40 USD each. There are five army books, so it's 150 to 200 USD to get the rules for every army in the game. By comparison, codices currently range from 40-60 USD... and each codex only has the rules for one army.
So I mean, the amount of money it costs for all the rules in the game is like... I dunno... 10-15 times cheaper then how things are now?
But what's in these Index books? I mean, a Codex comes not just with rules but all the fluff, artwork and miniature stuff. Will these books be several Codices-worth of information in a single book? The books would be hundreds of pages long! Or are they a brief overview of the army, then all the rules.
To say that these are cheaper and therefore better kind of ignores the content of the books.
I'm expecting lists of points and upgrades, and army-wide rules and strategems for each faction but no fluff. It'll be purely crunch that they can update in a year and re-release. The dataslates themselves will likely be free and released online - but to use them in a game with points (and not power levels)and upgrades and such will require the index. That's my guess.
It'd be a bit like a DLC model - you get the basic game for free, but to play the "advanced game" will require paying for the rules.
The AoS-equivalent of the index books are still relevant despite being released a year or so ago; some sections have been rendered obsolete by new releases but there is still more of each book that's relevant than not. Of course all the unit rules present in those books are also available for free, so it's only loosely analogous.
BlaxicanX wrote: The core rules are free, and the army books are like 30-40 USD each. There are five army books, so it's 150 to 200 USD to get the rules for every army in the game. By comparison, codices currently range from 40-60 USD... and each codex only has the rules for one army.
So I mean, the amount of money it costs for all the rules in the game is like... I dunno... 10-15 times cheaper then how things are now?
But what's in these Index books? I mean, a Codex comes not just with rules but all the fluff, artwork and miniature stuff. Will these books be several Codices-worth of information in a single book? The books would be hundreds of pages long! Or are they a brief overview of the army, then all the rules.
To say that these are cheaper and therefore better kind of ignores the content of the books.
I believe they will have minimal fluff, and when the factions have their individual codices released again, that is when we will see some extra fluff.
So it comes down to what you value for your money. You are getting alot of rules for very cheap, but not alot of fluff.
(This is some speculation, but it is based on what we have seen so far)
I would also point out, this is not without precedent. In front of me now is Codex Imperialis.. A 2nd ed book that has the rules for just about anything you could think of from the era. Space Marines, IG, Inquisition, Arbites, Orks, Eldar, Squats, Chaos, Tyranids.. I'm not seeing points in this book so I'll have a look in the others that came in the box.. but it was the same concept. Moreover, the 3rd ed BRB had a interim list covering a lot of units for all of the armies that survived the transition. That DID have the points directly in it. So this isn't a new move for GW or anything, I just think they're monetizing it a bit more wisely this time around.
All of the points and get by army lists came in a separate A4 booklet contained in the 2nd Ed box.
I still have mine to reminisce over the Squats and Ogryn champions for Orks.
Unless I'm missing something, under the new Mob rule, if I have a mob of 30, you manage to kill 15 (not that hard, even with KFF and 6+ FNP), they take another d6 battleshock casualties because their LD would only be 15, assuming no other large mob being nearby.
So what's all this nonsense about orks ignoring morale?
Fething beaky and pansy players...
Really disappointed that the plague marines are nearly the same size as Primaris. Ive waited so many years for updated CSM models, and now we will probably never see them in "regular" size again.
The size creep is really insane this release, basically starting a slow invalidation process of all older SM and CSM armies.
ergotoxin wrote: Really disappointed that the plague marines are nearly the same size as Primaris. Ive waited so many years for updated CSM models, and now we will probably never see them in "regular" size again.
The size creep is really insane this release, basically starting a slow invalidation process of all older SM and CSM armies.
True, making it even weirder that they had to justify a fluff reason for the primus marines...if they were just gonna scale up CSM too. This feels like GW is trying to please everyone, not piss off players who have large existing armies. But on one hand by trying to make everyone happy, no group in particular is satisfied with how this is turning out. If the models keep getting bigger, then they better take into account the size of the board and how many models are involved or it will turn into a clustergak.
D6 battleshock casualties is less harsh than previous No Retreat! rules. (E.g. lose ten models in assault then try to make another ten armour saves on a 6+.
Regarding Index books: in AoS I am still waiting to see what they do with Aelves and Death (the later has seen a book for FEC but no new models) Meanwhile we see lots of Sigmarines, Chaos (barring She Who Must Not Be Mentioned) with three or four other factions getting some love.
If 40K takes a similar path we will see Marines getting their current kit 'Primarised'. New bigger Wolf Riders, Primaris Death Company, etc) Then some Chaos love (hopefully Slaaanesh gets some releases. Otherwise she needs a new agent!)
Oh, I forgot that Legion of the Damned are now a full faction....might see plastic releases for them plus we might see brand new Primaris Chapters arriving!
Two or three times a year we will see something for the Xenos. CWE are usually the Xenos getting first dibs. However, we could see new Starter Sets of e.g. Blood Angels Vs Tyranids. With Ynnari being the newest Xenos faction they could see a big release of dedicated models early on.
I think I will be using Index Books for my Tyranids and Dark Eldar for a good couple of years. If they are fun to play and reasonably balanced that's not a huge issue for me.
ergotoxin wrote: Really disappointed that the plague marines are nearly the same size as Primaris. Ive waited so many years for updated CSM models, and now we will probably never see them in "regular" size again.
The size creep is really insane this release, basically starting a slow invalidation process of all older SM and CSM armies.
CSM invalidated themselves a looong time ago bye being garbage and a sorry excuse for a model. They could cost 5p in game but i would still never spend actual money on those crapy miniatures.
Battleshock is more a concern for them in the late game, when they've taken casualties over a number of turns.
But between Mob Rule, Warboss Beatings*, and a Nobz Kickings they're going to be really difficult to shift. A disastrous roll can be mitigated to a maximum of three Boyz legging it, and there's a chance the Nob might keep at least one of them in the fight.
The big issue is if boyz are just shot down on the field. Battleshock is a thing, but it won't come into effect befire a heap of boyz are dead in a single turn.
Most shots will wound on 4+ or 3+, then have a 4+ save or 5++ save, and finally ignore damage on 6+. Its a saving grace KFF and painboyz can cover several mobz, and that templates are gone which were often forcing a long movement phase, or else taking several hits per blast.
I am still not convinced that orks will weather the enemy's shooting phase.
Battleshock is more a concern for them in the late game, when they've taken casualties over a number of turns.
But between Mob Rule, Warboss Beatings*, and a Nobz Kickings they're going to be really difficult to shift. A disastrous roll can be mitigated to a maximum of three Boyz legging it, and there's a chance the Nob might keep at least one of them in the fight.
The big issue is if boyz are just shot down on the field. Battleshock is a thing, but it won't come into effect befire a heap of boyz are dead in a single turn.
Most shots will wound on 4+ or 3+, then have a 4+ save or 5++ save, and finally ignore damage on 6+. Its a saving grace KFF and painboyz can cover several mobz, and that templates are gone which were often forcing a long movement phase, or else taking several hits per blast.
I am still not convinced that orks will weather the enemy's shooting phase.
Everything strength 6-7 that used to delete Orks wholesale now wounds less and they will get their t-shirt saves against things like scatterlasers and multilasers.
Orks are faar better off against shooting than they were before. And with the loss of taking models from the front shooting no longer slows down you approach to combat. Their losses from the front of the unit really drove their mobility issues when combined with their normal speed.
You might lose 4-5 Boyz, but your unit lost 3-4" of movement they did last turn.
My first thought to 8th was tau would do well, and while they only wound orks on 3+ they will put down a lot of shots, even more than before since TL high yield missile pods broadsides has 8 shots.
Well, after its clear what books will be released soon, I'd like to ask a stupid question: What's the content of the Warhammer 40k book for 45 Euro?
The rules (which are supposed to be of no charge) or some extension book?
The Free Core Rules are 12 pages long and contain the basics.
The Big Book will have those, plus detailing more about Open Play (with more missions) and introduce Narrative and Matched play and all the additional rules and missions needed to play those.
Plus is has the Cities of Death, Stronghold Assault ect. Advanced Rule expansion.
On top of that I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the book is new background material detailing all the changes that have happened since Gathering Storm ended.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, after its clear what books will be released soon, I'd like to ask a stupid question: What's the content of the Warhammer 40k book for 45 Euro?
The rules (which are supposed to be of no charge) or some extension book?
I'd expect:
50% fluff
15% model / army showcase
2% hobby
15% rules
5% missions
5% force org and army selection
also just because the rules fit on 12 pages does not mean they fit on 12 pages in a big rule book with borders artwork etc. The free PDF will prob be 12 pages smaller font etc
ergotoxin wrote: Really disappointed that the plague marines are nearly the same size as Primaris. Ive waited so many years for updated CSM models, and now we will probably never see them in "regular" size again.
The size creep is really insane this release, basically starting a slow invalidation process of all older SM and CSM armies.
I plan on using the new DG as Aspiring Champions for my old army. The Forge World upgrades still look amazing.
The Free Core Rules are 12 pages long and contain the basics.
So the free part of the edition looks more like a concession to the gamers than anything else.
Yeah it basically the "Hey is this big, expensive rulebook holding you back from playing? Then don't worry, you can play a heavily stripped down version of the ruleset for some mindless fun."
Useful as a tool to get new or old, old players back that are looking for nothing more than a bit of fun, but for someone more invested in the system as a whole? Not so much.
At the same time though, it's not like that's a bad thing. It still has everything you need to play (aside from unit rules, given there's 0 clarification as to whether they'll also be available as a free download), and compared to the Age of Sigmar rules, the 40k ones even come with a mission!
The free rules are there to help new players start. You buy a box, your friend buys a box and then use the free rules and datasheets to get going right away.
Most of the stuff they have changed has specifically been about making it easier to start, which is what they identified as their major weakness (in one of Rountrees first reports was it?)
Vorian wrote: The free rules are there to help new players start. You buy a box, your friend buys a box and then use the free rules and datasheets to get going right away.
Most of the stuff they have changed has specifically been about making it easier to start, which is what they identified as their major weakness (in one of Rountrees first reports was it?)
Yup the data sheets for the units are in with the box of mini's the new players have just bought - so along with the free 12 page rules, they have everything to play right there.
The Free Core Rules are 12 pages long and contain the basics.
So the free part of the edition looks more like a concession to the gamers than anything else.
Yeah it basically the "Hey is this big, expensive rulebook holding you back from playing? Then don't worry, you can play a heavily stripped down version of the ruleset for some mindless fun."
Useful as a tool to get new or old, old players back that are looking for nothing more than a bit of fun, but for someone more invested in the system as a whole? Not so much.
At the same time though, it's not like that's a bad thing. It still has everything you need to play (aside from unit rules, given there's 0 clarification as to whether they'll also be available as a free download), and compared to the Age of Sigmar rules, the 40k ones even come with a mission!
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
zamerion wrote: Does anyone know if the index will have items, spells and commands for each faction?
Or will we have to wait for each individual codex?
Thanks.
We don't know yet. Personally i think there'll be a small amount of faction specific stuff in the indexes, maybe faction specific Strategems, but not the full works of stuff that a full Codex would have. But that's speculation!
zamerion wrote: Does anyone know if the index will have items, spells and commands for each faction?
Or will we have to wait for each individual codex?
Thanks.
The Indexes are complete 8th Ed updates for all existing factions. I imagine these are more like the 5th-6th Ed erratas than a true codex, simply relisting every weapon and model profile in the new format, as well as new rules, power levels and points totals. I am not sure if they'll include new weapons, but every current weapon and unit in the game will get 8th Ed rules. There'll also be new psychic powers and special rules for each faction as the old ones simply are invalidated for the most part.
One thing I would say is that there are unlikely to be any new units, as GW doesn't produce rules for models that are not yet on shelves due to the Chapterhouse lawsuit. We haven't seen any new models apart from the Primaris Marines, so don't expect Xenos 1, Xenos 2 or Imperium 2 Indexes to have any new units, and don't expect any new units in the Chaos and Space Marine Imperium 1 Indexes besides those in the starter kit or already teased (like Primaris Marine Dreadnoughts and other vehicles)
I've been against GW basically for the last 2 years of release, but hell I'm hyped about the 8th.
Still I'll miss challenges and falling back as for the epic sensation of playing :(
Emicrania wrote: I've been against GW basically for the last 2 years of release, but hell I'm hyped about the 8th.
Still I'll miss challenges and falling back as for the epic sensation of playing :(
You can still fall back. It happens on your say so now during combats.
Damn the OP is getting long!
If you want to see how much writing there is in there, press quote and start scrolling!!!
Please don't press send after pressing quote though...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emicrania wrote: I've been against GW basically for the last 2 years of release, but hell I'm hyped about the 8th.
Still I'll miss challenges and falling back as for the epic sensation of playing :(
Hopefully your opponent will be happy to forge the narrative with you, and let you meet your characters meet in the middle
The Free Core Rules are 12 pages long and contain the basics.
So the free part of the edition looks more like a concession to the gamers than anything else.
Yeah it basically the "Hey is this big, expensive rulebook holding you back from playing? Then don't worry, you can play a heavily stripped down version of the ruleset for some mindless fun."
Useful as a tool to get new or old, old players back that are looking for nothing more than a bit of fun, but for someone more invested in the system as a whole? Not so much.
At the same time though, it's not like that's a bad thing. It still has everything you need to play (aside from unit rules, given there's 0 clarification as to whether they'll also be available as a free download), and compared to the Age of Sigmar rules, the 40k ones even come with a mission!
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
Oh for sure. I just dispute 'heavily stripped down' when the whole core game is intact and only really cover rules and missions will change. It was too loaded a choice of words to me, is all. It's simpler, not stripped down. And isn't the core rules Open Play? Just keen on accuracy amidst so much angst in this thread. :-)
This new rule sounds rather strange.
How do we hide HQs in an army? It appears that each HQ will need a retinue to be viable.
A unit firing trying to fire at a character can only target them if the character is the closest enemy unit to the firing unit. Basically, plonk a character in the middle of a unit/few units and you're good to go for the most part. It sounds like bodyguards will just flat out not let enemies target characters unless they are all dead.
xttz wrote:As characters no longer join units, every combat is a challenge
This new rule sounds rather strange. How do we hide HQs in an army? It appears that each HQ will need a retinue to be viable.
A unit firing trying to fire at a character can only target them if the character is the closest enemy unit to the firing unit. Basically, plonk a character in the middle of a unit/few units and you're good to go for the most part. It sounds like bodyguards will just flat out not let enemies target characters unless they are all dead.
Note this ONLY applies is the character has base wounds 10 or less. If they have base wounds 11 or higher, you can target them as you please.
BrookM wrote:I've had a confirmation that the prices listed earlier are correct / a wee bit cheaper.
Here are the prices in €, for other currencies, tough titties.
Death Guard Green spray: €15,50 Death Guard Green base paint : €3,30
Core set, is that all of the listed bundled? Rulebook, 2 objective card sets, command dice, wound track and combat gauge? What does a €20 Index translate to in GBP? £15 or £20?
Deadshot wrote: Core set, is that all of the listed bundled? Rulebook, 2 objective card sets, command dice, wound track and combat gauge? What does a €20 Index translate to in GBP? £15 or £20?
Core set = starter set. Edited my post to avoid further confusion.
As for other prices, go check any of the GW sites that use € as its currency and compare to one with your currency of choice.
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
Oh for sure. I just dispute 'heavily stripped down' when the whole core game is intact and only really cover rules and missions will change. It was too loaded a choice of words to me, is all. It's simpler, not stripped down. And isn't the core rules Open Play? Just keen on accuracy amidst so much angst in this thread. :-)
It's Open Play with 1/4 of the Missions.
Unless there's more to Open Play in the Main Rulebook that we don't know.
Deadshot wrote: Core set, is that all of the listed bundled? Rulebook, 2 objective card sets, command dice, wound track and combat gauge? What does a €20 Index translate to in GBP? £15 or £20?
Core set = starter set. Edited my post to avoid further confusion.
As for other prices, go check any of the GW sites that use € as its currency and compare to one with your currency of choice.
Starter set, got it, cheers!
For the Indexes though it doesn't work as GW uses brackets and not straight comparison. A €20 model or terrain kit wouldn't necessarily be the same in GDP as a €20 Index..
Deadshot wrote: Core set, is that all of the listed bundled? Rulebook, 2 objective card sets, command dice, wound track and combat gauge? What does a €20 Index translate to in GBP? £15 or £20?
Core set = starter set. Edited my post to avoid further confusion.
As for other prices, go check any of the GW sites that use € as its currency and compare to one with your currency of choice.
Starter set, got it, cheers!
For the Indexes though it doesn't work as GW uses brackets and not straight comparison. A €20 model or terrain kit wouldn't necessarily be the same in GDP as a €20 Index..
That's why you find a product in the same bracket and go from there...
Anyways, this was the price list we got for GBP:
Dark Imperium Starter Set £95.00
Warhammer 40,000 8th:Rulebook £35
Tactical Objective Cards £8.00
Sector Imperialis Objectives £20
Command Dice £12.50
Wound Trackers £8.00
Combat Gauge £6.00
Indices £15.00 each
Dark Imperium Novel £18.00
I posted the US prices a few pages back. I don't have them in front of me at the moment but I recall
Box set $160
Indexes $25
Considerinv the rulebook is a full 280 hardcover that's a reasonable price for the starter, and all the indexes are only as much as 3 codexes last edition
Those prices line up with what my FLGS gave me for my pre-order.
Dark Imperium Starter Set $160.00 Warhammer 40,000 8th:Rulebook $60 Tactical Objective Cards $12.50 Indices $25.00 each
Pretty sure, he said he had to order 20 starter boxes for the store in order to get the Space marine stand-up, the display and the demo starter box for the store.
Just to play all my armies, I need Core Rulebook, Imperial 1, Chaos, Xeno 1 and Tactical Objective Deck. Am glad for the 15% discount to store regulars!
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
Oh for sure. I just dispute 'heavily stripped down' when the whole core game is intact and only really cover rules and missions will change. It was too loaded a choice of words to me, is all. It's simpler, not stripped down. And isn't the core rules Open Play? Just keen on accuracy amidst so much angst in this thread. :-)
It's Open Play with 1/4 of the Missions.
Unless there's more to Open Play in the Main Rulebook that we don't know.
The free core rules of 8th Edition are literally a heavily stripped down version as compared to the 'full rules' of 8th Edition AND as compared to 7th Edition or most any prior edition. There's no getting around that. Existing gamers expect certain things from 40k... points, for example. The free rules represent a stripped down, super basic version of what people expect. I know A LOT of people who play or have played 40k. I don't know anyone who seriously expects to play any games using just the free rules.
If this is anything like Age of Sigmar, the majority of players won't consider anything other than Matched Play. All organized events will be Matched Play. Some people will play Narrative, but generally only with close friends. Open Play will be rare.
The free rules sort of feel like demo or tutorial rules. "Don't worry about mission objectives or strategems or making sure your armies are balanced. Let's just roll some dice and learn how movement and combat work. You can read up on the full rules after you learn the basics."
The Free Core Rules are 12 pages long and contain the basics.
So the free part of the edition looks more like a concession to the gamers than anything else.
No. As others have stated, it is something that helps new players get into the game.
A lot of board games are now posting rules online as well - so you can check them out - and then decide if you want to get the game.
This is a great idea (well, if you have a good game...).
Player 1 : "Hey, you play that 40k thing, how is it"
Player 2: "I like, it, but check out the rules, they basic game is free online"
Player 1: "Oh, cool, if I like them, I will check it out more...."
So are they just doing indexes so you have your army lists and can play now, but they're still gonna do separate new codexes later? But.. the datasheets for every unit are gonna be free PDFs too right, so you don't really need the books?
I don't really play often, so if that's the case I'd rather stick to PDFs till they put out new codexes for the armies I play.
I'll probably just pick up the rulebook and cards.. starter set is tempting, I'd love to paint all those new models... but I know I'll never get around to it :(
The free rules sort of feel like demo or tutorial rules. "Don't worry about mission objectives or strategems or making sure your armies are balanced. Let's just roll some dice and learn how movement and combat work. You can read up on the full rules after you learn the basics."
That isn't at all how the free rules are structured. Matched play will still be dominant, of course.
So, points wise. In all honesty, Battlescribe and Army Builder will have them pretty much as soon as the indices are released. Since, Battlescribe is free you could get away with just using it to build your armies.
The dataslates may or may not be available for free online. I haven't see where they said they would be up just like AoS. But, since the rest of the game has gone to the AoS format. That might be a safe bet.
That leaves Stratagems, I am betting someone will do a cheat sheet almost immediately. But, that is the item that you will need from the codices.
They aren't horridly expensive. You should support your local gaming store and buy the one you need for your army.
But.. the datasheets for every unit are gonna be free PDFs too right, so you don't really need the books?
I guess you will need the index books since you will find the pt costs in there.
If the data sheets are free as the warscrolls in AoS, I don't know.
My understanding is that point costs will be in the BRB, not the index books. This is so they can update all points costs without invalidating individual "codex" style books.
My understanding is that point costs will be in the BRB, not the index books. This is so they can update all points costs without invalidating individual "codex" style books.
The index books will probably have the points. They are also temporary until "proper codexes" come out.
But.. the datasheets for every unit are gonna be free PDFs too right, so you don't really need the books?
I guess you will need the index books since you will find the pt costs in there.
If the data sheets are free as the warscrolls in AoS, I don't know.
My understanding is that point costs will be in the BRB, not the index books. This is so they can update all points costs without invalidating individual "codex" style books.
40k Facebook confirmed that points are in the index books. They aren't, however, on the datasheets, but in an index style page in the back of the book. Presumably there will be a wargear table back there with how much stuff costs too so you can write down everything you're taking, and then jump to the back to get the points and do math on what that unit costs in total.
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
Oh for sure. I just dispute 'heavily stripped down' when the whole core game is intact and only really cover rules and missions will change. It was too loaded a choice of words to me, is all. It's simpler, not stripped down. And isn't the core rules Open Play? Just keen on accuracy amidst so much angst in this thread. :-)
It's Open Play with 1/4 of the Missions.
Unless there's more to Open Play in the Main Rulebook that we don't know.
The free core rules of 8th Edition are literally a heavily stripped down version as compared to the 'full rules' of 8th Edition AND as compared to 7th Edition or most any prior edition. There's no getting around that. Existing gamers expect certain things from 40k... points, for example. The free rules represent a stripped down, super basic version of what people expect. I know A LOT of people who play or have played 40k. I don't know anyone who seriously expects to play any games using just the free rules.
If this is anything like Age of Sigmar, the majority of players won't consider anything other than Matched Play. All organized events will be Matched Play. Some people will play Narrative, but generally only with close friends. Open Play will be rare.
The free rules sort of feel like demo or tutorial rules. "Don't worry about mission objectives or strategems or making sure your armies are balanced. Let's just roll some dice and learn how movement and combat work. You can read up on the full rules after you learn the basics."
A demo for something many of us have spent a lot of money on already. Seriously, I wish they would just do a smaller cheaper soft back copy for like £20. I'd pay that and it means I can actually carry it! If we were all more critical of this tactics (let's face it, basically drug dealer tactics ) then they might do it more like D&D where the rules are fully free and you pay for codex and models only. Sure they're a business, but many businesses are far more successful and still don't use these tactics. Look at the avarge guy who looks at GW. They think "Do I buy this new game on ps4 for £50 or do I buy this book and models which I then have to buy more of for £100-200". And I'm also sick of the whole "hoppy costs money" argument. Hobbies do not cost this much! Gw scumbag tactics are the reason why I have only bought from ebay for the last few years. I've spent about £200 over the time but I have two armies and saved about £600. And I do support my game store, but it's not a gw store. It's a general hobby and game store with like 10 tables you can just play on for free with no need to book.
They didn't put them on the dataslate. but I am pretty sure they are in the index. By not putting them on the dataslate you can copy and laminate the dataslate for table usage. Then use the points out of the back of the index or the yearly update to build your army.
How is it 'heavily stripped down... for some mindless fun'? It isn't. Scenarios, playstyles (eg Cityfight), missions may add layers of nuance, but the rules are the same. Nothing is stripped down. Rather the reverse - you add complexity if you want it. The "Cityfight Maelstrom Matched Play" Starbucks-length-title format is not inherently 'better' or the default... that's part of their move to Three Ways To Play. Indeed, I see myself using that type of game infrequently.
I never said such a thing was the default.... but it is still a stripped down version of Open Play and as a whole still a stripped down version of the full rules.
But let's be real here, for many people Matched Play or Narrative Play will be the defaults.
Oh for sure. I just dispute 'heavily stripped down' when the whole core game is intact and only really cover rules and missions will change. It was too loaded a choice of words to me, is all. It's simpler, not stripped down. And isn't the core rules Open Play? Just keen on accuracy amidst so much angst in this thread. :-)
It's Open Play with 1/4 of the Missions.
Unless there's more to Open Play in the Main Rulebook that we don't know.
The free core rules of 8th Edition are literally a heavily stripped down version as compared to the 'full rules' of 8th Edition AND as compared to 7th Edition or most any prior edition. There's no getting around that. Existing gamers expect certain things from 40k... points, for example. The free rules represent a stripped down, super basic version of what people expect. I know A LOT of people who play or have played 40k. I don't know anyone who seriously expects to play any games using just the free rules.
If this is anything like Age of Sigmar, the majority of players won't consider anything other than Matched Play. All organized events will be Matched Play. Some people will play Narrative, but generally only with close friends. Open Play will be rare.
The free rules sort of feel like demo or tutorial rules. "Don't worry about mission objectives or strategems or making sure your armies are balanced. Let's just roll some dice and learn how movement and combat work. You can read up on the full rules after you learn the basics."
A demo for something many of us have spent a lot of money on already. Seriously, I wish they would just do a smaller cheaper soft back copy for like £20. I'd pay that and it means I can actually carry it! If we were all more critical of this tactics (let's face it, basically drug dealer tactics ) then they might do it more like D&D where the rules are fully free and you pay for codex and models only. Sure they're a business, but my businesses are far more successful and still don't use these tactics. Look at the avarge guy who looks at GW. They think "Do I buy this new game on ps4 for £50 or do I buy this book and models which I then have to buy more of for £100-200". And I'm also sick of the whole "hoppy costs money" argument. Hobbies do not cost this much! Gw scumbag tactics are the reason why I have only bought from ebay for the last few years. I've spent about £200 over the time but I have two armies and saved about £600.
When they rebooted Warhammer Fantasy 5th Ed, they gave us free temp army lists. The $100 it's going to cost me to get temp lists for the armies I've already spent tons of money on bothers me a little.
[grognard]
Man! I went through the RT to 2nd Edition era and had to get all new books AND I went through the 2nd to 3rd edition era and had to get all new books. I do not remember this level of saltiness about it. Cripes! Buying new books with a new edition is what happens to nearly every book based game in existence.
Get over it. New editions means buying new books. This is the first time that even the core rules have been free for 40k.
Back then we were excited to get something new, not complaining that it meant new products.
Points are the foundation of the game. If they're making kt harder to find these points by having to flip back and forth then they're purposeful trying to get us into this new BS power level crap.
docdoom77 wrote: [grognard]
Man! I went through the RT to 2nd Edition era and had to get all new books AND I went through the 2nd to 3rd edition era and had to get all new books. I do not remember this level of saltiness about it. Cripes! Buying new books with a new edition is what happens to nearly every book based game in existence.
Get over it. New editions means buying new books. This is the first time that even the core rules have been free for 40k.
Back then we were excited to get something new, not complaining that it meant new products.
[\grognard]
The internet has always been saltier than the dead sea, local gaming communities tend to be less salty. Something about posting online where people can't see who you are tends to make just about everyone saltier.
lolman1c wrote: Points are the foundation of the game. If they're making kt harder to find these points by having to flip back and forth then they're purposeful trying to get us into this new BS power level crap.
How is the points being on the last few pages any more flipping than the points being on a few dozen pages on each of the unit's sheets, and an armory section, as it is now?
lolman1c wrote: Points are the foundation of the game. If they're making kt harder to find these points by having to flip back and forth then they're purposeful trying to get us into this new BS power level crap.
No, they're making it easier to change those points year on year - improving balance of the game over time.
lolman1c wrote: Points are the foundation of the game. If they're making kt harder to find these points by having to flip back and forth then they're purposeful trying to get us into this new BS power level crap.
You need to cut your salt intake.GW has clearly, plainly and openly stated that points will be seperate from the datasheets so that they can finetune them without needing to redo all the datasheets that'd be affected.
For example, if they changed the cost of a Tactical Marine they'd need to redo every single unit that contains Tactical Marines. Instead they can just redo the points page.
Seriously, I wish they would just do a smaller cheaper soft back copy for like £20. I'd pay that and it means I can actually carry it! If we were all more critical of this tactics (let's face it, basically drug dealer tactics ) then they might do it more like D&D where the rules are fully free and you pay for codex and models only. .
Except that DND is not fully free. You can get the basic rules free, but not the whole game. This is pretty similar really.
If GW put out say, ultra marines and Orks data sheets free, then it would be pretty much identical in marketing method.
Guess what, that smaller cheap softback you want... It's the index books combined with the free download rules.
Speaking of which, I'm so holding out hope for the core rules to be in the index books.
My local golf course membership is £3,000 per year. Hobbies cost what they cost, wargaming isn't close to the top end.
Sure it costs more than collecting seashells from the beach, but you pays your money and takes your
choice.
I suppose the club expects you to buy a new set of glof clubs every year when they slightly change the rules to the game. Does nobody see this as a problem? Are we all okay with just handing over money every year to continue to play with stuff we already own? I guess I better buy a computer then everytime Microsoft updates windows...
My local golf course membership is £3,000 per year. Hobbies cost what they cost, wargaming isn't close to the top end.
Sure it costs more than collecting seashells from the beach, but you pays your money and takes your
choice.
I suppose the club expects you to buy a new set of glof clubs every year when they slightly change the rules to the game. Does nobody see this as a problem? Are we all okay with just handing over money every year to continue to play with stuff we already own? I guess I better buy a computer then everytime Microsoft updates windows...
Do you have proof that the yearly patches will be in book form and not downloadable pdf?
I am looking at using my indices in the following manner.
1) Scan in all the units I personally own.
2) Print a half size copy of each Dataslate
3) Print/Type out the section related to that dataslate from the points
4) Put both sheets back to back
5) Laminate them with 7mm laminate to make a nice thick dataslate
This should give me table dataslates about the size of the minibook. Which fit nicely in the army case. Since, it's a copy of each of the ones I own models to. That should make it so, I don't have to haul around too many book.
By now, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock on the far side on Luna, you’ve probably seen the awesome contents of the upcoming Dark Imperium box.
We’ve already seen the stats for the Intercessors, but they are just one of the new units. Today we take a look at a couple more.
Let’s start with the leader, the Captain in Gravis armour.
Space Marine Captains should be amongst the most feared warriors in the galaxy, but a lot of the time today, they are looked down on compared to other characters that can bring more utility to an army.
Not anymore!
Every Space Marines army is going to want one of these guys at its head. Like all the Space Marines’ greatest commanders, he’s great at combat in all forms, hitting up close and at range on a 2+. That Gravis armour brings some benefits too. While lacking some of the impenetrable defence against small arms fire that Terminator armour brings, it makes up for that with an increased Toughness, meaning even heavy weaponry will struggle to bring him down easily. He has 6 Wounds, which is pretty solid too, though Characters generally have more Wounds in the new Warhammer 40,000 – even a lascannon will be lucky to kill him in a single shot.
Maybe the main reason you bring this guy though is for the re-roll to hit he provides to those nearby. This ability is awesome on things like Tactical and Intercessor Squads, even better on Devastator Squads, and on plasma-toting Hellblasters? Well, we’ll just let you work that one out….
Next up, the Inceptor Squad, These guys are the Primaris Space Marines’ answer to a lot of things: they combine the speed of Assault Squads, the durability of units like Bikes and the ability to drop in from space mid-battle, AND they pack a fair combat punch as they make a charge. Oh, and those guns are basically hand held heavy bolters (albeit, with a much reduced range). We expect to see these guys in a lot of Space Marines armies very soon.
That’s just two of the new units in the Dark Imperium box.
We’re off to Warhammer Fest this weekend, so stay tuned for all the latest news about the new Warhammer 40,000 coming from the Richo Arena in Coventry.
Mr Morden wrote: Not really interested in the new Marines but it looks like 10" will be the move value for Jump pack troops?
Those guys might be jet pack troops.
That said, I recall that Jump units have two movement stats, one for walking the other for jumping.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Walker wrote: So if Gravis give you +1T it will not be a replacement for Artificier or Termie like I thought previously.
I,d say it might be an interesting side grade. Math hammer would be needed to see ow it pans out against the other options, especially if Terminator Armour doesn,t give +1 wounds to your HQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So just for the sake of predictions, I am assuming that we'll be seeing the mini-Heavy Bolters being something like 15" range. Combined with a 10" move that is plenty of threat range for the weapon.
Seems a little awkward to have toughness boosting armour that is not also artificer or terminator plate? From a lore perspective I mean. Boost up protection without going all out.
Certainly the interceptors look very strong. I hope those not-heavy bolters aren't pistols... Gravis is cool, it makes doesnt invalidate terminator armour but is still different.
I already loved the Jet Pack ones before, but man oh man, to know they aren't dual wielding some kind of stormbolters but freakin' dualwielding HEAVY BOLTERS just ramps up my desire up to 11! That is some seriously badass Space Marine.
So the primaris captain has the durability of a small vehicle while boasting also a 3+ save. This is nuts ! Sure there will be sometimes the threat of snipers, but one would need al LOT of them to bring him down.
They said that characters will have more wounds (which is reasonable when they cannot join squads anymore). I predict 5 minimum for SM/Big Mek, 4 for humans/eldar, 7 for Warboss/Tyranid Prime.
lolman1c wrote: Points are the foundation of the game. If they're making kt harder to find these points by having to flip back and forth then they're purposeful trying to get us into this new BS power level crap.
Why? You can assume any boosting of toughness is really just built in medical features of the armor. Something advancement in technology should make possible.
Artificer armor represents extremely old well maintained armor using lost technologies.
Terminator is extremely bulky to use and restrictive. Hence, the reduction in speed for the increase in armor. The fluff of Terminator armor basically says they use regular Power Armor for tasks that cannot just be brute forced through.
IE: You wouldn't send a dreadnought to check door to door for signs of chaos.
If what they are carrying is Range 18 Heavy bolters. Then that makes a very mobile gun platform. They really are Imperiums version of the Tau battle suits.
Terminator is extremely bulky to use and restrictive. Hence, the reduction in speed for the increase in armor. The fluff of Terminator armor basically says they use regular Power Armor for tasks that cannot just be brute forced through.
Youn wrote: Why? You can assume any boosting of toughness is really just built in medical features of the armor. Something advancement in technology should make possible.
Artificer armor represents extremely old well maintained armor using lost technologies.
Terminator is extremely bulky to use and restrictive. Hence, the reduction in speed for the increase in armor. The fluff of Terminator armor basically says they use regular Power Armor for tasks that cannot just be brute forced through.
IE: You wouldn't send a dreadnought to check door to door for signs of chaos.
I would. Mostly for the shock and awe factor of that fist punching throu the door everytime he knocks followed by the speakers blaring as he speaks. "GREETINGS CITIZEN. THERE HAVE BEEN INCREASED SIGNS OF HERESY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AS SUCH WE ARE CONDUCTING A DOOR TO DOOR SURVEY TO DETERMINE THE ROOTS OF THIS HERESY, SO PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY BECAUSE THE EMPEROR IS ALWAYS WATCHING. CITIZEN, ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, A HERETIC?"
Youn wrote: If what they are carrying is Range 18 Heavy bolters. Then that makes a very mobile gun platform. They really are Imperiums version of the Tau battle suits.
Yep - these are not the replacement for assault marines.
Mr Morden wrote: Not really interested in the new Marines but it looks like 10" will be the move value for Jump pack troops?
Each jump/jetpack may very well have different values.
Note that the Gravis plate has a 5 inch move, so it's quite possible that jump Gravis is 10 inch whilst jump regular plate is 12 inch.
Exactly. It would make a perfect sense for regular ASM which carry mostly cc weapons = are lighter to have better M value than a heavy weapons Inceptors.
The more I read about Inceptors the more brain cells I lose. Assault Marines with bike toughness toting double heavy bolters is absolute madness. Matt Ward and CS Goto love child level madness. Spartan kick into the endless pit level madness. If anyone had posted something like that in Proposed Rules they'd have been chased out by an angry mob.
changemod wrote: Now that I think about it the flying Gravis guys are basically an awkward hybrid of bikes and centurions, despite resembling assault marines.
Maybe that's where all the jetbikes went: Cawl took them apart to make those suits.
I wonder if the sniper profile will significantly change. If it operates remotely close to 7th ed, and if the Captain is a relatively typical example, it's going to be tricky to do much about Characters what with the walls of bodies they'll have protecting them. I sure hope he's expensive.
Also the gravis armor is movement 5 instead of 6 so it slows him down a bit. Will be interesting to see how it pans out in general as upgrade options go. Very cool to see mastercrafted is now basically +1 damage
Also I bet these are closer to a jetpack replacement rather than a jump unit.
If I had to guess I bet all of the marine armies will use the same dataslate for things like assault, devastator, and tactical marines and the chapter tactics are where they will get things like red thirst and other related abilities. Then they will have other units that are keyword dependent for the army specific units.
Would really like to see more about army construction and how the key words are laid out. However if I had to guess it will be VERY similar to what we saw with the Eldar and Imperium grand alliances.
Also the 6 wounds thing... remember few articles back they said a lascannon can kill a chaos lord outright... assumed chaos lords might have 6 wounds... there is more weight to that assumption now.
daedalus wrote: I wonder if the sniper profile will significantly change. If it operates remotely close to 7th ed, and if the Captain is a relatively typical example, it's going to be tricky to do much about Characters what with the walls of bodies they'll have protecting them. I sure hope he's expensive.
I can see them becoming D3 wounding weapons to represent hitting something important.
Deadshot wrote: The more I read about Inceptors the more brain cells I lose. Assault Marines with bike toughness toting double heavy bolters is absolute madness. Matt Ward and CS Goto love child level madness. Spartan kick into the endless pit level madness. If anyone had posted something like that in Proposed Rules they'd have been chased out by an angry mob.
What choice does the Imperium has if not to opose the madness of chaos with their own?
Deadshot wrote: The more I read about Inceptors the more brain cells I lose. Assault Marines with bike toughness toting double heavy bolters is absolute madness. Matt Ward and CS Goto love child level madness. Spartan kick into the endless pit level madness. If anyone had posted something like that in Proposed Rules they'd have been chased out by an angry mob.
Leth wrote: Also the gravis armor is movement 5 instead of 6 so it slows him down a bit. Will be interesting to see how it pans out in general as upgrade options go.
Also I bet these are closer to a jetpack replacement rather than a jump unit.
If I had to guess I bet all of the marine armies will use the same dataslate for things like assault, devastator, and tactical marines and the chapter tactics are where they will get things like red thirst and other related abilities. Then they will have other units that are keyword dependent for the army specific units.
Would really like to see more about army construction and how the key words are laid out. However if I had to guess it will be VERY similar to what we saw with the Eldar and Imperium grand alliances.
Also: Website has been updated with profiles
Huh. They're actually Jump Infantry.
That said, I feel that the rules for these guys are out of the starter set rather than in the core rules.
It will be interesting to see the pt costs of an Interceptor unit compared with normal Assault marines. Placement (Meteoric descent) of 9'' also something has already been introduced - see AoS.
whao so those three guys pump out 18shots! wonder where this leaves HB centurions (lol did anyone ever take em) just better range i guess.
Interesting it says they have two of them but no other rules so the assumption is every model in new 40k can fire all its weapons? interesting if you have a bolter, bolt pistol and a grenade.... we'll have to see
Gravis strikes me as a middleground between centurion armor and regular armor. Also its interesting that the captain is 7 power while that three man unit is 8. I get the feeling these guys are going to be priced closer to centurions than regular marines.
I will be interested in seeing if it is terminator armor that gives the regular terminators +1 wound or if it is veteran status that gives them the extra wound.
Also yes, this seems to be the rules from the starter set as it does not mention any other options, I bet when the plastic kit for them comes out they will have more equipment options to choose from
Set up in high orbit and landing whenever you choose. I really like that the not having to roll for arrival seems to be more common than not.
Then go back to Turn 1 tactics. Though, they might be too expensive to treat in that manner. Looking at the 8 Power level, I am guessing that is around 80-100 points. If five 13pt marines are power level 5.
Then go back to Turn 1 tactics. Though, they might be too expensive to treat in that manner. Looking at the 8 Power level, I am guessing that is around 80-100 points. If five 13pt marines are power level 5.
They are probably more expensive than that. Remember the power level 5 marines are factoring in the cost of the unit upgrades. Meanwhile this sheet is the power level for those with fixed upgrades. I bet they will easily be closer to 40+ points each
But we are also seeing that they are most likely not going to be making assault intercessors nor bike intercessors anytime soon, if at all. I think that also means that landspeeders wont be touched either. I really dont feel like they are planning on completely phasing out regular marines. It seems like they are just making another option.
One thing I really would like to highlight is the fact that he only extends his buffs to models from the same chapter. I bet that is how they are going to handle hybrid armies where some units will be keyword "Imperium" to get the benefits or keyword "Adeptus Astartes" to get the benefits. I like it. Within any force org chart you can bring as many different elements as you want, however the ability to synergize will be limited. Nice little touch.
So potentially I can still bring 4 units of tactical marines as troops, all from different chapters. An assassin for my elites and then a dark angels cmd squad with a Blood Angels librarian HQ. So I can build my army however I want. The key will be that none of these units will be able to take advantage of any potential buffs. I think that as long as they work hard to get points right and maintain balance it will be a wonderful system. You get benefits for taking units from the same faction but you dont have to if you dont want to.
Then go back to Turn 1 tactics. Though, they might be too expensive to treat in that manner. Looking at the 8 Power level, I am guessing that is around 80-100 points. If five 13pt marines are power level 5.
More like T1: Deep strike, shoot, hope for that 9" (minimum to get within that 1" melee range), fight melee.
T2: Why have I been shot by everything?
They are probably more expensive than that. Remember the power level 5 marines are factoring in the cost of the unit upgrades. Meanwhile this sheet is the power level for those with fixed upgrades. I bet they will easily be closer to 40+ points each
The community page explicitly stated that PL does not include upgrades. Those PL5 marines are primaris.
PL8 rubrics have roughly the same ratio cost of sorcerer to rubric. If their points are similar then these guys will be about 50 points each.
Incidentally the sentence “Every Space Marines army is going to want one of these guys at its head.” is a pretty impressive achievement in condescension.
They are probably more expensive than that. Remember the power level 5 marines are factoring in the cost of the unit upgrades. Meanwhile this sheet is the power level for those with fixed upgrades. I bet they will easily be closer to 40+ points each
The community page explicitly stated that PL does not include upgrades. Those PL5 marines are primaris.
PL8 rubrics have roughly the same ratio cost of sorcerer to rubric. If their points are similar then these guys will be about 50 points each.
Someone linked a FB post where the GW community dude says that PL takes into consideration that it's a 'pretty suped up' version of the unit.
changemod wrote: Incidentally the sentence “Every Space Marines army is going to want one of these guys at its head.” is a pretty impressive achievement in condescension.
Presumably Inceptors can shoot with both of their weapons, but there is no rule allowing them to do so... Does this mean that everyone can now shoot with all their weapons like in AOS? Can a tactical marine shoot with a bolter and a pistol and lob a grenade all at the same time?
Anyhow, good to know that gravis is not a termie replacement. Looking forward to primaris terminators. Move 5 is a tad annoying though, for a guy you'd want to advance together with your troops.
Oh, and these are better be starter set profiles, and in reality the characters don't come with fixed equipment. If I cannot choose gear for my characters I will lose it.
They are probably more expensive than that. Remember the power level 5 marines are factoring in the cost of the unit upgrades. Meanwhile this sheet is the power level for those with fixed upgrades. I bet they will easily be closer to 40+ points each
The community page explicitly stated that PL does not include upgrades. Those PL5 marines are primaris.
PL8 rubrics have roughly the same ratio cost of sorcerer to rubric. If their points are similar then these guys will be about 50 points each.
Someone linked a FB post where the GW community dude says that PL takes into consideration that it's a 'pretty suped up' version of the unit.
Yes, and we've gone over that. If PL were based on upgrades then which upgrade is it based on for the dreadnought?
Deadshot wrote: The more I read about Inceptors the more brain cells I lose. Assault Marines with bike toughness toting double heavy bolters is absolute madness. Matt Ward and CS Goto love child level madness. Spartan kick into the endless pit level madness. If anyone had posted something like that in Proposed Rules they'd have been chased out by an angry mob.
Not assault marines.
Jump marines, then. Its still a rediculous unit design that would have been shot down instaneously in proposed rules.
They stated in the article on shooting that models armed with two one handed weapons may shoot both of them. The example they used was Cypher as being extremely dangerous with his two pistols.
Basically, the new rules assume gunslinger is a thing for everyone.
They are probably more expensive than that. Remember the power level 5 marines are factoring in the cost of the unit upgrades. Meanwhile this sheet is the power level for those with fixed upgrades. I bet they will easily be closer to 40+ points each
The community page explicitly stated that PL does not include upgrades. Those PL5 marines are primaris.
PL8 rubrics have roughly the same ratio cost of sorcerer to rubric. If their points are similar then these guys will be about 50 points each.
Someone linked a FB post where the GW community dude says that PL takes into consideration that it's a 'pretty suped up' version of the unit.
Yes, and we've gone over that. If PL were based on upgrades then which upgrade is it based on for the dreadnought?
Its a guideline for people who just want to make a quick game amongst friends. IF people want to abuse that it is on them. I think the main idea is that you use what you got. So if you are the type to build the most expensive option model that you plan to use all the time in both pointed and power games that is on you.
Wow, they sure gave those Inceptors some pretty mean rules. I guess folks may have to get over their dislike of them! Twin heavy bolters on a jump pack unit, yikes!
I really don't have a problem with any of the Adeptus Restartes models, they are all pretty nice looking. I am not a Marine player, though, so I don't really have a dog in the fight - I will be giving the box set a pass, despite it being a pretty evidently great deal. Just a rulebook plus the tyranid/gsc and elder indexes for me so far. Can't wait to see what kind of love they have in store for the Xenos down the road, although it sounds like we will have nothing but space marines and bad space marines for a little while at least...
Apologies if it's already been discussed (I've read quite a bit of the thread, but I'm still a few days behind), but things look to be shaping up very nicely for Harlequins. The Starweaver profile they showed a few days ago was very nice - Harlequins really needed a good overwatch soak what with us having multiple overwatch now (and Harlies were definitely one of the factions where getting your unit wiped by overwatch was a real possibility). The fact that the Starweaver actually fights pretty well is definitely a bonus. In 7th games, I have had to either use something like a Death Jester or a Skyweaver unit to soak overwatch just to get a troupe in, and that often lead to a unit being sacrificed.
Notably, it looks like the Starweaver might be getting a bump in price to compensate for the increased utility. The Starweaver is power level 5, just like a 5 man unit of intercessors. If, as is expected, intercessors come in around 20 ppm, that would put a Starweaver at around the 100 point mark.
Death Jesters should be interesting too. I expect they will get the Sniper rule that allows them to target characters, and possibly a rule similar to their current rule where they can impose an Ld penalty on any unit that takes am unsaved wound from their fire. Since units no longer fall back, they will probably lose their ability to force units to fall back toward you. Even if it is just an Ld debuff, however, that would still be pretty useful, as you can now stack the damage you're doing in shooting with the casualties caused in melee. And they definitely received an indirect buff since they will no longer be models that you always want to be separate from the squads, and can instead take advantage of the rule saying that characters cannot be targeted unless they are the closest enemy unit.
Shadowseers are kind of a question mark, but if I had to guess, I would expect Veil of Tears to be a straight bubble aura effect, possibly providing a debuff to enemy units' to-hit rolls. Then they will get Smite and probably some other offensive psychic powers, but we will see.
Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
Youn wrote: They stated in the article on shooting that models armed with two one handed weapons may shoot both of them. The example they used was Cypher as being extremely dangerous with his two pistols.
Basically, the new rules assume gunslinger is a thing for everyone.
Youn wrote: With 18 S5 AP-1 shots, you aren't going to want to shoot your closest target. You wont be able to charge it.
Units like these will actually make solid characters assassins. Drop them in behind early and light up their key characters (remember split fire is a thing). I mean 18 shots at s5 rend -1 will probably drop most none power armored targets.
I will say though, if power level assumes most expensive loadout, and these guys appear to lack options. Then these guys are going to be pricey.
Fires 18 shots of S 5 AP -1
Then gets to charge a unit.
Assuming the 18 shots hit 12 times, and wound 9 of those.
This likely means they have killed 4-5 marines
The charge is also likely to have killed another 5 marines by end of combat phase.
If they get gunned down at this point. The have very likely made their points back. If they are not dead by this phase then they can only be a positive points unit.
Youn wrote: They stated in the article on shooting that models armed with two one handed weapons may shoot both of them. The example they used was Cypher as being extremely dangerous with his two pistols.
Basically, the new rules assume gunslinger is a thing for everyone.
Gunslinger was a thing for everyone, besides, what rule lets a storm surge shoot all his guns? What about a crisis suit? Answer is unknown as of yet, as now nothing has been mentioned restricting us from shooting everything, people are still in that old habit of applying previous editions.
Fires 18 shots of S 5 AP -1
Then gets to charge a unit.
Assuming the 18 shots hit 12 times, and wound 9 of those.
This likely means they have killed 4-5 marines
The charge is also likely to have killed another 5 marines by end of combat phase.
If they get gunned down at this point. The have very likely made their points back. If they are not dead by this phase then they can only be a positive points unit.
2.7 marines from the bolter shots. Less if they are in cover, which they probably should be. 0.5 more from the charge ability and their combat weapons are pretty poor so 0.8 for those.
So 4 in total - shooting and combat, which at 13 points per marine is 52. These guys cost 50 at least (educated guess). This also assumes they don't lose a guy to overwatch (which is unlikely) and they make that charge roll.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
Unlikely, probably a restriction on transport units wit something like "infantry units without the Terminator/Jump pack/Fly/*insert thing here* may embark on this vehicle". The flying transports may allow them but again that'll be keyword specific.
How far the basic space marine has fallen, now that the Movie Marines of Adeptus Restarties have arrived! T5 is a huge boost. I think it is nice for those who want to play space marines closer to the fluff, but I do wish they'd given them some kind of draw back - like they're arrogant and never fall back, or go berserk, or something.
Crimson wrote: So how it is determined how many weapons you can shoot with then?
They said in the tau article that the battlesuits could shoot all their weapons as if it were a general rule.
If I had to guess it will be assumed that you get to attack with as many weapons as you have and they will just make it so it is hard to get more than 2-3 weapons. For close combat I bet you will have the option of splitting your attacks between weapons. So for example with the chainsword we saw that it gives an extra attack with its profile. So if a character has powerfist chainsword they can make all of their attacks with the powerfist, and then get 1 extra from the chainsword. I like it, much more elegant solution that chainswords/pistols giving your main weapon a bonus attack.
I would be interested in seeing how they do things like lightning claws or paired weapons. I think it would be cool to get a price cut and some advantage.......Not because I want to make a guy duel wielding thunderhammers or anything......
nintura wrote: If a captain is that scary, what does a chapter master look like?
Given that primaris seems to mean +1 attack and wound... About the same -1 toughness.
Unless primaris chapter masters are a thing right away, I suppose.
It's not the Primaris giving them +1 Toughness.
It's the Gravis Armor.
Yes.
And what armour type do you see regular chapter masters sporting?
Whatever the hell they want? They're Chapter Masters after all.
But again, be specific when making statements like this. Someone unaware of the Gravis Armor granting +1 Toughness might assume that you've seen something they haven't and Primaris characters have bonus Toughness or something.
nintura wrote: If a captain is that scary, what does a chapter master look like?
Given that primaris seems to mean +1 attack and wound... About the same -1 toughness.
Unless primaris chapter masters are a thing right away, I suppose.
It's not the Primaris giving them +1 Toughness.
It's the Gravis Armor.
Yes.
And what armour type do you see regular chapter masters sporting?
Whatever the hell they want? They're Chapter Masters after all.
But again, be specific when making statements like this. Someone unaware of the Gravis Armor granting +1 Toughness might assume that you've seen something they haven't and Primaris characters have bonus Toughness or something.
I've found over the years the real risk is random attacks of pedantry, rather than actual misunderstandings which are rarer and easier to clear up.
Fires 18 shots of S 5 AP -1
Then gets to charge a unit.
Assuming the 18 shots hit 12 times, and wound 9 of those.
This likely means they have killed 4-5 marines
The charge is also likely to have killed another 5 marines by end of combat phase.
If they get gunned down at this point. The have very likely made their points back. If they are not dead by this phase then they can only be a positive points unit.
2.7 marines from the bolter shots. Less if they are in cover, which they probably should be. 0.5 more from the charge ability and their combat weapons are pretty poor so 0.8 for those.
So 4 in total - shooting and combat, which at 13 points per marine is 52. These guys cost 50 at least (educated guess).
Which idiot will decide not to remove casualties from closest to the inceptors though? Only way these guys m,ake an assault after they arrive is if they split fire 5 guns into something else and hope the one gun doesn't extend their assault range.
These guys are VERY odd. I wanted to like them as characters hitters, but at PL8 with no options these guys are going to be CRAZY expensive to trade, because for that roll they aren't surviving. As someone else pointed out centurions can already dual wield heavy bolters AND have missile braziers with a better save unless they really took a hit from the nerf bat. If they are priced anywhere near a centurion then I am not sure I'd take them personally.
Maybe they will serve a better roll at taking out objective campers in your opponents backfield out of LOS and simply scoring points and being annoying. I could see them being a pain to remove with limited backfield options as opposed to using these guys in the thick of it where lets be honest, they will get dusted off the table. Will be interesting to see what cost assault marines are by comparison.
Looking at the combi weapon rule. It basically says you can fire either or both. Which assumes you are holding both weapons.
We also know Twin linked lets you fire double the number of shots.
The Shooting article say you can fire both hand-held pistols in melee range.
They have purposely modeled these guys holding 2 weapons. RAI would suggest they can fire both of them in the same shooting phase. Otherwise, they are pointless models.
I guess something I didn't consider was that models can just use all their weapons, no restrictions before. Which means marines get 3 bolt rounds at 12" due to bolter and bolt pistol.
So things keep looking up and up for marines! Except for, you know, being outmatched by their superior replacement :V
kestral wrote: How far the basic space marine has fallen, now that the Movie Marines of Adeptus Restarties have arrived! T5 is a huge boost. I think it is nice for those who want to play space marines closer to the fluff, but I do wish they'd given them some kind of draw back - like they're arrogant and never fall back, or go berserk, or something.
T5 isn't as great as it was in 7th to be honest actually. Las guns still wound them on a 5+. Sure they survive better against bolt guns but anything with an armor piercing value will mulch them and since they pay for a second wound it won't be inefficient to use such weapons. Think back to the DE disintegrator canon, s5 ap-3 D2! It's safe to assume star canons, ion canons, plasma culverns etc etc will all fill a similar roll. Personally I would still rather field the t4 dudes and just take more bodies. In fact I'll almost always take similar skilled numbers over high wound count any day.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
In 5th-7th editions, what transport was allowed to carry assault marines with jump packs?
Asmodas wrote: Wow, they sure gave those Inceptors some pretty mean rules. I guess folks may have to get over their dislike of them! Twin heavy bolters on a jump pack unit, yikes!!
They are better than heavy bolters. They are assault weapons, which means that they don't infer a -1 to hit!
Assuming that artificer armour is still a thing, I'd probably go with that than gravis, especially for a character who's supposed to move along with the troops to give them a bonus.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
In 5th-7th editions, what transport was allowed to carry assault marines with jump packs?
Honest question.
Corvus Blackstar, Storm Raven
But another thing to consider is that we are all acting as if you have to assault what you shoot. With everyone having split fire I honestly dont see that restriction still being in.
So you land, light up a unit and then charge something else.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
In 5th-7th editions, what transport was allowed to carry assault marines with jump packs?
Honest question.
Storm Ravens. Necron Night Scythes could carry Triarch Praetorians who had the equivalent of a jump pack.
keltikhoa wrote: Assault Marines, or more specifically their jetpack, were bulky models correct? The distinct lack of bulky on the inceptors is interesting. Sideways Transport capacity buff?
In 5th-7th editions, what transport was allowed to carry assault marines with jump packs?
Honest question.
Stormravens, Storm Eagles, Thunderhawks, Stormbird, Caestus Assault Ram, Corvus Blackstar, Stormwolf (Or was it the Stormfang?). Necron Night Scythes were also able to carry JI. It was generally just flyers but notably the Stomraven was the first to specifically allow it.
I wonder if Masters/Captains/Lts will have a set profile and Primaris/Gravis/Artificer/Terminator will all be options. Would be an excellent way to allow full customization for leaders, as they have stated current Marines can receive Primaris Gene-Seed.
Crimson wrote: Assuming that artificer armour is still a thing, I'd probably go with that than gravis, especially for a character who's supposed to move along with the troops to give them a bonus.
I'd save points and take power armor. No point in dumping pts into a solo guy, anything they send that can target him directly will presumably be able to kill him easily. You get LOS onto nearby units apparently as well. If I had to guess, super killy special character capts will be a thing but mostly you will still see the unit with the strongest army wide buffs. Probably still a psycher. The 6" bubble this guy had was decent, but by comparison I liked all the ork characters buff more.
A Watcher In The Dark wrote: The rule for how many weapons you can shoot is very simple:
A unit or model may shoot with all of his weapons.
source: crisis can shoot 3, stormsurge can shoot 10, vehicle can shoot everything and now Inceptor can also shoot both.
disclaimer: salt required
In AOS all models shoot/attack with all equipped weapons. Large models can have four-five different types of weapons that scale down with damage taken.
dan2026 wrote: The Interceptors can fire 6 shots per model after landing right next to you?
Holy gak!
They have to cost a crap load of points per model.
Power level 8 for a unit of 2 Inceptors and a Sergeant.
Apparently Power Level is set for the highest possible cost of a unit, assuming it has all the upgrades rolled in.
Oh my gahd people need to stop quoting the facebook page.
Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have. For this level of granularity, you have points.
Oh my gahd people need to stop quoting the facebook page.
Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have. For this level of granularity, you have points.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, otherwise, I cannot say if I give Games Workshop more or less stock than I'd give Games Workshop on a product that Games Workshop makes. Thus I must find some way to make both statements true.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
tetrisphreak wrote: So should we expect a flood of information on 8th this weekend ? And next week as retailers get their demo rule books and indices?
Yeah, I assume that there's going to be tons of demo games and someone till sneak the rules pamphlet into the bathroom to upload to War of Sigmar or something.
Yeah, I assume that there's going to be tons of demo games and someone till sneak the rules pamphlet into the bathroom to upload to War of Sigmar or something.
They need to sneak the damn Index's into the bathroom and give the rest of us the Low Down.
dan2026 wrote: The Interceptors can fire 6 shots per model after landing right next to you?
Holy gak!
They have to cost a crap load of points per model.
Power level 8 for a unit of 2 Inceptors and a Sergeant.
Apparently Power Level is set for the highest possible cost of a unit, assuming it has all the upgrades rolled in.
Oh my gahd people need to stop quoting the facebook page.
Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have. For this level of granularity, you have points.
So we should ignore all the Q&A info? No thanks, I think I'll use some logic and reasoning applied to both since when you do you realize that the two sources are not actually in conflict at all. Your just reading into it as if there is.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
Pretty much exactly.
No, not exactly.
The same logic can be flipped on the Facebook guys to mean that they wanted you to know you can take anything and it doesn't change the assigned power level.
So, again, I ask - to which none have had a reply - which upgrade did they based the dreadnought power level upon? And the Rubrics?
So we should ignore all the Q&A info? No thanks, I think I'll use some logic and reasoning applied to both since when you do you realize that the two sources are not actually in conflict at all. Your just reading into it as if there is.
Ok, then answer my question above.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And let's apply a little Occam's Razor here folks.
Did they do the math for the base unit or did they calculate every possible combination and come up with an average?
So they keep saying there's no more USR's, but then the marines all have ATSKNF. Is that just the exception that proves the rule, or is there something I'm missing?
skarsol wrote: So they keep saying there's no more USR's, but then the marines all have ATSKNF. Is that just the exception that proves the rule, or is there something I'm missing?
If it is a rule that pretty much every model in the army has, then it is printed once in the codex/index to avoid pointless repetition. There are no USRs in the BRB, AFAIK.
Oh my gahd people need to stop quoting the facebook page.
Power Levels are a great way to very quickly get a roughly balanced game organised and started, but they do not account for the various wargear options and upgrades a unit can have. For this level of granularity, you have points.
People keep going back and forth on this, as if the two are inconsistent. Maybe they're not? What if the way to reconcile it is that when they say that it does not account for wargear and upgrades, they're trying to say that it does not fluctuate based upon the number of wargear and upgrades you select, while the FB thing is saying "oh don't worry, we pegged the PL assuming you'd have take some ambiguous number of upgrades for that unit".
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, otherwise, I cannot say if I give Games Workshop more or less stock than I'd give Games Workshop on a product that Games Workshop makes. Thus I must find some way to make both statements true.
We have already seen some clues as to how power levels work when compared to points. A Tac squad of 5 models is 5 power levels, and a 5 man intercessor squad is 6power levels. The space marines are 13 ppm, and the intercessors are ??? ppm, but we can compare the two and come to some conclusions. The intercessors have a fixed loadout, and are more like marines + 0.5 rather than marines +1 (1 more wound, so 100% more durable, but putting out the same number of shots with a marginally better range and rend value). A 5 man tac squad can, on the other hand, take a special weapon and a combi on the serge, plus maybe a melta bomb or some other melee weapon. That value will be variable, but on the upper edge we are probably talking about 30-35 points of wargear (and once you make it a 10 man squad you can take a heavy weapon too, which we know can cost up to 27 points in the case of a MM). Thus we are looking at 65 point squad with the potential to take about 35 points in upgrades = 100 points. This is why I arrive at the conclusion that the intercessors are probably 120 points (and the starweaver at 100 points too, for that matter). The 20 points per power level translates into the inceptors being around 160 points - about where others have guessed they would come in.
Did they do the math for the base unit or did they calculate every possible combination and come up with an average?
Absent an answer from GW, it's impossible to know.
Personally, I would have started with the most expensive valid set of options, halved that cost, and added it to the base unit calculation. Still not perfect, but probably more accurate than just base cost.
skarsol wrote: So they keep saying there's no more USR's, but then the marines all have ATSKNF. Is that just the exception that proves the rule, or is there something I'm missing?
ATSKNF is an army rule, not a USR. It's a small, but important distinction.
Moving on past Power levels, I am wondering if Assault Weapons will gain a gunslinger rule to balance them agaianst the buffs other weapon types have now.
That or bespoke rules let you shoot all weapons on certain models (keywords like Gravis, Stormsurge, Crisis).
Oops! Sorry about that, but I think the 20 points per power level bit is still probably about where we will come out when all is said an done. That seems to indicate Intercessors would be around 120 points, not 100.
Heh, When I came up originally saying the incessors were 105 pts. People said that I was just making up numbers. Which is true based off an educated guess.
Marines are 13 points.
Primaris marines are +1 wound and +1 attack. Which I bet puts them at 20 points per model.
A jump pack on a character in 7th was +15 points. So, my guess was that they were 20 pts + 15 points = 35 points per model.
3 x 35pts = 105 pts. Assuming you discount the jump pack to make it Jump pack + Assault Bolter = +15 pts.
This leave the cost of Gravis armor on them. So.. yeah, I revise my cost to 40pts per model. Or 120pts for the squad.
