I believe that releasing Imperial Knights as superheavies instead of monsterous creatures is in fact a sure sign that some kind of update to main wh40k rules is incoming.
GW seems to be set to include superheavies to regular games, as an antidote for overdoing monsterous creatures. Look at it this way: more HP for vehicles makes them more equal to MC's. Superheavies ignoring vehicle dmg table makes them more equal to MC (no sudden loss of capabilities). Still, MC's (and GC's) come slightly ahead in the race as their armor save is applied after wounds have been made to high toughness. The 4++ shield on the IK attempts to equalize this aspect too.
As for game balance, simply doubling the existing HP values for all the vehicles would actually make many of them more playable when compared to MC's, even if dmg table effects were to remain. Or, they can go the other way, simply remove vehicle dmg table altogether, and replace with a smaller exposion (or chance of one) when HP run out.
D-weapons could also be "fixed" rather easily. First of all, people tend to forget that a roll of 1 equals a save for non-vech models already. Then, further fixing would be to change D from strips all saves to degrades all saves: a -2 for saves, so that a 3+ would become 5+. Or perhaps -3. And the rest of the D effects could be retained as is.
So, I my view balance is not necessarily lost forever. And for the record, I think 6ed is, all in all, clearly better than 5th. Let's hope 7th is better still.
The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.
sorry to point it out, but a new edition will do nothing about it, the problem is balance, and until GW addresses that, something competitive players have asked for for years now, the situation will not change, comp is going nowhere until they strike balance.
kir44n wrote: The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.
Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"
Which may have the opposite effect. It may ramp up sales at the beginning of March as the Codex becomes available, but that is probably when customers will start dropping off again too. I was about to get back into 40K until I read all of this. Now, I am going to bide my time and wait to see how the Knights codex affects the game and what 7th looks like.
Consider a scenario:
A new kid finally gets his parents to cave and buy the rules, a codex and an army. He spends weeks painting up his new army then shows up to a tournament and gets pounded by an experienced player with super-heavies. "This game sucks," he says as he goes home to eBay his models and look up Infinity.
This is obviously an exaggerated example, because GW isn't bringing any "new kids" into the Hobby.
puma713 wrote: ...A new kid finally gets his parents to cave and buy the rules, a codex and an army. He spends weeks painting up his new army then shows up to a tournament and gets pounded by an experienced player with super-heavies. "This game sucks," he says as he goes home to eBay his models and look up Infinity.
Replace "ebay his models and look up infinity" with "put his models away and play video games with his friends" and you've about got it I think. Either way the scenario is a "WIN" for GW. Churn and burn baby!
Edit: there are new kids (my son and his friends are examples from a couple of years ago) but very few, so few. More importantly it wasn't GW that brought them into the hobby; for two it was the kids parents and for the other two it was those kids. GW stores had nothing to do with it. Well, I was in England between '86-90 and so was the other parent of the other kid so the GW stores over there contributed but many years prior to now!
Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"
I would say the guy with the Knight army should've checked with the TO/tournament rules to make sure Knights were allowed before he showed up with an illegal army. Which is what Knight players will probably have to face any time they want to field their army. This will, in turn, damage Knight sales and cause their Codex to be sidelined outside of casual games. But I'm not sure how many casual players really want to play against an army of superheavies.
So, seems like lose-lose. But the push by GW to crowbar superheavies into normal games is becoming more and more blatantly obvious.
The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks. And I don't think I can fully agree with that mindset. So I'm hopeful that this rumor is true, because it should solve the arguing, and maybe get this mentality out the door so people can move on and be productive. And not try to *ban* anything new that they don't like.
Dataslates are already being ignored by both gamers and tournies for the reason you list. Also, making something 100% official or even in a codex doesn't mean people will allow its use. Both chapter approved army lists (all tank IG) that didn't require any permission as well as codex supplements (catachan jungle fighters) were banned from most major tournies and frowned upon in some local scenes. In my store, you basically played the catachan all jungle army once and then politely declined future games against that army unless he was using them as normal guard. If something breaks the game and/or makes it unfun, it likely be ignored regardless of how official it is.
sorry to point it out, but a new edition will do nothing about it, the problem is balance, and until GW addresses that, something competitive players have asked for for years now, the situation will not change, comp is going nowhere until they strike balance.
It's something all players (apart from those who seem to regard balance as boring) have been asking for years now. I'm not a competitive player, I don't mind losing. But I don't like it being a foregone conclusion.
kir44n wrote: The tactics threads about knights are bringing this arguments up again, with people expressing that Imperial Knights should be banned just like escalation because they're "grossly overpowered." It's getting kind of absurd. Banning Flyers, Fortifications, Super-Heavies, Imperial Knights....what's next? Dataslates because they allow forces that break FoC? The mindset seems to me that they want to ban anything that wasn't legal and normal in late 4th, early 5th edition, and are instituting a sort of edition freeze, except for minor rules tweaks.
Guess why? Because most were written with no respect for game balance. Introducing flyers while noone has anti-air weapons, just so you could buy a roflstomp win. Allowing titans and super heavies, so you could buy a roflstomp win.
There are not enough TFGs to sustain sales and not enough opponents happy with being roflstomped. There is a reason, why the flood of new Codices, new supplements and new data slades did not translate into higher revenue, because it is not a balanced game anymore..
No that's not why. It's because money. If this was a video game where you can download the latest OP army and play mirror matches vs others like you there would be far less noise. The standard reply to "That's overpowered" would be "Play it yourself if you think it's so easy". But because this is a miniature game, only a fraction of the player base can keep moving from one flavor of the month army to the next in order to keep roflstomping others year in, year out.
Sometimes complaining is justified, sometimes it isn't. I understand that if GW introduces units that table entire armies in a single turn people might have a legit reason to be upset. The problem to me is that even the whine escalates. People don't simply whine about grossly overpowered units, but they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
There's no point trying to bring the argument that this time around balance is so bad that something has to be done. Not the case. I won a Grand Tournament with a Siren Daemon Prince back in the day with 9 minor powers. He couldn't be targeted by any weapons and couldn't be assaulted. Everything else in the army was blatantly broken too, and I won 6 games 20-0 and one opponent conceded before the game started. This is soon a decade ago. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is a veteran in the GW hobby, has similar stories to tell. Nothing's changed.
Banning Knights is a slippery slope though, since they're a legal "army". As I said above, at that point why not ban Tau or Eldar? Plus you cause problems when that guy shows up to a tournament with 5 Knights and gets told "Sorry no Knights" as he's bought an army and can't use them. And there's the rub - If you allow Knights, it's one less step to allowing Escalation. And if/when 7th edition includes Escalation and superheavies in the normal rules, it'll be one step less from letting anybody drop a superheavy in a normal game, because "Why can Bill field his Knight army, but I can't use my superheavy?"
See above. Banning an entire codex is not unprecedented but your comparison to eldar/tau is an apples and oranges one. Banning something completely new versus a long existing codex/army is different. Banning a book in which the problematic unit is the entire focus versus banning a book because of a combo of units from different codex books used with a problematic new rule (allies) is different. Its not a slippery slope and more importantly its a slope that Gw fell smack on their corporate butts before on so should known better to avoid rather than to try and walk up it again.
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
To me, this whole thing feels like a board meeting just finished where the topic was, "How can we get our money's worth out of these super-heavies?" As if the gaming community was just chomping at the bit to use them in normal games of 40K, but poor us, we couldn't because we didn't have any official rules for them. So, in making official rules, the floodgates will open and people will rejoice as they can finally use their long-stored superheavies in their normal games.
There's no point trying to bring the argument that this time around balance is so bad that something has to be done. Not the case. I won a Grand Tournament with a Siren Daemon Prince back in the day with 9 minor powers. He couldn't be targeted by any weapons and couldn't be assaulted. Everything else in the army was blatantly broken too, and I won 6 games 20-0 and one opponent conceded before the game started. This is soon a decade ago. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is a veteran in the GW hobby, has similar stories to tell. Nothing's changed.
You are wrong, through the widespread knowleadge the internet brought, the PEOPLE changed, and they are no longer tolerant of it. You said it yourself, this is how people feel NOW, that is how people felt BEFORE.
Therion wrote: Sometimes complaining is justified, sometimes it isn't. I understand that if GW introduces units that table entire armies in a single turn people might have a legit reason to be upset. The problem to me is that even the whine escalates. People don't simply whine about grossly overpowered units, but they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
Is that not a valid reason though? Given how expensive the game is to even buy a single army, let alone switch armies, some semblance of balance should be expected so you don't "waste" several hundred dollars buying subpar units and ending up with a subpar force.
I can't speak to its validity but I read on a different forum a quote (might have been paraphrased) from one of GW's designers (Jeremy Vetock I think) when someone asked him at a Games Day about balance. He said something to the effect of "Some armies should be able to easily win against others". I also heard of a similar situation with a (non-designer) GW Store Manager who, when asked what do in a hypothetical situation where you only have one opponent and they play the army that trumps your army, answered that the correct response was to buy the army that trumps your opponent; at least in that case you can kinda maybe sorta excuse it as it was a sales manager, but to have a designer basically admit that it's okay to have armies which can easily win against other armies is ridiculous.
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game.
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
This game, pits 2 players against each other, there is no way that can not be a competitive game, this is not roleplaying the objective is to beat the other other player. You can argue foolishness all you want, reality is gw is hemorraging customers, while other games are growing pp, infinity so on, they all have 1 thing in common, better balance, at the end of the day win or loose you want to have fun, and rolling dice to get crushed by the same units over and over only gets you so far.
I would even argue that they are using a sub optimal approach as demonstrated by Riot and Blizzaard in Hearthstone and league, everything standing on an almost even field, i am more likelly to buy different units that i know will be usefull just to try out different play stiles, than i am to spend the time and money on a known sub par unit.
This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?
Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.
Fishboy wrote: This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?
Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.
To be fair though there isn't much of a rumor beyond "Some guys said there might be". As I recall we've heard conflicting that:
* There will be a 7th edition
* It will be more like 6.5 than a new edition and include Escalation/superheavies by default
* There will be a new box (Orks vs. Blood Angels)
* Said new box is actually for a revised Epic, not 40k (Yeah, right)
And that's about it. There isn't much in the realm of rumor development.
Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots. Make it similar to Bolt Action, with additional bits for:
* Skirmish games (i.e. Kill Team)
* Large Epic-like games (i.e. Apoc)
Give Kill Team actual rules that let you do more e.g. you can pick less than a full squad, and then publish at some point a DataSlate for experience/advancement and campaigns (i.e. Necromunda!). Limit superheavies and the like to Apoc rules and scenarios. Fix the stupid reliance of random tables, which contrary to what Jervis Johnson thinks do not make the game more fun. Bring things back like allowing a 5-man squad to take a special OR a heavy weapon, instead of requiring 10 to get a heavy (one of the stupidest changes ever IMO; I get that they wanted to kill the Las/Plas 5-man squads, but they could have done it much easier).
This is less and less about an updated 7th and more about complaining about the current edition.
Any chance we can get back on topic? I understand there are some that hate the game now because it isnt what it used to be way back when. I understand some of you love flyers and superheavies. Maybe all that should be hashed out in discussion rather than the news and rumors thread?
Not trying to be a jerk but every topic seems to grind to hate and arguments and it is hard to keep up with the actual news and rumors.
Spoiler:
To be fair though there isn't much of a rumor beyond "Some guys said there might be". As I recall we've heard conflicting that:
* There will be a 7th edition
* It will be more like 6.5 than a new edition and include Escalation/superheavies by default
* There will be a new box (Orks vs. Blood Angels)
* Said new box is actually for a revised Epic, not 40k (Yeah, right)
And that's about it. There isn't much in the realm of rumor development.
Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots. Make it similar to Bolt Action, with additional bits for:
* Skirmish games (i.e. Kill Team)
* Large Epic-like games (i.e. Apoc)
Give Kill Team actual rules that let you do more e.g. you can pick less than a full squad, and then publish at some point a DataSlate for experience/advancement and campaigns (i.e. Necromunda!). Limit superheavies and the like to Apoc rules and scenarios. Fix the stupid reliance of random tables, which contrary to what Jervis Johnson thinks do not make the game more fun. Bring things back like allowing a 5-man squad to take a special OR a heavy weapon, instead of requiring 10 to get a heavy (one of the stupidest changes ever IMO; I get that they wanted to kill the Las/Plas 5-man squads, but they could have done it much easier).
I think that the game really does need a total revamp sometime. I mean for me its really annoying to have all of these little additions coming out that are changing rules and that can be totally game changing (Escalation). If its in the fatbook at the beginning of the new edition then it should stay and new crazy stuff shouldnt be added. I like the idea of the TBL but releasing $50 books to add on to the already $75 for the book and $40 for the codex is going to start weighing down on the wargamers pocket book.
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).
If the game is meant to run in a way that anything can completely invalidated at a whim then they should be up front about it. As it is people are wary about investing into the game and having units or rules made obsolete. And it's not an insignificant investment getting an army and getting up to speed with it. If it was something like Infinity if your faction became useless (which is unlikely) you can get another one for £30, but with 40K it could mean £300.
If GW want to do as much as they can to encourage sales, they need to do something to alleviate the concern that anything a customer buys will become unless within a matter of months.
For example: I want to buy the Dwarf Army book (and the IG book next month), but I know that WHF is meant to be getting a 9th Ed this summer, so I'm likely to wait until that drops. As with the IG book if there is a new 6.5/th Ed 40K I might wait and see how that goes, too. Because neither book is cheap enough for me to want to buy something that'll potentially leave me with a useless army before I can get more than a couple of games in.
Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots.
I'd love a "ground up" rebuild of the GW systems, but it won't happen and it definitely won't curtail the complaining. I remember the kvetching towards the end of 2nd because our Codexes were being made unusable and we'd have to buy new ones in addition to a new box.
Really at this point I think they should look at doing a total revamp like 2nd to 3rd; maybe not for 7th edition but for 8th edition. They need to rewrite the game from the ground up to actually fix issues that have persisted for 15+ years now, and bring the game back to its roots.
I'd love a "ground up" rebuild of the GW systems, but it won't happen and it definitely won't curtail the complaining. I remember the kvetching towards the end of 2nd because our Codexes were being made unusable and we'd have to buy new ones in addition to a new box.
Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.
Apparently you've misunderstood me or you have a misconception of people playing the game. I am not referring to people who build the next best thing - who get their lists from the internet and then build what someone else tells them to build. I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?
So, you're saying, "Sorry, get over it." bs. That person has spent as much time and money as the netlister (probably more) and so they deserve to play a fair game against them. What you and GW are both saying are, "Too bad for that guy." as pointed out in your next comment:
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
What? So, this game isn't competitive? Isn't that what a game is? So, sorry if you like Tyranids or Sisters of Battle or a myriad of other army combinations out there, you're out of luck? That's fun? For who?
Just change the name to Tau Empire: Eldar 40,000 if that is what you're saying.
I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).
I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.
If the game is meant to run in a way that anything can completely invalidated at a whim then they should be up front about it. As it is people are wary about investing into the game and having units or rules made obsolete.
This. Exactly this. Back when I was helping others get into the game, picking out whichever army you felt suited you best was the first step into the game. Often it is Space Marines and then you work your way into Xenos. No longer is the game a matter of choosing just whichever faction you like best. Now you must research which factions are doing what in the current meta, otherwise you're going to blow $500-$1000 (easy) on an army that is both unforgiving and does poorly in the current edition. Balance should be strived for, not thrown out the window because it is unattainable.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
Therion wrote: they whine about everything that is forcing them to spend money in order to remain relevant or competitive.
I'd say that people who have spent a good chunk of money building, converting and painting their armies have a legitimate reason to whine when some new rule comes out that invalidates their army or makes their army less competitive on the battlefield. But GW doesn't care about that person. They've already gotten their money from them.
Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years).
Therion, nice work with your posts regarding GW and the state of the game. Have an exalt.
Unfortunately, I think many human beings can't simply be told that things are cyclical...that similar things have happened before and will happen again. People want to think their problems and experiences are fresh and novel.
I do think that perhaps one incremental change that might be throwing some extra gasoline on this fire is the push (in the U.S. especially) by some to try to turn GW games into faux-sports, with national rankings, cash prizes, etc. I suspect that fifth edition may have snookered some into thinking that these games are suited for that kind of competition. (As an aside, I still think some people look back on past editions and confuse certain equilibriums that were reached during those editions with "balance.") GW getting out of the GT business also helped hurry that along.
It'd be great if their games were suited to that kind of highly competitive play all the way done to casual play, like chess or tennis or whatever. But this vet stands in agreement with you...they aren't that, never were, and never will be. It's not just about certain designers...the entire company isn't aligned that way.
And yeah, a lot of the conversations around comp systems make me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
Therion wrote: Ah, the classic complaint right here. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that there are no guarantees when you're building your army. I doubt any sane player, and certainly noone at GW, would promise you that an army you're building will stay competitive for a long period of time. You're basically admitting to what I posted previously. You, or the imaginative person we're talking about, has spent his money on a tournament winner army that he copied from an internet message board, and since the meta is changing due to new even more powerful armies, he is angry or disappointed that he is once again obligated to spend money if he wants to keep playing the most outrageously overpowered army in the game. He is agreeing to a state of complete imbalance by building a strong army, but all of a sudden has a problem with imbalance when an even stronger army enters the game.
If in fact this imaginary person had actually seen the game for what it is and has always been (not a competitive game by any stretch of imagination) he would've avoided this massive misconception.
I'm not being a GW apologist. Far from it. I'm a harsh critic of the way they've squandered their opportunities. That said I'm also a realist and probably have more experience than a lot of the posters here and can say how easy it is to look at your own hobby as something it simply is not when you're still very enthralled by it. Once enough time passes by you should be able to get some perspective on things and note that nothing's changed. A person above claimed that something has changed, but that's simply not true. Composition scoring systems and army restrictions come and go. If you'd write a short history of tournament 40K or tournament FB you'd find the periods keep going in circles. Sometimes people are outraged by everything and want things banned, and at some points it's cool to be the guy who has a 59-1 tournament record with some ridiculous army. I find the novel idea about building a 40K committee extremely entertaining, as if that was somehow a new idea. Warhammer in mainland Europe has been house ruled from top to bottom by a committee of players for a long, long time already (5-10 years)
Let's do a bit of analysis from my perspective on the above form my CSM army. I started with 2nd edition, but didn't really play a lot until 3rd.
- From 2nd to 3rd, I had to do a major upgrade on my army because it was all terminators in 2nd and was not legal. While I was not exactly happy, I understood the change and could still use (barely) use my previous models. CSM Terminators have been corner case units ever since 2nd edition and aren't typically taken. This was the shift to having more base troops, not really a big deal.
- From 3rd to 4th, I lost the use of transports, but there were still ways to use them. The rhino rush was dead, but for the most part nothing was really all that bad. I got to add in defilers and raptors, but these units were not required.
- From 4th to 5th, my army was split as god specific demons are now their own army. This means I have a partial army of unusable models that don't do much other than collect dust.
- From 5th to 6th, my core troop selection is now garbage, meaning the army is basically garbage. I can now use my demons again, but Berserkers were nerfed into the ground, making them basically unplayable. However, I gained a OP flyer (which looks like crap IMO).
Instead of making my army balanced and allowing new choices to be used because they filled a different role or made things specialized, GW chooses to just invalidate huge chunks of my army. The army I fielded in 4th edition is non-competitive in the current environment because the main troop choice for the CSM codex, you know the Chaos Space MARINES are not viable due to their current rules.
On the other hand Privateer Press chooses to still allow my models which are over 7 years old to be playable and competitive, even after an edition change and several expansions. The army I fielded with Warmachine when I first started is still competitive with expansions allowing me to have more options and shiney things to play with.
puma713 wrote: I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.
If you've been playing that long, you should remember a few things.
1) GW made the decisions and not indy TOs, because big indy events were rare and tended to follow GW's lead anyway.
2) GW (in the U.S. at least) went through a variety of comp systems from '97 to around '03 trying to fix the game for competitive play.
3) For their GTs in 2nd edition, GW (again in the U.S.) made a number of hard decisions, including outright bans and rule changes.
Things may be worse than ever, but they aren't truly *new problems*, if you follow me.
puma713 wrote:
Apparently you've misunderstood me or you have a misconception of people playing the game. I am not referring to people who build the next best thing - who get their lists from the internet and then build what someone else tells them to build. I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?
No, I didn't misunderstand you at all. What you wrote above is inconsequential. I feel none or very little sympathy towards anyone upset about the arbitrary and highly subjective matter of his personal miniature army's competitiveness. Cry me a river if someone has spent his time and money and no longer feels the product is competitive enough, when it's not even the seller of the product who is organising the competition. That guy didn't know what he was stepping into. The game didn't change. He was just oblivious to the facts that would've been readily available if he talked to anyone sensible in advance.
So, you're saying, "Sorry, get over it." bs. That person has spent as much time and money as the netlister (probably more) and so they deserve to play a fair game against them. What you and GW are both saying are, "Too bad for that guy."
Again the time and money wording, as if we should feel sorry for someone who invests his disposable income and free time voluntarily on a luxury product. I won't say too bad, because I'm less sympathetic than that.
What? So, this game isn't competitive? Isn't that what a game is? So, sorry if you like Tyranids or Sisters of Battle or a myriad of other army combinations out there, you're out of luck? That's fun? For who?
Games don't necessarily have to be competitions that are taken so seriously that you are willing to argue about the finer points of game balance and even get emotional about them. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but it's not the purpose of this thread. As to the second part of your phrase, yes, if you play Tyranids or SoB or a myriad of other armies, you're out of luck. If you didn't know it when you started playing 40K, you're out of luck. Apparently when you started you didn't join a community of veterans who could've told you that each edition is always dominated by one or two armies, which even in average hands can't be reasonably beat.
Just change the name to Tau Empire: Eldar 40,000 if that is what you're saying.
No, the name is Warhammer 40K, because the days of Tau or Eldar dominating are numbered. Those who got into the game and as their first army bought a Taudar list that they expect to dominate with for the next five years are in for a surprise. Their 1000 dollars or more won't dominate. They can play, and they're not going to get invalidated, but they won't dominate. They might even be trash if they're really unlucky.
I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.
This doesn't deserve an extensive reply as you're either lying about your experience or just ignorant. The game has been in far more turmoil than this before, and so has Fantasy Battle (perhaps even more so). What we're seeing right now regarding game balance is in no way unusual.
gorgon wrote:
I do think that perhaps one incremental change that might be throwing some extra gasoline on this fire is the push (in the U.S. especially) by some to try to turn GW games into faux-sports, with national rankings, cash prizes, etc. I suspect that fifth edition may have snookered some into thinking that these games are suited for that kind of competition. (As an aside, I still think some people look back on past editions and confuse certain equilibriums that were reached during those editions with "balance.") GW getting out of the GT business also helped hurry that along.
It'd be great if their games were suited to that kind of highly competitive play all the way done to casual play, like chess or tennis or whatever. But this vet stands in agreement with you...they aren't that, never were, and never will be. It's not just about certain designers...the entire company isn't aligned that way.
And yeah, a lot of the conversations around comp systems make me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
Right on the money. Because I've frequented Dakka since 2001 I have an idea on how the approach has kept changing in the US. At one point the US scene was all about comp and fair play, but later on people started making mockery of those who only want to play 'weak' armies and try to cram 'sportsmanship' into a game that so obviously doesn't need it (supposedly). Now the talk is again that this or that has to be banned. All the while in Europe, the invention of the ETC Army Restrictions for Warhammer Fantasy changed the whole scene. People admitted that the game isn't suitable for a competitive tournament, and took steps for better balance (not to be confused with balance). Naturally, we've seen the threads where others argue how it's about moving the goal posts and so on, but the point remains: There has to be Warhammer, and Tournament Warhammer, because they aren't the same thing. Some communities can agree that this is necessary, and some can't.
Funnily enough, I've seen how different countries play completely different versions of the GW games. The 40K played in US hasn't always been the same as 40K played in Europe. There's been very large divisions in how competitive and abusive armies people are willing to admit to tournaments. Even with two small countries like Finland and neighbouring Sweden, we've always had completely different types of tournament circuits. Finnish tournaments allowed everything, while Swedes looked down on us with disdain as some types of barbarians who play with brainless cheese that requires no skill whatsoever to play, and our armies wouldn't have even been legal at their tournaments. In this light, like you said, it's always a bit funny to see youngbloods who try to paint this situation as somehow new and interesting, and how the community all of a sudden has to react, as if we were in a state of imbalance that has never existed. Groundhog Day indeed
Finally, like you said, even the highly house ruled Tournament Warhammer shouldn't be confused with chess or other actually very balanced games, because no matter what the organised gamers decide as a community, the company adding supplements and expansions to the overall product isn't interested in tournaments or competitive play of any kind and doesn't design new products that way.
Not going to keep going, because we obviously vehemently disagree. I feel that anyone playing the game should be able to bring his army to the table, be able to play a fun game and know that he has a reasonable change of winning. I am not saying that 40K has ever been this way. I am saying that it is what should be driven at. Funny how other gaming companies seem to get it.
You obviously disagree. Someone like Barfolomew above shouldn't be surprised at all that he has to buy a new chunk of his army every edition because he was told that by his gaming community. Oh, that $1200 you just dropped on a new army? Yeah, half of that might be worthless next edition. Oh, you like Tyranids? I wouldn't advise playing them. I guess I can see why there are so few new people coming into the game now and veterans leaving.
You know, if this semblance of game building was working, you'd think the community would be on the steady rise.
I wonder how iPads would be doing if the consumer found out that, every update, the iPad didn't work any more and he had to buy a new one. You think that would go over well? Or you think people would just stop buying iPads?
I've played 40K since 2nd Edition, been playing in tournaments for a long time and I've never seen the state of the game like this. Never before have TO's been forced to make "make or break" decisions about the game and, therefore, their tournaments to make sure there is adequate player turnout.
This doesn't deserve an extensive reply as you're either lying about your experience or just ignorant. The game has been in far more turmoil than this before, and so has Fantasy Battle (perhaps even more so). What we're seeing right now regarding game balance is in no way unusual.
Sounds like you're the emotional one here. Take a step away from the computer and then come back and let's talk like adults. I'm neither lying nor ignorant. I didn't say there have never been problems. I said I've never seen tournament play this way. Gorgon brought up some points that I wasn't aware of because I didn't play tournaments in 2nd or 3rd edition, but I did play the game.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section. The 6th edition SM Codex doesn't to my knowledge even have a "how to paint" section, just pages of pretty pictures. The fact it's hardcover with glossy pages don't matter one bit to me as it was clearly just a way to justify the price increase.
I have also played 2nd and 3rd edition and it was not as bad as the current meta. I have off and on frequented this site since probably late 2000/early 2001 (the old EZBoard) and I don't ever remember this level of anger at GW from back then. GW wants the game to be something that a lot of their customers don't.
I do agree though I think a lot of it is cultural. Europe and the UK especially seem to not be as competitive and instead encourage close-knit gaming clubs where you always have fun with your mates; the US in contrast doesn't have as many and most games are pickup games at game stores where you're basically at the mercy of whoever turns up to play.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section. The 6th edition SM Codex doesn't to my knowledge even have a "how to paint" section, just pages of pretty pictures. The fact it's hardcover with glossy pages don't matter one bit to me as it was clearly just a way to justify the price increase.
To each his own, I suppose. Having lived through the 3rd edition codexes, there was a reason they were only $15-20 though.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.
A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.
A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.
Pretty much my thoughts. The Codex was for gaming, it didn't need 50 pages of background, it needed a basic background and there were other sources (White Dwarf, books, GW site, etc.) for getting more in depth about a Space Marine's physiology or epic battles of the Eldar. I liked them being slim and cheap versus the current $50.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly true, although at least in 3rd edition a Codex was generally what, $20? That was easier to stomach than paying $75 for the rules and then $50 for a Codex.
3rd edition codexes were also some of the worst from a page count, fluff and substance standpoint. Codexes today have 2-3 times as much content, better paper and are hardcover. Seriously, go back and take a look at 3rd ed Codex: Space Marines and compare it to the 6th edition one.
They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about. If you wanted more fluff, or better painting guides then you had other products that you could purchase to complement the codex.
A Codex is a tool that allows a player to play the game, extra fluff, hardcovers (lol-what? this is a gaming tool, not a coffee table book!), and recycled pictures of static models are just excuses to jack up the price, they don't make it a better product by any stretch of the imagination.
It doesn't make it better as strictly a rules delivering device... no
Some of us do like more content about the fluff etc then others though...
puma713 wrote:
I wonder how iPads would be doing if the consumer found out that, every update, the iPad didn't work any more and he had to buy a new one. You think that would go over well? Or you think people would just stop buying iPads?
What an extremely poorly chosen comparison. I'm surprised you could pick one this bad. The iPad I bought a few years ago isn't competitive with new iPads anymore. It's crap. It works to an extent, but it doesn't do the job as well as the new ones. It's inferior in its purpose. Should I be outraged that my iPad isn't competitive forever? Should I just stop buying iPads?
99,9% of armies people build will work very far into the future. They most likely last longer than the iPad, which as an electronic device will just stop functioning sooner or later, while the models will remain. The army you bought won't be as competitive as the new ones, but it'll still work. Noone will take your models away. You can even use them for other armies. It's like buying only half an iPad to upgrade the old junk to competitive status again. Neither the iPad or the army manufacturer are organising competitions for the products, nor are they claiming that the product you bought remains the most competitive forever. You made that connection. Your mistake.
Sounds like you're the emotional one here. Take a step away from the computer and then come back and let's talk like adults. I'm neither lying nor ignorant. I didn't say there have never been problems. I said I've never seen tournament play this way. Gorgon brought up some points that I wasn't aware of because I didn't play tournaments in 2nd or 3rd edition, but I did play the game.
You're the only one who feels that out of my last dozen posts one can deduce that I'm emotional about the subject. It's a misunderstanding of massive proportions, but I'm not surprised. There's a lot of misconceptions in the way you view the game and perhaps the whole world.
You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? It makes it sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). " You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating. "
I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.
You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.
I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.
Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.
You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.
I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.
Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.
Edited so it didn't sound like an attack on Therion, which it wasn't.
You're right. Everything GW is doing is perfect and it is the players who buy into it who are to blame. How could I have been so misguided? You sound like a husband (GW) that beats his wife (their consumers). You should've known what getting into this situation would get you, so why are you complaining? Just take your beating.
I guess what people will do is leave the situation and avoid the beatings.
Puma that is a pretty inflamatory and offensive comparison there.
Edited so it didn't sound like an attack on Therion, which it wasn't.
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I don't think it is considered offensive because you were personally engaging another poster. It is considered offensive (ridiculous, in my opinion) because nothing about the customer satisfaction of luxury goods is remotely comparable to domestic abuse. Let's try and keep things in perspective here.
WayneTheGame wrote:I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section.
Then you never played Dark Eldar. Second Codex in 3rd edition, completely new faction, 4 background pages explaining who they are. No, not enough to get a feel for this new race. not at all
PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.
Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.
That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.
There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.
WayneTheGame wrote:I never found the 3rd edition codexes to be lacking; they didn't have as much of course but they had enough to get a feel for the army and they had the army list and the gallery/how to paint section.
Then you never played Dark Eldar. Second Codex in 3rd edition, completely new faction, 4 background pages explaining who they are. No, not enough to get a feel for this new race. not at all
PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.
Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.
That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.
I actually did have the Dark Eldar Codex, because I was considering an army of them since I had the 20 warriors or whatever from the boxed set. I never once felt that anything was lacking there, although to be fair I was like 18 then. I looked through the bit of fluff and still was able to figure out who they were, where they came from and what they were like. And I didn't have to spend $50 for a hardcover and glossy pages. I pretty much bought every 3rd edition Codex up until the 3.5 revamps, when I only bought Chaos because that was my primary army. I never found anything lacking with any of them.
xxvaderxx wrote: it is never the editions that cause the maihem, its the CODEXES. The unit that has the 2++ rerollable save is the problem, not the fact that there are invulnerable saves or rerolls in the game, and that 2++ was introduced in a codex, not in the BRB.
QFT
puma713 wrote: I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?
I do feel exactly that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.
You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
Really I think that 3rd edition 'barebones' codices pretty much sucked. There wasn't much of fluff, and what was often sucked. OTOH, I think that some of the present books have gone too much to other extreme: they're just not very economical either in terms of cost to player, or how the page count is used. For example, in current Tau codex every unit type gets a page full of text: oftentimes it feels like they just put a word generator on to fill the page. Devilfish or Hammerhead doesn't need a huge wall of text to explain what it is and what it does. Old 4th edition codex told much of the same in much less pages.
No, I LOVE the new codices, if it werent for GW still not managing to print one without spelling mistakes (the Dark Angels one is pretty atrocious in this regard)
I absolutely, positively, LOATHED the 3rd edition codices.
My first army was Eldar.
I was 14 years old.
I got into 40k by reading their fluff from an online page, FFS. Some random website that summarized The Fall and the Eldar Pantheon and the Court of the Young King etc. I was instantly hooked.
Then I bought the blue codex and....felt like I had been smacked in the face.
2 or 3 pages of fluff, thats all.
Boom. Nothing else.
It is easy to compare the 3rd ed codices to the current hardcover full color ones to justify the older ones being cheaper.
But it isnt so easy to compare them to the mid-to late 4th edition ones, which came with 20 pages of fluff and were perfect, starting with the Dark Angels.
Backfire wrote: or how the page count is used. For example, in current Tau codex every unit type gets a page full of text: oftentimes it feels like they just put a word generator on to fill the page. Devilfish or Hammerhead doesn't need a huge wall of text to explain what it is and what it does. Old 4th edition codex told much of the same in much less pages.
Nope, see 4th edition Dark Angels codex 2006 (the first of the new kind) it already had an entire page dedicated to one unit, so this practice is 8 years old now.
Only the 5th edition codices started to go up in price, e.g. Grey Knights and Necrons.
So yeah, if anyone has the 4th edition Codex: Eldar lying around (2006), then you'll get an idea of how the perfect codex looks like.
My only gripe with the current ones is that the weapons and wargear shoudnt have their own section, but be detailed in the unit entry.
That way when you are browsing the armylist section at the back and need some more info, you can open the unit page number as detailed in the armylist section, and then do not have to additionally flick back to the wargear section to see what Brother Boreale's fancy sword does.
Sir Arun, the wargear section is done because lots of units get the same stuff to pick. The options for a CSM Champion aren't much different from what a Chaos Lord can take and lots of weapons are also used by lots of squads.
Besides, every IG player would crap bricks if every single page of the codex had the rulesbox for the lasgun. This is a codex, not the infantrymans uplifting primer...
What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.
What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.
And to that point, I think that they should give you a product key for digital download when you purchase the hardcover. You can still buy the digital version, but if you like having the hardbacks and also have a digital device, you could still buy your preferred medium, but have the digital books for convenience.
The codexes are fine, they're just at least $10-15 too expensive.
They're verging on textbook-expensive. I can literally buy a 600 page textbook for $100, and college textbooks are notoriously bloated in price.
$58 for a children's book-sized codex with a nice hardcover back to it? I'm sorry, but it's absurd and anyone should be able to see that. The writing quality isn't great, most of the content is copy-pasted from previous codexes including the fluff, the rules, and nearly all of the artwork. There is no conceivable reason that putting a pretty hardback cover on it should cause the price to double.
I also agree with consolidating the special wargear and weapons onto the unit pages. Azrael's entry in Codex: DA I think shows how it should be done. His unique equipment is detailed clearly so you can read it all in one place.
Kroothawk wrote:That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
pretre wrote: There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.
You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.
PhantomViper wrote:They had the rules needed to play the army, simple how-to-paint guides and basic fluff to get a feel for what the army is about.
Then you never played Orks or Dark Eldar. The Ork Codex didn't even have a table with weapon stats.
I never played Orks, but I did play Dark Eldar and what more feel did you need? You got that they were raiders and slavers and were hiding from Slanesh in an hidden city on the old Eldar Webway.
If you wanted to know about inter-kabal politics and delve deeper into their society then you had other sources for that...
What irks me most about the codices is that they are very expensive. I see most people walk around with a tablet or something similar in a couple of years and a good digital release is much more user-friendly than a printed book.
But the digital releases aren't exactly cheap too. Since a lot of content isn't exactly new, including artwork and model pics, I wonder how GW is going to justify the high prices should a codex contain only minor changes.
And to that point, I think that they should give you a product key for digital download when you purchase the hardcover. You can still buy the digital version, but if you like having the hardbacks and also have a digital device, you could still buy your preferred medium, but have the digital books for convenience.
Kroothawk wrote:That said, even the first few 3rd edition Codices were much more informative than e.g. the digital Codex Adepta Sororitas, as you had at least several different colour schemes shown.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
pretre wrote: There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.
You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.
Maybe it's just me but it seems like GW (and DP9 who make Heavy Gear) choose to ignore what to me is an obvious choice. You keep the page count and content of the current style books but come out with two versions:
1) Soft cover with interior B&W lower quality paper pages except for the model showcase @$30-35 for the mass market
2) Hard Cover glossy Direct Only and possibly Limited Edition full color version @$50-60
People who want to splurge can and people who want a leaner (both physically and financially) book can get one. The biggest issue I have with the current books is that the increased cover and page count means that I can't put them in my GW carrying cases anymore without risking crushing models. I also prefer cheaper B&W ones for use on the tabletop and lending out to people as well which I no longer do. Maybe the margin on that would be lower or maybe GW is just doing a typical derp and switch but that seems to me to be the best of both worlds.
pretre wrote: There was no 3rd edition, Codex: Sisters of Battle or Codex: Adepta Sororitas. There was a 3.5 Codex: Witchhunters, but that's a different breed from the 3rd edition codexes we were discussing.
You misunderstood him. He said that even the third editions codexes (in general, not only for Sisters) had more than the current Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
That is correct, should have been clear with "even the first few 3rd edition Codices" with Witchhunters being one of the last. But I just triggered one of his standard flame posts against me.
Oh boo hoo. There was no flame.
And yes, I misunderstood. Although it is still incorrect, yes there may have been more paint jobs, but there certainly wasn't more content.
warboss wrote: Maybe it's just me but it seems like GW (and DP9 who make Heavy Gear) choose to ignore what to me is an obvious choice. You keep the page count and content of the current style books but come out with two versions:
1) Soft cover with interior B&W lower quality paper pages except for the model showcase @$30-35 for the mass market
2) Hard Cover glossy Direct Only and possibly Limited Edition full color version @$50-60
or, even better,
3) Soft cover with interior high quality full color paper pages @$40-45 for the mass market
puma713 wrote: I am talking about someone who has spent their time and money building a force that they feel is both fun and competitive. They may not win every game, but they can hold their own in a tournament. All of a sudden, their list that they have lovingly worked on for however long is no longer viable on the table. Or, it may be, but you're going to lose the majority of your games. I wonder how many Tyranid lovers feel this way right now?
By and large my 6th ed armies are the same as my 2nd ed armies, freqently the only real difference is their size. If you build lists specifically to cater for single editions, the 'current meta', then of course your armies are going to fluctuate wildly in power. Its pointless building 'competative' 40k armies and expect them to perfrom in the same manner across editions, GW's constant tinkering and inability to balance their rules will ensure that your efforts are wasted.
Personally I find it far more beneficial to build an army in a manner that you find interesting and don't take the game seriously. If you want truely competative wargaming then you need to look outside GW.
I have a similar philosophy, I intend to, or already do, own at least one of each unit for each of the armies I play, and will be, or are, full size, perhaps with other models to allow for different options.
My frustration is, despite this approach (which one could argue is the 'correct' one, at least from GW's perspective) I still can't really use all the models I want to use if I want to put together a TAC list.
Bloodcrushers being a great example of a unit that I have a sizeable number of (6, so one larger or two min size units) but I cannot realistically spend points on in a list I want to take to my local club and have a reasonable chance of competing.
We're not talking a competitive environment like a tournament here, merely an environment where there are a few Eldar and Tau players, who, with the exception of one, are far from WAAC, and almost go out of their way to minimise the imbalance between their books and others.
You're right that if I took this seriously and wanted a game that rewarded player skill that I'd need to look outside of GW games, but that is a problem that GW really need to address quite urgently, or their player base could very well disappear.
Personally I find it far more beneficial to build an army in a manner that you find interesting and don't take the game seriously. If you want truely competative wargaming then you need to look outside GW.
Or, as I have done in the past, just collect your favorite army. Eventually, you will have enough models to field just about any combination they could throw at you outside of new units. After all, GW have repeatedly made references to them being a "collectible" company rather than a gaming company.
I can only hope everyone feels that way about it, that way I won't have to deal with it.
Too late. I am starting to see uboxing/review videos popping up all in my youtube feed.
I already have a 28mm Leviathan, that I will use as a Warhound, so I won't be getting this. However, this was a cash cow that GW should have cashed in on a long time ago. And I will give them credit where it's due, it is a nice model.
whats that? firing overwatch means you cant fire in your next shooting phase? whoa that sounds cool, it will make a lot of armies/lists viable - more people at the flgs having fun. good for the game right.
until every tau unit gets special rule'd around it.
Up ! Because there are some moves behind the scene.
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
Nope. The Chosen with Kranon (Warlord) were also unique so far. Cultists are available only as a small 5-guys package without options. So I think the DV package was much more interesting than AoBR with the Deffcoptas being the only unit not available otherwise.
Sir Arun wrote: Arent the Ravenwing bikers pretty unique as well? With those poses and everything?
And if they dropped the DV kit, Chaos players would have to look for ebay to get their hands on those awesome looking Chosen models as well.
But then again GW is known for doing this, see AoBR defkoptas and the MM-dread.
The difference is they have a plastic kit already whereas the Brute didn't. The individual poses aren't important but rather the availability of a plastic kit to purchase... but as you pointed out, the lack of a kit doesn't necessarily mean they won't discontinue it. In the end, it's still just a rumor but one that the small signs are pointing to more and more as the months roll by. I personally think they'll just swap out the rulebook instead of retooling a whole new kit but that is just my guess.
They just released a supplement making good use of certain models in the DV box.
Perhaps that was a tactic to sell out most of the DV stock before putting it down.
Fayric wrote: They just released a supplement making good use of certain models in the DV box.
Perhaps that was a tactic to sell out most of the DV stock before putting it down.
If they wanted to sell most of the DV stock they would have kept it on the shelf for more than the month or so the Crimson Slaughter supplement was around. I'm still thinking this is a reboxing with an updated rulebook, with FAQs and such rolled in.
Commander_Farsight wrote: I heard rumors at my FLGS of Orks vs Blood Angels as the new boxed set that could accompany the next edition of 40k. Has this come up before?
Fayric wrote: They just released a supplement making good use of certain models in the DV box.
Perhaps that was a tactic to sell out most of the DV stock before putting it down.
Had that Idea a while ago. It makes sense. They have a use for the old starter box or at least the sprues and make room for the new edition in one go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: I eagerly await a few years from now when GW is really really desperate and we're getting new editions every other month.
We had this analysis somewhere allready. I think it was about 2018 or something, when you start your match with one edition and finish it with the rules for the next one.
I'd love for someone who has heard of the internet before (and didn't immediately make a hissing noise and reach for a cross at the mention) get into GWs upper management. They could finally sell us the live ruleset they've been dancing around without actually producing for the past 2 years... something that would be regularly updated and even rebalanced as needed... but that's like wishing for a competent QB in Chicago or the Cubs to win the Series... sigh.
GuardStrider wrote: As a new guy to the crunch, can anyone tell me why experienced players are excited for the new starter set?
I mean I assume you guys all have your armies already, why buy the starter box?
Because lots of (oftentimes new) models for comparatively cheap and you can even cut down the price further by selling the stuff you dont need (Templates, one of the included armies or just certain models...)
Ravajaxe wrote: Up ! Because there are some moves behind the scene.
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
Or maybe GW has decided starter boxes are for 'peasants'
anybody who wants to play the 'best and only' game can afford to buy one click bundles and we're going to see some new ones with the full HB rulebook and codex bundled in too
anybody who wants to play the 'best and only' game can afford to buy one click bundles and we're going to see some new ones with the full HB rulebook and codex bundled in too
Considering they've been putting out bundles that actually provided some sort of deals in the form of Strikeforces, nah, don't think so.
Think I figured it out: Kirby and Co. finally realized that the starter box tends to offer a pretty big discount. Since GW can't offer discounts because it would devalue the quality of the product, they're going to rebox the starter set and put it at the actual price of all the components, with no discount! So what, around $300?
WayneTheGame wrote: Think I figured it out: Kirby and Co. finally realized that the starter box tends to offer a pretty big discount. Since GW can't offer discounts because it would devalue the quality of the product, they're going to rebox the starter set and put it at the actual price of all the components, with no discount! So what, around $300?
Thus completely and utterly anihilating any reason to buy one, since if you want those models you can get them for the same price and dont have to pay for an army you don't collect in the first place...
If they do that - and I wouldn't put it past GW - that will prevent every single hope of someone new to start playing forever and ever.
Could it be them just repackaging the forces in new battle force sets? Have a crimson slaughter battle force with kranon a monopose helbrute, and a couple sets of the veterans and charge crazy price and then make a dark angel set with those models and get rid of the old dark angel battle force because it's cheaper than othe marine battlefirces
Theophony wrote: Could it be them just repackaging the forces in new battle force sets? Have a crimson slaughter battle force with kranon a monopose helbrute, and a couple sets of the veterans and charge crazy price and then make a dark angel set with those models and get rid of the old dark angel battle force because it's cheaper than othe marine battlefirces
The Dark Angels battleforce is just bikes, and even then, they don't make new battleforces anymore. Putting monopose models in a battleforce (well, strikeforces now) also sets a weird precedent that isn't consistent with anything else GW has on the market. I honestly think that, at most, they're swapping out the rulebook and maybe the box art.
Bull0 wrote: Wow, didn't take long for this barely relevant tidbit about the starter boxes maybe being removed to spark off an off-topic GW hate-in
You can say "hello" here and it will start that.
Interesting to see them pulling stuff this far out though...
Unless it is just a reboxing with a new mini rulebook with updates. That sounds more likely to me than a whole new plastic set when this one is pretty good.
That strikes me as more likely, but I base this on nothing but intuition.
WayneTheGame wrote: Think I figured it out: Kirby and Co. finally realized that the starter box tends to offer a pretty big discount. Since GW can't offer discounts because it would devalue the quality of the product, they're going to rebox the starter set and put it at the actual price of all the components, with no discount! So what, around $300?
Thus completely and utterly anihilating any reason to buy one, since if you want those models you can get them for the same price and dont have to pay for an army you don't collect in the first place...
If they do that - and I wouldn't put it past GW - that will prevent every single hope of someone new to start playing forever and ever.
Bull0 wrote: Wow, didn't take long for this barely relevant tidbit about the starter boxes maybe being removed to spark off an off-topic GW hate-in
You can say "hello" here and it will start that.
Interesting to see them pulling stuff this far out though...
Unless it is just a reboxing with a new mini rulebook with updates. That sounds more likely to me than a whole new plastic set when this one is pretty good.
That strikes me as more likely, but I base this on nothing but intuition.
No solid rumour has suggested the models are changing that I've seen - something is definitely afoot, I think the crucial question is "6.5 or 7"
My own limited information is, and I quote in the "very much 7th" camp, but I still have personal reservations.
I feel like this is the setup for a 7th edition that will be a glorified update to 6th with rule clarifications and update with all the changes to things like FOC, flyers, lords of war, etc. From a marketing stand point calling it 6.5 sounds optional compared to calling it 7th so everyone has to buys the new BRB.
At best we can hope to see some rule changes like allowing jump infantry to assault from reserve/deepstrike or making it so overwatch removes models after the charge movement is made. (Let's face it assault needs some help and gun lines are too strong)
Vankraken wrote: I feel like this is the setup for a 7th edition that will be a glorified update to 6th with rule clarifications and update with all the changes to things like FOC, flyers, lords of war, etc. From a marketing stand point calling it 6.5 sounds optional compared to calling it 7th so everyone has to buys the new BRB.
At best we can hope to see some rule changes like allowing jump infantry to assault from reserve/deepstrike or making it so overwatch removes models after the charge movement is made. (Let's face it assault needs some help and gun lines are too strong)
Calling it 6.5 or 7th, heck even XP doesnt matter at all. It's an update which means a shift in rules however small, which means you'll need it to play current. I think its funny how so much debate goes into semantics like this.
Calling it 6.5 or 7th, heck even XP doesnt matter at all. It's an update which means a shift in rules however small, which means you'll need it to play current. I think its funny how so much debate goes into semantics like this.
The whole "6.5" vs. "7th" is a massively misleading debate. The original 40KRadio rumour was 7th. A few days later, some crowd-in-rumour-monger said "no, not 7th, but 6.5"... and well, since then we have that mess.
Frankly, I doubt the issue will be resolved even after the new edition hits. People who have been shouting "7th" will say... "look, new edition, it's 7th", and people who have been shouting "6.5" will say... "look, it's still backward compatible, so it's 6.5".
Nobody (as far as I know) expects a "full-break" / "genuinely-new" edition-change that was 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.
If, as is my guess, it'll be 6th + Escalation + Stronghold + a few random tweaks just because, it's anybody's personal preference if they wanna call it 6.5. or 7th. If we had the same discussion in 2012, maybe we would've all ended up calling 6th Edition 5.5. instead.
Ravajaxe wrote: Up ! Because there are some moves behind the scene.
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
This actually doesn't have a lot of to do with 7th edition. GW is dropping lots of multi language stuff.
I was at a GW this afternoon and a LOT of stuff is being sent back there from the store. Like the High Elf Battalion boxes, the Ork Boys Boxes (40K), lots of fantasy ork stuff, loads and loads of Beastmen stuff. They think quite a lot is turning into order only.
Rather farfetch'd to think if 2 boxes of the dutch Dark Vengeance (Wich weren't being sold a lot anyway. Everyone buys the english version anyway.) are being sent back it's the end of the 6th starterset... Tinfoil hats... anyone?
It's true the Dutch version of Dark Vengeance is going away. But this was the plan all along. The same with the Dutch version of The Hobbit. They were planned as limited runs since the day they were made up.
Ravajaxe wrote: Up ! Because there are some moves behind the scene.
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
Ravajaxe wrote: Up ! Because there are some moves behind the scene.
The Dark Vengence starter box may be removed from the stores in following days.
According to a Faeit212 source, this appears to be the case at least in Netherlands :
So these rumors of a new edition (7th or patched V6.5) appear to be more than a vaporous idea.
There is still no "confirmation" of the new starter box content.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Of course if there is a 'new' BRB, then they get to re-release all the codexi/supplements/mini-dexes/data slates etc
so prepare your wallets for that
Cities of Death and the Ork codex are from 4th edition. They obviously haven't taken a new edition as carte blanche to update everything. Quit your panicking.
I just saw this over on Faeit 212, couldn't see it here so thought I'd share:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
At the same time, there will be a new starter painting kit with 10 snapfit miniatures that will bring the tactical marines from the starter box to a full squad size and gives the ork player 5 additional boyz. It has a 48 page booklet with additional scenarios and hobby guides, brushes, basing sand and glue.
I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
That sounds fairly specific so should be easy for Pretre to validate when the time comes. I'd be disappointed if they went the new starter route and it didn't actually come with a complete minibook set of the rules (like back in 4th edition IIRC).
thesoupdragon wrote: I just saw this over on Faeit 212, couldn't see it here so thought I'd share:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
At the same time, there will be a new starter painting kit with 10 snapfit miniatures that will bring the tactical marines from the starter box to a full squad size and gives the ork player 5 additional boyz. It has a 48 page booklet with additional scenarios and hobby guides, brushes, basing sand and glue.
HA! I KNEW IT!
Blood Angels vs Orks.
That little bird in the rumor section 2 months ago was right after all.
This edition is so dynamic to try and stay on top of. I hope 7th clears up and helps filter the clutter. At this point I don't think it is necessary, but I think it's a good opportunity to organize this mess.
Eldarain wrote: The Ebay resales of the mini book probably burn like Holy Water amongst the Management.
Why? Each of those mini-books on eBay means that they sold a $100 box set.
'
Yes but then they don't also sell a $75 main rulebook in addition! Plus those mini rulebooks they released a couple months back probably didn't sell well since they were very much the same as the Dark Vengeance copy.
Speaking of that, I see the digital edition of the main 40k rules are $41. Have they always been that cost? (unusual cost savings on the digital v. paper for GW).
By removing the minirulebook, everyone not interested in the bigass BRB can buy their second offering: the "hardcover mini rulebook" like the one they brought for 6th that nobody really bought. lol
By removing the minirulebook, everyone not interested in the bigass BRB can buy their second offering: the "hardcover mini rulebook" like the one they brought for 6th that nobody really bought. lol
Man, they're really driving "THERE IS ONLY WAR" to that MAX on that rulebook, eh?!!
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Also, Meganobs? They sure as hell wont add metal modells to the starter box, so we get plastic megas. Nice.
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Yes, but in the case of AOBR it was the Marines walloping the damn xenos.
In this new case, Xenos walloping the Marines? In the demo game? Ha, I think not!
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Yes, but in the case of AOBR it was the Marines walloping the damn xenos.
In this new case, Xenos walloping the Marines? In the demo game? Ha, I think not!
Yes you do. Immagine little timmy getting his shiny new Blud Angils being slapped off the table! What a drama! Now he most definitely needs those Terminators to show those orks who's boss. Also the Landraider. And the Storm talon. And a Battle Barge with two Thunderhawks....
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Yes, but in the case of AOBR it was the Marines walloping the damn xenos.
In this new case, Xenos walloping the Marines? In the demo game? Ha, I think not!
I gotta agree this is very salty. Yes, they aren't balanced even slightly. AoBR was heavily slanted to marines. DV had DA with far more points and also had optimal equipment to fight chaos who had Chosen with terrible weapons, weak cultists, and few items to fight terminators and a multimelta against no vehicles. The one thing they had in common was the SM had the advantage. That is what makes everybody taste a ton of salt. Remove the nobz and give SM some Sternguard or something? Then I'd taste a bit less salt.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
So? Was AOBR ballanced? Tons of Marines, Terminators, a cybot vs. a bunch of orks, 5 nobs and the deffcoptas. I made the calculation, even without equipment it was like 400 pts Orks vs 750 pts marines IIRC.
Yes, but in the case of AOBR it was the Marines walloping the damn xenos.
In this new case, Xenos walloping the Marines? In the demo game? Ha, I think not!
Yes you do. Immagine little timmy getting his shiny new Blud Angils being slapped off the table! What a drama! Now he most definitely needs those Terminators to show those orks who's boss. Also the Landraider. And the Storm talon. And a Battle Barge with two Thunderhawks....
Nah, man! Kids HATE losing! Little Timmy would probably get mad and throw a marine across the room, much to the shock and horror of the store manager who now has to report the loss to corporate!!!
If the Marines are kicking butt, then the manager could coax the kid on- "Hey Timmy, didn't you like beating up those nasty ol' Orks? Wouldn't you like to do it with MOAR STUFF? Beat them even HARDER in the ground!!"
Launch Window - @September Rules Summary: Updated Mini-rulebook contains FAQs, minor tweaks and clarifications, and much of Stronghold Assault rolled into a new shiny package. Miniatures included: @70 Armies: Blood Angels (plastic quick assembly) - Assault Marine Squad - Tactical Marine Squad - Death Company Squad - Captain (kitted out for assault) - Chaplain - Sanguinary Priest (limited edition, similar to the Dark Vengeance mini was)
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I think I audibly said "what?" like three times reading that. Some of that is so nonsensical, like vehicles not getting cover saves from infantry (wtf?) and the wording on "you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one" whatever that means.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I refuse to believe any of this. It's so all over the place.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Can you check the date on that post? Are you sure they're reading from the 7th edition rumor list and not just from the 2nd edition rulebook?
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
By removing the minirulebook, everyone not interested in the bigass BRB can buy their second offering: the "hardcover mini rulebook" like the one they brought for 6th that nobody really bought. lol
That version of the book was released ages ago, certainly before Christmas.
Brother SRM wrote: I don't buy it. There's actually no way for the Marines to kill 5 Meganobz in that kit, and while the starter sets haven't been perfectly balanced, that seems a bit harsh. That and typical Faeit salt needs to be applied. All that and Dark Vengeance is still available on the website.
Oh come on. When ever were the box sets even? You mean it's not in favour for the SM for once? Is that so bad?
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I think I audibly said "what?" like three times reading that. Some of that is so nonsensical, like vehicles not getting cover saves from infantry (wtf?) and the wording on "you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one" whatever that means.
Logical Translation:
You may spend 1/4 of your total points on allied units but they consume FOC slots in the detachment they're allied with.
You may bring 3 sets of allies (of up to 1/4 of your points each) and at game time select the one you wish to use.
Add a dread or a land speeder to the space marine side and I'd believe it more. every starter box except one has included a vehicle to help new players get comfortable with the vehicle rules and i hope gw doesn't stop that practice.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I think I audibly said "what?" like three times reading that. Some of that is so nonsensical, like vehicles not getting cover saves from infantry (wtf?) and the wording on "you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one" whatever that means.
Logical Translation:
You may spend 1/4 of your total points on allied units but they consume FOC slots in the detachment they're allied with.
You may bring 3 sets of allies (of up to 1/4 of your points each) and at game time select the one you wish to use.
Thats how I read it too. An interesting idea, sort of like WarmaHordes where you have multiple lists.
skarsol wrote: Logical Translation:
You may spend 1/4 of your total points on allied units but they consume FOC slots in the detachment they're allied with.
You may bring 3 sets of allies (of up to 1/4 of your points each) and at game time select the one you wish to use.
skarsol wrote: Logical Translation:
You may spend 1/4 of your total points on allied units but they consume FOC slots in the detachment they're allied with.
You may bring 3 sets of allies (of up to 1/4 of your points each) and at game time select the one you wish to use.
Hoo boy, sideboards.
I'm really hesitant to think sideboards are how it's going to fly.
Natfka said this was translated. I'm thinking that the actual translation is going to go something more like this:
You may bring up to 3 Detachments. Select one as your Primary (where you'd generate your Warlord, Warlord Traits, etc).
I think the sideboards works out better for GW though. They would in essence make a 2000 point list into 3000. 1500 primary + 3 x 500 pick one of the 3 before the game. That milks allied sales even further. In the vein of allies I think it makes the game even more dynamic and would be cool if not for the nightmare for list checking and transporting.
Vehicle rules are a deal-breaker for me. Always have been. Always will be. I skipped 5th because of its stupid vehicle rules. 6th vehicle rules are closer to what they should be. If they start adding in arbitrary nonsense like "Vehicles can only take cover saves vs shooting from vehicles", then I'm done (and that's before you even consider the things that should be vehicles - Riptides et. al.) and how this won't effect them at all, and just how arbitrary and silly that is.
pretre wrote: Why? Each of those mini-books on eBay means that they sold a $100 box set.
Given GW's track record and their apparent hatred of eBay, do you honestly think they see it that way? They see it as a sale they didn't make (even if it is a sale they made originally).
Yeah, I mean all that crazy stuff - ditching their entire metal line for resin, putting in an embargo/regional sales system, releasing English-only limited edition books, removing tons of core items from general release and making them direct only - those sorts of things are just crazy.
Stupid or Nonsensical is different than 'something I didn't like'. If we reparse his statement to say 'anytime I hear a rumor I don't like it's usually true' it's a bit different.
All of those decisions made sense from a cost cutting perspective just not from a pro-customer or hobby growth perspective.
Nonsensical/stupid rumors are the metal trucks rumor or the 'red shirt told me 30k starter set' type crap.
Then, of course, there's too good to be true rumors but that's another story...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, I mean all that crazy stuff - ditching their entire metal line for resin, putting in an embargo/regional sales system, releasing English-only limited edition books, removing tons of core items from general release and making them direct only - those sorts of things are just crazy.
Re the rumour of the new box without a vehicle & the SM's being under-pointed - maybe they'll bring back the cardboard dread like in the first box set!!
Not so much underpointed, if they hold to tradition, as having about 1 1/2 times as much in points as the opponents, and wargear suitable for fighting them.
I still have that dread. Doesn't look that great, but you should see him turn sideways and vanish
I'll have to see if I can dig Stubby out sometime. He's a ROgue Trader-era dread that got shipped out with Furioso legs, so short and squatty body for a lascannon, but has twin power fists/storm bolters, so he has kind of a gorilla look about him.
When 1st edition dropped, he had two tricks: One is that he could ride in a Rhino, since back then a Rhino could carry a single dread, and that was always a fun surprise, but the other was that, due to his unique build, he was able to fit through gate templates. Surprise Dreadnought! *FWOMP*
(The downside, of course, is that there were no rules for a double-puncher back then, but most people let me pay points as if he had a better weapon and go out there as he was, since a second punch was nowhere near as powerful as a missile launcher or a lascanon would have been. Ah, the days of olde...)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, I mean all that crazy stuff - ditching their entire metal line for resin, putting in an embargo/regional sales system, releasing English-only limited edition books, removing tons of core items from general release and making them direct only - those sorts of things are just crazy.
They'll never happen.
Well, doesn't change that the trackrecord for rumours on rules/releases is poor.
Look at what Natfka predicted for the Eldar release last year
Spoiler:
Okay guys, got some extra details on the earlier Eldar rumors, specifically artwork and what everything looks like. Still no rules. Looks like the Xentarchs are indeed Exarchs, whether they are special Exarch’s or just new remodelling is to be seen. We’ve also got names nailed down a bit more from translations.
With the recent release of the end of this year’s schedule looking like Chaos and Dark Angels getting done, we might see Eldar landing early Q1 2013. This would be very much appreciated. Depending who writes it!
Anyway, details below!
Eldar Warpspiders/Everguard
5 per box
Spiders: whole squad looks like the old exarch, no huge weapon, helmets smaller, but same shape, wrist blades, two small spinner weapons on rod mount from the back. Spider web like straps on the chest that hold the backpack (doesn’t look as broad as the old version), running, jumping and slightly cowering poses, exarch has extra pair of weapons on the cover, don’t remember the back pictures
Everguard: aspect warrior body with runes on the chest, same collar as warpspiders but no mandible arcs and gas masks, different more warlock-like face plate and small arc at back of the head, double bladed two-handed spears, very dynamic models, jets from the side/underside of the backpack, squad leader has larger head-arc, mantle hangs over the backpack, flies in the wind
Eldar Sky Charriots/Shining Spears
3 per box, look like small vypers, slightly larger than jetbikes. Two parts: an engine part with jetbike-like canopy but in the shape of a dragon, owl and hawk head, sideway jets, and a distinct winged chariot part, parts are connected by arcs.
Riders either warlocks but arms are not robed, spear, sword and staff; or shining spear aspect warriors with lances, shining spears have smooth canopies with gems instead animal heads, helms look very cylon-like, have collar-like shoulderguards
Eldar Jetbikes
3 per box, the same pose as dark eldar jetbike, guardian riders with smaller helmets or bareheaded with lots of flying hair (80s heavy metal mane) and without backpack, vyper-esque smooth canopy, jet and wings have the same design as a falcon grav tank, underslung twin shuriken catapults and/or serpent-shaped bladehooks, some riders have axes with a hole in the blade
Eldar Dragon Riders
3 per box, very slender lizard mounts not unlike slaanesh steeds, all female rider, no helmets, long braids, guardian armor without backpack, all have shining spear lances, sabres and/or sniper rifles as sidearms, the armor has no decoration, not even gems or small bubbles, only exception is a gem that holds a cloak that falls to the left side of the rider, very simplistic look, not aztec or tribal at all
Eldar Wraithguard/Cataphracts
3 per box, look like old versions but have two rods for upper arms and thighs instead of just one, some have feet, some hooves, large fins at the back
Cataphracts: float/fly, fluttering cloth pieces instead of legs, wing-shaped shields and spears, segmented/armored head
Eldar Swooping Hawks
5 per box, larger wings, not so stiff and two-dimensional, several straps of clothes from the loin, wrists and ankles, model stand on these straps, both shoulder plates have inbuilt missile racks, Exarch has two shoulder-mounted blasters and a scimitar in one hand and two optional rifles, one is the same as the old exarch had, the other is a small star cannon
The Avatar of the Young King
Completely new design, much smaller, only as large as a wraithguard, set of aspect armour where every piece is spread out and connected by a body of magma, looks like an fire/earth elemental clad in a suit of armour, dire avenger helm with fire from the eyes and half burnt helm crest, floats and torso pose looks like vader during his Noooo scream, hands are armored, blood is dripping from the left, the right is molten and transformed into a blade
Eldar Warlock
fits the current warlocks but sharper robe edges, hadouken pose but with staff in two hands
Eldar Spirit Warrior
wraithlord-war walker mix, trygon base, running bird legs with hooves, huge scaled torso, a dozen poles extend from the back (like wraithlord but three times as much), left forearm replaced with massive lance, right hand holds extra handle on lance shaft or a three pronged swastika blade. Lower back, left shoulder and part of the left arm are concealed by an impressive cloak, head is surrounded by scaled armour plating, large gem at the front, doesn’t bend upward towards the end but downward, whole model leans forward, chest can be opened, female pilot inside
Eldar Phoenix Lord Nuadhu, The Fireheart
nuadhua holds lance upright, one end on the ground, points with axe on something, shining spear helm with tail of hair, layered armour like dark eldar-armour but with smooth curves, can be placed on vyper-variant, looks very similar to a vyper, canopy more segmented and wings in falcon-style, one large jet engine, chariot platform on the back, two large pennants
Eldar Webway Gate
Two arcs that almost touch each other at the top, whole construct has hazelnut shape, pyramidal platform with oval basis, several destroyed columns, front columns are intact and carry swooping hawk and dark reaper statues, whole model is covered with thorn-twines (seems to be optional)
Eldar Dire Avenger Xentarch
holds two handed samurai sword downwards, two wrist-mounted shuriken catapults, banner, 99% that the phoenix on it is modeled on, one foot stands on a rock with an owl next to it, all armour plates are bedecked with a rune pattern, don’t know if this is only painted on
Eldar Howling Banshee Xentarch
golfer pose, bends forwards and slashs upwards with a sabre, stretches other arm straight into the air, holds tri-swatiska, has snakes woven into her hair
Eldar Striking Scorpion Xentarch
jumps forwards, holds two short but thick chainswords in front, back of armour has backbone-like element that looks like a scorpion tail, continued on the helmet and ends in a sting, stands on ornamented plate with roots on it
Eldar Fire Dragon Xentarch
knees almost, holds very long pike with two hands ready to fire, huge cluster of grenades on his back and his belt, helm ends in a dragon head
Eldar Lamia Strike Fighter / Moon Siren Bomber & Eldar Black Warden
And that is just one. Black Templar Codex with a large Dreadknight-style guy wielding a two-handed chainsword. Plastic Thunderhawk. The persistent FW-rolled-into-the-GW-store, the (not Faeit, but BoK) Inquisitor Skirmish Game, Supplements for White Scars, Hive Fleet Behomoth and Ultramarines, while he never saw things like Crimson Slaughter or Iron Hands coming....
It just goes on and on.
Not saying it might not be true, but unless 40KRadio backs it, I am gonna assume it is wrong.
thesoupdragon wrote: I just saw this over on Faeit 212, couldn't see it here so thought I'd share:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
Sounds bizarre that they'd go back to old-style small 'starter sets', as their newer, complete sets have been a huge success. OTOH if it's real cheap, might be useful to hook up kids, and maybe that's what it's for, who knows??
And yeah, the makeup sounds even more unbalanced than DV. How do you stop 5 Meganobz with just few Scouts and Power armour marines?
I don't believe it, but if it's true, Plastic Meganobz, Hard Boyz and Jump Pack Commander, oh yeah.
Some updates on 7th edition: 1) It will purely be a book release. 2) It could be released as early as May.
On the Chaos Space Marine Releases. 1) Look for the stuff to be released beginning of summer. 2) Crimson Slaughter(CSM in the DV starter) might receive a Supplement as well.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
More WHFB rules entering 40k. Here is how WHFB rules would translate.
WHFB over runs are not like 4th ed 40k. When units break in cc they make a fallback move and the unit in cc makes a chase move. If they catch the unit it's destroyed, and if they run into another unit while chasing them it's an overun that engages them in cc with the overun unit. Once engaged in CC the units do not actually fight until the next assault phase. This gives the charged unit's player an opportunity to move the rest of his army or charge a bunch of his other units into cc
Fallback moves from breaking in cc and flee as reaction to a charge go in the direction away from the charging unit.
Flee reactions are simple. The unit breaks in the same way it would from a failed morale test and falls back. After the fleeing unit completes it's fallback move the charging unit then rolls charge distance and destroys the fleeing unit if charge range is enough to catch them. The fleeing unit needs to roll to regroup at the start of it's turn as if it had failed a morale test, but there are exceptions to that rule.
After a unit makes it's fallback move from a flee the charging unit has the option to charge a different unit instead or continue charging the fleeing unit.
Backfire wrote: How do you stop 5 Meganobz with just few Scouts and Power armour marines?
Nerf meganobs down to 3+ saves, give marines plenty of power swords and plasma pistols. GW loves releasing models with power swords and plasma pistols.
Backfire wrote: How do you stop 5 Meganobz with just few Scouts and Power armour marines?
Nerf meganobs down to 3+ saves, give marines plenty of power swords and plasma pistols. GW loves releasing models with power swords and plasma pistols.
Give the commander a power fist, melta pistol, and iron halo. Give the 5 marines a multi melta and the sergeant a combi melta. Mega nobs get ID with no invo saves.
Well, maybe the marines get a kicking for once? But there was a second set of rumors without the meganobs, so I guess tough luck. Would be too nice to get some plastic megas though...
Avian wrote: That's a LOT of assumptions to make in order to get this sounding at least remotely possible.
The question was how could a jump pack hq, 5 marines, and 5 scouts take out 5 manz, not will GW balance the starter box. Given GW's history of favoring marines in a starter box the odds are good that the marines have something going for them.
I don't trust the source at all, but actually a lot of the rumored rules changes sound reasonable and plausible if I understand them properly.
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
Speeds up the game.
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
Helps assaulters.
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
Minor nerf to FMCs.
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
So a percentage system for each org chart category like in WFB? Presumably the second bullet means that allied units also count against their org chart category cap. Depending on the cap size, it could do a lot toward reining in deathstars and allies in general.
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
Three detachments and must choose one to be primary?
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
WFB influence. Whatever.
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
Expected.
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
Helps assaulters.
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
Helps assaulters.
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
WFB influence. Whatever.
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
WFB influence. Whatever.
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Little bit of a headscratcher. But what if "against" actually means "from"?
One wonders if the last point might mean that vehicles cannot benefit from a cover save from being behind infantry ( or other non vehicle unit types ?) only from other vehicles.
Size category light kind of thing.
Prevent bullogryns from shielding Leman Russ tanks and so on.
7th edition or not, they're not showing (and probably never will) any changes to the game meta i.e can't decide if it wants to be a small, RPG/skirmish game, or a no holds barred get all your models on the table for a 50,000 point game.
Instead, you get this horrible mish-mash of the two, and there in lies the problem. So the composition of what new races will be in the starter start doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me.
Well, doesn't change that the trackrecord for rumours on rules/releases is poor.
Look at what Natfka predicted for the Eldar release last year
Spoiler:
Okay guys, got some extra details on the earlier Eldar rumors, specifically artwork and what everything looks like. Still no rules. Looks like the Xentarchs are indeed Exarchs, whether they are special Exarch’s or just new remodelling is to be seen. We’ve also got names nailed down a bit more from translations.
With the recent release of the end of this year’s schedule looking like Chaos and Dark Angels getting done, we might see Eldar landing early Q1 2013. This would be very much appreciated. Depending who writes it!
Anyway, details below!
Eldar Warpspiders/Everguard
5 per box
Spiders: whole squad looks like the old exarch, no huge weapon, helmets smaller, but same shape, wrist blades, two small spinner weapons on rod mount from the back. Spider web like straps on the chest that hold the backpack (doesn’t look as broad as the old version), running, jumping and slightly cowering poses, exarch has extra pair of weapons on the cover, don’t remember the back pictures
Everguard: aspect warrior body with runes on the chest, same collar as warpspiders but no mandible arcs and gas masks, different more warlock-like face plate and small arc at back of the head, double bladed two-handed spears, very dynamic models, jets from the side/underside of the backpack, squad leader has larger head-arc, mantle hangs over the backpack, flies in the wind
Eldar Sky Charriots/Shining Spears
3 per box, look like small vypers, slightly larger than jetbikes. Two parts: an engine part with jetbike-like canopy but in the shape of a dragon, owl and hawk head, sideway jets, and a distinct winged chariot part, parts are connected by arcs.
Riders either warlocks but arms are not robed, spear, sword and staff; or shining spear aspect warriors with lances, shining spears have smooth canopies with gems instead animal heads, helms look very cylon-like, have collar-like shoulderguards
Eldar Jetbikes
3 per box, the same pose as dark eldar jetbike, guardian riders with smaller helmets or bareheaded with lots of flying hair (80s heavy metal mane) and without backpack, vyper-esque smooth canopy, jet and wings have the same design as a falcon grav tank, underslung twin shuriken catapults and/or serpent-shaped bladehooks, some riders have axes with a hole in the blade
Eldar Dragon Riders
3 per box, very slender lizard mounts not unlike slaanesh steeds, all female rider, no helmets, long braids, guardian armor without backpack, all have shining spear lances, sabres and/or sniper rifles as sidearms, the armor has no decoration, not even gems or small bubbles, only exception is a gem that holds a cloak that falls to the left side of the rider, very simplistic look, not aztec or tribal at all
Eldar Wraithguard/Cataphracts
3 per box, look like old versions but have two rods for upper arms and thighs instead of just one, some have feet, some hooves, large fins at the back
Cataphracts: float/fly, fluttering cloth pieces instead of legs, wing-shaped shields and spears, segmented/armored head
Eldar Swooping Hawks
5 per box, larger wings, not so stiff and two-dimensional, several straps of clothes from the loin, wrists and ankles, model stand on these straps, both shoulder plates have inbuilt missile racks, Exarch has two shoulder-mounted blasters and a scimitar in one hand and two optional rifles, one is the same as the old exarch had, the other is a small star cannon
The Avatar of the Young King
Completely new design, much smaller, only as large as a wraithguard, set of aspect armour where every piece is spread out and connected by a body of magma, looks like an fire/earth elemental clad in a suit of armour, dire avenger helm with fire from the eyes and half burnt helm crest, floats and torso pose looks like vader during his Noooo scream, hands are armored, blood is dripping from the left, the right is molten and transformed into a blade
Eldar Warlock
fits the current warlocks but sharper robe edges, hadouken pose but with staff in two hands
Eldar Spirit Warrior
wraithlord-war walker mix, trygon base, running bird legs with hooves, huge scaled torso, a dozen poles extend from the back (like wraithlord but three times as much), left forearm replaced with massive lance, right hand holds extra handle on lance shaft or a three pronged swastika blade. Lower back, left shoulder and part of the left arm are concealed by an impressive cloak, head is surrounded by scaled armour plating, large gem at the front, doesn’t bend upward towards the end but downward, whole model leans forward, chest can be opened, female pilot inside
Eldar Phoenix Lord Nuadhu, The Fireheart
nuadhua holds lance upright, one end on the ground, points with axe on something, shining spear helm with tail of hair, layered armour like dark eldar-armour but with smooth curves, can be placed on vyper-variant, looks very similar to a vyper, canopy more segmented and wings in falcon-style, one large jet engine, chariot platform on the back, two large pennants
Eldar Webway Gate
Two arcs that almost touch each other at the top, whole construct has hazelnut shape, pyramidal platform with oval basis, several destroyed columns, front columns are intact and carry swooping hawk and dark reaper statues, whole model is covered with thorn-twines (seems to be optional)
Eldar Dire Avenger Xentarch
holds two handed samurai sword downwards, two wrist-mounted shuriken catapults, banner, 99% that the phoenix on it is modeled on, one foot stands on a rock with an owl next to it, all armour plates are bedecked with a rune pattern, don’t know if this is only painted on
Eldar Howling Banshee Xentarch
golfer pose, bends forwards and slashs upwards with a sabre, stretches other arm straight into the air, holds tri-swatiska, has snakes woven into her hair
Eldar Striking Scorpion Xentarch
jumps forwards, holds two short but thick chainswords in front, back of armour has backbone-like element that looks like a scorpion tail, continued on the helmet and ends in a sting, stands on ornamented plate with roots on it
Eldar Fire Dragon Xentarch
knees almost, holds very long pike with two hands ready to fire, huge cluster of grenades on his back and his belt, helm ends in a dragon head
Eldar Lamia Strike Fighter / Moon Siren Bomber & Eldar Black Warden
And that is just one. Black Templar Codex with a large Dreadknight-style guy wielding a two-handed chainsword. Plastic Thunderhawk. The persistent FW-rolled-into-the-GW-store, the (not Faeit, but BoK) Inquisitor Skirmish Game, Supplements for White Scars, Hive Fleet Behomoth and Ultramarines, while he never saw things like Crimson Slaughter or Iron Hands coming....
It just goes on and on.
Not saying it might not be true, but unless 40KRadio backs it, I am gonna assume it is wrong.
pretre wrote: via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
So, the "minor" part of this update is the move to being even more like WHFB? Looks like we're only missing movement trays at this point.
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
WFB influence. Whatever.
Uh, that isn't really a WHFB thing, seeing as Chariots in WHFB have to charge into combat like anything else.
Anyway, with the FOC being such a joke as it is, I don't see how moving to a percentage based system is all that weird. I mean, look at Tyranids. Many to most lists you'll see at this point are the mandatory HQ, two troops, and then nothing but formations and dataslates.
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
WFB influence. Whatever.
Uh, that isn't really a WHFB thing, seeing as Chariots in WHFB have to charge into combat like anything else.
Anyway, with the FOC being such a joke as it is, I don't see how moving to a percentage based system is all that weird. I mean, look at Tyranids. Many to most lists you'll see at this point are the mandatory HQ, two troops, and then nothing but formations and dataslates.
The org chart has been a problem since it was introduced in 3rd. It's always been a problem at low points levels because it doesn't scale. And now in 6th edition, it's too easily ignored.
I don't think that percentage caps "fix" 40K, if that's even achievable or an objective that everyone would agree on. But it'd sure as hell have a big impact on list design. If we imagine 25% caps for HQ, E, FA, and HS, with another 25% cap on allies overall, would any of the top 16 armies from Adepticon been legal?
As long as Tau wouldn't be able to use markerlights to offset the overwatch penalty, and if perhaps move through cover USR or something similar allowed the unit to ignore the I penalty for charging into cover, I actually think these changes could have a strong positive impact on game play.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I think I audibly said "what?" like three times reading that. Some of that is so nonsensical, like vehicles not getting cover saves from infantry (wtf?) and the wording on "you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one" whatever that means.
That sounds like a tournment rule in all honesty. Like When I come to a tournment, i have a core army, with 3 diffrent allied detachments i can swap between. Meaning you could have a anti-flier heavy allied detachment, or a anti hoard detachment to switch between counting on who you fight.
I also want to add. I was told by customer service that the FAQ page missing from the website is only temporary. Could be they didn't put it back up since 7th is comeing soon will a whole new set of updated FAQ's anyway.
gorgon wrote: I don't trust the source at all, but actually a lot of the rumored rules changes sound reasonable and plausible if I understand them properly.
- 40k run is part of the movement phase Speeds up the game. I like it in lieu of shooting... or, maybe can still shoot but only snap fire after running? I kinda like that.
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative Helps assaulters. I think this is a great idea (even with the -2 to initiative). Tilts the balance towards assaulty groups a bit.
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits Minor nerf to FMCs. Agreed. No problem with it really.
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list Wut? Not sure how this would work with lists like Ravenwing/Deathwing? O.o - you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category So a percentage system for each org chart category like in WFB? Presumably the second bullet means that allied units also count against their org chart category cap. Depending on the cap size, it could do a lot toward reining in deathstars and allies in general. Maybe there's no allies detachment anymore... you can add them into your main FoC, with the restricition that it can't be more than a quarter of your army. Meh... we'll see.
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one Three detachments and must choose one to be primary? Yea... you bring 3 allies to each game, and pick ONE to fit your needs... it's list building on the fly! Not sure how I feel about that... but, it may make more armies playable in tournaments giving the general the ability to "adapt" a bit on your next opponent. Intriguing idea....
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back WFB influence. Whatever. I like it... gives my all biker RW army a little more oompf in CC. It would be really cool if you can whack one unit and shoot/assault at a different unit. I can't tell you how many times I've head to shoot at this one unit with one guy left, and then twiddling my thumbs for the remaining turn.
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles Expected. Cool... at least it's in the main core rules.
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent Helps assaulters. Agreed... nerfs the shooty aspect of 6ed a bit.
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again Helps assaulters. Ditto... but, I hope it limits this one time per turn. Otherwise, Gazzy/Abby/Vect will have a field day. And I got them all!
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed WFB influence. Whatever. That's actually kinda neat in some ways. Basically it's a rule to retreat.
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest WFB influence. Whatever. Not sure I really understand this...
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles Little bit of a headscratcher. But what if "against" actually means "from"? Something got lost in translation? This does seem odd...
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
If any of this is true, im selling everything that is gw I own(except lotr) and never looking back
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
Move like 40k units? Like everything can move as a skirmisher unit? O_____o
I have a hard time beliveing that. Sounds like their trying to troll the fantsey players.
thesoupdragon wrote: I just saw this over on Faeit 212, couldn't see it here so thought I'd share:
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
40k 7th edition and the new starter kit Beachhead Stygia. It is small kit, with only five scouts, five blood angels, a commander with jump pack, five meganobs, 10 armoured ork shootas including a nob with two-handed axe and 10 gretchins. There are some destroyed columns, destroyed gothic stone walls and a three-piece stone bridge carried by gargoyles. It has a 96 page book, but only about the half is used for rules including three scenarios. Expert rules like all vehicle-related stuff are omitted completely. There are a handful of dice, a ruler, but no blast markers.
At the same time, there will be a new starter painting kit with 10 snapfit miniatures that will bring the tactical marines from the starter box to a full squad size and gives the ork player 5 additional boyz. It has a 48 page booklet with additional scenarios and hobby guides, brushes, basing sand and glue.
HA! I KNEW IT!
Blood Angels vs Orks.
That little bird in the rumor section 2 months ago was right after all.
I doubt this, I mean, sure AOBR was a bit unbalanced in favor of the SM to the tune of about 200 points, but you could still make a game of it! 5 Meganobz would waltz through everything the Blood Angels have on the board!
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
Move like 40k units? Like everything can move as a skirmisher unit? O_____o
I have a hard time beliveing that. Sounds like their trying to troll the fantsey players.
My group has been saying for years now...if they take Fantasy off those damn tray and move by individual model, we're probably all interested in actually spending some money.
I wouldn't believe this for a second. Seems more like a wishlist than anything cuz the inevitable nerf it will be to GWs Tau and Eldar fetish. Plus its Natfka, saltier than the Dead Sea.
ace101 wrote: I wouldn't believe this for a second. Seems more like a wishlist than anything cuz the inevitable nerf it will be to GWs Tau and Eldar fetish. Plus its Natfka, saltier than the Dead Sea.
I think "wish list" implies someone actually wishes for it I'd have to say anyone thinking GW have a Tau and Eldar hard on has a pretty short memory though.
But yeah, I don't believe a word of it. The doubling down of the doubling down is just that much funnier.
azreal13 wrote: As long as Tau wouldn't be able to use markerlights to offset the overwatch penalty, and if perhaps move through cover USR or something similar allowed the unit to ignore the I penalty for charging into cover, I actually think these changes could have a strong positive impact on game play.
Which almost guarantees they're not true. :(
It wouldn't matter. They would very seldom actually be able to overwatch do to Initiative two.
azreal13 wrote: As long as Tau wouldn't be able to use markerlights to offset the overwatch penalty, and if perhaps move through cover USR or something similar allowed the unit to ignore the I penalty for charging into cover, I actually think these changes could have a strong positive impact on game play.
Which almost guarantees they're not true. :(
It wouldn't matter. They would very seldom actually be able to overwatch do to Initiative two.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
while I don't really believe them, this would probably get me to start the beastmen army I've always wanted. I like almost all of these rules, especially the multiple formation thing, but the removal of the movemnent stats is dumb, since it will give the mess that 40k is in regards to movement, with a million special rules.
Wasnt there some bogus rumor about a Fantasy/40k-crossover? :-p
Can't judge about the changes to fantasy since I don't play it but I hope CC gets some buffs. I sit on an army of melee Orks and another one Khorne-only Demons. Anything that improves my chances of actually geting within 1" of the enemy is welcome.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
Move like 40k units? Like everything can move as a skirmisher unit? O_____o
I have a hard time beliveing that. Sounds like their trying to troll the fantsey players.
My group has been saying for years now...if they take Fantasy off those damn tray and move by individual model, we're probably all interested in actually spending some money.
I assume you are suggesting doing that in concert with radically reducing the miniature count? I shudder to imagine moving miniatures of that quantity without movement trays or multiple miniature per base.
In fact, you won't find a single ruleset that uses such a system.. for a very simple reason actually!
The way Miniatures just pile up (and the points in a game increase with Knights, Superheavies and so on, I start to wish for movement trays. It's a tough time, moving 90 orks around one by one...
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
Move like 40k units? Like everything can move as a skirmisher unit? O_____o
I have a hard time beliveing that. Sounds like their trying to troll the fantsey players.
My group has been saying for years now...if they take Fantasy off those damn tray and move by individual model, we're probably all interested in actually spending some money.
No offense, But your missing the point of fantsey if you think that.
azreal13 wrote: As long as Tau wouldn't be able to use markerlights to offset the overwatch penalty, and if perhaps move through cover USR or something similar allowed the unit to ignore the I penalty for charging into cover, I actually think these changes could have a strong positive impact on game play.
Which almost guarantees they're not true. :(
It wouldn't matter. They would very seldom actually be able to overwatch do to Initiative two.
But if they are taking 6 tests every charge...
The odds of markerlights getting a chance to upgrade the BS of overwatch are exceedingly slim. Needing a 1-2 to just get the chance to fire, than a 6 to hit, meaning even if 2 units get to fire, one being a 10 man team of pathfinders, slightly more than 1 markerlight will statistically connect meaning instead of 6 the other attacks will hit on a 5.
Unless you may make overwatch multiple times an assault phase, the odds are not good for Tau overwatch, and pointless to remove the markerlights ability to offset the overwatch penalty.
I don't think those starter set rumours are as far-fetched as most of you seem to think. Remember, if you would, marines got a new toy that would make Meganobs cry. And as blood angels have the fortune of coming after the main marine dex they will probably inherit it too. Grav Guns & pistols for the marines would work wonders against Meganobs after all.
skarsol wrote: Logical Translation:
You may spend 1/4 of your total points on allied units but they consume FOC slots in the detachment they're allied with.
You may bring 3 sets of allies (of up to 1/4 of your points each) and at game time select the one you wish to use.
Hoo boy, sideboards.
I played two tourneys in Canada back in 2002 and they had games of 1500 pts with an additional 500 pt sideboard. It was very fun and added a lot to the game.
This was posted over at BoLShere. This was apparently some sort of Q&A on Pastebin (which has since been removed). Only one side of the conversation was copied.
Fair warning...it's extremely lengthy:
Spoiler:
Yes, one ruleset for both systems, but each rulebook is still written individually with whole sections skipped or altered (i.e. obviously no tanks for fantasy). The text is certainly not a copy and paste job with differently flavoured examples but individually crafted for each system. Some rules have the same function but different names. You wouldn’t expect the rules to apply to the other system if you had only one rulebook to judge. There is are no labels that say “Here ends the generic rule section. The following is 40k specific”. In the fantasy rules everything is explained through the eyes of units in tight formation which do not exist in 40k. Skirmish units are the exception to the rule in fantasy, where in 40k everything is in skirmish formation and everything is explained that way from the get go. There isn’t even a name for this formation, it is just the default. But if every unit in fantasy would be skirmishers, it wouldn’t matter if you play the game with the 40k or fantasy rules. Everything would work exactly the same.
Another example: units in formation do not get +1 A on the charge, so this bonus is not mentioned until fighting in skirmish formation is introduced. In the 40k rulebook, the bonus is mentioned right in the assault section - not as an exception, but as the rule because there are no other formations in 40k. Different way to introduce it, but the same outcome if you play fantasy with all skirmishers.
90:10. Fantasy adapts more 40k elements than vice versa. 40k is only a minor update, Fantasy is a major shakeup and the army books stay only barely viable.
Certainly. But I hope this will die down eventually like the random charge distance controversy.
The most irritating is definitely that you can start with two units facing each other directly, move your unit in the movement phase into the enemy’s side arc and charge the unit in the assault phase. Even though the enemy can change its facing to take the charge head on, it turns the whole positioning game upside down. Fantasy is still all about good unit placement, unit synergy and manoeuvres, but it all plays out very differently.
All infantry units move 6”. There are no movement values anymore.
That’s the only one. Units have an armour save profile now, but this is mostly coherent with the old system - only shields work a little bit different now. The old calculated system is even explained in the armoury section. It is more beginner-friendly now. The armour saves are simply precalculated now.
R.I.P.
The rules are 99,99% the same as in 40k. If you come from 40k you can play fantasy with minimal effort.
A major one for both system is, that you march/run in the movement phase and charge in the melee phase.
No, even more random. Fantasy uses the 40k system, but there are not so many different kinds of random movement. Random movement is either D6” or 2D6”, with same rules adding or subtracting dice from the pool. You always discards the lowest ones. There is a reminder that rolls are doubled afterwards, but I don’t remember any instance where this is relevant.
Basic 6” movement for infantry including monstrous infantry and monsters. Cavalry is 12” Movement now. March is D6”. Charge is 2D6”. Consolidations are, “two D6, pick one”. Retreats are normal march moves, so 6+D6”.
Terrain subtracts one D6 from the pool to a minimum of 1. Normal movement changes from 6” to “roll 2D6 and pick one” in inches. Moves in the assault/melee phase are never affected by difficult terrain, so charges are always D6”+D6”.
Since run is only one D6” it is not affected by terrain. units with fleet and move through cover can roll two D6 and pick one.
No, a charge through terrain can cause dangerous terrain tests and affects the Initiative in both systems now.
Fleet adds one D6 to all random pools and you can pick one. Move through cover cancels difficult terrain, but not other kinds of terrain. Strider cancels dangerous and difficult terrain completely.
Yes, Fleet lets you roll three dice for movement trough terrain, two dice for march and three for charge. It also influences Consolidations.
After a combat if you are no longer bound. You can use this move to charge other units or to spread out. But consolidations are only allowed in your own turn.
Cavalry is not hindered by terrain but must make dangerous terrain tests. 12” moves are never replaced with a random one as far as I can see. They either ignore difficult terrain completely or treat it as dangerous.
Flee reaction is a normal retreat. You let the enemy move into contact and break from the combat at the start of the melee phase. It works as if you had lost a combat, but at the start of the phase. You use the 40k rules, so have to win a I roll-off to flee. You move unit 6”+D6” immediately after breaking. If the charging unit pursuits and you are caught, the unit is destroyed. In either case the enemy unit can make a consolidation and even fight a new combat this phase.
Yes, it is back.
Yes, it is still in. 12” now and still a ld-roll required. One of the cases where 40k steals a fantasy rule.
Yes and no. You are right, the dwarf rule would be pointless otherwise, but this isn’t a criteria. There are dozens of rules, even in the Wood Elf army book, that become obsolete.
Yes, the dancers for example.
Retreating units simply march in consecutive turns.
Ogres are faster than Dwarfs. Units with monstrous (It’s a special rule and not a unit type now) have the Fleet rule, formerly known as Swiftstride.
Swiftstride is still a special rule, but it only reads “gives the unit fleet”. In 10th edition it is likely gone.
Only if the 40k term fits the fantasy setting.
Dangerous terrain is auto-wound on 1. All units can stalk and replace movement with 1D6” and ignore dangerous terrain during the move or march.
Yes, both systems. Everything affects both systems. Run is the same as march but with a different name. I don’t state this explicitly.
Charging through terrain gives a unit -2 I in both systems. There are no assault grenade equivalents in fantasy, but units with spears attack with +2 I in the first round of combat. But terrain doesn’t slow a charge anymore.
To be frank, I don’t remember, it’s 40k. I think they negate the bonus and don’t give +2 flat out..
Yes, they move equally fast through terrain, but jump infantry don’t have to test for dangerous terrain. It’s not faster but safer.
There are no jump troops in fantasy. But in 40k, they can use the skyborne rule in every phase, but must make dangerous terrain tests if they start or end their movement in terrain. They can choose to move like infantry. But they do not get the impact hits if they don’t use their packs in the assault phase. So it’s basically back to 5th edition.
Manoeuvre rules are really simple. Units in formation move as if they were a single model. The unit pivots on the spot and moves in any way it likes even sideways, but cannot move though other models. A charge with a block is a little bit more complicated.
You charge in the melee phase, so can use the movement phase to bring the unit in position. You roll the distance and check if you can reach the enemy. If you are and the enemy chooses stand & shoot, you resolve the shooting and the enemy unit aligns with the charging unit if the terrain and other units permit it. Then you move the unit into contact. The movement distance doesn’t matter.
Yes, there are other restrictions. you have to charge the facing you were after the pivot of the defending unit, so most of the time the front. You have to attack with your front. You have to bring as many enemy and friendly models into contact as possible. You have to move the shortest way possible.
I think directly towards your centre, but he can avoid this if he chooses Hold reaction. There is no closing the gap, because you align the unit directly during the move.
Hold works only for units in a tight formation, so only in fantasy.
There are rules for charging in loose formation. It is basically the same but with more models. The defender doesn’t align. There are 6” pile-in moves if the charged unit is a skirmish unit.
No, skirmishers don’t have to remain in the front facing. If a model in the side is the nearest one, it can be charged. The facing rule is only for blocks.
Units in loose formation move exactly like 40k units, both during a charge and the pile-in move.
Before the charge move, you can move your unit in the movement phase into position.
No, pivots do not cost movement. Units move like a large single model, and single models can pivot freely.
The fantasy rules do not care for exact or long-winded movements anymore, as long as the rules are kept simple. If the outcome looks sufficiently authentic, who cares for micromanaging every inch? I am sure the design team is aware of this, there is a box that gives some in-character explanations for seemingly impossible maneuvers.
If the defender cannot align and the attacker cannot be placed in the front because the unit would collide with a building or something, the attacking unit botched its charge, loses its formation. You then use the 40k rules and move the models one by one. A unit without formation is doomed in combat.
He don’t have to. The unit can Hold and retain its position, but cannot stand and shoot in this case. It can only hold if all involved units are in tight formation.
40k units can only Stand and Fire, which does not have a name in 40k because it is kind of the default, or Flee. Only blocks can Hold.
Yes, a single unit cannot flank no matter where it is positioned. But they can deny stand and shoot, which has no range limitation anymore. But the positioning works as an implicit range limitation. If the enemy is close enough to pseudo-flank you in the movement phase, it is a good indicator that he was near enough that you are not be able to fire.
Shooter has to win roll-off D6+leader’s I in order to shoot at attacker. This is also true for overwatch, which is the same as stand and shoot btw. Wounds do not count towards combat resolution.
If the roll is equal you can shoot.
If the enemy tries to crab walk out of your front arc, you move your unit in the movement phase to face him again and charge him in the melee phase. If he hides somewhere where you cannot see him even after a move, you cannot charge him.
Units in loose formation do not have arcs.
Blocks still have to see the enemy at the start of the melee phase to charge. In most situations this is trivial, but if you want to charge another unit during a consolidation, it becomes an issue.
But it won’t do you any good, because he can attack you from 4 ranks/files if he is in formation and you are not. Units in loose formation are easy to manoeuvre, but there is a reason that units fight in tight formation. They are better suited for combat. If a unit in a block attacks a unit in loose formation, every model in contact and in 2” of a model in contact can fight. That means 4 row on a 25mm base, even to the side. If the unit in loose formation attacks the front, only models in contact and models in contact with a fighter can attack. That means the equivalent of 2 rows at best. So, the unit in formation has approximately double the attacks.
No, there is a difference between loose formation and skirmish formation. Every unit can assume a 40k-like 2” distance-no facing-formation at any time: loose formation. But there are some drawbacks. If fighting against other unit, every model in 2” of a fighting model can attack you if you are in loose formation. Against a block of 20 Black Guard thats 40 attacks coming your way. Skirmishers are better at fighting without formation than usual units and have a front to all directions. There is a distinction between a proper formation -even if it is a light one- and no formation at all. You have to protect your flanks from them, because if there is a skirmisher in your side, all his buddies in 2” can attack.
Ok, let me explain it another way: Even if skirmishers look like a horde, they fight in a coordinated fashion. They form primitive shield walls and support each other. Skirmisher are deployed in loose formation. Skirmishers have a 360 degree front arc, they can use their weapons and shields in all directions and can only be attacked by two ranks. Skirmishers get +1 Attack when they charge other skirmishers or units in loose formation. They don’t have to see an enemy they want to charge.
Units in loose formation have no facings. They can see 360 degree. They cannot use shields and other weapons to their full potential and can always be attacked by all models in 2” behind the first rank, so usually 4 ranks of infantry and 3 ranks of cavalry and monstrous infantry.
Yeah, my mistake. I might have used the terms loose formation and skirmish formation interchangeably which they are not.
Fighting without a formation has some advantages, though. You don’t have facing and can charge in any direction and are better protected against mortars.
In our world not.If there were as many dragons, warp flame throwers and skull catapults in our history, loose formation would have been used way earlier.
Only blocks with an enemy in their front facing benefit from this. If you get flanked by a large unit, all models in 2” of the first row can attack you, but you can only attack back with two rows because you are in his front facing while he is not.
Skirmish is a special rule. Every unit can fight in loose formation, but skirmishers get the advantages I mentioned yesterday. And I like to add one important thing - units without the skirmish rule must re-roll all successful panic tests and do not benefit from the battle standard bearer or the general..
No, it is just me. I am not good at this it seems. It is really easy: If you attack the front of a regiment, two ranks attack. If you attack anything else (side, rear, loose formation), everything in 2” of a fighting model attacks.
Yes, only units in formation and certain unit types (monsters and buildings in fantasy, vehicles in 40k) have facings.
If a model or unit has facings or arc, it is 90 degree from base edges or if it has no square base the centre of the model.
Yes, I think 40k vehicles, too.
There are four formations in fantasy and no formations in 40k. Skirmish units in fantasy behave exactly like a 40k unit. They get +1 attack on the charge against other skirmishers, their facing doesn’t matter, they shoot in all directions, etc.
No.
Block, Wedge, Turtle and Skirmish.
Block is your standard block. 5-15 wide and as deep as you like.
No, you cannot form a conga line, it has to be 5 wide. If there is a bottleneck, you can forfeit your formation and move in loose formation past the obstacle. You can reform at the start of your turn if you pass a ld-test or automatically if you have a musician.
Wedge is like the Bretonnian lance formation, but you only get ranks from rows that are at least 5 wide. You need 15 models to form even a single rank. All models in the front triangle that have an opposite enemy model can attack. But only the front models, there are never supporting attacks from models in 2” or models in contact in wedge formation. There are no side arcs and you get a bonus to break through the enemy formation.
Yes, you can. Normally, if you cause twice as many wounds as there are enemy ranks, you make a S-roll-off. If you win, the enemy loses his formation and will suffer next round of combat as a result. Units in wedge formation only need to deal more wounds than the number of ranks to force this test.
The best S value without weapon modifiers.
Both sides can lose their formation at the same time. The combat has obviously dissolved into a butchering at this point.
Yes, there are many roll-offs now.
For roll-offs and tests you can always use the profile value of the champion or the best character just like a leadership test. If there is no character, you take the best value of the normal models. For to-wound purposes you still use the majority straight away.
Yes, I was a little bit sloppy there.
Turtle is a square formation (or as square as possible) that cannot move. Rank is equal to number of rings with five or more models. There is only a front facing.
Only at the start of the movement phase. Ld-test required except you have a musician. Breaking up your formation is easier. You can do that at any time without ld-test.
Tired, sore fingers.
That’s hard. I guess the new movement rules, the weapon profiles, the combat resolution, the different formations and the shooting rules. On the one hand fantasy is a whole new game, on the other hand, it is surprisingly similar to 8th edition. Some things are resolved differently, but the result is often the same. The balance is shattered, though.
Weapons have a more detailed profile now. A high strength does not modify the armour save by itself. But lot of weapons have armour save modifiers, called piercing. These are not AP values, they do not negate armour. This is one of the major differences that still exist between fantasy and 40k. The rules for the weapon types have changed considerably, some weapons like the spear do not resemble their 8th edition counterpart at all.
I can do that for the basic weapons, but there are too many weapons in 9th edition to recall them all. An imperial bihander is not the same as a giant choppa rulewise. There are obviously lots of orc and empire weapons in the rulebook. There are only a dozen weapons from other races, mainly those that needed an update. Slayer weapons are +1S, Piercing -2, two-handed and bows of avelorn are always -1 Piercing for example.
Hand weapon: Parry (improves shield ward save by one), Spear: Piercing -1, Reach (+2 Initiative in first round of combat against front), Spearwall (additional piercing -1 against charging cavalry, war beasts, flying units in front), Halberd is +1S, Piercing -1, Spearwall, two-handed, Two-hand weapon +2S, Piercing -1, two handed, this is only the generic weapon, there are two-handed swords, axes, hammers, scythes and pikes, all with different profiles
Flail +2S, two handed, lance: +2 S, Piercing -3, in round of charge or in any round against loose formation, cavalry spear: +1S, Piercing -2, in round of charge or in any round against loose formation. There are many more weapons, often variants of the basic weapons.
There is enough room for another charge.
Yes.
Yes, no additional attacks for spears, that’s only for pikes.
No, parry is not cumulative with other ward saves. And ward saves cannot be taken in addition to armour saves in 9th edition.
There are 8 pages of weapons, most of them generic to fit into any army, but some are obviously race specific. In addition there are magic weapons, but there is no general distinction between a mundane weapon and a magic weapon, except that the latter has the magic rule.
Take the Middenheimer for example. It is a two-handed weapon with S+3 without piercing. It is not a magic weapon, but can be bought by all character models with access to the general armoury. If an ogre takes one, it causes instant death with it, so it is very powerful, but not magic.
Pikes are two handed spears with an additional rank attacking to the front.
It is the same as the 40k rule, but the rule has changed a little bit. It now works for all weapons with S 8,9 and 10 against all models with T 5 or lower.
There are still weapons that cause D6 wounds, yes.
True. Armour saves are good, but I listed only the basic weapons. There are other counters. Orcs and the empire both have weapons that are good at killing knights - bihanders and tusk spears for example. And units with the monstrous weapons get -2 and flaming gives an additional -1 against cavalry, war beasts, monsters and flying units.
Monstrous weapons are Piercing -2 and monstrous two-handers are S+1, Piercing -3, two-handed. I don’t know if all monstrous infantry units get them on release, but trolls and rat ogres get them definately.
I answer the first question later. Unit types are a huge topic. For the second part:
The strength of a magic spell does not reduce armour. The spell lores stay exactly the same. You can bomb a unit of knights with your fancy S5 spell, but he still saves on a 2+ - except for the lore of fire against cav.
Magic is pretty much unchanged as a whole. There is no magic phase anymore. You generate the power dice at the start of the turn and use spells whenever the card say it is used, or at the end of the movement phase if not specified. If you use more dice than your level, you can miscast but it does not give the spell total energy. There is a new spell type. Spells that are used in the enemy’s turn. You cast them in your turn, but keep the card on the table. If your wizard lives, he can use the spell without any further roll or risk of getting banned. There are rules for sorcerous covens, units of mages.
Yes, 40k uses the exact same ruleset but with different names. The psychic powers use warp charges, where every point is equal to complexity 4. There are no complexity 5 or 6 or 13 powers, only multiples of 4 - because 4 is the number of chaos gods -dundundundunnnnnn.
That is not a problem, because psychic powers can target different units - warp sight is different from eye sight. The same is true for spells.
If you play large games, above 3000 points, you roll twice for the dice generation. Above 6000 you roll thrice, etc.
No, you roll two dice, the higher is the number of dispel dice. Then you roll another 2D6 and the higher of these two is added to the dispel pool.
No, bowmen can’t shoot a unit and charge afterwards. There are 40k-like weapon types now. Bows and similar weapons have their own weapon type that doesn’t have an 40k equivalent. They work like rapid fire weapons without the double tap. There is no equivalent in 40k. In addition, their volley fire allows them to fire every rank without snapfire, not just the first two. Can fire indirectly at unit that is visible to another friendly unit, but uses the snapfire rule for this.
You cannel only once.
Quick to fire = rapid fire. Stand & Fire = heavy weapons, including the move and snapfire rule. Pistols are pistols. Throwing weapons are assault weapons. There are no salvo weapons in fantasy.
Yes, they retain their fantasy names.
Pistols use their profile in the first round of combat and count as a normal (additional) hand weapons afterwards. I don’t think there are specific rules for a pair of pistols, but I may remember this wrong.
Snapfire is -3 BS now.
Yes, modifiers are part of both systems, but 40k does not use them that much.
No, boyz hit on a 6 still. A 6 is always a success.
Always.
There is no re-roll for BS6+. But the 1 is always miss and 6 is always success rule applies to every roll. As long as you have an armour save, you can roll and hope for a 6, even if it was modified into oblivion. A 6 represents pure luck.
No, if something is negated, as the lascannon does with the Ork armour, there is no roll, so you can’t save with a 6.
Ok, give me a minute, I will explain this in detail.
Weapons in fantasy have the same profile as in 40k but without an AP column. Some weapons have the Piercing rule,which gives an -1 armour save modifier or if it is Piercing (-2) a -2 modifier, .... There is no extra column for Piercing, it’s a special rule like volley fire that is listed at the end of the profile. There are fewer to-hit modifiers, snapfire is -3. There are no movement or long range modifiers anymore and the multiple shot value is listed in brackets behind the weapon type and does not reduce the BS either. Units can move and shoot without penalty. There is a +1 modifier for large targets. Cover modifiers are replaced with cover saves.
In 40k there is even a +1 modifier for super large vehicles.
Correct.
For normal units, the total armour save is not calculated. Units have a fixed armour save profile value that is not modified by anything except certain magic items before the battle. Heroes come with their own set of armour. Imperial heroes come with a 5+ armour - no matter whether they are mounted or not. This can be upgraded to a full plate armour (3+) or imperial knight armour (1+) if they are mounted. Bardings are simply part of this set, you cannot buy them seperately and they do not lower the movement - cavalry moves 12”. Period. Being mounted does nothing for your armour save, neither in 40k nor in fantasy. It simply changes your unit type to cavalry and some mounts like boars give you an extra attack in your profile. There is a box in the rulebook however that explains the old system because you need it for the heroes of the older army books. You still combine light/heavy armour, mount and barding - but you don’t take shields into consideration. Shields are totally different now.
Shields give three rules: they confer a 4+ armour save against shooting from the front arc, that is used if it is better than the normal armour save and can be modified normally. They give a 6+ ward save in melee against all sides. And wielders deal a single impact hits with their profile strength. There are different kinds of shields, but this is the basic setup.
It is counterweighted by the fact, that S4 units do not reduce your save by -1 anymore.
Keep in mind that you can roll your armour save roll even if the armour save was modified to 7+ or 12+. A 6 is a success. And ward saves cannot be taken in addition to normal saves, so the 6++ does almost nothing except when you combine it with a hand weapon and get a 5++.
That’s only the basic shield. Long shields give 3+ against shooting. And metal shields in combination with a hand weapon are scary, because combined they give a 4+ ward save.
Yes, it is a lot, but the army books stay valid. They get a FAQ each. But they weren’t on my desk yet and usually do not end up here anyway. A few weapons and armour sets are covered in the rule book. Gromril armour is power armour now for example. Magic stays the same except some minor tweaks in the form of designer notes, but only in the rulebook, not on the actual cards.
That is a myth. That is not how it works. All codices are solely written for the edition they are released for.
No, there is no army list, but a reference section that gives the armour save and unit type for every unit.
As far as I can tell, everything stays exactly as it is, except for units with upgradable wargear. If a unit had a 4+ save for heavy armour and shield, it likely still has a 4+ and the shield bonus on top of it.
No, units with a shield as an option only get their basic armour. The shield upgrade confers the usual shield boni, but does not improve the armour save.
Your knights are 2+ because the rulebook says so. Imperial knights are 1+ because their army book says so. Your heroes are 3+ because heavy amour 5+, mount +1 amd barding +1 = 3+. If you get them a shield, they get a 6++. Knights have shields on top of their 2+ armour. I don’t know if your heroes get 2+ via errata. It would make sense though.
.
The balance is gone, but the army books will catch up and there are other ways to speed up the process.
Unfortunately, I can’t, sorry.
Skaven, not Bretonnians.
Yes, but not right after Empire. The third release is a campaign book. It covers several special units, regiments of renown, including some Bretonnian Knights.
Likely.
They are unique units, sometimes upgraded units of existing ones, sometimes truly unique ones. They can be fielded as normal units in their army or as allies in other armies. They are also stop-gaps for outdated army books (without invalidating the existing units). Your Bretonnians get crusading knights.
The campaign is set in the border princes. There is a huge focus on this region even in the main rulebook.
Khemri, Vampire counts, Bretonnians, Dwarfs and Skaven. Skaven and Khemri are the main focus. Other armies play their role, but do not get units.
Arkhan tries to conquer the ruins of Nagashizzar.
I don’t know. There is nothing on my desk that would suggest this, but it might happen anyway.
This is well into 2015, let’s keep it at that.
No problem.
No, the story get not advanced. We do not do this - ever. This might be fun for some time, but eventually you end up with “menace of the month” creep and destroy your scenario. But we are doing something similar.
The background stays the same. But the focus is more on the border princes. It’s the only region that is described in detail and the a huge part of the history and backstory is written around this land. There is also a huge emphasis on the consequences of the war: razed cities, desolate lands. The history takes the spotlight away from the nearly successful, but ultimately meaningless conquests to wars that really destroyed cities, provinces or whole civilizations. The good vs. evil scheme isn’t central (rulewise it doesn’t exists at all) and the writers go out of their way to explain unusual alliances. Another theme is that the old world is full of scumbags, explorers, wannabe conquerors and ambitious lesser nobles that have the means to rise their own armies because their is no shortage of mercenaries and weapon supplies in a world locked in never ending war. It is not all about the grand army of the high king or elector count, but also about armies of robber barons, mercenary princes and exiled generals. The writing team gives you the room to build your own army background.
The rulebook describes the scenario of the world without limiting you to a specific time you have to set your games in. All the major events are described up to the crowning of Karl Franz whioch is the last chronological entry.
From now on, all campaign books and army books are set 20-ish years in the past. Each new book is set a bit later than the last one and advances the story. Special character rules so far are generally written for this time frame if the model allows it. Karl Franz is very inexperienced and belittled by the court.
His crowning is a major event in the army book too, but his coming of age arc is not resolved yet. There is no hint in the army book that he becomes an accomplished statesman and general eventually, but the next army books will likely pick this plot thread up. All the books are interwoven with each other and there is a series of our novels that tie into the chronology.
I don’t know of it alters the history of the last 20 years in any meaningful way. There is a certain element of retcon for sure, but so far nothing game changing has happened. I think we haven’t heard of Azhag’s tribal unification wars and his waaagh in the east yet, but it doesn’t contradict his established background - at least as far as I can tell. The whole cycle might well end with Archaon’s invasion as you would expect, but I don’t know and it will take a decade to reach these events at the current pace.
Yes, we have worked towards this for the last five years at least. We have one very accomplished editor under contract that handles the novels in addition to our team. We want the novels to stand on their own feet and have a broader appeal.
We like to think about them not as warhammer novels, but novels that happen to be set in the warhammer world.
I don’t know. I knew him, but this is my job. But I won’t spoil the surprise.
Yes, but I am involved with this directly.
So, you want me to keep my mouth shut?
Very bad if not outright evil!
At least one novel to accompany every army book.
There is nothing bad about copying a successful strategy, especially if it is well liked by the customers.
Fans!
Bon appetite.
Shooting is more deadly against units without shields. You get covers saves, but only if you occupy terrain. Fortress battlements give 3+, hard cover 4+ and soft cover 5+.
EVERYTHING is the same. But this is not what I meant. You get cover saves for terrain that you are not in contact with, but if a block is only partially hidden by a tower, the enemy can fire at the exposed models without cover saves. And blocks cannot take cover.
Oh, I didn’t know.
It’s a shooting reaction like the 40k going to the ground.
Blocks can’t take cover, but units in loose formation can. They get +1 on the cover save. Blocks have their own, unique shooting reaction: brace. They have to make a panic test only if they lose 50% of their wounds, but if that’s not enough to avoid a test, they re-roll successful ones just like units in loose formation.
All units have one or more shooting reactions available to them, tied to their unit type. Some units get their unique shooting reactions. For example, militias can disperse when they are hit by a blast weapon, they move some inches and give up their formation.
No, they do not get cover saves. If you fire through an intervening unit, the target unit is shrouded. Units in formation block the line of sight but only if they are tall enough. It’s true line of sight. Otherwise they are intervening units.
Shrouded is a -2 modifier to BS. And blast weapons cannot roll a hit.
Fantasy units can take cover, but there is no pinning special rule. The effects of take cover are the same as going to ground.
Stealth is +1 cover save or a 6+ in the open.
Skirmishers don’t get their usual -1, but they get the benefits of shields against attacks from every direction.
There are lots of changes. Units under half strength cannot rally, panic cannot spread to other units in 6” and break tests are totally different.
You don’t add the casualties to the rank bonus and standards to get the combat result . If you cause more wounds than the enemy, you win the combat. The leadership is modified by the casualty difference. But if you control the unit in the combat with the most ranks, you are still steadfast.
Standards count as an additional casualty for this purpose. They cannot be captured anymore, btw.
You try to charge the chaos block with two or more medium or large blocks of your peasants. The rules make it easy to set up a flanking charge with one of the units. Then the block in the flank can attack with all models. It is no longer “clever manoeuvring leads directly to victory” but “clever manoeuvring leads to more damage output leads to victory”.
Flank attacks do not give a bonus to the combat resolution and they don’t negate the rank bonus. But they negate weapons like spears that work only against the front. And they let you attack with all models in 2”.
Indeed, damage is everything.
Ranks are only important for three things: steadfast for break tests, to see if you lose your formation and rank bonus. Rank bonus is a skaven-like special rule that depends on the number of ranks. The default is that a unit that has two or more ranks get +1 on psychology tests - psychology is now every ld-test that is not a panic test or break test: proximity, fear, frenzy, stupidity, etc.
But it looks like all armies get their individual rank bonus, sometimes even individual units.
No, not a flat-out bonus to ld, that’s only for skaven. Units from the empire get +1 to hit in melee if they have three ranks or more because they are drilled to fight in large blocks. Flagellants get their own rank bonus, their melee attacks are concussive if they have three or more ranks.
Only one rank bonus. The rank bonus in an army book replaces the rally bonus.
Yes
If your enemy breaks, you can charge another unit in your front arc. Alternatively you can give up your formation and charge in any direction. Frenzied units must give up their formation if this is the only way to charge another enemy. The enemy can react in the normal way.
It’s a consolidation, so one out of two D6”
Stand & Shoot is the default option. You have to win an Initiative roll-off in order to shoot and all the 40k overwatch rules apply. You have to be able to see the enemy somewhere during his movement. For units in loose formation this is trivial, but blocks that are attacked from the side or rear cannot shoot. And if a part of your unit hides behind a building, this part cannot fire. The shots are resolved at -3 BS.
Units in a formation can choose Hold. They cannot shoot, but if they win a S roll-off, they can choose not to close the gap to the enemy and let the enemy do the wheeling. Obviously this isn’t an option in 40k. Units can flee in both systems. You move the attacking unit as normal. Then you make an Initiative roll-off. If the fleeing unit loses it is destroyed or whatever happens if it breaks from a combat. If the unit escapes it flees as normal, the attacker stays in place and can make a random consolidation up to 6” and tie up another unit. Blocks cannot pursuit, so it is likely that the fleeing unit escapes. Astartes and fearless units cannot flee.
Yes, if a unit loses a combat and flees, there is a 40k-esque I-roll-off too to see if the fleeing unit is destroyed, but units in block, wedge or turtle formation cannot pursuit. They have to give up their formation in order to catch the losing unit. Skirmishers with high I are very deadly if they win a combat and keep in mind that you use the I of any character that is with the unit.
You can decide that at any time. If you cannot combine this with a move, you put the last rank in disorder or something similar to show that the unit is no longer in formation. But you have to decide before you roll to pursuit.
Units move towards their own board edge.
Yes, 40k units can flee.
When you sweeping advance into another unit, the unit can stand and shoot again. The combat is resolved in the next phase except when this happens because of a flee reaction. In the theory one unit can destroy a whole army if all enemy units are clumped together and choose flee every time..
Before pile-ins.
It’s also like 40k now. You move towards your own table edge. At the start of your phase you can rally if you are above half strength at the same time that you try to regain or change a formation.
It’s your normal march move. Fast cavalry has Feigned Flight. They rally instantly and are not destroyed if they are caught, just bound in combat.
In addition to feigned flight, fast cavalry has the scout, hit & run, parting shot and relentless rules.
You distribute the wounds from near to far. Champions have to take a wound, but get a Look out roll and cannot be singled out in combat except in a challenge. Musicians and standards work in the same way, they can use Lookout, too.
You can fill the gaps at your initiative step, but the enemy can’t enter your formation. That would have been cool though. You always fill up the ranks of a block at the end of a phase.
Yes, when you pile-in, you can change to loose formation and move to the side arc. But you don’t have to. There are not many situations where this would be beneficiary.
There are circumstances where you are forced to give up your tight formation: If the enemy breaks through your formation, if you cannot place the unit in terrain, if your frenzied units want to charge the next enemy, etc.
Terrain is much simpler now. There are no random charts anymore in the normal rules. You buy mystic terrain or define an existing piece of terrain to be of a certain kind. Most pieces of terrain have more benefits than drawbacks, so you want to use terrain in your games, but you don’t have to. You cannot enter buildings in the default missions, but you can buy towers and fortified mansions with their own defenders, who can shoot out by themselves, but cannot leave. There are rules for castle walls, towers and other fortifications, too. You can place models on them, but not in them.
This is a large can of worms!
You can take allies in fantasy. There is a matrix just like 40k. There is a visible good/evil divide but not as strict as before. There are only three instead of four levels. Dark Elves can ally with the human factions for example.
There are no retcons, at least no glaring ones. Dark Elves and High Elves still hate each other and cannot ally. But Dark Elves can ally with almost all of the other armies. And High Elves aren’t far behind in this department and can ally with beastmen, vampires and orcs. Dark Elves are very good diplomats and the lesser races are easily lured into an alliance. Afterall, in order to be treacherous, there had to be an alliance of some kind to betray. The seaguard of lothern is described as being very pragmatic when they are abroad. When they are on Ulthuan they can be noble and good mannered elves who would never barter with an orc chieftain. But if they are on a foreign shore with no reinforcements at hand they don’t have this luxury and do strike deals with local savages.
Yes, it is very open. There is eternal war, but the alliances are shifting constantly.
The background doesn’t change, but there is a minor tonal shift. Battles with unusual allies are mentioned throughout the book.
For example, a whole double page describes the secession of Marienburg and how several regiments didn’t choose a side, but became freelancers instead. There is a formerly unknown mercenary skaven clan mentioned called liietch that can be hired by the highest bidder. There is a story where several elector counts have tried to rise freemen in Sylvania to bolster their own state troops. It turned out, that most of them were dead all along and finally turned on their allies. There is a precedent for a temporary empire / necromantic alliance even if it was not very successful.
There are lots of these anecdotes. You are really encouraged to come out of your comfort zone. Both rulebooks are very narrative driven. There are several boxes of flavour text that describe a rule in effect, in-character from the eyes of a soldier.
For example, the frenzy rule is accomplished by a historical anecdote of a witch elf unit that has butchered it’s way through a wood elf army until they ignored the command of their dreadlord and charged into a wood of treekins to never be seen again.
Skaven can ally with almost every army except lizardmen and some of the elves.
Why wouldn’t they? The skaven have used a human king to assassinate Nagash afterall. They can work towards a common goal if it is in their short term interest.
Dwarfs/High Elves/Lizardmen and Chaos Daemons and Dwarfs/Empire/Bretonnians and Orcs are still archenemies.
Beastmen can ally with all armies except bretonnia and wood elves.
Bretonnians and the empire can ally with warriors of chaos.
You can spend up to 25% of your points on secondary forces. Allies, regiments of renown, fortifications and mystic terrain are part of this category. You can only take allies from a single army book, including your own, and they count against both the limits for their category and the secondary force limit. You can mix regiments, towers and terrain as you like and they only count against the secondary budget.
Chaos Dwarfs are part of the matrix, but don’t read anything into it, please.
You have the option to take units from your own list because you can change your secondary contingent before the game. You can prepare up to three army lists, but the main contingent has to be the same.
That’s cynical.
You bring a 750 point list and three 250 point secondary lists to a 1000 point game. 800 points/ 3x 200 points would be ok, too. But 600/ 3x400 would not.
Of course you can opt out, but this is clearly how the design team wants us to pursue our hobby.
You can do this before you meet up for the game. We live in the digital age after all.
No, you cannot mix your own units and units from an allied army list as part of your secondary forces. Only one ally is allowed. In 40k, you can combine an ally with formations from other codices, but there are no formations in fantasy.
The secondary detachment or force can consist of one ally and as many other units, formations, titans, etc that are not labeled as an ally.
There are no regiments of renown at release date except of the units from storm of magic. There is a list of armies they are available for, but you have to get storm of magic to get their rules.
40k has similar rules, yes. 7th edition 40k uses a percentage system, too. min 20% troops, max 25% HQ, elite, fast attack, heavy support and secondary detachment.
There is a chart for those that are unable to use a calculator. You are expected to play with an army value that is a multiple of 250 if you use it.
Min 20% core, max 25% heroes, lords, elite, special, rare, war machines, secondary forces.
War machines are all artillery pieces, chariots, altars, etc. Everything that has the unit type war machine. They are not part of their former slot anymore.
Below 750 points, there are no allies and all max troop sizes are lowered to three - or one if it was lower than or equal to three already. So most units cannot form proper block and have to fight in loose formation.
No, the block rules are more complicated than this. Monstrous units still only have to be 3 wide.
The scenarios are different. There are no scoring units in fantasy. 40k has totally different missions and objectives. But the structure is the same.
After rolling for a mission, you roll who chooses his secondary army first. This player can also choose if he wants to be the defender (deploys first, moves firts) or the attacker after both players have chosen their army. After this, you place the mandatory terrain and the defender chooses his board edge. Players take turns to place their mystic terrain. Players deploy their armies, beginning with the defender. The defender has the first turn.
It’s a very open process. It is stated many times that the process is not the one and only way to set up a game. In fact, for every step there are alternative methods presented. You can arrange the terrain together, or you can play with only one secondary contingent, or you predetermine one player as the attacker, or you play without initiative theft , etc. There are many ways, but only one is described in detail.
It’s the same. Still on a 6. But if he steals the initiative, you can change the time of battle to either dawn or day.
There is a table 1 Morning Raid, 2-3 Dawn of War, 4-5 High Noon, 6 Dusk Warriors.
Night raid is night fighting for the first three turns. Dawn of war is night fighting on turn 1. High noon is night fighting from turn 6 on. And dusk warriors is night fighting from turn 4 on.
No, those are also the fantasy names.
Night fighting is no shooting beyond 36”, stealth for units beyond 12” and shroud for units beyond 24”.
You have to disclose the army lists and the secondary forces before the game.
You either need a bigger case or you can do this at home before the game.
Maybe it comes down to this, but this game is not designed as a competitive one. You are supposed to have a collection of primary armies and in addition several smaller secondary forces. You don’t have to collect 1500 points worth of minis whenever you like a new set of miniatures and want to play with them. There is a reason to collect multiple secondary forces.
No, I don’t know the reasoning. It’s just my interpretation of how the collecting section is written.
Yes, but you don’t buy fanatics with a unit anymore. You can still distribute them in secret.
Both. 40k uses the usual tokens. In the default missions, you use landmarks as markers. Markers come immediately after mandatory terrain.
It’s the same structure as 40k but without different deployment types and scoring units. You place your army 12” from you long table edge in all default missions. Landmarks can be captured if there is no enemy unit in 3”. You roll for every of your units in 3”. On a 6+ the landmark is captured. If you fail the roll and the unit stays in 3” you can roll next turn and get +1 for every additional turn. If a landmark is captured it is no longer a landmark.
You can use any piece of terrain, but the missions are clearly written for houses. You either put them to the torch or evacuate the tenants. But shrines that must be desecrated or consecrated will do equally well.
Three. But they are all variants of a pitched battle. All of them use landmarks. Pitched Battle has a single landmark in 12” from one short table edge and equally distant from the long edges. The second mission has three landmarks in a triangle formation. One is placed in the middle of the battlefield. The other two are placed 12” from the short table edge and 6” from the middle. These two landmarks are placed on the same side of the battlefield, so one half of the battlefield is empty. Finally, Pillage has 3+D3” scattered across the disputed land.
There are several secondary missions and you choose three at random before the game. There are always two primary missions: landmarks and feats of valor.
Neither. Landmarks and feats give one victory point each. Feats of Valor are effectively kill points, but you only get one if you are defeating a special or rare unit in a melee with a core unit
Yes, they count. They are easy prey, but they are faster now and you can attack on the move.
An eagle can swoop like a flying monstrous creature in 40k. They use the same flying rules including overfly strikes and -3 BS modifier for the shooter.
Yes, snapshots are -3. I am sure I have mentioned that.
But dragons are also large targets and give +1. In 40k, only targets that are larger than a tank get +1.
You cannot compare those. Crossbows are not as strong as a boltgun and knight armour is certainly not better than space marine armour.
Chariots are warmachines, so they don’t count.
A unit that breaks and is caught immediately or is under half strength at the time it breaks.
It has to be a clean kill. If you have elite or rare units in the multiple combat, your core units cannot claim a feat of valor. If you have heroes on your side, it only counts if the opponent has a lord on his side. Two units of men-at-arms and a level 1 damsel who defeat a unit of executioners and a unit of corsairs and a dreadlord get a feat of valor. If the enemy had only a noble, you wouldn’t get the feat.
Every feat and every landmark is worth one point. Secondaries are also worth one point each.
Kill the general, first blood, reach enemy deployment zone, kill unit of enemy choosing, kill unit of own choosing. I don’t remember the last one.
Yes, it is bit convoluted.
Mystic terrain stays, but there are no random tables anymore.
There are now two types of terrain. First you place mandatory terrain. That’s terrain that is glued to your board and cannot be removed like hills. Some missions require you to place a special piece of terrain, for example a castle gate. Players can agree to place additional terrain, for example when they have a newly painted piece and want to use it under all circumstances. Or if they play a battle for a bridge as a narrative game, they need a river and a bridge on the table obviously.
Yes, basically every piece of terrain that is not optional for various reasons is placed first. In 40k, you add additional terrain until each 1’ x 1’ section has at least one terrain piece. In fantasy there is no such rule. Mystic terrain can be used as mandatory terrain and is sometimes required, but you decide what type of mystic terrain it is. You don’t roll on any tables.
.
When all mandatory terrain is placed you take turns to place additional terrain. This can only be basic terrain like ordinary forests, hills, barricades, walls, buildings, fortified manors, rivers etc. Magic wells are basic terrain, too. They give +1 on a channel attempt for nearby wizards, +2 if it has the right lore attunement. Every well supports one chosen magic lore.
It’s random. You roll one dice for every 1’ x 1’ segment. For every 4+ rolled you and your opponent have to place one piece of terrain. You can place the terrain anywhere, not just in the segment you rolled for, but there is a limit of three pieces per 1’ x 1’ section (in both systems, but in fantasy it is unlikely to get this dense because there is less mandatory terrain). Some pieces of mystic terrain have additional restrictions. You cannot place a fortified manor inside the enemy table half for example.
There are lots of story-driven missions later that need specific terrain. You have some leeway to use your own collection, but if you play a battle for a pass, you need at least some hills to represent the mountains. There is no way around this. The missions describe where this mandatory terrain is placed. These missions are really characterful as a result.
Basic terrain does not cost points. But whenever you are allowed to place a piece of terrain, you can place your pre-purchased mystic terrain instead. You have to have a fitting model of course.
You buy terrain as part of any secondary force. If you bring an allied wood elf army with your bretonnians, you buy some forests for them. If you choose another secondary force, you can take different terrain or none at all.
Yes, the section is even a little bit longer than before. There are some named pieces of terrain with better rules. They are also more expensive and have a kit or get one in the near future.
It is a magic well that is attuned to the lores of death, khemri, vampires, nurgle and the dark lore.
They are rather cheap. To be able to place a venom thicket anywhere you like sounds good, but if you can place a normal forest anyway, the upgrade is not that great. They are quite useful because you will have some spare points in one of your secondary forces inevitably.
Wood Elves primary forces still have access to their leywoods. They get them on top to any normal terrain.
There are some fortified buildings in the list. They cannot be entered but have crossbows that can fire with BS3. They are more a nuisance than a threat. They are not a 40k bastion equivalent in any way.
Fortress walls and towers are in, but they are more or less glorified barricades. There are no defenders inside and you cannot enter the segments.
40k has a similar system.
About the same, but if you count the fortifications on top, 40k has twice as much mystic terrain.
They don’t have the power to grow jungles in minutes. But a wise general chooses his battleground carefully. If they command an assault force, they will choose dense terrain and therefore, the tabletop will have more terrain.
Not army specific and there is no army specific terrain in the codices yet.
No.
No.
There are no special rules for ruins in fantasy. Hills, forests, fences, barricades, walls, buildings, magic wells and water are the basic terrain. Fortress walls and towers have rules and have an AV of 12. Since units cannot enter castle segments and only use their battlements, there is no need to destroy the walls. Your units on top can be attacked by units in contact with the building as normal. Your only advantage is the cover save and the elevated position. There are no detailed siege rules.
Buildings and fortified buildings are not the same. Terrain including landmarks that only block line of sight on does nothing else. You can place models on top, but they can be charged easily. The second type are fortified buildings, that can be attacked and have exactly the same rules as 40k fortifications, so they are effectively vehicles, with a AV ranging from 9 for a wooden hut till 13 for a dwarven fortress wall segment, but the structure points are always 2 (for now at least).
The rules don’t have changed that much apart from battlements. They are generally accessible from outside and are not part of the building for most purposes - except when it crumbles. Units on battlements (including the attackers) cannot have formations and are in base contact with every unit in base contact with the segment.
Fortified buildings that can be bought cannot be entered. There are some buildings and caves in the historic missions that can be entered and there are rules for entering buildings, but if you play the basic mission, there is no way to get inside a building. Even if you buy a fortress wall or a manor you can only place your models on top but never within. There is no folding fortress anymore.
There are no vehicle rules. War machines have still a T value. Only buildings use structure points and armour values. The only exceptions are steam tanks, but they have the unit type fortified building
Maybe the designers are holding detailed castle rules back for a time when they reintroduce siege engines!? Where would be the fun with the one but not the other?
No, there are not.
In 40k there are lords of war that do not exists in fantasy. If opponent has a lord of war and you have not, he always has to choose his secondary contingent first. If he fields one, you can bring a fourth secondary detachment to the game and units in this contingent do not count against the heavy support limit.
Yes, you have to prepare this beforehand. You are supposed to have a list ready for all your forces. Write the list when you are finished with painting and keep the list in your cabinet, then simply grab the miniatures and the list when you are ready for battle. Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.
Secondary units count towards the sec percentage AND the FoC %. Sec units that are not part of a FoC like fortifications, lord of wars , formations and knights only count against the secondary percentage. You can take allies only from one regular list. There are no other limitations.
There is nothing that would suggest that there will be fantasy lords of war, except some existing artworks and the megalomaniac weapon rule.
Megalomanic weapons auto-wound and ignore feel no pain and armour saves and cause D6 wounds. Ward and cover saves have to be re-rolled. If a model survives the hit, it can move D6”, if it leaves the area completely, it survives, if not, it dies outright. If the megalomanic weapon does not use a blast, the model dies in any case.
I am immune to this
Not in the foreseeable future!
Exactly Instant death exists in both system, but there are no fantasy weapons that have this rule. In 40k, weapons that cause a random amount of wounds or hull damage are explained but there are no actual instances of it except for D weapons. Both systems use the same dice mechanics and everything is explained in both system, but some mechanics are more emphasized than others. In general, first check if bypassed or replaced (AP, auto-wound, wound on a fixed roll), than modify (Piercing, snapshots, to-wound modifiers), than re-roll. The re-roll every roll of 1 mechanic is a thing of the past. It’s not explained in the rulebooks and the newer codices and the army books do not use these partial re-rolls anymore. The wolf banner is a to-wound and to-hit modifier instead now.
Yes, 2015 territory. Should have chosen a better example.
Yes, sometimes this far out, but not always.
Preferred enemy gives +1 to hit both for melee and shooting attacks.
There are no artillery dice anymore. If an army book refers to it, you roll 2D6”. A double is a misfire. Cannons use BS, hit always the nearest model in unit, jump 2D6” from this point, any double is a misfire. If BS is failed cannonball hits the ground 2D6” behind the target, ball does not jump, but hits a single model, if there is one. Look out works against all shooting attacks. Cannons ignore cover saves.
There are warlord tables for fantasy. You are encouraged to choose a trait if you play a narrative game, but you can also roll.
Easy! Too many questions.
Fantasy has the same reserve rules as 40k now. There are two changes for both systems. If there is no enemy in 24” of a particular table edge, units from reserve that use this edge to enter the table can march an additional 12”. Units from reserves can never charge. Some units have the patient hunter rule, that let’s them choose to stay in ongoing reserve when they become available. 40k flyers always have the hunter rule. Outflank isn’t tied to infiltrate anymore and works like ambush.
Night fighting is in, yes.
Flyers in 40k are aircraft vehicles. Flyers in fantasy are units with the Fly rule. They are not the same. Flyers in fantasy can move 12” over terrain. They are like jump troops, but don’t cause impact hits. In addition they can make a swoop movement and make diving attacks. In 40k, the flying rule is exclusively tied to flying monstrous creatures, but it is the same thing.
40k flyers = nothing in fantasy
40k flying monstrous creatures = all fantasy flyers
40k jump troops = nothing in fantasy
Flying units must use their wings in every phase, while jump units can choose to walk. Jump units can choose to use their packs in every phase, they are no longer restrained to a single phase. But if they choose to use the packs in the assault phase, they only get impact hits. They cannot re-roll their charge distance anymore.
Assault moves are not affected by difficult terrain anyway just like charge moves in fantasy.
Only flying monstrous creatures use the flying rule.
Swoop is the same as in 40k, but units can only use it in loose formation.
Infantry, bikes (40k only), cavalry, war beasts (beasts), giants (monstrous creature). gargantuan creature (40k only), war machines (artillery), monster (fantasy only). Vehicles are 40k only as well. Monstrous is a special rule now, that gives the unit impact hits and explains how multiple-wound models are handled. The 40k analogue is bulky. Monstrous cavalry is simply cavalry with the monstrous rule. Models always share a single profile now (only exception are mounted monsters and characters on chariots). This is also true for cavalry of both systems.
Monsters are not the same as giants/monstrous creatures. Monsters get -3 Piercing and have facings exactly like units in block formation. They retain their profile when mounted. Giants ignore armour completely and don’t have facings. They have all the benefits of 40k monstrous creatures.
Yes, the legacy names are not perfect. Monsters are not monstrous creatures. Monstrous creatures don’t have the monstrous rule, because 1.) they don’t need it, they have better rules, and 2.) the monstrous rule is called bulky in 40k.
Chariots are no unit type. In fantasy they are a special kind of war machine and therefore cannot march, but the chariot rule gives them a 12” movement. There is a 40k equivalent for vehicles like in the last edition. It doesn’t override the movement rules of the vehicle. 40k chariots use the vehicle movement. Chariots in both system cause D6 S6 impact hits and can make sweep attacks, i.e. attack during the movement.
War machines cannot march. They have a combined profile and the crew on separate bases has no ingame purpose.
Monsters, monstrous models, monstrous creatures, vehicles, cavalry, jump infantry, bikes and models with shields.
Chariots cause D6 S6 impact hits without Piercing or AP. Cavalry and models with shields cause one impact hit with their base strength each. Monstrous models cause one impact hit with their base strength. Monsters and giants cause D6 impact hits. On the 40k side of thing, cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, bikes and bulky models cause one hit with their base strength. Vehicles cause D6 S6 impact hits.
Monsters impact hits do not get their normal -3 Piercing. Impact hits never influence the armour save.
Question overload! Give me some time.
Flying models do not cause impact hits, except they are monstrous or have a shield, etc.
Cavalry and monstrous cavalry have a single profile now, so there is only a single S value.
There is a list for every unit in the game. It is usually the WS,BS,I,Ld,Sv of the rider and the larger value for S,T,W,I. Attacks are one more than the largest value. But there are exceptions. I haven’t memorized the whole summary.
Yes, all attacks benefit.
Always strikes first sets I to 10. Always strikes last sets I to 1. Both cannot be modified further. A unit can choose that all models forfeit the always strike first rule for the phase and re-roll to-hit instead.
Initiative is a little bit more complicated because there are several factors that can modify the I. And there is another rule that makes it even more complex: All models in a unit attack at the same time, during the majority I-step, except in a challenge. Only models that are slower than the majority use their own I. So characters do not benefit from a higher I unless they fight in a challenge - but their higher profile contributes to roll-offs. If they are slower than the unit, they still attack later. It’s faster to calculate the I for diverse units and you don’t have as many I steps, but you do not benefit from a single spear in a unit full of swordsmen.
Impact hits are resolved at I 10, so yes, elves strike simultaneously with a chariot.
Two-handed weapons do not strike last anymore, but power fists in 40k do strike after the rest of the unit.
They are slower but also have more reach. Power fists are slow and have no reach at all.
Yes, Nobz and Hull Breakerz have the same problem. Give the full squad fists, only a single one or none at all. But a majority of fists with a minority of quick weapons is a bad idea.
Light cavalry has Feigned flight, Parting shots and sweep attacks, relentless and vanguard.
Parting shots are the old march and shoot rule on steroids. You can now fire during the move or even before you move.
Yes, parting shots can be fired during the movement phase. Drawing line of sight and measuring distances is made easier, shots are resolved immediately. Can march/run and still make parting shots.
Move unit, shoot, move rest of the movement distance. You roll the march distance after you have shot, so you have to shoot during your normal movement.
Blocks can see 360 degree in this case, but can’t see through models of the same unit, not even the single rank normally allowed.
In 40k there is a special rule called battle awareness or something like this that does the same thing.
Units can’t shoot again in shooting phase, except in 40k, where it simply reduces the number of weapons by one if the model can shoot more than one weapon.
Cover saves are allowed in general, bomb weapons might have their own exception, though. But I don’t remember.
It’s the parting shot’s equivalent for close combat attacks and impact hits. A whole lot of other rules are considered sweep attacks. Everything that moves - attacks - moves is considered a sweep attack. If you attack a building, it is a sweep attack. When light cavalry or chariots hit a unit en passant it is a sweep attack, etc.
You move, stop, both sides deal blows before the unit continues its movement.
There is no combat resolution, casualties count against the 25% threshold though. Units are not bound in combat. There are no charge reactions, no Hold, no snapshots, no flee.
You move the whole unit and resolve the attacks before continuing the movement. The exact position is important. Every model within 3” of enemy can attack.
You can not move closer than 1”, so every model between 1” and 3”.
Casualties are allocated from nearest to farthest with the usual look out rule.
Yes, you can snipe champions, if enemy rolls a 1 for his lookout sir roll.
You don’t have to.
Normal initiative order, but without pile-ins!
Yes ,the normal boni, +1A for skirmishers, lances, impact hits, etc.
Chariots, too. Since chariots cannot march, they are not as effective as light cavalry, but they have their impact hits.
There are no cavalry mounts anymore, but mounted monsters can attack, too.
Not just light cav and chariots. Units with the hit & run rule is allowed to make sweep attacks and any unit that attacks a building.
It works in both system. Hit & run is a special rule and lets you make sweep attacks and grants feigned flight.
No, it doesn’t let you retreat from an ongoing combat.
On the 40k side of things, bikes and jetbikes can make sweep attacks.
No, they don’t have hit & run. Only sweep attacks.
Feigned flight let you auto-rally after a flee reaction. and you are not destroyed if you are catched, simply bound in combat.
Yes, you can shoot at any unit after a sweep attack if you haven’t marched, but you cannot combine it with a parting shots and cannot charge in this turn.
You cannot charge buildings, only the units on the battlements. But if you want to hit a building, you do this in the movement phase and stay out of 1” at any time.
Yes, applies to 40k vehicles too, except for those with a WS like chariots, walkers and super-heavy walkers. You can charge those.
Yes, move and march is slower than move and charge, but you can move after attacking a vehicle and even shoot. It’s an even trade.
Chariot is a vehicle special rule in 40k and a war machine special rule in fantasy. Chariots deal D6 S6 impact hits, can make sweep attacks. Fantasy chariots can move 12”.
Fantasy chariots have a combined profile now. If it is a character mount, it works just like a mounted monster. The chariot profile doesn’t change if the character replaces a crew member. The character can attack, but attacker can choose if he wants to hit the chariot/monster or rider.
Still random.
The 40k rule is a little bit longer because it explains the crew and charge rules more detailed.
No armour save bonus as far as I remember.
Yes, chariots take damage back, but they cause impact hits during a sweep attack now.
There are (almost) no flying chariots. I think they can make both, but sweep attacks are better in every way.
Arkhan.
Only daemons, necrons and orcs.
The diving attacks of flying units are also sweep attacks but cause impact hits instead of the normal attacks. The enemy cannot strike back. But the flying unit must make a swoop move.
Diving attack is the fantasy name for vector strike.
D6 auto-hits with the unit’s base strength, always against the rear, so no shield blocks even against skirmishers.
Per unit.
You don’t have to place the unit, you hit a unit in 3” of the flight path of one of the models.
Yes, vector strikes are exactly the same.
No, no effect on shooting at all.
Only the D6 impact hits, their natural impact hits are ignored.
Impact hits have never an AP or amour save modifier.
Not even fantasy chariots. But they can now hit an enemy without getting entangled.
Vector strikes are now D6 auto base-strength hits without any armour save modifications.
There are so many instances, I doubt I have covered all of them. Sweep attacks have a fairly large rule box of their own. Light cavalry, chariots in both systems, bikes, flying units, units with hit & run make sweep attacks, all units against buildings/vehicles, tanks have tank shocks and flying monstrous have diving attack/vector strikes. I hope this list is complete.
Tanks without WS can make sweep attacks against units and deal D6 impact hits. When they hit another vehicle, there are more complicated rules.
They can even make multiple sweep attacks and move through units.
Always S6 if the model has no S-value. Walkers use their base strength.
Walkers cannot make sweep attacks (except against vehicles without WS), but they can charge and deal D6 impact hits just like a chariot.
Light walkers only get a single impact hit.
Units can make a death or glory attack, either snapfire or attacks from models in 3”, but gets 2D6 impact hits if it does not stop the vehicle.
You stop the tank 1” away and resolve either the shots or the close combat attacks. Defender shoots or makes his attacks. If defender wants to attack, must pass a fear test or has WS 1, i.e. hits on 4. Hits are resolved against the rear.
They don’t hit the front. They try to jump on the vehicle or attack the tracks while the tank is passing them. they are near enough to get impact hits.
Technically yes, but since vehicles have no I value, they automatically pass the test.
Models move out of the way.
40k impact hits are called hammer of wrath, but they work the same. Auto-Hits with I10.
Diving attacks are the fantasy version of vector strikes in every way. 40k and fantasy chariots make sweep attacks. Sweep attacks cannot hit zooming flyers or swooping flying models, but vector strikes and diving attack can.
You choose where to strike for wound allocation purposes, but the enemy can make lookout rolls. They now work for every model including special weapons, always on a 2+. But you can only make a single roll per batch.
One roll per firing unit or initiative step.
Musicians and standards are vulnerable, because you can only protect one of them.
Blocks must fill their ranks at the end of every phase and the start of every initiative step in a melee.
If the pegasus knights swoop and march, they double their march distance.
Flying models are very deadly again, especially against armies without missile weapons, but the army books will catch up and provide counters eventually. You can ground flyers with ranged fire.
Yes, both right. In addition there are magic weapoons and the balewind vortex.
It forces to land flyers nearby on a roll, but can’t remember the exact value.
Two bows, a javelin and a throwing axe.
In both systems, but in 40k there are only flying monstrous creatures. Jump models and jetbikes cannot make vector strikes, but jetbikes can make sweep attacks.
Vehicle movement hasn’t changed. There is still 6” combat and 12” cruising speed. The flat-out movement is done in the movement phase. It is a fixed 6” movement.
Vehicle get cover saves, but only against other vehicles.
Infantry get cover saves both against vehicles and non-vehicles.
I don’t know. But even if 25% of you tank is hidden, it is still easier to hit the remaining 75% than a 2 metre human. I don’t remember if there is an explanation given, but vehicles in terrain do not get cover saves against non-vehicles. the same is true for fantasy buildings.
There are a lot all-or-nothing situations, all tied to a profile tests or roll-off.
No jetpacks and jump for fantasy.
40k jump units move 12” in the movement phase, + D6” if they run and 2D6” assault move. This movement is not affected by terrain. They deal hammer of wrath hits and have to test if they start or end a phase in terrain. They can choose not to use the jump pack in every phase and are affected by terrain then, they run 6” + D6” and charge 6” + 2D6” through terrain just like infantry if they do not use their pack. But they don’t get their impact hits..
Swarms use the 40k rules. They lose D3 wounds to breath and flamer weapons now.
Special rules are all over the place. In some cases, the fantasy and 40k rules stay independent (rending and killing blow are not the same), in other the fantasy adapts the 40k rules (venom works like the 40k poisoned attack (4+) now). There are even cases where 40k adapts a fantasy rule (berserk is frenzy, but with a shorter explanation since it does not need to consider block formations). Lots of rules only exists in one system, but some are copied to the other system (terror, concussive, rending, ...). There are too many to remember them all.
Rending is exactly the same in both worlds.
Killing blow grants rending attacks against non-buildings and non-war machines, so it is not exactly the same. It is similar to feel no pain and regeneration. Feel no pain exists in both systems. Regeneration gives feel no pain, but is negated by flaming weapons..
No.
no
It’s the same in both systems.
Also the same
Breath weapons work like template weapons in every regard, but in addition they deal D6 auto-hits in combat.
Ethereal models can only be wounded on a 6 by non-magic weapons. They can move through terrain.
I think it is the same.
Yes.
There are three tiers of stomp for both systems, but as far as I can see, they are not part of any unit types except super-large walkers and gargantuan creatures.
No, they are not impact hits.
No.
It’s the same.
There is a rule called Dragonbane, that does the same as interceptor and skyfire combined.
Yes.
The same.
Same.
Sniper is renamed in markman and is not the same as the 40k sniper.
Scaly Skin no longer exists.
Flaming attacks negate regeneration and grant additional piercing -1 against cavalry, flying creatures and monsters.
Relentless, Feel no Pain, blind, concussive, but there are likely more that I don’t recall.
Give me a break, I can’t go through the whole list
Maelstrom808 wrote: This was posted over at BoLShere. This was apparently some sort of Q&A on Pastebin (which has since been removed). Only one side of the conversation was copied.
Fair warning...it's extremely lengthy:
Spoiler:
Yes, one ruleset for both systems, but each rulebook is still written individually with whole sections skipped or altered (i.e. obviously no tanks for fantasy). The text is certainly not a copy and paste job with differently flavoured examples but individually crafted for each system. Some rules have the same function but different names. You wouldn’t expect the rules to apply to the other system if you had only one rulebook to judge. There is are no labels that say “Here ends the generic rule section. The following is 40k specific”. In the fantasy rules everything is explained through the eyes of units in tight formation which do not exist in 40k. Skirmish units are the exception to the rule in fantasy, where in 40k everything is in skirmish formation and everything is explained that way from the get go. There isn’t even a name for this formation, it is just the default. But if every unit in fantasy would be skirmishers, it wouldn’t matter if you play the game with the 40k or fantasy rules. Everything would work exactly the same.
Another example: units in formation do not get +1 A on the charge, so this bonus is not mentioned until fighting in skirmish formation is introduced. In the 40k rulebook, the bonus is mentioned right in the assault section - not as an exception, but as the rule because there are no other formations in 40k. Different way to introduce it, but the same outcome if you play fantasy with all skirmishers.
90:10. Fantasy adapts more 40k elements than vice versa. 40k is only a minor update, Fantasy is a major shakeup and the army books stay only barely viable.
Certainly. But I hope this will die down eventually like the random charge distance controversy.
The most irritating is definitely that you can start with two units facing each other directly, move your unit in the movement phase into the enemy’s side arc and charge the unit in the assault phase. Even though the enemy can change its facing to take the charge head on, it turns the whole positioning game upside down. Fantasy is still all about good unit placement, unit synergy and manoeuvres, but it all plays out very differently.
All infantry units move 6”. There are no movement values anymore.
That’s the only one. Units have an armour save profile now, but this is mostly coherent with the old system - only shields work a little bit different now. The old calculated system is even explained in the armoury section. It is more beginner-friendly now. The armour saves are simply precalculated now.
R.I.P.
The rules are 99,99% the same as in 40k. If you come from 40k you can play fantasy with minimal effort.
A major one for both system is, that you march/run in the movement phase and charge in the melee phase.
No, even more random. Fantasy uses the 40k system, but there are not so many different kinds of random movement. Random movement is either D6” or 2D6”, with same rules adding or subtracting dice from the pool. You always discards the lowest ones. There is a reminder that rolls are doubled afterwards, but I don’t remember any instance where this is relevant.
Basic 6” movement for infantry including monstrous infantry and monsters. Cavalry is 12” Movement now. March is D6”. Charge is 2D6”. Consolidations are, “two D6, pick one”. Retreats are normal march moves, so 6+D6”.
Terrain subtracts one D6 from the pool to a minimum of 1. Normal movement changes from 6” to “roll 2D6 and pick one” in inches. Moves in the assault/melee phase are never affected by difficult terrain, so charges are always D6”+D6”.
Since run is only one D6” it is not affected by terrain. units with fleet and move through cover can roll two D6 and pick one.
No, a charge through terrain can cause dangerous terrain tests and affects the Initiative in both systems now.
Fleet adds one D6 to all random pools and you can pick one. Move through cover cancels difficult terrain, but not other kinds of terrain. Strider cancels dangerous and difficult terrain completely.
Yes, Fleet lets you roll three dice for movement trough terrain, two dice for march and three for charge. It also influences Consolidations.
After a combat if you are no longer bound. You can use this move to charge other units or to spread out. But consolidations are only allowed in your own turn.
Cavalry is not hindered by terrain but must make dangerous terrain tests. 12” moves are never replaced with a random one as far as I can see. They either ignore difficult terrain completely or treat it as dangerous.
Flee reaction is a normal retreat. You let the enemy move into contact and break from the combat at the start of the melee phase. It works as if you had lost a combat, but at the start of the phase. You use the 40k rules, so have to win a I roll-off to flee. You move unit 6”+D6” immediately after breaking. If the charging unit pursuits and you are caught, the unit is destroyed. In either case the enemy unit can make a consolidation and even fight a new combat this phase.
Yes, it is back.
Yes, it is still in. 12” now and still a ld-roll required. One of the cases where 40k steals a fantasy rule.
Yes and no. You are right, the dwarf rule would be pointless otherwise, but this isn’t a criteria. There are dozens of rules, even in the Wood Elf army book, that become obsolete.
Yes, the dancers for example.
Retreating units simply march in consecutive turns.
Ogres are faster than Dwarfs. Units with monstrous (It’s a special rule and not a unit type now) have the Fleet rule, formerly known as Swiftstride.
Swiftstride is still a special rule, but it only reads “gives the unit fleet”. In 10th edition it is likely gone.
Only if the 40k term fits the fantasy setting.
Dangerous terrain is auto-wound on 1. All units can stalk and replace movement with 1D6” and ignore dangerous terrain during the move or march.
Yes, both systems. Everything affects both systems. Run is the same as march but with a different name. I don’t state this explicitly.
Charging through terrain gives a unit -2 I in both systems. There are no assault grenade equivalents in fantasy, but units with spears attack with +2 I in the first round of combat. But terrain doesn’t slow a charge anymore.
To be frank, I don’t remember, it’s 40k. I think they negate the bonus and don’t give +2 flat out..
Yes, they move equally fast through terrain, but jump infantry don’t have to test for dangerous terrain. It’s not faster but safer.
There are no jump troops in fantasy. But in 40k, they can use the skyborne rule in every phase, but must make dangerous terrain tests if they start or end their movement in terrain. They can choose to move like infantry. But they do not get the impact hits if they don’t use their packs in the assault phase. So it’s basically back to 5th edition.
Manoeuvre rules are really simple. Units in formation move as if they were a single model. The unit pivots on the spot and moves in any way it likes even sideways, but cannot move though other models. A charge with a block is a little bit more complicated.
You charge in the melee phase, so can use the movement phase to bring the unit in position. You roll the distance and check if you can reach the enemy. If you are and the enemy chooses stand & shoot, you resolve the shooting and the enemy unit aligns with the charging unit if the terrain and other units permit it. Then you move the unit into contact. The movement distance doesn’t matter.
Yes, there are other restrictions. you have to charge the facing you were after the pivot of the defending unit, so most of the time the front. You have to attack with your front. You have to bring as many enemy and friendly models into contact as possible. You have to move the shortest way possible.
I think directly towards your centre, but he can avoid this if he chooses Hold reaction. There is no closing the gap, because you align the unit directly during the move.
Hold works only for units in a tight formation, so only in fantasy.
There are rules for charging in loose formation. It is basically the same but with more models. The defender doesn’t align. There are 6” pile-in moves if the charged unit is a skirmish unit.
No, skirmishers don’t have to remain in the front facing. If a model in the side is the nearest one, it can be charged. The facing rule is only for blocks.
Units in loose formation move exactly like 40k units, both during a charge and the pile-in move.
Before the charge move, you can move your unit in the movement phase into position.
No, pivots do not cost movement. Units move like a large single model, and single models can pivot freely.
The fantasy rules do not care for exact or long-winded movements anymore, as long as the rules are kept simple. If the outcome looks sufficiently authentic, who cares for micromanaging every inch? I am sure the design team is aware of this, there is a box that gives some in-character explanations for seemingly impossible maneuvers.
If the defender cannot align and the attacker cannot be placed in the front because the unit would collide with a building or something, the attacking unit botched its charge, loses its formation. You then use the 40k rules and move the models one by one. A unit without formation is doomed in combat.
He don’t have to. The unit can Hold and retain its position, but cannot stand and shoot in this case. It can only hold if all involved units are in tight formation.
40k units can only Stand and Fire, which does not have a name in 40k because it is kind of the default, or Flee. Only blocks can Hold.
Yes, a single unit cannot flank no matter where it is positioned. But they can deny stand and shoot, which has no range limitation anymore. But the positioning works as an implicit range limitation. If the enemy is close enough to pseudo-flank you in the movement phase, it is a good indicator that he was near enough that you are not be able to fire.
Shooter has to win roll-off D6+leader’s I in order to shoot at attacker. This is also true for overwatch, which is the same as stand and shoot btw. Wounds do not count towards combat resolution.
If the roll is equal you can shoot.
If the enemy tries to crab walk out of your front arc, you move your unit in the movement phase to face him again and charge him in the melee phase. If he hides somewhere where you cannot see him even after a move, you cannot charge him.
Units in loose formation do not have arcs.
Blocks still have to see the enemy at the start of the melee phase to charge. In most situations this is trivial, but if you want to charge another unit during a consolidation, it becomes an issue.
But it won’t do you any good, because he can attack you from 4 ranks/files if he is in formation and you are not. Units in loose formation are easy to manoeuvre, but there is a reason that units fight in tight formation. They are better suited for combat. If a unit in a block attacks a unit in loose formation, every model in contact and in 2” of a model in contact can fight. That means 4 row on a 25mm base, even to the side. If the unit in loose formation attacks the front, only models in contact and models in contact with a fighter can attack. That means the equivalent of 2 rows at best. So, the unit in formation has approximately double the attacks.
No, there is a difference between loose formation and skirmish formation. Every unit can assume a 40k-like 2” distance-no facing-formation at any time: loose formation. But there are some drawbacks. If fighting against other unit, every model in 2” of a fighting model can attack you if you are in loose formation. Against a block of 20 Black Guard thats 40 attacks coming your way. Skirmishers are better at fighting without formation than usual units and have a front to all directions. There is a distinction between a proper formation -even if it is a light one- and no formation at all. You have to protect your flanks from them, because if there is a skirmisher in your side, all his buddies in 2” can attack.
Ok, let me explain it another way: Even if skirmishers look like a horde, they fight in a coordinated fashion. They form primitive shield walls and support each other. Skirmisher are deployed in loose formation. Skirmishers have a 360 degree front arc, they can use their weapons and shields in all directions and can only be attacked by two ranks. Skirmishers get +1 Attack when they charge other skirmishers or units in loose formation. They don’t have to see an enemy they want to charge.
Units in loose formation have no facings. They can see 360 degree. They cannot use shields and other weapons to their full potential and can always be attacked by all models in 2” behind the first rank, so usually 4 ranks of infantry and 3 ranks of cavalry and monstrous infantry.
Yeah, my mistake. I might have used the terms loose formation and skirmish formation interchangeably which they are not.
Fighting without a formation has some advantages, though. You don’t have facing and can charge in any direction and are better protected against mortars.
In our world not.If there were as many dragons, warp flame throwers and skull catapults in our history, loose formation would have been used way earlier.
Only blocks with an enemy in their front facing benefit from this. If you get flanked by a large unit, all models in 2” of the first row can attack you, but you can only attack back with two rows because you are in his front facing while he is not.
Skirmish is a special rule. Every unit can fight in loose formation, but skirmishers get the advantages I mentioned yesterday. And I like to add one important thing - units without the skirmish rule must re-roll all successful panic tests and do not benefit from the battle standard bearer or the general..
No, it is just me. I am not good at this it seems. It is really easy: If you attack the front of a regiment, two ranks attack. If you attack anything else (side, rear, loose formation), everything in 2” of a fighting model attacks.
Yes, only units in formation and certain unit types (monsters and buildings in fantasy, vehicles in 40k) have facings.
If a model or unit has facings or arc, it is 90 degree from base edges or if it has no square base the centre of the model.
Yes, I think 40k vehicles, too.
There are four formations in fantasy and no formations in 40k. Skirmish units in fantasy behave exactly like a 40k unit. They get +1 attack on the charge against other skirmishers, their facing doesn’t matter, they shoot in all directions, etc.
No.
Block, Wedge, Turtle and Skirmish.
Block is your standard block. 5-15 wide and as deep as you like.
No, you cannot form a conga line, it has to be 5 wide. If there is a bottleneck, you can forfeit your formation and move in loose formation past the obstacle. You can reform at the start of your turn if you pass a ld-test or automatically if you have a musician.
Wedge is like the Bretonnian lance formation, but you only get ranks from rows that are at least 5 wide. You need 15 models to form even a single rank. All models in the front triangle that have an opposite enemy model can attack. But only the front models, there are never supporting attacks from models in 2” or models in contact in wedge formation. There are no side arcs and you get a bonus to break through the enemy formation.
Yes, you can. Normally, if you cause twice as many wounds as there are enemy ranks, you make a S-roll-off. If you win, the enemy loses his formation and will suffer next round of combat as a result. Units in wedge formation only need to deal more wounds than the number of ranks to force this test.
The best S value without weapon modifiers.
Both sides can lose their formation at the same time. The combat has obviously dissolved into a butchering at this point.
Yes, there are many roll-offs now.
For roll-offs and tests you can always use the profile value of the champion or the best character just like a leadership test. If there is no character, you take the best value of the normal models. For to-wound purposes you still use the majority straight away.
Yes, I was a little bit sloppy there.
Turtle is a square formation (or as square as possible) that cannot move. Rank is equal to number of rings with five or more models. There is only a front facing.
Only at the start of the movement phase. Ld-test required except you have a musician. Breaking up your formation is easier. You can do that at any time without ld-test.
Tired, sore fingers.
That’s hard. I guess the new movement rules, the weapon profiles, the combat resolution, the different formations and the shooting rules. On the one hand fantasy is a whole new game, on the other hand, it is surprisingly similar to 8th edition. Some things are resolved differently, but the result is often the same. The balance is shattered, though.
Weapons have a more detailed profile now. A high strength does not modify the armour save by itself. But lot of weapons have armour save modifiers, called piercing. These are not AP values, they do not negate armour. This is one of the major differences that still exist between fantasy and 40k. The rules for the weapon types have changed considerably, some weapons like the spear do not resemble their 8th edition counterpart at all.
I can do that for the basic weapons, but there are too many weapons in 9th edition to recall them all. An imperial bihander is not the same as a giant choppa rulewise. There are obviously lots of orc and empire weapons in the rulebook. There are only a dozen weapons from other races, mainly those that needed an update. Slayer weapons are +1S, Piercing -2, two-handed and bows of avelorn are always -1 Piercing for example.
Hand weapon: Parry (improves shield ward save by one), Spear: Piercing -1, Reach (+2 Initiative in first round of combat against front), Spearwall (additional piercing -1 against charging cavalry, war beasts, flying units in front), Halberd is +1S, Piercing -1, Spearwall, two-handed, Two-hand weapon +2S, Piercing -1, two handed, this is only the generic weapon, there are two-handed swords, axes, hammers, scythes and pikes, all with different profiles
Flail +2S, two handed, lance: +2 S, Piercing -3, in round of charge or in any round against loose formation, cavalry spear: +1S, Piercing -2, in round of charge or in any round against loose formation. There are many more weapons, often variants of the basic weapons.
There is enough room for another charge.
Yes.
Yes, no additional attacks for spears, that’s only for pikes.
No, parry is not cumulative with other ward saves. And ward saves cannot be taken in addition to armour saves in 9th edition.
There are 8 pages of weapons, most of them generic to fit into any army, but some are obviously race specific. In addition there are magic weapons, but there is no general distinction between a mundane weapon and a magic weapon, except that the latter has the magic rule.
Take the Middenheimer for example. It is a two-handed weapon with S+3 without piercing. It is not a magic weapon, but can be bought by all character models with access to the general armoury. If an ogre takes one, it causes instant death with it, so it is very powerful, but not magic.
Pikes are two handed spears with an additional rank attacking to the front.
It is the same as the 40k rule, but the rule has changed a little bit. It now works for all weapons with S 8,9 and 10 against all models with T 5 or lower.
There are still weapons that cause D6 wounds, yes.
True. Armour saves are good, but I listed only the basic weapons. There are other counters. Orcs and the empire both have weapons that are good at killing knights - bihanders and tusk spears for example. And units with the monstrous weapons get -2 and flaming gives an additional -1 against cavalry, war beasts, monsters and flying units.
Monstrous weapons are Piercing -2 and monstrous two-handers are S+1, Piercing -3, two-handed. I don’t know if all monstrous infantry units get them on release, but trolls and rat ogres get them definately.
I answer the first question later. Unit types are a huge topic. For the second part:
The strength of a magic spell does not reduce armour. The spell lores stay exactly the same. You can bomb a unit of knights with your fancy S5 spell, but he still saves on a 2+ - except for the lore of fire against cav.
Magic is pretty much unchanged as a whole. There is no magic phase anymore. You generate the power dice at the start of the turn and use spells whenever the card say it is used, or at the end of the movement phase if not specified. If you use more dice than your level, you can miscast but it does not give the spell total energy. There is a new spell type. Spells that are used in the enemy’s turn. You cast them in your turn, but keep the card on the table. If your wizard lives, he can use the spell without any further roll or risk of getting banned. There are rules for sorcerous covens, units of mages.
Yes, 40k uses the exact same ruleset but with different names. The psychic powers use warp charges, where every point is equal to complexity 4. There are no complexity 5 or 6 or 13 powers, only multiples of 4 - because 4 is the number of chaos gods -dundundundunnnnnn.
That is not a problem, because psychic powers can target different units - warp sight is different from eye sight. The same is true for spells.
If you play large games, above 3000 points, you roll twice for the dice generation. Above 6000 you roll thrice, etc.
No, you roll two dice, the higher is the number of dispel dice. Then you roll another 2D6 and the higher of these two is added to the dispel pool.
No, bowmen can’t shoot a unit and charge afterwards. There are 40k-like weapon types now. Bows and similar weapons have their own weapon type that doesn’t have an 40k equivalent. They work like rapid fire weapons without the double tap. There is no equivalent in 40k. In addition, their volley fire allows them to fire every rank without snapfire, not just the first two. Can fire indirectly at unit that is visible to another friendly unit, but uses the snapfire rule for this.
You cannel only once.
Quick to fire = rapid fire. Stand & Fire = heavy weapons, including the move and snapfire rule. Pistols are pistols. Throwing weapons are assault weapons. There are no salvo weapons in fantasy.
Yes, they retain their fantasy names.
Pistols use their profile in the first round of combat and count as a normal (additional) hand weapons afterwards. I don’t think there are specific rules for a pair of pistols, but I may remember this wrong.
Snapfire is -3 BS now.
Yes, modifiers are part of both systems, but 40k does not use them that much.
No, boyz hit on a 6 still. A 6 is always a success.
Always.
There is no re-roll for BS6+. But the 1 is always miss and 6 is always success rule applies to every roll. As long as you have an armour save, you can roll and hope for a 6, even if it was modified into oblivion. A 6 represents pure luck.
No, if something is negated, as the lascannon does with the Ork armour, there is no roll, so you can’t save with a 6.
Ok, give me a minute, I will explain this in detail.
Weapons in fantasy have the same profile as in 40k but without an AP column. Some weapons have the Piercing rule,which gives an -1 armour save modifier or if it is Piercing (-2) a -2 modifier, .... There is no extra column for Piercing, it’s a special rule like volley fire that is listed at the end of the profile. There are fewer to-hit modifiers, snapfire is -3. There are no movement or long range modifiers anymore and the multiple shot value is listed in brackets behind the weapon type and does not reduce the BS either. Units can move and shoot without penalty. There is a +1 modifier for large targets. Cover modifiers are replaced with cover saves.
In 40k there is even a +1 modifier for super large vehicles.
Correct.
For normal units, the total armour save is not calculated. Units have a fixed armour save profile value that is not modified by anything except certain magic items before the battle. Heroes come with their own set of armour. Imperial heroes come with a 5+ armour - no matter whether they are mounted or not. This can be upgraded to a full plate armour (3+) or imperial knight armour (1+) if they are mounted. Bardings are simply part of this set, you cannot buy them seperately and they do not lower the movement - cavalry moves 12”. Period. Being mounted does nothing for your armour save, neither in 40k nor in fantasy. It simply changes your unit type to cavalry and some mounts like boars give you an extra attack in your profile. There is a box in the rulebook however that explains the old system because you need it for the heroes of the older army books. You still combine light/heavy armour, mount and barding - but you don’t take shields into consideration. Shields are totally different now.
Shields give three rules: they confer a 4+ armour save against shooting from the front arc, that is used if it is better than the normal armour save and can be modified normally. They give a 6+ ward save in melee against all sides. And wielders deal a single impact hits with their profile strength. There are different kinds of shields, but this is the basic setup.
It is counterweighted by the fact, that S4 units do not reduce your save by -1 anymore.
Keep in mind that you can roll your armour save roll even if the armour save was modified to 7+ or 12+. A 6 is a success. And ward saves cannot be taken in addition to normal saves, so the 6++ does almost nothing except when you combine it with a hand weapon and get a 5++.
That’s only the basic shield. Long shields give 3+ against shooting. And metal shields in combination with a hand weapon are scary, because combined they give a 4+ ward save.
Yes, it is a lot, but the army books stay valid. They get a FAQ each. But they weren’t on my desk yet and usually do not end up here anyway. A few weapons and armour sets are covered in the rule book. Gromril armour is power armour now for example. Magic stays the same except some minor tweaks in the form of designer notes, but only in the rulebook, not on the actual cards.
That is a myth. That is not how it works. All codices are solely written for the edition they are released for.
No, there is no army list, but a reference section that gives the armour save and unit type for every unit.
As far as I can tell, everything stays exactly as it is, except for units with upgradable wargear. If a unit had a 4+ save for heavy armour and shield, it likely still has a 4+ and the shield bonus on top of it.
No, units with a shield as an option only get their basic armour. The shield upgrade confers the usual shield boni, but does not improve the armour save.
Your knights are 2+ because the rulebook says so. Imperial knights are 1+ because their army book says so. Your heroes are 3+ because heavy amour 5+, mount +1 amd barding +1 = 3+. If you get them a shield, they get a 6++. Knights have shields on top of their 2+ armour. I don’t know if your heroes get 2+ via errata. It would make sense though.
.
The balance is gone, but the army books will catch up and there are other ways to speed up the process.
Unfortunately, I can’t, sorry.
Skaven, not Bretonnians.
Yes, but not right after Empire. The third release is a campaign book. It covers several special units, regiments of renown, including some Bretonnian Knights.
Likely.
They are unique units, sometimes upgraded units of existing ones, sometimes truly unique ones. They can be fielded as normal units in their army or as allies in other armies. They are also stop-gaps for outdated army books (without invalidating the existing units). Your Bretonnians get crusading knights.
The campaign is set in the border princes. There is a huge focus on this region even in the main rulebook.
Khemri, Vampire counts, Bretonnians, Dwarfs and Skaven. Skaven and Khemri are the main focus. Other armies play their role, but do not get units.
Arkhan tries to conquer the ruins of Nagashizzar.
I don’t know. There is nothing on my desk that would suggest this, but it might happen anyway.
This is well into 2015, let’s keep it at that.
No problem.
No, the story get not advanced. We do not do this - ever. This might be fun for some time, but eventually you end up with “menace of the month” creep and destroy your scenario. But we are doing something similar.
The background stays the same. But the focus is more on the border princes. It’s the only region that is described in detail and the a huge part of the history and backstory is written around this land. There is also a huge emphasis on the consequences of the war: razed cities, desolate lands. The history takes the spotlight away from the nearly successful, but ultimately meaningless conquests to wars that really destroyed cities, provinces or whole civilizations. The good vs. evil scheme isn’t central (rulewise it doesn’t exists at all) and the writers go out of their way to explain unusual alliances. Another theme is that the old world is full of scumbags, explorers, wannabe conquerors and ambitious lesser nobles that have the means to rise their own armies because their is no shortage of mercenaries and weapon supplies in a world locked in never ending war. It is not all about the grand army of the high king or elector count, but also about armies of robber barons, mercenary princes and exiled generals. The writing team gives you the room to build your own army background.
The rulebook describes the scenario of the world without limiting you to a specific time you have to set your games in. All the major events are described up to the crowning of Karl Franz whioch is the last chronological entry.
From now on, all campaign books and army books are set 20-ish years in the past. Each new book is set a bit later than the last one and advances the story. Special character rules so far are generally written for this time frame if the model allows it. Karl Franz is very inexperienced and belittled by the court.
His crowning is a major event in the army book too, but his coming of age arc is not resolved yet. There is no hint in the army book that he becomes an accomplished statesman and general eventually, but the next army books will likely pick this plot thread up. All the books are interwoven with each other and there is a series of our novels that tie into the chronology.
I don’t know of it alters the history of the last 20 years in any meaningful way. There is a certain element of retcon for sure, but so far nothing game changing has happened. I think we haven’t heard of Azhag’s tribal unification wars and his waaagh in the east yet, but it doesn’t contradict his established background - at least as far as I can tell. The whole cycle might well end with Archaon’s invasion as you would expect, but I don’t know and it will take a decade to reach these events at the current pace.
Yes, we have worked towards this for the last five years at least. We have one very accomplished editor under contract that handles the novels in addition to our team. We want the novels to stand on their own feet and have a broader appeal.
We like to think about them not as warhammer novels, but novels that happen to be set in the warhammer world.
I don’t know. I knew him, but this is my job. But I won’t spoil the surprise.
Yes, but I am involved with this directly.
So, you want me to keep my mouth shut?
Very bad if not outright evil!
At least one novel to accompany every army book.
There is nothing bad about copying a successful strategy, especially if it is well liked by the customers.
Fans!
Bon appetite.
Shooting is more deadly against units without shields. You get covers saves, but only if you occupy terrain. Fortress battlements give 3+, hard cover 4+ and soft cover 5+.
EVERYTHING is the same. But this is not what I meant. You get cover saves for terrain that you are not in contact with, but if a block is only partially hidden by a tower, the enemy can fire at the exposed models without cover saves. And blocks cannot take cover.
Oh, I didn’t know.
It’s a shooting reaction like the 40k going to the ground.
Blocks can’t take cover, but units in loose formation can. They get +1 on the cover save. Blocks have their own, unique shooting reaction: brace. They have to make a panic test only if they lose 50% of their wounds, but if that’s not enough to avoid a test, they re-roll successful ones just like units in loose formation.
All units have one or more shooting reactions available to them, tied to their unit type. Some units get their unique shooting reactions. For example, militias can disperse when they are hit by a blast weapon, they move some inches and give up their formation.
No, they do not get cover saves. If you fire through an intervening unit, the target unit is shrouded. Units in formation block the line of sight but only if they are tall enough. It’s true line of sight. Otherwise they are intervening units.
Shrouded is a -2 modifier to BS. And blast weapons cannot roll a hit.
Fantasy units can take cover, but there is no pinning special rule. The effects of take cover are the same as going to ground.
Stealth is +1 cover save or a 6+ in the open.
Skirmishers don’t get their usual -1, but they get the benefits of shields against attacks from every direction.
There are lots of changes. Units under half strength cannot rally, panic cannot spread to other units in 6” and break tests are totally different.
You don’t add the casualties to the rank bonus and standards to get the combat result . If you cause more wounds than the enemy, you win the combat. The leadership is modified by the casualty difference. But if you control the unit in the combat with the most ranks, you are still steadfast.
Standards count as an additional casualty for this purpose. They cannot be captured anymore, btw.
You try to charge the chaos block with two or more medium or large blocks of your peasants. The rules make it easy to set up a flanking charge with one of the units. Then the block in the flank can attack with all models. It is no longer “clever manoeuvring leads directly to victory” but “clever manoeuvring leads to more damage output leads to victory”.
Flank attacks do not give a bonus to the combat resolution and they don’t negate the rank bonus. But they negate weapons like spears that work only against the front. And they let you attack with all models in 2”.
Indeed, damage is everything.
Ranks are only important for three things: steadfast for break tests, to see if you lose your formation and rank bonus. Rank bonus is a skaven-like special rule that depends on the number of ranks. The default is that a unit that has two or more ranks get +1 on psychology tests - psychology is now every ld-test that is not a panic test or break test: proximity, fear, frenzy, stupidity, etc.
But it looks like all armies get their individual rank bonus, sometimes even individual units.
No, not a flat-out bonus to ld, that’s only for skaven. Units from the empire get +1 to hit in melee if they have three ranks or more because they are drilled to fight in large blocks. Flagellants get their own rank bonus, their melee attacks are concussive if they have three or more ranks.
Only one rank bonus. The rank bonus in an army book replaces the rally bonus.
Yes
If your enemy breaks, you can charge another unit in your front arc. Alternatively you can give up your formation and charge in any direction. Frenzied units must give up their formation if this is the only way to charge another enemy. The enemy can react in the normal way.
It’s a consolidation, so one out of two D6”
Stand & Shoot is the default option. You have to win an Initiative roll-off in order to shoot and all the 40k overwatch rules apply. You have to be able to see the enemy somewhere during his movement. For units in loose formation this is trivial, but blocks that are attacked from the side or rear cannot shoot. And if a part of your unit hides behind a building, this part cannot fire. The shots are resolved at -3 BS.
Units in a formation can choose Hold. They cannot shoot, but if they win a S roll-off, they can choose not to close the gap to the enemy and let the enemy do the wheeling. Obviously this isn’t an option in 40k. Units can flee in both systems. You move the attacking unit as normal. Then you make an Initiative roll-off. If the fleeing unit loses it is destroyed or whatever happens if it breaks from a combat. If the unit escapes it flees as normal, the attacker stays in place and can make a random consolidation up to 6” and tie up another unit. Blocks cannot pursuit, so it is likely that the fleeing unit escapes. Astartes and fearless units cannot flee.
Yes, if a unit loses a combat and flees, there is a 40k-esque I-roll-off too to see if the fleeing unit is destroyed, but units in block, wedge or turtle formation cannot pursuit. They have to give up their formation in order to catch the losing unit. Skirmishers with high I are very deadly if they win a combat and keep in mind that you use the I of any character that is with the unit.
You can decide that at any time. If you cannot combine this with a move, you put the last rank in disorder or something similar to show that the unit is no longer in formation. But you have to decide before you roll to pursuit.
Units move towards their own board edge.
Yes, 40k units can flee.
When you sweeping advance into another unit, the unit can stand and shoot again. The combat is resolved in the next phase except when this happens because of a flee reaction. In the theory one unit can destroy a whole army if all enemy units are clumped together and choose flee every time..
Before pile-ins.
It’s also like 40k now. You move towards your own table edge. At the start of your phase you can rally if you are above half strength at the same time that you try to regain or change a formation.
It’s your normal march move. Fast cavalry has Feigned Flight. They rally instantly and are not destroyed if they are caught, just bound in combat.
In addition to feigned flight, fast cavalry has the scout, hit & run, parting shot and relentless rules.
You distribute the wounds from near to far. Champions have to take a wound, but get a Look out roll and cannot be singled out in combat except in a challenge. Musicians and standards work in the same way, they can use Lookout, too.
You can fill the gaps at your initiative step, but the enemy can’t enter your formation. That would have been cool though. You always fill up the ranks of a block at the end of a phase.
Yes, when you pile-in, you can change to loose formation and move to the side arc. But you don’t have to. There are not many situations where this would be beneficiary.
There are circumstances where you are forced to give up your tight formation: If the enemy breaks through your formation, if you cannot place the unit in terrain, if your frenzied units want to charge the next enemy, etc.
Terrain is much simpler now. There are no random charts anymore in the normal rules. You buy mystic terrain or define an existing piece of terrain to be of a certain kind. Most pieces of terrain have more benefits than drawbacks, so you want to use terrain in your games, but you don’t have to. You cannot enter buildings in the default missions, but you can buy towers and fortified mansions with their own defenders, who can shoot out by themselves, but cannot leave. There are rules for castle walls, towers and other fortifications, too. You can place models on them, but not in them.
This is a large can of worms!
You can take allies in fantasy. There is a matrix just like 40k. There is a visible good/evil divide but not as strict as before. There are only three instead of four levels. Dark Elves can ally with the human factions for example.
There are no retcons, at least no glaring ones. Dark Elves and High Elves still hate each other and cannot ally. But Dark Elves can ally with almost all of the other armies. And High Elves aren’t far behind in this department and can ally with beastmen, vampires and orcs. Dark Elves are very good diplomats and the lesser races are easily lured into an alliance. Afterall, in order to be treacherous, there had to be an alliance of some kind to betray. The seaguard of lothern is described as being very pragmatic when they are abroad. When they are on Ulthuan they can be noble and good mannered elves who would never barter with an orc chieftain. But if they are on a foreign shore with no reinforcements at hand they don’t have this luxury and do strike deals with local savages.
Yes, it is very open. There is eternal war, but the alliances are shifting constantly.
The background doesn’t change, but there is a minor tonal shift. Battles with unusual allies are mentioned throughout the book.
For example, a whole double page describes the secession of Marienburg and how several regiments didn’t choose a side, but became freelancers instead. There is a formerly unknown mercenary skaven clan mentioned called liietch that can be hired by the highest bidder. There is a story where several elector counts have tried to rise freemen in Sylvania to bolster their own state troops. It turned out, that most of them were dead all along and finally turned on their allies. There is a precedent for a temporary empire / necromantic alliance even if it was not very successful.
There are lots of these anecdotes. You are really encouraged to come out of your comfort zone. Both rulebooks are very narrative driven. There are several boxes of flavour text that describe a rule in effect, in-character from the eyes of a soldier.
For example, the frenzy rule is accomplished by a historical anecdote of a witch elf unit that has butchered it’s way through a wood elf army until they ignored the command of their dreadlord and charged into a wood of treekins to never be seen again.
Skaven can ally with almost every army except lizardmen and some of the elves.
Why wouldn’t they? The skaven have used a human king to assassinate Nagash afterall. They can work towards a common goal if it is in their short term interest.
Dwarfs/High Elves/Lizardmen and Chaos Daemons and Dwarfs/Empire/Bretonnians and Orcs are still archenemies.
Beastmen can ally with all armies except bretonnia and wood elves.
Bretonnians and the empire can ally with warriors of chaos.
You can spend up to 25% of your points on secondary forces. Allies, regiments of renown, fortifications and mystic terrain are part of this category. You can only take allies from a single army book, including your own, and they count against both the limits for their category and the secondary force limit. You can mix regiments, towers and terrain as you like and they only count against the secondary budget.
Chaos Dwarfs are part of the matrix, but don’t read anything into it, please.
You have the option to take units from your own list because you can change your secondary contingent before the game. You can prepare up to three army lists, but the main contingent has to be the same.
That’s cynical.
You bring a 750 point list and three 250 point secondary lists to a 1000 point game. 800 points/ 3x 200 points would be ok, too. But 600/ 3x400 would not.
Of course you can opt out, but this is clearly how the design team wants us to pursue our hobby.
You can do this before you meet up for the game. We live in the digital age after all.
No, you cannot mix your own units and units from an allied army list as part of your secondary forces. Only one ally is allowed. In 40k, you can combine an ally with formations from other codices, but there are no formations in fantasy.
The secondary detachment or force can consist of one ally and as many other units, formations, titans, etc that are not labeled as an ally.
There are no regiments of renown at release date except of the units from storm of magic. There is a list of armies they are available for, but you have to get storm of magic to get their rules.
40k has similar rules, yes. 7th edition 40k uses a percentage system, too. min 20% troops, max 25% HQ, elite, fast attack, heavy support and secondary detachment.
There is a chart for those that are unable to use a calculator. You are expected to play with an army value that is a multiple of 250 if you use it.
Min 20% core, max 25% heroes, lords, elite, special, rare, war machines, secondary forces.
War machines are all artillery pieces, chariots, altars, etc. Everything that has the unit type war machine. They are not part of their former slot anymore.
Below 750 points, there are no allies and all max troop sizes are lowered to three - or one if it was lower than or equal to three already. So most units cannot form proper block and have to fight in loose formation.
No, the block rules are more complicated than this. Monstrous units still only have to be 3 wide.
The scenarios are different. There are no scoring units in fantasy. 40k has totally different missions and objectives. But the structure is the same.
After rolling for a mission, you roll who chooses his secondary army first. This player can also choose if he wants to be the defender (deploys first, moves firts) or the attacker after both players have chosen their army. After this, you place the mandatory terrain and the defender chooses his board edge. Players take turns to place their mystic terrain. Players deploy their armies, beginning with the defender. The defender has the first turn.
It’s a very open process. It is stated many times that the process is not the one and only way to set up a game. In fact, for every step there are alternative methods presented. You can arrange the terrain together, or you can play with only one secondary contingent, or you predetermine one player as the attacker, or you play without initiative theft , etc. There are many ways, but only one is described in detail.
It’s the same. Still on a 6. But if he steals the initiative, you can change the time of battle to either dawn or day.
There is a table 1 Morning Raid, 2-3 Dawn of War, 4-5 High Noon, 6 Dusk Warriors.
Night raid is night fighting for the first three turns. Dawn of war is night fighting on turn 1. High noon is night fighting from turn 6 on. And dusk warriors is night fighting from turn 4 on.
No, those are also the fantasy names.
Night fighting is no shooting beyond 36”, stealth for units beyond 12” and shroud for units beyond 24”.
You have to disclose the army lists and the secondary forces before the game.
You either need a bigger case or you can do this at home before the game.
Maybe it comes down to this, but this game is not designed as a competitive one. You are supposed to have a collection of primary armies and in addition several smaller secondary forces. You don’t have to collect 1500 points worth of minis whenever you like a new set of miniatures and want to play with them. There is a reason to collect multiple secondary forces.
No, I don’t know the reasoning. It’s just my interpretation of how the collecting section is written.
Yes, but you don’t buy fanatics with a unit anymore. You can still distribute them in secret.
Both. 40k uses the usual tokens. In the default missions, you use landmarks as markers. Markers come immediately after mandatory terrain.
It’s the same structure as 40k but without different deployment types and scoring units. You place your army 12” from you long table edge in all default missions. Landmarks can be captured if there is no enemy unit in 3”. You roll for every of your units in 3”. On a 6+ the landmark is captured. If you fail the roll and the unit stays in 3” you can roll next turn and get +1 for every additional turn. If a landmark is captured it is no longer a landmark.
You can use any piece of terrain, but the missions are clearly written for houses. You either put them to the torch or evacuate the tenants. But shrines that must be desecrated or consecrated will do equally well.
Three. But they are all variants of a pitched battle. All of them use landmarks. Pitched Battle has a single landmark in 12” from one short table edge and equally distant from the long edges. The second mission has three landmarks in a triangle formation. One is placed in the middle of the battlefield. The other two are placed 12” from the short table edge and 6” from the middle. These two landmarks are placed on the same side of the battlefield, so one half of the battlefield is empty. Finally, Pillage has 3+D3” scattered across the disputed land.
There are several secondary missions and you choose three at random before the game. There are always two primary missions: landmarks and feats of valor.
Neither. Landmarks and feats give one victory point each. Feats of Valor are effectively kill points, but you only get one if you are defeating a special or rare unit in a melee with a core unit
Yes, they count. They are easy prey, but they are faster now and you can attack on the move.
An eagle can swoop like a flying monstrous creature in 40k. They use the same flying rules including overfly strikes and -3 BS modifier for the shooter.
Yes, snapshots are -3. I am sure I have mentioned that.
But dragons are also large targets and give +1. In 40k, only targets that are larger than a tank get +1.
You cannot compare those. Crossbows are not as strong as a boltgun and knight armour is certainly not better than space marine armour.
Chariots are warmachines, so they don’t count.
A unit that breaks and is caught immediately or is under half strength at the time it breaks.
It has to be a clean kill. If you have elite or rare units in the multiple combat, your core units cannot claim a feat of valor. If you have heroes on your side, it only counts if the opponent has a lord on his side. Two units of men-at-arms and a level 1 damsel who defeat a unit of executioners and a unit of corsairs and a dreadlord get a feat of valor. If the enemy had only a noble, you wouldn’t get the feat.
Every feat and every landmark is worth one point. Secondaries are also worth one point each.
Kill the general, first blood, reach enemy deployment zone, kill unit of enemy choosing, kill unit of own choosing. I don’t remember the last one.
Yes, it is bit convoluted.
Mystic terrain stays, but there are no random tables anymore.
There are now two types of terrain. First you place mandatory terrain. That’s terrain that is glued to your board and cannot be removed like hills. Some missions require you to place a special piece of terrain, for example a castle gate. Players can agree to place additional terrain, for example when they have a newly painted piece and want to use it under all circumstances. Or if they play a battle for a bridge as a narrative game, they need a river and a bridge on the table obviously.
Yes, basically every piece of terrain that is not optional for various reasons is placed first. In 40k, you add additional terrain until each 1’ x 1’ section has at least one terrain piece. In fantasy there is no such rule. Mystic terrain can be used as mandatory terrain and is sometimes required, but you decide what type of mystic terrain it is. You don’t roll on any tables.
.
When all mandatory terrain is placed you take turns to place additional terrain. This can only be basic terrain like ordinary forests, hills, barricades, walls, buildings, fortified manors, rivers etc. Magic wells are basic terrain, too. They give +1 on a channel attempt for nearby wizards, +2 if it has the right lore attunement. Every well supports one chosen magic lore.
It’s random. You roll one dice for every 1’ x 1’ segment. For every 4+ rolled you and your opponent have to place one piece of terrain. You can place the terrain anywhere, not just in the segment you rolled for, but there is a limit of three pieces per 1’ x 1’ section (in both systems, but in fantasy it is unlikely to get this dense because there is less mandatory terrain). Some pieces of mystic terrain have additional restrictions. You cannot place a fortified manor inside the enemy table half for example.
There are lots of story-driven missions later that need specific terrain. You have some leeway to use your own collection, but if you play a battle for a pass, you need at least some hills to represent the mountains. There is no way around this. The missions describe where this mandatory terrain is placed. These missions are really characterful as a result.
Basic terrain does not cost points. But whenever you are allowed to place a piece of terrain, you can place your pre-purchased mystic terrain instead. You have to have a fitting model of course.
You buy terrain as part of any secondary force. If you bring an allied wood elf army with your bretonnians, you buy some forests for them. If you choose another secondary force, you can take different terrain or none at all.
Yes, the section is even a little bit longer than before. There are some named pieces of terrain with better rules. They are also more expensive and have a kit or get one in the near future.
It is a magic well that is attuned to the lores of death, khemri, vampires, nurgle and the dark lore.
They are rather cheap. To be able to place a venom thicket anywhere you like sounds good, but if you can place a normal forest anyway, the upgrade is not that great. They are quite useful because you will have some spare points in one of your secondary forces inevitably.
Wood Elves primary forces still have access to their leywoods. They get them on top to any normal terrain.
There are some fortified buildings in the list. They cannot be entered but have crossbows that can fire with BS3. They are more a nuisance than a threat. They are not a 40k bastion equivalent in any way.
Fortress walls and towers are in, but they are more or less glorified barricades. There are no defenders inside and you cannot enter the segments.
40k has a similar system.
About the same, but if you count the fortifications on top, 40k has twice as much mystic terrain.
They don’t have the power to grow jungles in minutes. But a wise general chooses his battleground carefully. If they command an assault force, they will choose dense terrain and therefore, the tabletop will have more terrain.
Not army specific and there is no army specific terrain in the codices yet.
No.
No.
There are no special rules for ruins in fantasy. Hills, forests, fences, barricades, walls, buildings, magic wells and water are the basic terrain. Fortress walls and towers have rules and have an AV of 12. Since units cannot enter castle segments and only use their battlements, there is no need to destroy the walls. Your units on top can be attacked by units in contact with the building as normal. Your only advantage is the cover save and the elevated position. There are no detailed siege rules.
Buildings and fortified buildings are not the same. Terrain including landmarks that only block line of sight on does nothing else. You can place models on top, but they can be charged easily. The second type are fortified buildings, that can be attacked and have exactly the same rules as 40k fortifications, so they are effectively vehicles, with a AV ranging from 9 for a wooden hut till 13 for a dwarven fortress wall segment, but the structure points are always 2 (for now at least).
The rules don’t have changed that much apart from battlements. They are generally accessible from outside and are not part of the building for most purposes - except when it crumbles. Units on battlements (including the attackers) cannot have formations and are in base contact with every unit in base contact with the segment.
Fortified buildings that can be bought cannot be entered. There are some buildings and caves in the historic missions that can be entered and there are rules for entering buildings, but if you play the basic mission, there is no way to get inside a building. Even if you buy a fortress wall or a manor you can only place your models on top but never within. There is no folding fortress anymore.
There are no vehicle rules. War machines have still a T value. Only buildings use structure points and armour values. The only exceptions are steam tanks, but they have the unit type fortified building
Maybe the designers are holding detailed castle rules back for a time when they reintroduce siege engines!? Where would be the fun with the one but not the other?
No, there are not.
In 40k there are lords of war that do not exists in fantasy. If opponent has a lord of war and you have not, he always has to choose his secondary contingent first. If he fields one, you can bring a fourth secondary detachment to the game and units in this contingent do not count against the heavy support limit.
Yes, you have to prepare this beforehand. You are supposed to have a list ready for all your forces. Write the list when you are finished with painting and keep the list in your cabinet, then simply grab the miniatures and the list when you are ready for battle. Warhammer is not supposed to be about min/maxing.
Secondary units count towards the sec percentage AND the FoC %. Sec units that are not part of a FoC like fortifications, lord of wars , formations and knights only count against the secondary percentage. You can take allies only from one regular list. There are no other limitations.
There is nothing that would suggest that there will be fantasy lords of war, except some existing artworks and the megalomaniac weapon rule.
Megalomanic weapons auto-wound and ignore feel no pain and armour saves and cause D6 wounds. Ward and cover saves have to be re-rolled. If a model survives the hit, it can move D6”, if it leaves the area completely, it survives, if not, it dies outright. If the megalomanic weapon does not use a blast, the model dies in any case.
I am immune to this
Not in the foreseeable future!
Exactly Instant death exists in both system, but there are no fantasy weapons that have this rule. In 40k, weapons that cause a random amount of wounds or hull damage are explained but there are no actual instances of it except for D weapons. Both systems use the same dice mechanics and everything is explained in both system, but some mechanics are more emphasized than others. In general, first check if bypassed or replaced (AP, auto-wound, wound on a fixed roll), than modify (Piercing, snapshots, to-wound modifiers), than re-roll. The re-roll every roll of 1 mechanic is a thing of the past. It’s not explained in the rulebooks and the newer codices and the army books do not use these partial re-rolls anymore. The wolf banner is a to-wound and to-hit modifier instead now.
Yes, 2015 territory. Should have chosen a better example.
Yes, sometimes this far out, but not always.
Preferred enemy gives +1 to hit both for melee and shooting attacks.
There are no artillery dice anymore. If an army book refers to it, you roll 2D6”. A double is a misfire. Cannons use BS, hit always the nearest model in unit, jump 2D6” from this point, any double is a misfire. If BS is failed cannonball hits the ground 2D6” behind the target, ball does not jump, but hits a single model, if there is one. Look out works against all shooting attacks. Cannons ignore cover saves.
There are warlord tables for fantasy. You are encouraged to choose a trait if you play a narrative game, but you can also roll.
Easy! Too many questions.
Fantasy has the same reserve rules as 40k now. There are two changes for both systems. If there is no enemy in 24” of a particular table edge, units from reserve that use this edge to enter the table can march an additional 12”. Units from reserves can never charge. Some units have the patient hunter rule, that let’s them choose to stay in ongoing reserve when they become available. 40k flyers always have the hunter rule. Outflank isn’t tied to infiltrate anymore and works like ambush.
Night fighting is in, yes.
Flyers in 40k are aircraft vehicles. Flyers in fantasy are units with the Fly rule. They are not the same. Flyers in fantasy can move 12” over terrain. They are like jump troops, but don’t cause impact hits. In addition they can make a swoop movement and make diving attacks. In 40k, the flying rule is exclusively tied to flying monstrous creatures, but it is the same thing.
40k flyers = nothing in fantasy
40k flying monstrous creatures = all fantasy flyers
40k jump troops = nothing in fantasy
Flying units must use their wings in every phase, while jump units can choose to walk. Jump units can choose to use their packs in every phase, they are no longer restrained to a single phase. But if they choose to use the packs in the assault phase, they only get impact hits. They cannot re-roll their charge distance anymore.
Assault moves are not affected by difficult terrain anyway just like charge moves in fantasy.
Only flying monstrous creatures use the flying rule.
Swoop is the same as in 40k, but units can only use it in loose formation.
Infantry, bikes (40k only), cavalry, war beasts (beasts), giants (monstrous creature). gargantuan creature (40k only), war machines (artillery), monster (fantasy only). Vehicles are 40k only as well. Monstrous is a special rule now, that gives the unit impact hits and explains how multiple-wound models are handled. The 40k analogue is bulky. Monstrous cavalry is simply cavalry with the monstrous rule. Models always share a single profile now (only exception are mounted monsters and characters on chariots). This is also true for cavalry of both systems.
Monsters are not the same as giants/monstrous creatures. Monsters get -3 Piercing and have facings exactly like units in block formation. They retain their profile when mounted. Giants ignore armour completely and don’t have facings. They have all the benefits of 40k monstrous creatures.
Yes, the legacy names are not perfect. Monsters are not monstrous creatures. Monstrous creatures don’t have the monstrous rule, because 1.) they don’t need it, they have better rules, and 2.) the monstrous rule is called bulky in 40k.
Chariots are no unit type. In fantasy they are a special kind of war machine and therefore cannot march, but the chariot rule gives them a 12” movement. There is a 40k equivalent for vehicles like in the last edition. It doesn’t override the movement rules of the vehicle. 40k chariots use the vehicle movement. Chariots in both system cause D6 S6 impact hits and can make sweep attacks, i.e. attack during the movement.
War machines cannot march. They have a combined profile and the crew on separate bases has no ingame purpose.
Monsters, monstrous models, monstrous creatures, vehicles, cavalry, jump infantry, bikes and models with shields.
Chariots cause D6 S6 impact hits without Piercing or AP. Cavalry and models with shields cause one impact hit with their base strength each. Monstrous models cause one impact hit with their base strength. Monsters and giants cause D6 impact hits. On the 40k side of thing, cavalry, monstrous creatures, jump infantry, bikes and bulky models cause one hit with their base strength. Vehicles cause D6 S6 impact hits.
Monsters impact hits do not get their normal -3 Piercing. Impact hits never influence the armour save.
Question overload! Give me some time.
Flying models do not cause impact hits, except they are monstrous or have a shield, etc.
Cavalry and monstrous cavalry have a single profile now, so there is only a single S value.
There is a list for every unit in the game. It is usually the WS,BS,I,Ld,Sv of the rider and the larger value for S,T,W,I. Attacks are one more than the largest value. But there are exceptions. I haven’t memorized the whole summary.
Yes, all attacks benefit.
Always strikes first sets I to 10. Always strikes last sets I to 1. Both cannot be modified further. A unit can choose that all models forfeit the always strike first rule for the phase and re-roll to-hit instead.
Initiative is a little bit more complicated because there are several factors that can modify the I. And there is another rule that makes it even more complex: All models in a unit attack at the same time, during the majority I-step, except in a challenge. Only models that are slower than the majority use their own I. So characters do not benefit from a higher I unless they fight in a challenge - but their higher profile contributes to roll-offs. If they are slower than the unit, they still attack later. It’s faster to calculate the I for diverse units and you don’t have as many I steps, but you do not benefit from a single spear in a unit full of swordsmen.
Impact hits are resolved at I 10, so yes, elves strike simultaneously with a chariot.
Two-handed weapons do not strike last anymore, but power fists in 40k do strike after the rest of the unit.
They are slower but also have more reach. Power fists are slow and have no reach at all.
Yes, Nobz and Hull Breakerz have the same problem. Give the full squad fists, only a single one or none at all. But a majority of fists with a minority of quick weapons is a bad idea.
Light cavalry has Feigned flight, Parting shots and sweep attacks, relentless and vanguard.
Parting shots are the old march and shoot rule on steroids. You can now fire during the move or even before you move.
Yes, parting shots can be fired during the movement phase. Drawing line of sight and measuring distances is made easier, shots are resolved immediately. Can march/run and still make parting shots.
Move unit, shoot, move rest of the movement distance. You roll the march distance after you have shot, so you have to shoot during your normal movement.
Blocks can see 360 degree in this case, but can’t see through models of the same unit, not even the single rank normally allowed.
In 40k there is a special rule called battle awareness or something like this that does the same thing.
Units can’t shoot again in shooting phase, except in 40k, where it simply reduces the number of weapons by one if the model can shoot more than one weapon.
Cover saves are allowed in general, bomb weapons might have their own exception, though. But I don’t remember.
It’s the parting shot’s equivalent for close combat attacks and impact hits. A whole lot of other rules are considered sweep attacks. Everything that moves - attacks - moves is considered a sweep attack. If you attack a building, it is a sweep attack. When light cavalry or chariots hit a unit en passant it is a sweep attack, etc.
You move, stop, both sides deal blows before the unit continues its movement.
There is no combat resolution, casualties count against the 25% threshold though. Units are not bound in combat. There are no charge reactions, no Hold, no snapshots, no flee.
You move the whole unit and resolve the attacks before continuing the movement. The exact position is important. Every model within 3” of enemy can attack.
You can not move closer than 1”, so every model between 1” and 3”.
Casualties are allocated from nearest to farthest with the usual look out rule.
Yes, you can snipe champions, if enemy rolls a 1 for his lookout sir roll.
You don’t have to.
Normal initiative order, but without pile-ins!
Yes ,the normal boni, +1A for skirmishers, lances, impact hits, etc.
Chariots, too. Since chariots cannot march, they are not as effective as light cavalry, but they have their impact hits.
There are no cavalry mounts anymore, but mounted monsters can attack, too.
Not just light cav and chariots. Units with the hit & run rule is allowed to make sweep attacks and any unit that attacks a building.
It works in both system. Hit & run is a special rule and lets you make sweep attacks and grants feigned flight.
No, it doesn’t let you retreat from an ongoing combat.
On the 40k side of things, bikes and jetbikes can make sweep attacks.
No, they don’t have hit & run. Only sweep attacks.
Feigned flight let you auto-rally after a flee reaction. and you are not destroyed if you are catched, simply bound in combat.
Yes, you can shoot at any unit after a sweep attack if you haven’t marched, but you cannot combine it with a parting shots and cannot charge in this turn.
You cannot charge buildings, only the units on the battlements. But if you want to hit a building, you do this in the movement phase and stay out of 1” at any time.
Yes, applies to 40k vehicles too, except for those with a WS like chariots, walkers and super-heavy walkers. You can charge those.
Yes, move and march is slower than move and charge, but you can move after attacking a vehicle and even shoot. It’s an even trade.
Chariot is a vehicle special rule in 40k and a war machine special rule in fantasy. Chariots deal D6 S6 impact hits, can make sweep attacks. Fantasy chariots can move 12”.
Fantasy chariots have a combined profile now. If it is a character mount, it works just like a mounted monster. The chariot profile doesn’t change if the character replaces a crew member. The character can attack, but attacker can choose if he wants to hit the chariot/monster or rider.
Still random.
The 40k rule is a little bit longer because it explains the crew and charge rules more detailed.
No armour save bonus as far as I remember.
Yes, chariots take damage back, but they cause impact hits during a sweep attack now.
There are (almost) no flying chariots. I think they can make both, but sweep attacks are better in every way.
Arkhan.
Only daemons, necrons and orcs.
The diving attacks of flying units are also sweep attacks but cause impact hits instead of the normal attacks. The enemy cannot strike back. But the flying unit must make a swoop move.
Diving attack is the fantasy name for vector strike.
D6 auto-hits with the unit’s base strength, always against the rear, so no shield blocks even against skirmishers.
Per unit.
You don’t have to place the unit, you hit a unit in 3” of the flight path of one of the models.
Yes, vector strikes are exactly the same.
No, no effect on shooting at all.
Only the D6 impact hits, their natural impact hits are ignored.
Impact hits have never an AP or amour save modifier.
Not even fantasy chariots. But they can now hit an enemy without getting entangled.
Vector strikes are now D6 auto base-strength hits without any armour save modifications.
There are so many instances, I doubt I have covered all of them. Sweep attacks have a fairly large rule box of their own. Light cavalry, chariots in both systems, bikes, flying units, units with hit & run make sweep attacks, all units against buildings/vehicles, tanks have tank shocks and flying monstrous have diving attack/vector strikes. I hope this list is complete.
Tanks without WS can make sweep attacks against units and deal D6 impact hits. When they hit another vehicle, there are more complicated rules.
They can even make multiple sweep attacks and move through units.
Always S6 if the model has no S-value. Walkers use their base strength.
Walkers cannot make sweep attacks (except against vehicles without WS), but they can charge and deal D6 impact hits just like a chariot.
Light walkers only get a single impact hit.
Units can make a death or glory attack, either snapfire or attacks from models in 3”, but gets 2D6 impact hits if it does not stop the vehicle.
You stop the tank 1” away and resolve either the shots or the close combat attacks. Defender shoots or makes his attacks. If defender wants to attack, must pass a fear test or has WS 1, i.e. hits on 4. Hits are resolved against the rear.
They don’t hit the front. They try to jump on the vehicle or attack the tracks while the tank is passing them. they are near enough to get impact hits.
Technically yes, but since vehicles have no I value, they automatically pass the test.
Models move out of the way.
40k impact hits are called hammer of wrath, but they work the same. Auto-Hits with I10.
Diving attacks are the fantasy version of vector strikes in every way. 40k and fantasy chariots make sweep attacks. Sweep attacks cannot hit zooming flyers or swooping flying models, but vector strikes and diving attack can.
You choose where to strike for wound allocation purposes, but the enemy can make lookout rolls. They now work for every model including special weapons, always on a 2+. But you can only make a single roll per batch.
One roll per firing unit or initiative step.
Musicians and standards are vulnerable, because you can only protect one of them.
Blocks must fill their ranks at the end of every phase and the start of every initiative step in a melee.
If the pegasus knights swoop and march, they double their march distance.
Flying models are very deadly again, especially against armies without missile weapons, but the army books will catch up and provide counters eventually. You can ground flyers with ranged fire.
Yes, both right. In addition there are magic weapoons and the balewind vortex.
It forces to land flyers nearby on a roll, but can’t remember the exact value.
Two bows, a javelin and a throwing axe.
In both systems, but in 40k there are only flying monstrous creatures. Jump models and jetbikes cannot make vector strikes, but jetbikes can make sweep attacks.
Vehicle movement hasn’t changed. There is still 6” combat and 12” cruising speed. The flat-out movement is done in the movement phase. It is a fixed 6” movement.
Vehicle get cover saves, but only against other vehicles.
Infantry get cover saves both against vehicles and non-vehicles.
I don’t know. But even if 25% of you tank is hidden, it is still easier to hit the remaining 75% than a 2 metre human. I don’t remember if there is an explanation given, but vehicles in terrain do not get cover saves against non-vehicles. the same is true for fantasy buildings.
There are a lot all-or-nothing situations, all tied to a profile tests or roll-off.
No jetpacks and jump for fantasy.
40k jump units move 12” in the movement phase, + D6” if they run and 2D6” assault move. This movement is not affected by terrain. They deal hammer of wrath hits and have to test if they start or end a phase in terrain. They can choose not to use the jump pack in every phase and are affected by terrain then, they run 6” + D6” and charge 6” + 2D6” through terrain just like infantry if they do not use their pack. But they don’t get their impact hits..
Swarms use the 40k rules. They lose D3 wounds to breath and flamer weapons now.
Special rules are all over the place. In some cases, the fantasy and 40k rules stay independent (rending and killing blow are not the same), in other the fantasy adapts the 40k rules (venom works like the 40k poisoned attack (4+) now). There are even cases where 40k adapts a fantasy rule (berserk is frenzy, but with a shorter explanation since it does not need to consider block formations). Lots of rules only exists in one system, but some are copied to the other system (terror, concussive, rending, ...). There are too many to remember them all.
Rending is exactly the same in both worlds.
Killing blow grants rending attacks against non-buildings and non-war machines, so it is not exactly the same. It is similar to feel no pain and regeneration. Feel no pain exists in both systems. Regeneration gives feel no pain, but is negated by flaming weapons..
No.
no
It’s the same in both systems.
Also the same
Breath weapons work like template weapons in every regard, but in addition they deal D6 auto-hits in combat.
Ethereal models can only be wounded on a 6 by non-magic weapons. They can move through terrain.
I think it is the same.
Yes.
There are three tiers of stomp for both systems, but as far as I can see, they are not part of any unit types except super-large walkers and gargantuan creatures.
No, they are not impact hits.
No.
It’s the same.
There is a rule called Dragonbane, that does the same as interceptor and skyfire combined.
Yes.
The same.
Same.
Sniper is renamed in markman and is not the same as the 40k sniper.
Scaly Skin no longer exists.
Flaming attacks negate regeneration and grant additional piercing -1 against cavalry, flying creatures and monsters.
Relentless, Feel no Pain, blind, concussive, but there are likely more that I don’t recall.
Give me a break, I can’t go through the whole list
This could be, and perhaps is even odds-on, Pancakegate v2.0, but I've speed read that transcript, and a lot jumps out as either adding something interesting to the game, mitigating something that is currently OP or making things simpler/quicker.
Which, as I said earlier, probably makes it false.
From what I gathered... Bear in mind, a bit of speed reading and skimming...
Fantasy looks really, really dire.
40k... Even though they say there is no significant change, there is enough to warrant a rethink of what you take in your army.
I mean the whole -3BS when snap firing, to a min of BS1. That effects like... Oh characters. That's it. Only stuff with BS5 and above. No change to anyone else... AT ALL. Flyers are mostly hit on 6's still.
Initiative tests for Overwatch. Now I've never had a game where Overwatch has been a big thing, but Tau, Necrons and Orks are totally boned by this. Orks, less so due to having a mass horde of guys. Tau and Crons are totally screwed unless they are having changes to their rules via FAQ... Remember those?
My reaction to that rumor for fantasy is basically: What is this I don't even
That's not even Fantasy, that's a whole new game. I can't even fathom the rage that would come from it. I recall once a rumor that was dismissed as nonsense about being able to play Fantasy vs. 40k - maybe this is the precursor (if that rumor had any weight whatsoever in the first place).
If true this could be the death knell for Fantasy, not because it would necessarily be bad but due to that kind of shake-up, and adding all the bad things from 40k (allies, buying terrain, etc.). On the plus side it would mean that Kings of War would be a lot more appealing to Fantasy players; if I were Ronnie Renton I'd be praying that GW does do something that insane.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- 7th 40k edition is only a minor update
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to
initiative
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a
fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal
category
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting
just like chariots, but can attacked back
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three
to ballistic talent
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot
overwatch again
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
I haven't been following rules for 3-4 months, so maybe this isn't an issue anymore, but if you have to have an ally, what do Tyranids do?
By removing the minirulebook, everyone not interested in the bigass BRB can buy their second offering: the "hardcover mini rulebook" like the one they brought for 6th that nobody really bought. lol
Dude, it sold out, and fast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wana10 wrote: Add a dread or a land speeder to the space marine side and I'd believe it more. every starter box except one has included a vehicle to help new players get comfortable with the vehicle rules and i hope gw doesn't stop that practice.
AoBR and Macragge did not have vehicles, nor did the Space Marine Assault.
80% of this post is about Fantasy and rules that got from 40k to fantasy.
But there is some interessting bits about 40k.
Now its the kind of thing that you take on a city trip to Saltzbourg, but who the heck knows?...
i particularly like that if you charge a unit can decide to flee after you entered in contact, its goes like a usual lost combat and flee sequence, make a init roll off, if won the ennemy flees 6+D6", if lost, the unit is destroyed, and all this at the beginning of the CC phase.
Whatever the case occurs, the assaulting unit can consolidate, if it can do so and enters contact with another unit, it counts has having assaulted it and can fight in this phase, if the previous unit did flee BEFORE you attacked.
if you did attack and just destroyed the unit and consolidate at the end like usual, then you resume the fight wuth the new unit in the next CC phase.
But if you assault a unit this way, it still can make a Snapfire at you.
You can consolidate&charge only in your own turn.
Snapfire is changed, you make a Init test, if succeded the unit has a -3BS.
Bikes,Jetbikes, units with Hit&Run, cavalery and tanks/walkers can make sweep attacks if they pass enemy units in a 1" radius in the movement phase, just like chariots, those are resolved has D6 Hammer of Wraths hits
But ennemy units can retaliate, by snapfire, attacking or death or Glory.
Ennmy units can only attack sweeping models that are in 3" of them.
Walkers can sweep attack only other vehicles that have no WS, vehicles with No S value always hit at S6, Walkers use their base Strength.
Death or Glory, pretty much the same, but must take a Fear test, if failed strike at WS1 if you choose to use CC attacks, hits are made to rear armor, if the vehicle is not stopped, the unit takes 2D6 S6 AP- Hammer of wrath hits.
Pistols can use their profil in the first round of CC, after that they are simply additional CCW.
Fleet also influence consolidations.
Now all of these is likely wishfull thinking, but if at least some of it is true, it might be interessting.
Look out Sir nows works for everyone!, not only characters, but you can make only one per unit, not multiple LoS to bounce back and forth between models.
Vector strikes are allocated by the attacking players it seems.
How are we supposed to react to something like that, especially in the wake of past Pancakery?
I don't actually hate any of it, and as someone who plays 40K if they're going to play a main system rather than SGs, I find the description of Fantasy quite appealing, which in the infinitesimally small event that this is real is probably the point. It even has a kind of perverse logic, if you can suspend your disbelief for a moment and ascribe some vague air of competence and insight to the high heid yins at GWHQ; they looked at WarmaHordes and decided they would gain more Fantasy players by bringing the two systems into alignment and enticing over 40K players than they'll lose from the changes to the Fantasy ruleset. The Ally and Terrain system changes described there thoroughly reinforce their intention that both be considered a core part of "normal" games, while toning down many of the worst excesses possible under the current setup.
No point exploring the possibilities too much though, it's incredibly unlikely to be true.
The 25% point limit for HQ is one that's a kick in the pants for some forces, however, with Tyranid taking it in the teeth.
At normal point levels, you get:
1000 = 250 in HQ 1500 = 375 in HQ 1750 = 438 in HQ 1850 = 463 in HQ 2000 = 500 in HQ
Flying Hive Tyrants with a pair of twin-linked Devourers drop in at 230 pts. This restriction will single-handedly eliminate the SKyblight formation from play. (Not a huge deal for me as I don't play Skyblight, but it *does* mean that if I take a Tyrant with Guard, I can't take a second Tyrant.)
Wonder if this thwaps any other of the big forces, like Necrons, Farseer Jetcouncils, or Chaos Flying CIrcus? Anybody have math around for a comparitive take?
Yep, it has fairly serious implications for some of the major lists/units, at least at the lower end of the points scale.
As a daemons player, I've consciously avoided Screamerstar, but I've not been above a flying circus list. When a fully loaded GD or Fatey are both ~300 points, there would be quite an adjustment needed, as I'd normally run at least one, possibly more, Heralds in the other slot to buff some of my scoring units.
But I'm ok with this, because I think the game would gain as a whole with this system, and I'm willing to readjust for that to happen.
gorgon wrote: I don't trust the source at all, but actually a lot of the rumored rules changes sound reasonable and plausible if I understand them properly.
- 40k run is part of the movement phase
Speeds up the game.
I like it in lieu of shooting... or, maybe can still shoot but only snap fire after running? I kinda like that.
I have no issue with this.
- assault distance is not influenced by terrain, but gives minus two to initiative
Helps assaulters.
I think this is a great idea (even with the -2 to initiative). Tilts the balance towards assaulty groups a bit.
I won't argue that assaulting needs some help. But assault grenades already bypass this rule
- vector strikes allow armour saves, but deal one to six hits
Minor nerf to FMCs.
Agreed. No problem with it really.
I think this would be a bigger change then people think. Especially in relationship to the Helldrake where Vector strike is more of its weapon then its weapon
- 40k uses a percentage system for the army list
Wut? Not sure how this would work with lists like Ravenwing/Deathwing? O.o
Again I'm not sure But saying 25% of your army needs to be X reduces list variety, and that makes the game more boring. But as a tournament rule I could make sense
- you can bring as many different allies as you want. You can spend a fourth of your points on allies, but they also count as their normal category
So a percentage system for each org chart category like in WFB? Presumably the second bullet means that allied units also count against their org chart category cap. Depending on the cap size, it could do a lot toward reining in deathstars and allies in general.
Maybe there's no allies detachment anymore... you can add them into your main FoC, with the restricition that it can't be more than a quarter of your army. Meh... we'll see. This is reasonable. You don't want people using more point on an "ally" then on their primary detachment
- you can bring three allies to a game and must choose one
Three detachments and must choose one to be primary?
Yea... you bring 3 allies to each game, and pick ONE to fit your needs... it's list building on the fly! Not sure how I feel about that... but, it may make more armies playable in tournaments giving the general the ability to "adapt" a bit on your next opponent. Intriguing idea....
This clearly sounds like a tournament rule to me. While on face value it would be nice to throw in the ally detachment that works best for the given match, it wouldn't be needed if the game had any resemblance of balance.
- bikes can strike units in 1” in the movement phase without assaulting just like chariots, but can attacked back
WFB influence. Whatever.
I like it... gives my all biker RW army a little more oompf in CC. It would be really cool if you can whack one unit and shoot/assault at a different unit. I can't tell you how many times I've head to shoot at this one unit with one guy left, and then twiddling my thumbs for the remaining turn.
So Bikes now get a "ride by attack" In addition of the hammer of wrath, and normal attacks? I thought bikes were already alittle OP.
- fortification and lords of war rules are in, but no profiles
Expected.
Cool... at least it's in the main core rules.
No comment. This has been included since the start of the rumors.
- you have to pass a initiative test to shoot overwatching, get minus three to ballistic talent
Helps assaulters.
Agreed... nerfs the shooty aspect of 6ed a bit.
This.... I don't like. On the surface it looks like a minor change to Overwatch. But then you have to realize Initiative is considered a "melee" stat, so armies that rely on shooting, like Tau and Necron all have low init scores. Those same armies, have BS of 3, so they are still rolling 6s to hit on their overwatch. I won't argue that assault needs some love, but I think this hurts shooting a little too much when you look at the actual numbers.
- you can engage new unit after victory in melee, but enemy can shoot overwatch again
Helps assaulters.
Ditto... but, I hope it limits this one time per turn. Otherwise, Gazzy/Abby/Vect will have a field day. And I got them all! I don't think this is unreasonable, as long as its limited to once per turn.
- you can choose to flee if you are charged but can be destroyed
WFB influence. Whatever.
That's actually kinda neat in some ways. Basically it's a rule to retreat.
*shrugs* no opinion
- if you want to run in 12” of enemy you have to pass a leadertest
WFB influence. Whatever.
Not sure I really understand this...
Pointless.
- vehicles get no cover saves against infantry, only against other vehicles
Little bit of a headscratcher. But what if "against" actually means "from"?
Something got lost in translation? This does seem odd...
This only makes sense, in as a vehicle doesn't get cover from intervening infantry models..
I'm not going to take the whole thing too seriously, until I have an actual rulebook in my hands.
Kosake wrote: The way Miniatures just pile up (and the points in a game increase with Knights, Superheavies and so on, I start to wish for movement trays. It's a tough time, moving 90 orks around one by one...
As Guru Pitka would say, Don't move 90 irks around one by one then.
I haven't been following rules for 3-4 months, so maybe this isn't an issue anymore, but if you have to have an ally, what do Tyranids do?
Pull pants down, bend over and hope in all hell they have lubrication.
What I don't understand is this Initiative for Overwatch. Would that mean you shoot and then assault when it's your initiative turn? Or you either do one or the other?
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
- the next fantasy edition is no continuation of the 8th edition. It uses a
variant ruleset of 40k now
- Fantasy has no movement value anymore, but a armour saving profile
- there are still armour savings modifiers
- all special rules use the 40k rules
- units move like 40k units, but can assume one of three formations, block,
tortuga and arrow
- fantasy flyers can only be hit with minus three to the ballistic talent
and can hit models under their flight path
- there are allies in fantasy
- war machines are their own category like special and core now, 25% of
points can spent on war machines
- there is a system to buy terrain
- warlord tables, but can choose which trait to get
- weapons have a profile like 40k but no armour ignore column
Move like 40k units? Like everything can move as a skirmisher unit? O_____o
I have a hard time beliveing that. Sounds like their trying to troll the fantsey players.
My group has been saying for years now...if they take Fantasy off those damn tray and move by individual model, we're probably all interested in actually spending some money.
No offense, But your missing the point of fantsey if you think that.
None taken, but I think that the system works well enough under the wood elf style, skirmish until combat...then you line up.
I hate not having the tactical maneuverability of individual models or vertical movement.
Reads fairly authentic to me. If it is invented then someone has way too much time on their hands. It doesn't seem quite sensationalist enough to be a troll.
It also sounds like something GW would do - if WHFB is really so deep in the doldrums (though that's not new in itself - I recall reading years ago that space marines alone outsell the entire FB range) then I can see them trying to revive its fortunes by making it more like 40K. I wonder if this is the source of the 40K/WHFB crossover supplement rumour from a while back.
You're new to the site, so you might have missed "Pancake Edition" which 'leaked' prior to 6th being released.
That was a complete document, a fully functional ruleset (many people still say they'd have preferred it to what we ultimately got) and completely, totally, fabricated.
azreal13 wrote: You're new to the site, so you might have missed "Pancake Edition" which 'leaked' prior to 6th being released.
That was a complete document, a fully functional ruleset (many people still say they'd have preferred it to what we ultimately got) and completely, totally, fabricated.
I guess some people do have way too much time on their hands. It appears I have some archive reading to do.
The amount of cloak and dagger surrounding GW's future plans is baffling to me.
The amount of cloak and dagger surrounding GW's future plans is baffling to me.
GW assumes that everyone is just sitting there with a wad of cash in their hands and sweat beading down their brows while waiting for the opportunity to buy something... anything... and if they tell you stuff ahead of time that you'll change your mind. Unfortunately for all of us, there are enough of the former to sell out crap designs like the void shield generator in minutes with less than a day's notice which reinforces GW's decision to keep everyone in the dark.
Allowing a defending unit to either put up a shooting defense, without Initiative test or prepare for CC. So your guardsmen can either try to shoot that wave of orks but have no melee attacks when some actually manage to break through or they ignore snapfire, instead mounting their bayonets or whatever and fighting in CC. Not sure how sensible this would be in most cases, but it would be a tactical option...
The amount of cloak and dagger surrounding GW's future plans is baffling to me.
GW assumes that everyone is just sitting there with a wad of cash in their hands and sweat beading down their brows while waiting for the opportunity to buy something... anything... and if they tell you stuff ahead of time that you'll change your mind. Unfortunately for all of us, there are enough of the former to sell out crap designs like the void shield generator in minutes with less than a day's notice which reinforces GW's decision to keep everyone in the dark.
There is plenty of research out there that shows what happens when a company that is selling X announces that Y is coming. Essentially revenue from X disappears. If the announcement is far enough out then this can drastically hurt the companies bottom line. Essentially the only time you want to announce something more than a few weeks out is when the announcement won't harm existing sales. Now, there is a marketing tactic where you announce a product a few months out when you will be releasing something that directly competes with the offering from another company. The purpose of which is to cause your competitor to lose sales. Works well even if you ship late or not at all...
It's just not in GW's interest to be discussing "7th" edition at all. If they did then sales of the 6th ed rulebooks and various supplements would drop drastically. That said, in order to make best use of customer good will they need to stop shipment of any material that would be outdated once 7th is released a month before hand.
Remember, the month before 6th edition was released White Dwarf had a special feature on using the miniatures available in AoBR and a double-page advert spread of the box set itself. If you want a heads-up on 7th edition, I would probably look for similar advertising of the 6th edition boxset as they try and clear stock prior to the new release.
@Clively - I think that works only if you have no other competitors in the marketplace and customers need to wait for your products. While there are still a lot of players who only play and collect 40k, I think there is a lot more cross-game movement by customers these days in what is essentially a very niche industry anyway. Customers are just as likely to shrug, buy an army for something else, and then suddenly realise they don't have any money to spend on x when it arrives on shop-shelves completely un-heralded.
The amount of cloak and dagger surrounding GW's future plans is baffling to me.
GW assumes that everyone is just sitting there with a wad of cash in their hands and sweat beading down their brows while waiting for the opportunity to buy something... anything... and if they tell you stuff ahead of time that you'll change your mind. Unfortunately for all of us, there are enough of the former to sell out crap designs like the void shield generator in minutes with less than a day's notice which reinforces GW's decision to keep everyone in the dark.
There is plenty of research out there that shows what happens when a company that is selling X announces that Y is coming. Essentially revenue from X disappears. If the announcement is far enough out then this can drastically hurt the companies bottom line. Essentially the only time you want to announce something more than a few weeks out is when the announcement won't harm existing sales. Now, there is a marketing tactic where you announce a product a few months out when you will be releasing something that directly competes with the offering from another company. The purpose of which is to cause your competitor to lose sales. Works well even if you ship late or not at all...
It's just not in GW's interest to be discussing "7th" edition at all. If they did then sales of the 6th ed rulebooks and various supplements would drop drastically. That said, in order to make best use of customer good will they need to stop shipment of any material that would be outdated once 7th is released a month before hand.
There's also plenty of research out there on how steadily building excitement for new products over time with previews and sneak-peeks will result in increased sales and higher levels of positive word-of-mouth activity. Further, GW itself would appear to be an example which contradicts your contention; GW proper hates rumours or previews of any kind even at its own events in recent years, it does everything it can to keep information about new products contained within the company until the last possible moment in order to drive "impulse" purchases(which is, IMO, moronic in and of itself, since the rationale behind impulse purchases relates to small and/or cheap products, not increasingly expensive luxury hobby material), and the result? Falling revenue, shrinking profit, despite an aggressive cost-cutting regime and attempts to drive customers to buy at their own webstore with "direct only" products. Meanwhile Forgeworld, a semi-autonomous division within GW that holds two in-house events each year that feature extensive product previews months in advance, that attends non-company conventions to promote upcoming product, and which caters to the "veteran" gamers of whom GW-proper is so dismissive, are showing positive growth every year.
As for 7th edition specifically, if it's actually coming, whether it's in GW's interest to discuss it depends entirely on whether the company are competent enough to make it be positive. The "little Timmy" types, their parents; these people will not be scouring the internet to find the latest news and rumours about GW product, and ostensibly they are GW's main consumer demographic, so it's difficult to see how advanced previews on GW's laughable "what's on-sale today" blog would result in revenue from that group declining. For the rest of their customers, well the people who just buy the models to paint don't care about the rules much if at all, so no threat there, and all you have left then are the dwindling ranks of "veteran" gamers that the company is struggling to retain already. Whether revenue from that group would be positively or negatively affected depends entirely on howGW go about previewing a new edition. I would wager that if GW were to make a big deal out of "community involvement", if they seemed like they were genuinely soliciting opinion and feedback and acted on it to at least a token degree, that could well result in increased revenue in the medium-term by bringing previous customers back and generating positive word-of-mouth for a change. They could make a small sacrifice of potential revenue in the short term by offering, for example, anyone who bought a copy of the previous edition rulebook within 6 months of the launch of the new edition(proof of purchase required, ofc) a voucher for a free digital copy of the new rulebook, that would lead to better potential revenue in the medium term due to customer retention and goodwill.
It's not in GW's interest to discuss 7th edition only because they have structured their business model and customer relations/marketing(what little of it there is) in a manner which prevents them from adopting tactics which would generate a different outcome. That's their issue, not some inherent "rule of business".
We know it's coming. Just not the details. I'll take most of what i see with seasoning cabinet.
But I think things should be more streamed lined. Here's hoping.
We all know how GW works. They're gonna fix a couple things, but break a couple other things in the process and then everyone will start hoping 8th edition will fix all flaws.
kronk wrote: I hope it kills off battle brothers. I will accept AV15 buildings in my rulebook if battle brothers fething die like Sean Bean in ANY MOVIE!
why would they kill battle brothers off like sean bean in any movie when they can keep it alive against all odds like sean bean in any episode of sharpe?
Yodhrin wrote: Meanwhile Forgeworld, a semi-autonomous division within GW that holds two in-house events each year that feature extensive product previews months in advance, that attends non-company conventions to promote upcoming product, and which caters to the "veteran" gamers of whom GW-proper is so dismissive, are showing positive growth every year.
To be fair, FW releases are quite different than GW codex/army book releases. They're very rarely "updates."
Yodhrin wrote: Meanwhile Forgeworld, a semi-autonomous division within GW that holds two in-house events each year that feature extensive product previews months in advance, that attends non-company conventions to promote upcoming product, and which caters to the "veteran" gamers of whom GW-proper is so dismissive, are showing positive growth every year.
To be fair, FW releases are quite different than GW codex/army book releases. They're very rarely "updates."
While FW does create a lot of new content, they do also updates. Check their download-section. They have updates for their Army Lists and how to use them in 6th edition for free. Actually, you don't even have to have an Imperial Armour book anymore, the "updates" offer complete pricing lists, unit choices and whatever else you need for numbers crunching. That is like GW giving "rules only" codices away for free and selling only the printed fluff-versions.
Anyone else wondering if Natfka is going to octuple-down on this pile of rumors?
Frankly looking at the massive list I see a lot of things that look interesting, others seem like they might still be in the midst of being refined at the time or are the pendulum swinging back the other way (as it is prone to doing so). I don't see anything too insane, just some things that need to be explained better or possibly are poorly translated.
GW moving back to WFB and 40k being more similar (like they were before 40k hit 3rd edition) rather than less makes it a lot easier for players to pick up both games and makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint. Ideally you'd want your players to be able to move between systems more effortlessly as to better monetize both of them. So if it's true this will be one of the smartest things GW has done in a while for their games.
I do have a feeling we'll be seeing some bigger changes in the future to 40k, although I can't bet my money on it being the changes listed here.
ClockworkZion wrote: Anyone else wondering if Natfka is going to octuple-down on this pile of rumors?
He's still whipping the Epic rumors and I have about as much chance of gakking golden eggs as that one happening.
Clearly, the new Warhammer Fantasy will be using Epic Rules and come with Orks and Blood Bretonnians in the Starter Box. All done by Forge World and available through the new GW store. Also, Plastic Thunderhawk incoming...
ClockworkZion wrote: Anyone else wondering if Natfka is going to octuple-down on this pile of rumors?
He's still whipping the Epic rumors and I have about as much chance of gakking golden eggs as that one happening.
Clearly, the new Warhammer Fantasy will be using Epic Rules and come with Orks and Blood Bretonnians in the Starter Box. All done by Forge World and available through the new GW store. Also, Plastic Thunderhawk incoming...
Kosake wrote: You know what I think would make sense?
Allowing a defending unit to either put up a shooting defense, without Initiative test or prepare for CC. So your guardsmen can either try to shoot that wave of orks but have no melee attacks when some actually manage to break through or they ignore snapfire, instead mounting their bayonets or whatever and fighting in CC. Not sure how sensible this would be in most cases, but it would be a tactical option...
Like so many things in wargaming, It sounds good because it is way more like real life, but I think it wouldn't work on the tabletop. I always said the same about shooting into your own guys too, I mean, if your position is getting overrun in real life, its not unknown to call down artillery on your own position and grab your fething ankles. It makes sense if your guys are in shell-scrapes and the enemy have 20 times your number, so why wouldn't Space Marines happily hose a dreadnought with a flamer if It had grots or Orks swarming all over it? Or happily shoot their bolters are Terminators who are getting overan by lightly armored cultists?
Lots of things sound good because they would add realism, but I think that contrary to popular belief GW do actually do some (perhaps just a little!) play testing.
In both of our favored scenarios, I think it would break the game because literally nobody would run assault armies. They seem hard enough to get away with in 6th as it is, let alone if they implemented both of our changes. Think about Space Marines, one gakky attack in CC isn't much, but they are still ok with their power armor.. imagine if everytime anybody wanted to assault them they could double-tap with those boltguns, and hose them with flamers and combi-flamers as normal? I would fancy my humble tac squads against a gak load of Orks or Tyranids if that was the case. Same goes for shooting into combat, well armored guys would just stand back, send their termies and dreds forward, and then gleefully bomb the gak out of everyone who tried to kill them with anything other than shooting.
I agree with you to some extent, the gamer in me loves the idea of making things as real as possible, making it almost like an RPG where you can do anything and everything that makes tactical sense, but I reckon they actually do a little play testing and ban all those little quirky rules people might think of which would feth the game up.
Pacific wrote: Remember, the month before 6th edition was released White Dwarf had a special feature on using the miniatures available in AoBR and a double-page advert spread of the box set itself. If you want a heads-up on 7th edition, I would probably look for similar advertising of the 6th edition boxset as they try and clear stock prior to the new release.
Like, perhaps a codex supplement making the models in the starter set actual special characters with uniqe rules and equipment?
Pacific wrote: Remember, the month before 6th edition was released White Dwarf had a special feature on using the miniatures available in AoBR and a double-page advert spread of the box set itself. If you want a heads-up on 7th edition, I would probably look for similar advertising of the 6th edition boxset as they try and clear stock prior to the new release.
Like, perhaps a codex supplement making the models in the starter set actual special characters with uniqe rules and equipment?
That's basically THE explanation for the whole supplement from my point of view. They had awesome legions to choose from and made some new unknown warband. Can't explain it any other way than GWs need to get the starters sold in time.
Just keep in mind that most true rumours are also posted on faeit212, just hidden in the pile of crap as always, something that statistics can't show. Anyway, can I get the first golden egg of yours
Kroothawk wrote: Just keep in mind that most true rumours are also posted on faeit212, just hidden in the pile of crap as always, something that statistics can't show. Anyway, can I get the first golden egg of yours
Well, I'm talking about stuff that is sourced to Natfka. Yeah, practically every rumor is posted there. Just the crap he posts tends to leave a bit to be desired.
Ging3rDw4rf wrote: I really hope they don't change the rules too much I've only just got to gross with the basics !
The last time they changed it so much that the game was basically "new" was 2nd to 3rd and even then there was a lot of carry over in things like phases being the same. Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
ClockworkZion wrote: Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition
ClockworkZion wrote: Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition
Ging3rDw4rf wrote: I really hope they don't change the rules too much I've only just got to gross with the basics !
The last time they changed it so much that the game was basically "new" was 2nd to 3rd and even then there was a lot of carry over in things like phases being the same. Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They cut the Psychic phase altogether, they moved charging from something you declared at the start of the movement phase to it's own movement in the Assault phase.
The only carry over with any of the real core rules was the to wound mechanic, even the to hit rolls for shooting changed and the mechanics for HTH changed altogether.
Take it from someone who got so totally disillusioned with the changes from 2nd to 3rd that he quit for over a decade, very little remained untouched.
Hindsight has taught me that they were mostly changes for the better though, despite all the controversy over the quality of the rules these days, and I can still find things I think 2nd did better (cover = reduced shooting accuracy instead of an extra save for instance) but most of the issues I had with 3rd I now acknowledge were down to me as a player, and not the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition
ClockworkZion wrote: Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition
Kosake wrote: You know what I think would make sense?
Allowing a defending unit to either put up a shooting defense, without Initiative test or prepare for CC. So your guardsmen can either try to shoot that wave of orks but have no melee attacks when some actually manage to break through or they ignore snapfire, instead mounting their bayonets or whatever and fighting in CC. Not sure how sensible this would be in most cases, but it would be a tactical option...
You already had a chance to put up your shooting defense in your previous shooting phase...
I am in favour of removing overwatch all together, especially considering there is virtually no way to get into assault without weathering atleast one shooting phase.
Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.
warboss wrote: Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.
-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.
I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.
But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.
I'd assume most trained infantry and even raw recruits would hit someone running into combat with them more than 1/3rd of the time. Assaulting ranged units in any conflict of the history of everything has always been pretty risky, and almost suicidal if they are prepared.
Requiring to pass an initiative test AND THEN hit on a 6 (for all bar BS5+ characters) means the odds of being hit during an assault are almost non-existant.
I'd be all for something that makes assaulting much more risky, like giving the defenders +1BS if they didn't move in their last turn, or giving them the choice of a good defensive shot (normal BS) or preparing for the assault (say +1WS on the first round).
The whole +1 attack bonus for charging is a bit silly in 40K as well, the only shock attacking unit's that make any significant impact on charging were cavalry and chariots, and even then they weren't that great against prepared enemies.
Of course, the cynic in me says that easy assaults make things better for marines, so that's how it'll go.
warboss wrote: Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.
-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.
I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.
But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.
-3 puts the majority of armies out of overwatch possibility except marines and eldar. I believe that armies that are poor marksmen shouldn't get it (which is why -2 takes it away from orks and IG conscripts), still leaves average marksmen like firewarriors with a chance, and gives above average marksmen a more dependable chance. I actually think that overwatch at full BS instead of any close combat attacks should be the rule instead of both attacks and shooting but that is just me and probably better left for another thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ductvader wrote: Marines have always been lackluster in assault.
They're not lackluster. Just try charging 5 marines into 10 or 20 guardsmen and see what happens. They're above average in the whole universe if you count all loyalists as a single army but they're just average overall if you count each flavor separately.
warboss wrote: Overwatch IMO is the one big good change they made in this edition but I think they made it too cookie cutter. It should be a flat -2 to your BS so that most armies (like marines and orks) don't overwatch at the same skill.
-3 is excellent, its a snap reaction...hitting on 6s makes sense for most everyone out there...only the best most well trained should hit on 5s or better. It would be yet another reason to outflank a tyranid prime with some warriors too.
I also like -3 for snap shots...because the Avatar should still hit a flier on a 2+, rerolling for a 5+. And my Grandmaster would hit fliers 50% of the time. For individual models and super elite units...I think it's fair enough.
Watch out for the return of the Vindicare.
But it all depends on how all of the rules mesh together.
-3 puts the majority of armies out of overwatch possibility except marines and eldar. I believe that armies that are poor marksmen shouldn't get it (which is why -2 takes it away from orks and IG conscripts), still leaves average marksmen like firewarriors with a chance, and gives above average marksmen a more dependable chance. I actually think that overwatch at full BS instead of any close combat attacks should be the rule instead of both attacks and shooting but that is just me and probably better left for another thread.
Biggest change they could make is to move away from d6 to d10 or higher. I can't see them doing that but it would transform the game as it allows for a much great range of ability for different races/units.
Unless the unit being charged has some sort of buff or twin linked I find it quite hard to kill more than a couple of the charging units. Personally I'd be happy if they just dealt with the unreasonable buffs.
ductvader wrote: Marines have always been lackluster in assault.
For the purposes of a game I much prefer the hit on 6s.
As for the way that rumor is listed.
I understood it as full BS for overwatch if initiative is passed, otherwise, BS-3 overwatch.
IF this is the case, allowing the unit to still shoot in the following shooting phase is totally moronic if the charge fails or the assaulting unit is wiped out by the fire or the combat.
ductvader wrote: Marines have always been lackluster in assault.
For the purposes of a game I much prefer the hit on 6s.
As for the way that rumor is listed.
I understood it as full BS for overwatch if initiative is passed, otherwise, BS-3 overwatch.
IF this is the case, allowing the unit to still shoot in the following shooting phase is totally moronic if the charge fails or the assaulting unit is wiped out by the fire or the combat.
ClockworkZion wrote: Even with these rumors I don't see the game changing too much from how it currently works, just enough to get people needing to rethink how they build their army mostly.
They've sold enough Flyers now... perhaps 7th is the Dreadnought Edition
Eldars been doing super heavy grav tanks long enough.
No, i think new and fresh would be a dreadnought with dual grav cannons riding a burning motorcycle made to look like a cathedral of skulls. 6th saw some new love for the bike lists, so why not let the dreadnought in on the fun.
For overwatch I would just make it so you could only do it if your being assaulted from 180 degrees to your front. It would make the moving phase more tactical and mean jump infantry can surprise units as they should.
Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.
Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.
Not in combination with the other rumoured changes to Allies. Either a 25% of army points limit OR the removal of Battle Brothers, both would defeat the whole bloody point of the mechanic as far as I'm concerned.
It would still sell models.
Hence my use of the phrase "as far as I'm concerned", because shockingly, my priorities are not the same as GW's.
