macluvin wrote: The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.
Just check out the AOS rules for CC and add units charging gets to go first.
macluvin wrote: The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.
it goes like this; the player who's turn it is picks a close combat - they then resolve said combat - the other player then picks another combat - they then resolve that combat - repeat untill there are no more assaults on going. As for who hits first it depends if a unit charged into the combat this turn, if so they hit first other wise if it's a preexisting combat then the player who picked the combat goes first. Edit: ninja'd as said above read the AOS rules free on GW store.
Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?
That just seems bass ackwards.
insaniak wrote: Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.
Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?
I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.
Vindication has never felt so... wrong.
I almost have nothing to add because things like this:
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
You don't choose a combat to resolve, you choose a unit to attack with. Then your opponent chooses a unit, then you, until every unit has attacked that is within 1" of an enemy model.
Initiative wasn't hard to understand, it was simply too important and eliminated all player input into what happened in assault. With this new addition the players get to make legitimate decisions that may drastically affect the outcome of how a battle resolves.
As for msu and morale, the smaller unit dies when the bigger unit looks at it. Most "horde" unit in age of sigmar gain extra attacks for larger units, or better accuracy. Then there is also the fact that most bonuses granted by special abilities affect units, not models. So, commander tells 1 unit of 50 ork boyz that they are immune to battleshock, then 50 orks are immune to battleshock. A commander tells a unit of 10 marines they're immune to battleshock, then only 10 marines are immune to battleshock.
You trade msu survivability for large squad efficiency of bonuses. Combine that with the inherent bonuses that are almost certainly being granted in general to large squads and suddenly the game gains tactical versatility at the list building stage as opposed to being based entirely on mathematical efficiency of units in a vacuum.
I get your point, but did you like the previous editions' versions of morale where it was 95% pointless? Units falling back usually turned into a game of babysitting enemy units as they walked off the board even when it was actually relevant.
It wasn't perfect, but it had its moments. The particularly pertinent one was with forcing a unit to fall back off an objective. With 8th, you'll be forced to actually wipe them out instead.
Which happened almost never, because people favored fearless units.
macluvin wrote: The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.
it goes like this; the player who's turn it is picks a close combat - they then resolve said combat - the other player then picks another combat - they then resolve that combat - repeat untill there are no more assaults on going. As for who hits first it depends if a unit charged into the combat this turn, if so they hit first other wise if it's a preexisting combat then the player who picked the combat goes first. Edit: ninja'd as said above read the AOS rules free on GW store.
Careful on that wording...
Let's say I have a LoC, 5 rubrics, and 5 scarabs.
You are in combat with the rubrics and scarabs and you just charged the LoC. Since you charged you roll against the LoC.
Now we move to the "normal" sequence and you get to pick a unit first. You can't hurt the scarbs very well so you decide to attack the rubrics. Now it's my turn. Since you already attacked the rubrics and the LoC it only makes sense for me to attack with my scarabs to prevent any accidental casualties. Then you attack the scarabs and then I finish up in any order with the rubrics and LoC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kirasu wrote: I don't understand what was so complicated about initiative.
It wasn't, but it didn't add much to the game. Picking combats is quite tense and interesting.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.
It says in there that failing morale isn't just running away, it might be a marine tending to a casualty, or hanging back for another reason rather than just being a scared.
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guys and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.
This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years
Oh okay so, nothing new then. These guys make it sound like 8th will make MSU even more powerful.
*Edit* BTW I would still rather have my 75 points worth of Orks than MSU Marines.
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.
This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years
And it's been said over...and..over again...
-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.
There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.
This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years
And it's been said over...and..over again...
-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.
There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.
Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?
That just seems bass ackwards.
Huh. Yeah, obviously they were trying to go for a linear as simpler thing there, but you're right that's completely counterintuitive now that you've pointed it out.
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guy and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
The answer has been said over... And...over again as if MSU is new to 40k. Once again, a unit of 5 guys that loses 5 models doesn't have to take a test because they are dead however the *OTHER* unit of 5 is unaffected. Where as the unit of 10 has to take a check at -5.
This has been the case in 40k for like 15 years
And it's been said over...and..over again...
-An MSU unit of 5 will lose all of it's special weapons. A unit of 10 will not.
-Force multipliers will influence a bigger unit more.
There's far more nuance to the outlay including what the point costs and minimum unit sizes are that it is clearly obtuse to hang your hat on this.
Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.
Sure but those units are ALWAYS expensive in points. i.e. Terminators, Centurians, Obliterators, etc... Losing even one of those is going to hurt.
Depends on the army? There are plenty of units which can pack a lot of punch into minimum sized units. Sure if you run a bunch of already useless tactical squads but they don't do any damage anyway.
They were useless. Now that you can move and shoot heavies and get solid armor behind cover...i'm not so sure.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?
That just seems bass ackwards.
insaniak wrote: Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.
Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?
I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.
Vindication has never felt so... wrong.
I almost have nothing to add because things like this:
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
You have to be correct first before you can be vindicated.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?
That just seems bass ackwards.
Huh. Yeah, obviously they were trying to go for a linear as simpler thing there, but you're right that's completely counterintuitive now that you've pointed it out.
I must have missed something on the page talking about morale that makes smaller units a better choice.
So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.
A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.
Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.
Again, may have not read the factors that make my understanding above incorrect.
@insaniak. What has happened?! I take a year off of 40k and come to DakkaDakka and you're an angry cat.
I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.
So you think the fact that orks might be uniquely good at their shtick is annoying? I'd be annoyed as heck if everyone could horde assault equally well as orks! I'd very much want to have abilities and mechanics that others can't match in that arena. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Personally I perfer to be playing the game rather than reading books, arguing over definition of rules or moving retreating models backwards slightly only to regroup them.
Agreed.
...not to mention being able to play a game without 6 inches of books and badly layered rules which are filled with unique bespoke rules with bespoke exceptions to one another. Which is why I haven't played in years, and am excitedly looking forward to playing again. Games should be able to be fast enough to avoid being bogged down with bs, and if you finish too fast, you can always play another game.
I'd rather have one really good steak than three or four bargain-store mystery-meat hamburgers. That's not to say present 40K is steak, but I'd rather they tried to make it steak than chop up one grotty burger into three or four small grotty burgers. I might be hungry atm, hmm. Also, where are you getting the impression Age of Rowboat is going to drop badly layered rules with bespoke rules slathered all over the top? They merely appear to be moving the bloat and the bespoke slather onto the Datasheets rather than having it in books, the extra speed of the gameplay is coming from upping the lethality to levels so high you'll need a snow shovel for casualty removal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Does it seem odd that the smaller your unit, the less affected by morale you are?
That just seems bass ackwards.
insaniak wrote: Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.
Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?
I was saying this sort'a thing right from the start when this whole "bespoke rules" nonsense started to emerge.
Vindication has never felt so... wrong.
I almost have nothing to add because things like this:
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
Well, if you knew AoS rules then you would have known that for every 10 models, a unit gets an additional bravery, and like many said, units get bonuses for getting more models. Maybe you could try reading a 4 page rulebook and play a couple of quick AoS games and see how that goes since you are ok with games that are long and tedious anyway.
""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "
Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oopFW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.
mortar_crew wrote: ""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "
Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oopFW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.
They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?
mortar_crew wrote: ""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "
Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oopFW models for several armies,
and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.
And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?
I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.
Yes. Again, if special rules are required to allow certain armies to function as intended, then there's something seriously wrong with the core rules.
Special rules should be there to add special stuff to armies... not to plug the holes created by core rules that don't take them into account.
. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?
That's a bit of a simplification, but in general yes, that's pretty much what I want. That is, after all, the whole point of the statline. Everybody and his dog having special rules is fine in a small-scale skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it just makes things too complicated. Special rules should either apply to entire armies, or should apply to actual special things. Special rules on individual basic troop units should be avoided as much as humanly possible.
My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.
mortar_crew wrote: ""We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'. "
Am I the only one to feel that not including the oop model
would be the greatest insult to customers yet?
I own a lot of oopFW models for several armies, and invested a lot of money and time in them.
Just throwing them out with the new version would for sure make me an angry camper.
They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?
Well, they are out of print then what?
There was a lot of out of print models for the Iperial Guard range
when they released FW Imperial Armour book second edition, and all of them were covered.
It is not like we were talking about imperial robots from RT.
A lot of these models were in the FW catalog a few months or even weeks ago.
We bought these (rather expensive) models, I believe that rigth to (ie rule for) use them
in the game is not such a claim.
I must have missed something on the page talking about morale that makes smaller units a better choice.
So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.
A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.
Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.
Again, may have not read the factors that make my understanding above incorrect.
The size of the unit has nothing to do with whether or not you test. It is the models lost, the roll, and bravery.
The thing people are noting is that if you clean out a unit of 5 with shooting you "waste" the bravery check losses. If you kill 5 from a unit of 10 you don't waste the bravery check.
It's just that they are hanging their hat on killing 4 or 5 models out of 5, but even 4 heavy bolters can't kill 4 marines who are not in cover - on average (assuming -1 and S5). Lascannons do even more poorly. Maybe plasma cannons could do it (3.7 assuming D3 hits after rolling to hit and -3).
I mean if you only always kill 4 or 5 models of an MSU unit then their army will clearly win the game!
And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?
All were covered by a book or an army list update as far as I am concerned.
Here are the armies or list I am taking in consideration here:
-Orks
-Imperial guard (imperial armour range)
-Elysian drop troops
-Renegades
I believe we lost the sabre platform for the Renegades (which I bought and they are collecting dust
since this list update), but other items are covered a way or another.
Remove all of the oop models from the playable rules?!
You must be kidding...
I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.
Yes. Again, if special rules are required to allow certain armies to function as intended, then there's something seriously wrong with the core rules.
Special rules should be there to add special stuff to armies... not to plug the holes created by core rules that don't take them into account.
. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?
That's a bit of a simplification, but in general yes, that's pretty much what I want. That is, after all, the whole point of the statline. Everybody and his dog having special rules is fine in a small-scale skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it just makes things too complicated. Special rules should either apply to entire armies, or should apply to actual special things. Special rules on individual basic troop units should be avoided as much as humanly possible.
My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.
Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?
My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.
Orks have had morale special rules that helped them overcome unduly punishing morale rules since 3ed. I mean without them a couple casualties and you could have easily lost an entire 20+ mob had they not had their special snow flake rule. So just curious if you found those adding character or making up for poor game design?
So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
Frankenberry wrote: So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
I think most people are past that since they found out you can loop in other units without them being able to overwatch in the fight phase.
Well I finally met someone who likes pulling wounds from the front because it's more "cinematic", yet pulling wounds from the back in WHFB wasn't "uncinematic" despite having the same rules justification: people step forward to cover the gap.
So apparently some people DO really like the current rules that nerf assault and that makes me rather confused. But the game has all kinds of fans I guess...
Frankenberry wrote: So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
Multi charges will be more common than in 7ed because you cannot come within 1" of units you don't intend to charge. In 7ed in assault the 1" zone is waived so it was possible to charge 1 unit among a mess of multiple units without a multi charge.
Frankenberry wrote: So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
It's two things:
1 - if you fail the charge or are killed in overwatch, that unit gets to fire again, and again, and again. It's very rare in 40k that a unit gets to fire multiple times in the same phase. 8e overwatch hands this ability out like candy.
2 - The fear of Tau getting it with ALL of their army for every charge.
Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?
Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.
Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.
And the whole idea of fluffy orks killing themselves immediately after the other player killed them, multiple times per phase (in multiple phases per turn.) If an army is going to remove itself from the table, it should be dirt cheap. 7e orks aren't cheap.
I really think that 8th edition is going to be the definitive version of 40k. The information regarding morale mentioned so far ticks all of the boxes as far as I'm concerned.
It's simple and streamlined but it also makes perfect sense thematically. Hordes of low LD cannon fodder run (or take their own lives) when put under pressure and high LD grizzled veterans take far more punishment before considering doing one.
They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?
No, not the entire line forever, though popular recently models where the mold broke, yes. Are you just trolling here with that response?
gungo wrote:
And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?
Not all of them have un-updated rules for 4-5 editions, and some of their rules still do work from a few editions ago. Things like the Plague Hulk of Nurgle will not work in 8th, there is nothing wrong with wanting rules for him.
Frankenberry wrote: So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
It's two things:
1 - if you fail the charge or are killed in overwatch, that unit gets to fire again, and again, and again. It's very rare in 40k that a unit gets to fire multiple times in the same phase. 8e overwatch hands this ability out like candy.
2 - The fear of Tau getting it with ALL of their army for every charge.
Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?
Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.
Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.
And the whole idea of fluffy orks killing themselves immediately after the other player killed them, multiple times per phase (in multiple phases per turn.) If an army is going to remove itself from the table, it should be dirt cheap. 7e orks aren't cheap.
The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else? I'm not a fan of the current Mob Rule. I'm merely stating that they created Mob Rule to benefit LARGE numbers of Orks because that's fluffy and I understand that why they would want that translated onto the table top.
They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?
No, not the entire line forever, though popular recently models where the mold broke, yes. Are you just trolling here with that response?
No. They have to draw a line somewhere. AoS had models carry over, because they were legitimate and being sold before the switch. Asking for rules to models that people can hardly get a hold of is not a great idea. They did throw Marbo into Shadow War, so maybe it will happen, but don't hold your breath.
No. They have to draw a line somewhere. AoS had models carry over, because they were legitimate and being sold before the switch. Asking for rules to models that people can hardly get a hold of is not a great idea. They did throw Marbo into Shadow War, so maybe it will happen, but don't hold your breath.
I beg to disagree here.
Some people actually own these models and as stated above a lot of them has been
made out of the catalog only a few weeks or months ago.
Most of them have rules right now, period.
Oh, and a lot of them actually costed a lot of money to get by the way, which I believe
is also a reason to take them in consideration.
The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?
Because it adds character to the army.
Again, that's not the problem.
It is in all likelihood, and has been stated multiple times, that units will get +1 bravery for every 10 models in the unit. As a core rule.
That is really not going to be enough though, for a unit that has crap base leadership and wears t-shirts for armor. +1 / 10 does nothing for units that are expected to remove handfuls of guys at a time. Every wound suddenly starts turning into (essentially but not actually) two wounds; one inflicted and the other removed because morale rules are terrible. Orks have ld 7 base. 30 orks go up to 10, sure but if I lose 10 (which isn't exactly hard), I'm guaranteed to lose more, not the least of which because my leadership dropped for losing 10 dudes (so I'm almost automatically losing another since my LD dropped). I'm not saying there won't be rules to "fix" this. I am saying it's a pretty crappy system to just lose dudes, with absolutely no recourse, because losing dudes is basically part of the army I play.
The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?
Because it adds character to the army.
Again, that's not the problem.
Character in the way an army plays is a big draw to this game for a lot of players. I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.
The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else? I'm not a fan of the current Mob Rule. I'm merely stating that they created Mob Rule to benefit LARGE numbers of Orks because that's fluffy and I understand that why they would want that translated onto the table top.
Yes, the negative parts of the fluff were in the rules, and it's great that they were in there.
But an ork boy costs 1 or 2 points more than a guardsman. The fluff would put them at 2 or 3 points. This part of the fluff was omitted on the tabletop.
The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?
Because it adds character to the army.
Again, that's not the problem.
It is in all likelihood, and has been stated multiple times, that units will get +1 bravery for every 10 models in the unit. As a core rule.
That is really not going to be enough though, for a unit that has crap base leadership and wears t-shirts for armor. +1 / 10 does nothing for units that are expected to remove handfuls of guys at a time. Every wound suddenly starts turning into (essentially but not actually) two wounds; one inflicted and the other removed because morale rules are terrible. Orks have ld 7 base. 30 orks go up to 10, sure but if I lose 10 (which isn't exactly hard), I'm guaranteed to lose more, not the least of which because my leadership dropped for losing 10 dudes (so I'm almost automatically losing another since my LD dropped). I'm not saying there won't be rules to "fix" this. I am saying it's a pretty crappy system to just lose dudes, with absolutely no recourse, because losing dudes is basically part of the army I play.
And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?
v0iddrgn wrote: I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.
So crappy leadership and practically no armor aren't going to be problems to you. Got it.
Well, considering that bolters and likely most other infantry S3/S4 weapons that used to be AP5/6 no longer ignore their armour save, Orks do have more armour than before, at least against small arms.
Most AoS orcs are surprisingly 2 wounds each and have enough fluffy bravery boosts to make them very resilient.
If 40k doesn't have similar profiles they will then be cheaper per model. Or have some characer synergy.
In the end the orks will likely play like they always have and you won't have to feel ashamed for buying a 'naut.
Complaining that they didn't make those buffs a core rule borders on the absurd, because this system lets them write whatever fits the mold of the army instead of shoe honing an army to a special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Case in point...
Morale buffs from:
Being in cover
Being in combat
Being in the opponents deployment
Banners and leaders
Sacrifice
Being near a certain number of friendly units
...all have a bearing on how you use the unit and/or the army, without needing to create several paragraphs in the main rules to cover it all and doesn't limit future rules ideas.
I find it absurd that people are labelling bespoke special rules that will most probably pop up in future codices as a sign of a broken rules system.
I appreciate the fact that people are wary of potential bloat, however, I think that it's clear from what we have seen from the rules so far that the core system is much cleaner, clearer and simpler than before. This mean that the addition of special rules can be used for what they should be used for... to add flavour to various factions.
Having "mob rules" for the likes of Orks makes perfect sense. It does not mean that the core morale system is broken.
Crimson wrote: This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)
Grots and herder?-)
rollawaythestone wrote: Wow. Surprised there is so much hate today about Morale. It's been confirmed this is how Morale will work since Adepticon more than a month ago.
Just because it's been known doesn't make it any better.
Again, the primary benefit to big squads is pilling on the bonuses from things like spells and command points.
Your big boobs of Orks ALL getting to move extra distance, gaining bonuses to saves, getting immunity to morale tests, bonuses to leadership, and more than likely bonuses to their damage capability will all be an option.
This isn't a weakness of the game, it is a way to help create you own playstyle. Taking big boobs of regular Boyz or several smaller squads of 'ard Boyz in truck will grant you bonuses that are all of an orky variety as opposed to a generic, core rules specific bonus.
They aren't special rules if everyone had them. They are just rules. Units have individual rules now, is not that big of a deal really. Obviously, if you like a strong core ruleset like WHFB was, this is a totally different game desing phylosophy.
Special rule is special rule whether it's located in rulebook USR section or unit card.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
Something has been already confirmed. I feel sorry for BA/DA/White scar players who would have wanted to keep 7th ed version going on. Never official rules for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
v0iddrgn wrote: If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guys and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.
Larger unit has also lost same 2 guys. But what happens if you roll 4 over LD? MSU loses last member but big unit loses 2 more models. More dead guys! Combined with possibility of overkill since rule encourages pouring fire to one unit rather than lots of 1-2 dead to multiple units and MSU reliability is even bigger.
Another example which is even clearer: 2x5 models, 1x10. You suffer 5 casualties. MSU you lose one model and that's it. 10 sized loses half and with d6+5 check could easily lose more including all! Nevermind another benefit of MSU. Unit suffers 6-9 casualties? MSU laughs at the overkill. 10 sized squad keeps suffering casualties which just adds to chance of losing rest on battleshock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
v0iddrgn wrote: Sure but those units are ALWAYS expensive in points. i.e. Terminators, Centurians, Obliterators, etc... Losing even one of those is going to hurt.
Yeah well those all are armed with big gun. So every model is going to hurt whether you are 10 or 5. With MSU you lose less of those valuable guys though than with one big unit so casualties hurt less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.
A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.
You forgot that the MSU has also another 5 guys so both sides have same number left. Difference comes when you would lose more than 3 guys to battleshock...Say extra casualty from shooting so big unit would now be 3 left vs MSU 5 left.
OBVIOUSLY you don't compare 10 vs 5. You compare 10 vs 5 and 5.
Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.
If opponent splits fire then good! Battleshock encourages you to concentrate fire to one unit as every casualty will basically result in extra casualty in battleshock(assuming any casualties happen) automatically. If you split fire you cause less casualties with battleshock than if you had concentrated and increase chance of 0 battleshock casualties.
Well, if you knew AoS rules then you would have known that for every 10 models, a unit gets an additional bravery, and like many said, units get bonuses for getting more models. Maybe you could try reading a 4 page rulebook and play a couple of quick AoS games and see how that goes since you are ok with games that are long and tedious anyway.
Or you could consider possibility that people actually have played and don't automatically love it.
Also the +1 bravery for 10 guys doesn't really compensate difference. MSU still rocks over horde in terms of battleshock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?
If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?
Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).
I think it's more of annoyance of: You charge firewarriors. They shoot at you, you fail charge. You charge same firewarriors, you get shot again, fail charge. You charge another unit, get shot again. While you can't shoot more than once on your turn now you got to shoot 3 times in overwatch...That feels wrong intuitively. Those charges would be in reality happening simultaneously so how firewarriors are shooting 3 times as often just because 2 charges fell short?
"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.
With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."
It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...
"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.
With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."
It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...
All of those rules might not exist anymore, but I get the point; it would be nice for our expensive beloved models to get some rules.
Like you I could use them with counts as rules, but it's nice for your models to have their own rules.
"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.
With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."
It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...
I Agree. Well, From the Imperial armour Volume one, second edition, P81 and P82 the Salamander has the "scout" special rule.
Salamanders used by renegades does not have it (Imperial Armour Vol 13, P169).
That was my point:
These oop models are in army lists from the FW books, and should get the update they deserve,
even if they are not currently avalaible.
Remove all the oop models from the FW range and look at the holes we'll have in lists for the Imperial Guard, Renegades and Heretics,
Orks, Elysian drop troops, just to name a few.
It would honestly discourage me from buying Forgeworld stuff that is even slightly old, due to being at the risk of not having rules for long, noting how big and expensive things are.
Things like chaos spawn getting removed (an example, not rumours of that happening) I wouldnt be too miffed, but a single model that costs $120 Australian Dollars risking getting scrapped due to its mold breaking? No thanks.
Rippy wrote: It would honestly discourage me from buying Forgeworld stuff that is even slightly old, due to being at the risk of not having rules for long, noting how big and expensive things are.
Things like chaos spawn getting removed (an example, not rumours of that happening) I wouldnt be too miffed, but a single model that costs $120 Australian Dollars risking getting scrapped due to its mold breaking? No thanks.
I cannot agree more with this statement.
I bought dozens of Forgeworld kits from convertion sets to super heavies
for more than 12 years now.
Some of them (mostly ork and Imperial stuff) are now no longer in production,
I then should find normal to see them removed from the game altogether?!
So it's not really going to be relevant for 4-6 months but are you guys screenshotting each others posts to wave in each others faces when it turns out hordes are great/terrible and close combat is super broken/super terrible. Or do you think people will lose interest.
Most AoS orcs are surprisingly 2 wounds each and have enough fluffy bravery boosts to make them very resilient.
If 40k doesn't have similar profiles they will then be cheaper per model. Or have some characer synergy.
In the end the orks will likely play like they always have and you won't have to feel ashamed for buying a 'naut.
Complaining that they didn't make those buffs a core rule borders on the absurd, because this system lets them write whatever fits the mold of the army instead of shoe honing an army to a special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Case in point...
Morale buffs from:
Being in cover
Being in combat
Being in the opponents deployment
Banners and leaders
Sacrifice
Being near a certain number of friendly units
...all have a bearing on how you use the unit and/or the army, without needing to create several paragraphs in the main rules to cover it all and doesn't limit future rules ideas.
How many pages of special rules do you think each unit will need? Take an ork mob for example:
Stats
number of boyz
number of special weapons
stats for those weapons (will we even be able to take rokkits or big shootas?)
Trukks
stats for nob
nob upgrades and weapons
stats for all the different weapons and upgrades
all the special rules regarding size and morale et.c
If we are going to compare with AoS I expect that units will lose a lot of costum stuff.
Most AoS orcs are surprisingly 2 wounds each and have enough fluffy bravery boosts to make them very resilient.
If 40k doesn't have similar profiles they will then be cheaper per model. Or have some characer synergy.
In the end the orks will likely play like they always have and you won't have to feel ashamed for buying a 'naut.
Complaining that they didn't make those buffs a core rule borders on the absurd, because this system lets them write whatever fits the mold of the army instead of shoe honing an army to a special rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Case in point...
Morale buffs from:
Being in cover
Being in combat
Being in the opponents deployment
Banners and leaders
Sacrifice
Being near a certain number of friendly units
...all have a bearing on how you use the unit and/or the army, without needing to create several paragraphs in the main rules to cover it all and doesn't limit future rules ideas.
How many pages of special rules do you think each unit will need? Take an ork mob for example:
Stats
number of boyz
number of special weapons
stats for those weapons (will we even be able to take rokkits or big shootas?)
Trukks
stats for nob
nob upgrades and weapons
stats for all the different weapons and upgrades
all the special rules regarding size and morale et.c
If we are going to compare with AoS I expect that units will lose a lot of costum stuff.
TBH it's kinda hard to tell. Well 8th ed 40k is clearly being influenced by AoS, it doesn't seem like they are going for a Carbon-Copy. Like the fact we still have a Strength and Toughness Characteristic, but BS & WS are now static To-Hit's.
My hunch is that they are going to have to do a armoury for each army to list all the weapons/Items and their rules. Other wise any upgrades that have specail rules would be a bunch of repeating the same rules over and over on every war scroll.
I.E: We have been told Tyranid Lashwhips have specail rules and Unwieldy melee weapons are still a "thing".
(I also imagen Transports will still have their own unit entry that other units refer to for buying a transport as now. Combining the entry multiple times into other entries wouldn't make sence)
Nobody post this? (its from faeit yes.. but sounds possible):
- Assault 2d6”, multiple units
- Split fire: any unit can target as many targets as they want
- Normally the unit don’t have to target the nearest unit, but there are lots of abilities that have this restriction
- Invulnerable saves simply ignore armour penetration up to the given value. They are not that common, wave serpents and Canoptek wraiths have one
- Most power fields, etc. are separate saves that are taken in addition to other saves just like FnP of today, they may or may not ignore mortal wounds on a case by case basis
- Dodges, camos, etc are now to hit modifiers
- Characters cannot join units
- Characters can only be targeted if nearest target or within 12”
- Larger models are seldom characters, Gulliman is not for example
- Deepstriking units can be placed anywhere. Every unit with deep strike has a value. Have to beat it to land on target, otherwise opposing player can move unit the rolled distance
- There are no mishaps anymore
- Overwatch shooting against deep striking units within 9” at -1 BS - Summoning is not a psychic ability anymore, normal deep striking with psyker as homing beacon instead
- There are spells that replenish or add wounds to demon squads
- Most vehicles have a single attack with high S, but no AP, some have considerably more like the battle waggon
- Vehicles and units fighting against vehicles usually can fall back without penalty, they cannot move in the charge phase when they have moved or shot in the same turn. Most walkers don’t have this rule
- Terrain enhances armour in assault phase for the defender, or both in consecutive turns, is negated by grenades
- Assaulting units get +1 attack
- Vertical movement does not count against the allowance but a model cannot go higher than the movement value in a given phase. Lots of exceptions for jumping, flying, etc. of course
Ranges are measured on the ground level from base or model to base or model, whichever is nearer
- Units are deployed within 3” of a transport, cannot move, but can charge in the charge phase
- No more firing from a transport, though some vehicles, especially open topped ones have extra firing points weapons if they transport enough (and sometimes eligible) models. But they use their own BS and the kind of weapon is fixed. For example Raiders have 5 fire point splinter rifles, but only if they transport kabalite warriors
- No challenges
- Hidden power fists viable again, wound allocation by owning player, any model in squad, but wounded ones first
- There are some precision weapons that let the firing player choose the wound allocation (always or on a 6)
- Units have always the same T and Save now. There are some models that have T- Sv - and adapt like drones and grots, most of the other combined units have matchings stats now, Black templar neophytes have a 3+ now, for whatever reason
- Command points allow to reroll saves, hits, wounding or charge distance, reroll any single dice throw, negate all terrain in 12” of one of your models, alter the attack sequence, boost psychic block rolls, allow additional reserves and allow units to get another charge phase after wiping out an enemy
- There are some models like Ghazghkull that have their own abilities that are triggered by command points
- perils of the war: snake eyes on the test, d6 on table, d3 mortal wounds and losing a spell are the worst cases
- Player can spend command points to choose who goes first instead of rolling, whoever spends more
- Matched games have a fixed number of turns, 5 or 6 rounds depending on mission, 18” is starting range and turn 1 charges are completely legal
- Reserves are not random, except for rounding: second turn half the units are deployed, third turn half of the remaining, fourth turn rest
- Flyers have an individual to hit modifier, mostly -2 or -3, a 6 is always a hit as usual, depends on the flying mode for flyers that have more than one
- Flyers are affected by heavy weapon malus, but most flyer weapons are assault,
flyer weapons have often a shorter range and a different name, but are otherwise identical to their ground counterparts
- Terrain does not influence movement distance per se. Some citadel terrain pieces half the movement or do other things.
- There are no warzone rules in the core rules
- True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain
- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want
Are these mostly someone guessing and using AoS rules to make this up? Any contradictions with info we already have from GW? Sounds like good changes though
Split fire seems dubious, as they would have mentioned that during the teaser on the shooting phase.
+1 Attack on the Charge contradicts earlier reports, no? Supposedly you only get to strike first now.
The change to invul also seems dubious, as that seems tricky to work out with invul reliant units such as demons.
Characters cannot join units? Wasnt thatc confirmed by Pete?
Yeah I think that much was pretty much confirmed during the QnA.
The salt content is high as this is from anonymous Faeit sources but I wouldn't really say no to anything on there. However Faeit claims to have gotten these Sunday and they don't make any mention of the Morale rules we got Wednesday so I suspect it's a lot of extrapolating from AoS and wishlisting.
If enough people write in politely I imagine they'll generate rules for OOPFW vehicles. They seem pretty responsive these days, and whilst OOP stuff might not have made the cut initially (I can see why with every unit in the game to write rules for) it's not a massive detour from their day to produce rules for a few rarities as a goodwill piece. Might take a while but ask nicely. Raging on a forum won't work.
I didn't see this in the thread or on the first post, but here's a summary of the Q&A that was on the 25th of April
Q&A Summary Was the info released at Adepticon about Movement Stats coming back, Chargers striking first and Morale Tests real? Yes. Armor save modifiers are coming back, Movement stats are back, chargers will strike first (more on that later), and Morale tests are going to work in a similar manner as AoS.
Vehicles & Armor Values? No more Armor Value for Vehicles. All models will basically have the same stat line. That means Vehicles will have a Damage Table tailored to each vehicle. As the vehicles take damage they loose effectiveness – possibly lower BS, attacks, etc.
Everyone can hurt Everyone!
Will army play styles change? They have tried to keep the play styles of armies similar and used this edition change to help reset and refocus those archetypes in a re-inforcing manner.
Is the Game still a D6 system? Yes.
What’s the typical Game length (time wise)? For a 1500 point game, shooting for a 90 minute game.
Narrative gaming support? How? Yes – lots of support. 3 ways to play in mind – New warzones, campaigns, supplements will “have a home” in 8th.
Will every model currently out will have rules? Yes! “All In” with model rules, including scenery, monsters, etc.
Command Points – how will we generate them? They will help reflect the army selection & play style. In matched play, EVERY army will be battle-forged. 14 different Force Org charts for army composition. The way you build your army impacts how many you can end-up with.
Command Points – what do they do? On a very high-level, they do things like give you re-rolls. There are “Generic” abilities and there will be army specific rules when the new codexes come out. One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.
New Codexes? Yes! Codexes are not going away, but they will come at a later date.
Army Construction – How will that work?
Here is an example of 3 Force Org Charts – there will be 14 at the start and they (GW) think that no matter what type of army you have you’ll be able to build one that matches a Force Org Chart.
Templates? Templates are going away!
How often can we use Command Points? One per phase. They will be a limited resource.
How did you test this edition? GW reached out to several groups, notably they spoke with several of the big Tournament Organizers in the US for testing and feedback. That includes our buddies at Frontline Gaming, Adepticon, and NOVA. They said, “Most thoroughly we’ve ever tested.” And they have also taken in lots of community feedback though all the various forums, social media, etc.
How will we get the rules? Day 1 New Rules! Five books on Day One – rules for everyone with Points, too! Digital and Physical. Everything you need to start playing will be out day one for all armies.
Expansions like Cities of Death? Yes, will be part of the game. More ideas on the way way – more narrative supplements.
How about Broken Units (a la Riptide)? Most balanced edition with the most robust testing. Hopefully their won’t be any “broken” units.
Match Play regular updates? Yes! Much like the General’s Handbook, annual update for rules/points.
Fan Interaction? Interactive Forum Coming as well social media feedback.
Free Rules? How will we get them? Digital copies available and printed verisons at FLGS and Games Workshop Stores.
Warhammer 40k App for list building? Working on it, not available for launch but it’s on the way!
Specific Tournament Rules? No, but core rules have guidance for folks who want to run tournaments – “just suggestions.”
Unit Rebalancing? Everything is now a legitimate choice. Even pyrovores. Everything can hurt everything else because of the new types of profiles.
How long was this game edition in development? “A Long Time.”
What were your Top 3 goals for this edition? 1 – Make a game that works for all 3 ways to play
2 – Make sure the game holds-up to a competitive play
3 – Make it more accessible to everyone from new players, to fans of the lore, to hard core hobbyists.
They really wanted to take in as much feedback as possible and incorporate the feed back to what everyone was asking for.
Release Date? “This Year.” More news on that later – just not today.
More cool stuff at Warhammer Fest? Yes.
Will you cut down the number of models that are available and “streamline” the armies? No – All models are sticking around!
How will points work? Two different types of points!
1 – Powerlevel points – this is a basic, very broad brush gauge for a unit. It’s designed for Narrative play so you can have an idea of how powerful your army is and play in a more relaxed way.
2 – Matched Play Points – this is the very granular option. Weapons, options, etc. all have points costs – like the current system.
What about the factions? Noticed on the new 40k site that Astra Militarum was missing – what gives? The website is more narrative focused – it’s an intro site for new players and a “getting started” place. Astra Militarum is still around and so are the Skitarii, they aren’t going anywhere.
Will there be new factions? Yes. and possibly some new ones at launch…
What about Monstrous Creatures? Yep, they are moving to the Damage Table like vehicles!
How will stats work? Str, Toughness, Wounds? Again, everything can hurt everything! Stats are NOT capped at 10 anymore. Andy commented that when he played his first game, he really felt like the weapons did what they were supposed to – everything felt “right” when he played (in terms of how weapons worked).
What sized games are supported? Both Match and Narrative games – 1000 points up to what every you want.
What’s the Highest Wound Count Model? “The Knights are up there, but I don’t want to say and be wrong later…”
What about Allies? Yes, allies are still around. But they work slightly different. Because the game is moving to the “Keyword” system the typical Death Star units/combos are not going to work. Your special abilities will only transfer to the units with the correct Keywords. This should cut down on the shenanigans.
The Force Org still supports allies but that will cut into command points…
Will Close-Combat be viable? “Absolutely” – due to the change with chargers striking first and everyone being able to hurt everyone close combat should be a viable part of the game.
Is Medusa Gone? It wasn’t on the new map!
It’s not gone! The map was just really crowded.
What about Forge World Rules? Those will be available in the same way.
What about the folks that just purchased books and codexes? Those are all invalidated! Yes – if you still have your proof of purchase, you can contact GW Customer support for vouchers (time limit of 8 weeks).
ERJAK wrote:So it's not really going to be relevant for 4-6 months but are you guys screenshotting each others posts to wave in each others faces when it turns out hordes are great/terrible and close combat is super broken/super terrible. Or do you think people will lose interest.
I'm nearly certain that hordes will be fine for the armies which run them (Orks, nids, GSC; I'm betting Guard can't blob and have fixed unit sizes) and that combat will be fine, because I trust the play testers. MVB commented on the fight phase Facebook post that he wanted to say about the 3" pile in thing to people who thought assault wouldn't be viable; that implies that during testing, he found assault to actually be usable, or else the comment wouldn't make sense. I'm not going to hold it against anyone if it's not, and I'd be surprised if people who think it'll be bad hold it against people who expect it to be fine, because everyone is running on very limited information currently. There are enormous things which we don't know; we're not going to know how it shakes out until we see all the combat rules and points costs.
zamerion wrote:Nobody post this? (its from faeit yes.. but sounds possible):
Spoiler:
- Assault 2d6”, multiple units - Split fire: any unit can target as many targets as they want - Normally the unit don’t have to target the nearest unit, but there are lots of abilities that have this restriction - Invulnerable saves simply ignore armour penetration up to the given value. They are not that common, wave serpents and Canoptek wraiths have one - Most power fields, etc. are separate saves that are taken in addition to other saves just like FnP of today, they may or may not ignore mortal wounds on a case by case basis - Dodges, camos, etc are now to hit modifiers - Characters cannot join units - Characters can only be targeted if nearest target or within 12” - Larger models are seldom characters, Gulliman is not for example - Deepstriking units can be placed anywhere. Every unit with deep strike has a value. Have to beat it to land on target, otherwise opposing player can move unit the rolled distance - There are no mishaps anymore - Overwatch shooting against deep striking units within 9” at -1 BS - Summoning is not a psychic ability anymore, normal deep striking with psyker as homing beacon instead - There are spells that replenish or add wounds to demon squads - Most vehicles have a single attack with high S, but no AP, some have considerably more like the battle waggon - Vehicles and units fighting against vehicles usually can fall back without penalty, they cannot move in the charge phase when they have moved or shot in the same turn. Most walkers don’t have this rule - Terrain enhances armour in assault phase for the defender, or both in consecutive turns, is negated by grenades - Assaulting units get +1 attack - Vertical movement does not count against the allowance but a model cannot go higher than the movement value in a given phase. Lots of exceptions for jumping, flying, etc. of course Ranges are measured on the ground level from base or model to base or model, whichever is nearer - Units are deployed within 3” of a transport, cannot move, but can charge in the charge phase - No more firing from a transport, though some vehicles, especially open topped ones have extra firing points weapons if they transport enough (and sometimes eligible) models. But they use their own BS and the kind of weapon is fixed. For example Raiders have 5 fire point splinter rifles, but only if they transport kabalite warriors - No challenges - Hidden power fists viable again, wound allocation by owning player, any model in squad, but wounded ones first - There are some precision weapons that let the firing player choose the wound allocation (always or on a 6) - Units have always the same T and Save now. There are some models that have T- Sv - and adapt like drones and grots, most of the other combined units have matchings stats now, Black templar neophytes have a 3+ now, for whatever reason - Command points allow to reroll saves, hits, wounding or charge distance, reroll any single dice throw, negate all terrain in 12” of one of your models, alter the attack sequence, boost psychic block rolls, allow additional reserves and allow units to get another charge phase after wiping out an enemy - There are some models like Ghazghkull that have their own abilities that are triggered by command points - perils of the war: snake eyes on the test, d6 on table, d3 mortal wounds and losing a spell are the worst cases - Player can spend command points to choose who goes first instead of rolling, whoever spends more - Matched games have a fixed number of turns, 5 or 6 rounds depending on mission, 18” is starting range and turn 1 charges are completely legal - Reserves are not random, except for rounding: second turn half the units are deployed, third turn half of the remaining, fourth turn rest - Flyers have an individual to hit modifier, mostly -2 or -3, a 6 is always a hit as usual, depends on the flying mode for flyers that have more than one - Flyers are affected by heavy weapon malus, but most flyer weapons are assault, flyer weapons have often a shorter range and a different name, but are otherwise identical to their ground counterparts - Terrain does not influence movement distance per se. Some citadel terrain pieces half the movement or do other things. - There are no warzone rules in the core rules - True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain - In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want
Many of these sound very plausible. That said, I also could have guessed half of them from similarities to AoS. I sort of hope they're all true, as I like them all barring the "no warzone rules" one (and maybe fixed number of turns - very exploitable, which is why they're random currently), but unfortunately wishful thinking doesn't make it true.
I almost think we should just keep to discussing the official information being released by GW and on the FAQ's. Salty rumours tend not to add much other than kindling to already over-heated discussions.
The change to a lot of former Invuln saves, if true, makes sense considering few weapons will now fully negate a 3+ save, let alone a 2+. Changing it to FnP makes sense, though it makes me wonder if they will stack, such as if a SM command squad has both storm sheids and an apothecary.
Future War Cultist wrote: Wait, characters can still join units? To be honest I was rather hoping that would be ditched.
No I think characters not joining units was confirmed (or heavily hinted at) during the QnA.
I assume you are talking about when they were talking about the steps to stop death stars? Because to me it sounded like the way they were talking implied Character's could still join unit. That is why he was talking about how the Keyword system was being used to stop multiple charaters from joining units to stack buffs on each other, not characters no longer being allowed to join units.
But. If true, that would mean one of two things.
A) you could no longer transport characters in Transports with a unit.
B) Transports can now carry multiple units
B is possible, since it sounds like they don't want Super Heavy Rules to be a "thing" anymore and repersent them with +10 Toughness and Wounds. Thus no need to have a Super Heavy Transport Rule. But TBH I feel like just letting Charater's join units makes more sense for 40k.
Edit: These 4 things should be red flags that this is made up/best guesses/wish listing by Faeit:
-Split fire: any unit can target as many targets as they want
-Most vehicles have a single attack with high S, but no AP, some have considerably more like the battle waggon
- No more firing from a transport, though some vehicles, especially open topped ones have extra firing points weapons if they transport enough (and sometimes eligible) models. But they use their own BS and the kind of weapon is fixed. For example Raiders have 5 fire point splinter rifles, but only if they transport kabalite warriors
- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want
The splitfire and base thing are just not apart of GW's game design philosophy and the base thing on top of that is just a competitive player wishlist thing every edition. The all vehicles getting a single attack in CC is just pure "lul, wut?". The Fireing point thing is just sounds baffling to me and a very random change.
Hollow wrote: I almost think we should just keep to discussing the official information being released by GW and on the FAQ's. Salty rumours tend not to add much other than kindling to already over-heated discussions.
Aye i agree, be interesting if any of the GW blog teasers hit on anything in that list though, would give the other items some more credibility.
Future War Cultist wrote: Wait, characters can still join units? To be honest I was rather hoping that would be ditched.
No I think characters not joining units was confirmed (or heavily hinted at) during the QnA.
I assume you are talking about when they were talking about the steps to stop death stars? Because to me it sounded like the way they were talking implied Character's could still join unit. That is why he was talking about how the Keyword system was being used to stop multiple charaters from joining units to stack buffs on each other, not characters no longer being allowed to join units.
That was it. Yeah I went looking for that in various summaries and couldn't find it so I thought I was losing my goddamn mind.
I had thought they mentioned something about certain rules now having ranges etc (rather than applying to the unit itself) but again I think I need to go through the QnA video and find the exact point cause I could just be conflating a bunch of information in my head here.
They didn't mention anything about characters not joining units in the live stream.
In regards to characters buffing units they spoke about how deathstars are a thing and this wont be possible now because every faction will have 'keywords' and abilities will only cross if you have that keyword.
But they didn't lean either way as to if IC's can still join units or if they can't anymore, as i remember anyway!
Future War Cultist wrote: Wait, characters can still join units? To be honest I was rather hoping that would be ditched.
No I think characters not joining units was confirmed (or heavily hinted at) during the QnA.
I assume you are talking about when they were talking about the steps to stop death stars? Because to me it sounded like the way they were talking implied Character's could still join unit. That is why he was talking about how the Keyword system was being used to stop multiple charaters from joining units to stack buffs on each other, not characters no longer being allowed to join units.
That was it. Yeah I went looking for that in various summaries and couldn't find it so I thought I was losing my goddamn mind.
I had thought they mentioned something about certain rules now having ranges etc (rather than applying to the unit itself) but again I think I need to go through the QnA video and find the exact point cause I could just be conflating a bunch of information in my head here.
I will admit it's been a "Hot minute" since I watched it too, But I recall the Keyword System was the big point he stressed about stopping Death Stars. I recall a line along the lines of "We are using the keyword System so characters can no longer join units to stack buffs", and I'm assumeing you are just remembering "characters can no longer join units" with out the 1st part. I recall it being worded awkward like that at the time.
I will admit fully I could be the one mistaken thow if you can find the video.
Future War Cultist wrote: Wait, characters can still join units? To be honest I was rather hoping that would be ditched.
No I think characters not joining units was confirmed (or heavily hinted at) during the QnA.
I assume you are talking about when they were talking about the steps to stop death stars? Because to me it sounded like the way they were talking implied Character's could still join unit. That is why he was talking about how the Keyword system was being used to stop multiple charaters from joining units to stack buffs on each other, not characters no longer being allowed to join units.
That was it. Yeah I went looking for that in various summaries and couldn't find it so I thought I was losing my goddamn mind.
I had thought they mentioned something about certain rules now having ranges etc (rather than applying to the unit itself) but again I think I need to go through the QnA video and find the exact point cause I could just be conflating a bunch of information in my head here.
I will admit it's been a "Hot minute" since I watched it too, But I recall the Keyword System was the big point he stressed about stopping Death Stars. I recall a line along the lines of "We are using the keyword System so characters can no longer join units to stack buffs", and I'm assumeing you are just remembering "characters can no longer join units" with out the 1st part. I recall it being worded awkward like that at the time.
I will admit fully I could be the one mistaken thow if you can find the video.
Found it, timestamp should be right, around 51:28~
So Pete Foley doesn't specifically say that Characters can't join BUT he does start talking about attaching a Space Marine to an Astra Militarum squad, then corrects himself and instead says put him near an AM squad. I think that's where I got the Characters don't join units from.
Could still go either way but I don't know, I think it looks likely given how much has come from AoS so far.
I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO
The video is even more telling - Pete started by saying attaching (likely due to it being hard to switch from that concept after so many years) but realised he misspoke and corrected himself. That just screams no joining of units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting
you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...
that'd shake things up a bit.
And that's OK too, the rules in AoS for the flying Dwarves transporting stuff read fine to me.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I didn't see this in the thread or on the first post, but here's a summary of the Q&A that was on the 25th of April
Command Points – what do they do?
... One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.
Seems like Command Points will play a very important role in the game. If "interrupt" means that the charge phase just ends, that would be very strong against cc heavy armies.
MaxT wrote: I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO
The video is even more telling - Pete started by saying attaching (likely due to it being hard to switch from that concept after so many years) but realised he misspoke and corrected himself. That just screams no joining of units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting
you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...
that'd shake things up a bit.
And that's OK too, the rules in AoS for the flying Dwarves transporting stuff read fine to me.
In that case the rules will not be able to handle nobs in ork mobs either?
JohnnyHell wrote: "Interrupt" means "do a unit action out of sequence", not "can a whole phase".
So you could charge yourself instead of getting charged?
I don't have any specifics to hand, as I don't have the rules. More like "spend a command point to attack a charger first", instead of be attacked rather than move out of sequence, I'd guess, but who knows what unit rules might be?
MaxT wrote: I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO
There is no need for IC to join unit, just that if he's within certain short distance he can both take Look out, sir! -rolls, and give some buffs for the unit. That would be best of both worlds - nearly all of IC advantages without complicated IC rules like we have today. As for transports, I see little reason why transports should be limited carrying only 1 unit.
MaxT wrote: I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO
The video is even more telling - Pete started by saying attaching (likely due to it being hard to switch from that concept after so many years) but realised he misspoke and corrected himself. That just screams no joining of units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting
you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...
that'd shake things up a bit.
And that's OK too, the rules in AoS for the flying Dwarves transporting stuff read fine to me.
In that case the rules will not be able to handle nobs in ork mobs either?
Sure they will, one model in the unit can be a boss nob. A boss nob has one higher attack and strength, and may take the following weapons...
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
Well this is already wrong, so it's clearly not that straightforward - not all special rules are shared. It's much harder to implement the concept of "joining" a unit than it is to just have rules protecting a character by going near a unit. The latter makes sense to me, as do area of effect abilities; I mean, why would only one unit become fearless from their leader if 2 were stood near anyway, right?
casvalremdeikun wrote: I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.
Way back in 2nd edition, ATSKNF meant that Space Marines who failed a Panic test didn't immediately break and run - they simply could not move towards the enemy until they rallied. They had to fail a second time to actually run. I could see something like that now ("When a unit with the Space Marine keyword fails their first Battle Shock test, no models are removed. Instead, the unit may not move in its following turn.")
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I didn't see this in the thread or on the first post, but here's a summary of the Q&A that was on the 25th of April
Command Points – what do they do?
... One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.
Seems like Command Points will play a very important role in the game. If "interrupt" means that the charge phase just ends, that would be very strong against cc heavy armies.
This sounds too me like it might be a carbon copy of the Might Point/Heroic Actions mechanic pulled straight from the Lord of the Rings sbg.
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.
It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.
And sure, Death Stars result from stacking a billion rules onto a unit, but buffing auras still apply those rules. There's not really any difference in brokenness between applying four characters rules to a unit by coherency and applying them by aura. Any fix to avoid too many of those buffs stacking up (key words, for example) can be applied just as easily to a joined character.
And no, saves and move values aren't complicated. Staying in coherency will naturally limit the unit to the slowest model, saves are rolled seperately.
Heck with AoS style wound assignment it's even simpler to resolve mixed saves: If owner picks who takes wounds, the attached character only really needs to roll saves after his entire bodyguard has died.
changemod wrote: It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.
And the 12" might not be much of a protection with chance of cheap fast moving heavy weapons(say land speeders with multi-meltas...) to bust the 2-5 wound characters(if dreadnoughts etc have around 7 dont' expect tons of wounds on characters either).
Albeit maybe chaplains etc are more like land speeder price in future.
But btw separate rolling doesn't really help especially if owner picks. No thanks for ability for tough character inside unit tank shots at will like now(conveniently not when shot would have serious chance of hurting him).
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.
It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.
And sure, Death Stars result from stacking a billion rules onto a unit, but buffing auras still apply those rules. There's not really any difference in brokenness between applying four characters rules to a unit by coherency and applying them by aura. Any fix to avoid too many of those buffs stacking up (key words, for example) can be applied just as easily to a joined character.
And no, saves and move values aren't complicated. Staying in coherency will naturally limit the unit to the slowest model, saves are rolled seperately.
Heck with AoS style wound assignment it's even simpler to resolve mixed saves: If owner picks who takes wounds, the attached character only really needs to roll saves after his entire bodyguard has died.
The major difference is your opponent can choose to try and take out the character giving the Aura rather than the unit receiving the benefit.
They said they are trying to eliminate Death Stars - so I am guessing we have considerable use of the Keyword and also no characters joining.
AoS has of course potential deathstars - ways and means of buffing and buffing a single unit to the point of near godhood.
But, as characters struggle to hide in units, it's a lot easier for your opponent to deconstruct your synergy, negating or at least mitigating your efforts.
Of course, that's not to say it's actually easy to do it. That'd be dull. Just it's easier to cope with and counter than 'well my buff doods are standing at the back so you'll have to kill everyone else' that is the core principle of so many deathstar units.
For those still dubious, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you you're wrong or throwing up mindless hypotheticals. I only strongly recommend you only make your mind up once you've tried the game - especially if you're not au fait with AoS.
There exists death stars in AoS, kunning rukk as the prime offender. They are counterable though, since with a bit of shooting you take down the heroes.
Also, an AoS style wound/save/damage sequence doesn't allow mixed saves.
You roll to wound, then the target rolls to save and only after the save you decide on which model you apply the damage. In AoS units have a save, models don't. All armor modifiers always apply to the whole unit. Take a look at the cover rules, if even a single model of the unit is not in cover, all the unit lacks cover.
Daedalus81 wrote: And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?
Absolutely nothing, because my remaining 20 orks were Fearless and so didn't have to worry about sweeping advance? Now I stand to lose at least a handful of models?
Edit: and you're assuming the wounds were lost to CC. My example applied equally (if not more so) to being shot. A blob of 30 orks rarely loses CC by 10.
I stopped playing orks when the new book dropped. I am really hoping the new edition will let me dust them off, which is why this new morale phase concerns me.
jamopower wrote: If the character sniping is somehow made more difficult, I can't see much difference between characters as separate units or as parts of units.
AoS works on TLOS. So a character in the midst of a unit can be singled out if you can see him, but will generally get +1 to their save. But that's still well better than 2+ or 4+ meatshields, at least to my mind.
Especially when you consider Mortal Wounds, which are confirmed for 40k. With those, unless you've got a spanglydoodad of some kind, as long as the attack hits, you skip To Wound and Save rolls. And as a decent chunk of Mortal Wounds do multiple damage, keeping your characters alive isn't especially easy. Doable. But not easy.
jamopower wrote: If the character sniping is somehow made more difficult, I can't see much difference between characters as separate units or as parts of units.
AoS works on TLOS. So a character in the midst of a unit can be singled out if you can see him, but will generally get +1 to their save. But that's still well better than 2+ or 4+ meatshields, at least to my mind.
Especially when you consider Mortal Wounds, which are confirmed for 40k. With those, unless you've got a spanglydoodad of some kind, as long as the attack hits, you skip To Wound and Save rolls. And as a decent chunk of Mortal Wounds do multiple damage, keeping your characters alive isn't especially easy. Doable. But not easy.
Well if it's only 12" where you can target the characters, it will most likely be more difficult. But that remains to be seen. 40k has more shooting, so there should be something.
I'm pretty sure this is for Shadow War: Armageddon though.
No that's for 7th ed 40k. Lack of move, AP rather than modifier, no damage for weapons etc show it's not for shadow war. Similarly initiave discounts it from being 8th ed(well it also has USR's etc that 8t ed won't have)
the_scotsman wrote: Well this is bizarre. Why would they release him twelve seconds before 8th drops?
Assuming it's official and not fan port of the shadow war stats maybe somebody just had little bit of time since they released his stats for shadow war(which doesn't get invalidated with 8th edition) anyway?
Anyway, he's fun. Missing the good old demo charge which made him good before (and also 40 points cheaper in fairness) but turning 3 bits of terrain into dangerous terrain, plus an AP3 sniper pistol at BS5, means he's likely to have a fair impact in a game for 25 points. Stealth+FNP is nice too, but let's be honest, he's out of action the turn after he arrives.
the_scotsman wrote: Well this is bizarre. Why would they release him twelve seconds before 8th drops?
My theory is pure sadism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
Yeah I was happy to see no more challenges but quickly realized it wasn't without more downsides. Baby out with the bath water it seems at this point, especially seeing as there won't be all these usr's to toss around to make death stars, which was the primary complaint I'm sure.
" True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain"
Not happy to see this at all. Area terrain is there for speed of play, it shouldn't be the only option. Flanking should matter, it should be an effective tool to mitigate cover saves, a jungle is one thing, terrain that in no way physically obstructs models shouldn't be a thing. This would be an example of a bridge to far on the complexity vs time front. I want 5th ed terrain rules back, both players can still beat their heads against the wall in a pre game terrain dicussion, but at least there's a bed rock case to be made for less permeable terrain. GW has gone back and forth on melthing through walls since 5th and seeing as they will be shrinking the core rules to 12 pages, I can't see there being much on pathing or even impassable terrain. We'll have to count our blessing just getting a statement that other models are impassable.
jamopower wrote: What was the chance on them doing good terrain rules after the examples from few past releases?
Sure, but with the ever increasing amount of really great looking terrain they put it out, it's a real shame that the rules for that terrain are not really of the same quality. Especially using the rules they released for the shadow war terrain as an example of less than ideal effort. Basically ruin rules with some hint of jervis randomness, le sigh.
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
Yeah I'm really hoping they don't come for 30k, that would end it all real quick. A bunch of 140$ leath bound paperweights are actually a pretty big reminder to never take the wallet out again. Especially if we never get answers for inferno.
As long as characters can roll LOS! for being within 2" of a unit of the same type, I'll be happy.
For example, An infantry Librarian can move alongside a unit of infantry Marines and anytime an enemy unit allocates wounds to the Libbie, the Marine unit may roll 2+ for each wound. Once all wounds are allocated, saves are then taken on the appropriate models. If the Libby is on a bike, however, you'll need a bike unit nearby to roll LOS! This would discourage character sniping, yet not make it entirely impossible (like hiding them deep within the unit in 7th)
If characters cannot join AND there is no LOS, I'll be pissed as many other players will. Sure it helps prevent DeathStars, but what about that $20+ model I bought and spent all that time painting and building a back story for just to have them kilied in the first turn. Characters not joining for ease of game play is fine, but allowing those characters to just get focus fired on is a poor move that I think GW knows not to do.
And BTW, LOS onto nearby units is a concept that GW has done in the past in an earlier edition of Fantasy, but I cannot remember if it was 7th, 8th or an even earlier version. So it is entirely within the scope of what we have seen so far.
Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
jamopower wrote: What was the chance on them doing good terrain rules after the examples from few past releases?
Sure, but with the ever increasing amount of really great looking terrain they put it out, it's a real shame that the rules for that terrain are not really of the same quality. Especially using the rules they released for the shadow war terrain as an example of less than ideal effort. Basically ruin rules with some hint of jervis randomness, le sigh.
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.
Yeah I'm really hoping they don't come for 30k, that would end it all real quick. A bunch of 140$ leath bound paperweights are actually a pretty big reminder to never take the wallet out again. Especially if we never get answers for inferno.
They already confirmed 8th edition rules for 30k "soon" on the FW site in a product description, but it has since been removed.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Split fire seems dubious, as they would have mentioned that during the teaser on the shooting phase.
+1 Attack on the Charge contradicts earlier reports, no? Supposedly you only get to strike first now.
The change to invul also seems dubious, as that seems tricky to work out with invul reliant units such as demons.
No - they make perfect sense. AoS has split fire for everything. They didn't need to mention it. Invulnerable works like AoS 'ignores rend up to' abilities.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
Except the majority seem to be on board. The facebook posts are certainly getting a very good reception. You don't like them, that doesn't mean your view is shared.
Besides, if you think either the psychic phase or morale looks worse than what we currently have, I don't know what to tell you - I'm not sure how anyone other than a masochist who thrives off poorly written rules and arguments could actually enjoy the 7e system for psychic powers.
"...You forgot that the MSU has also another 5 guys so both sides have same number left. Difference comes when you would lose more than 3 guys to battleshock...Say extra casualty from shooting so big unit would now be 3 left vs MSU 5 left.
OBVIOUSLY you don't compare 10 vs 5. You compare 10 vs 5 and 5."
So comparing 10 vs 5 and 5, let's just say that each unit suffers only 1 casualty each including the 10 man unit.
It appears one strategy is to spread attacks across the MSUs if you are attacked.
Maybe you shoot up one unit and assault like crazy with the other at each 5 man unit.
Or if it's not your turn, if they're both dogpiling your unit, you split your cc attacks across them.
Because each one that loses a unit is (unless they have a special rule in force) now has to take a battleshock test.
the_scotsman wrote: Well this is bizarre. Why would they release him twelve seconds before 8th drops?
My theory is pure sadism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.
There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.
Yeah I was happy to see no more challenges but quickly realized it wasn't without more downsides. Baby out with the bath water it seems at this point, especially seeing as there won't be all these usr's to toss around to make death stars, which was the primary complaint I'm sure.
" True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain"
Not happy to see this at all. Area terrain is there for speed of play, it shouldn't be the only option. Flanking should matter, it should be an effective tool to mitigate cover saves, a jungle is one thing, terrain that in no way physically obstructs models shouldn't be a thing. This would be an example of a bridge to far on the complexity vs time front. I want 5th ed terrain rules back, both players can still beat their heads against the wall in a pre game terrain dicussion, but at least there's a bed rock case to be made for less permeable terrain. GW has gone back and forth on melthing through walls since 5th and seeing as they will be shrinking the core rules to 12 pages, I can't see there being much on pathing or even impassable terrain. We'll have to count our blessing just getting a statement that other models are impassable.
I think a lot of the recurring issues people are having is that they use things like Ruins with bases attached and forget GW ruin terrain doesn't have bases. so the rule of "touching terrain AND the firing line passes through the terrain" means flanking does matter for gw ruins. The solution to sidewalks of doom is just...stop treating Ruins as area terrain, and make the only area terrain the much weaker stuff, like Craters, Swamps or whatever that grants much lesser cover.
If a guy's in a ruin, and a wall is between him and the firer, he's in a ruin. If not, he gets no cover.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
That's fair - its ruined for you - however it remains to be seen if it has been saved for others.....certainly the psychic phase seems a million times better than 7th, - depending on the powers of course - hopefully no 8th ed invisibility style brokeness.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
Except the majority seem to be on board. The facebook posts are certainly getting a very good reception. You don't like them, that doesn't mean your view is shared.
Besides, if you think either the psychic phase or morale looks worse than what we currently have, I don't know what to tell you - I'm not sure how anyone other than a masochist who thrives off poorly written rules and arguments could actually enjoy the 7e system for psychic powers.
That's probably inaccurate as well. I would say the majority are waiting to see, and probably most of them aren't posting at all. You have to remember the 50 or so posters in this thread (if there are that many( represent a very small minority of players and I would say its safe to say most repeat posters like what they have read of the rules. I would suspect there are plenty of people who fail to comment as they don't know what to think as of yet, or perhaps like some of the changes and dislike others.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
You may think the new rules are bad, but other people like them. That doesn't make them bad, that means you have the opinion of not liking them. I think most of the new rules are improvements and will result in a faster and more enjoyable game.
Daedalus81 wrote: And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?
Absolutely nothing, because my remaining 20 orks were Fearless and so didn't have to worry about sweeping advance? Now I stand to lose at least a handful of models?
Edit: and you're assuming the wounds were lost to CC. My example applied equally (if not more so) to being shot. A blob of 30 orks rarely loses CC by 10.
Assuming your character wasn't challenged out and eventually you'll be below 10. It's also pretty costly to make other units of orks like Nobz bigger than 10.
You're not going to be losing handfuls of models to morale unless you have ultra cheap models - like skeleton level.
One of the worst problems I have with 7th is the Mission rules. I hate the randomness of card drawing in Maelstrom but the Eternal War missions are too static until turns 4+. This is where 8th hinges for me. So far I like what I see (especially those rumors fro Faeit).
II so want to take this as gospel as well. There are things they could have extrapolated from AoS, but the way invulnerable saves work and other things that are similar, but changed in a really sensible way.
However, I can't underestimate someone's ability to be creative in their trolling. Maybe if we make a huge stink about it GW will have to release more info.
Spoiler:
zamerion wrote: Nobody post this? (its from faeit yes.. but sounds possible):
- Assault 2d6”, multiple units
- Split fire: any unit can target as many targets as they want
- Normally the unit don’t have to target the nearest unit, but there are lots of abilities that have this restriction
- Invulnerable saves simply ignore armour penetration up to the given value. They are not that common, wave serpents and Canoptek wraiths have one
- Most power fields, etc. are separate saves that are taken in addition to other saves just like FnP of today, they may or may not ignore mortal wounds on a case by case basis
- Dodges, camos, etc are now to hit modifiers
- Characters cannot join units
- Characters can only be targeted if nearest target or within 12”
- Larger models are seldom characters, Gulliman is not for example
- Deepstriking units can be placed anywhere. Every unit with deep strike has a value. Have to beat it to land on target, otherwise opposing player can move unit the rolled distance
- There are no mishaps anymore
- Overwatch shooting against deep striking units within 9” at -1 BS - Summoning is not a psychic ability anymore, normal deep striking with psyker as homing beacon instead
- There are spells that replenish or add wounds to demon squads
- Most vehicles have a single attack with high S, but no AP, some have considerably more like the battle waggon
- Vehicles and units fighting against vehicles usually can fall back without penalty, they cannot move in the charge phase when they have moved or shot in the same turn. Most walkers don’t have this rule
- Terrain enhances armour in assault phase for the defender, or both in consecutive turns, is negated by grenades
- Assaulting units get +1 attack
- Vertical movement does not count against the allowance but a model cannot go higher than the movement value in a given phase. Lots of exceptions for jumping, flying, etc. of course
Ranges are measured on the ground level from base or model to base or model, whichever is nearer
- Units are deployed within 3” of a transport, cannot move, but can charge in the charge phase
- No more firing from a transport, though some vehicles, especially open topped ones have extra firing points weapons if they transport enough (and sometimes eligible) models. But they use their own BS and the kind of weapon is fixed. For example Raiders have 5 fire point splinter rifles, but only if they transport kabalite warriors
- No challenges
- Hidden power fists viable again, wound allocation by owning player, any model in squad, but wounded ones first
- There are some precision weapons that let the firing player choose the wound allocation (always or on a 6)
- Units have always the same T and Save now. There are some models that have T- Sv - and adapt like drones and grots, most of the other combined units have matchings stats now, Black templar neophytes have a 3+ now, for whatever reason
- Command points allow to reroll saves, hits, wounding or charge distance, reroll any single dice throw, negate all terrain in 12” of one of your models, alter the attack sequence, boost psychic block rolls, allow additional reserves and allow units to get another charge phase after wiping out an enemy
- There are some models like Ghazghkull that have their own abilities that are triggered by command points
- perils of the war: snake eyes on the test, d6 on table, d3 mortal wounds and losing a spell are the worst cases
- Player can spend command points to choose who goes first instead of rolling, whoever spends more
- Matched games have a fixed number of turns, 5 or 6 rounds depending on mission, 18” is starting range and turn 1 charges are completely legal
- Reserves are not random, except for rounding: second turn half the units are deployed, third turn half of the remaining, fourth turn rest
- Flyers have an individual to hit modifier, mostly -2 or -3, a 6 is always a hit as usual, depends on the flying mode for flyers that have more than one
- Flyers are affected by heavy weapon malus, but most flyer weapons are assault,
flyer weapons have often a shorter range and a different name, but are otherwise identical to their ground counterparts
- Terrain does not influence movement distance per se. Some citadel terrain pieces half the movement or do other things.
- There are no warzone rules in the core rules
- True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain
- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want
Daedalus81 wrote: II so want to take this as gospel as well. There are things they could have extrapolated from AoS, but the way invulnerable saves work and other things that are similar, but changed in a really sensible way.
However, I can't underestimate someone's ability to be creative in their trolling. Maybe if we make a huge stink about it GW will have to release more info.
Spoiler:
zamerion wrote: Nobody post this? (its from faeit yes.. but sounds possible):
- Assault 2d6”, multiple units
- Split fire: any unit can target as many targets as they want
- Normally the unit don’t have to target the nearest unit, but there are lots of abilities that have this restriction
- Invulnerable saves simply ignore armour penetration up to the given value. They are not that common, wave serpents and Canoptek wraiths have one
- Most power fields, etc. are separate saves that are taken in addition to other saves just like FnP of today, they may or may not ignore mortal wounds on a case by case basis
- Dodges, camos, etc are now to hit modifiers
- Characters cannot join units
- Characters can only be targeted if nearest target or within 12”
- Larger models are seldom characters, Gulliman is not for example
- Deepstriking units can be placed anywhere. Every unit with deep strike has a value. Have to beat it to land on target, otherwise opposing player can move unit the rolled distance
- There are no mishaps anymore
- Overwatch shooting against deep striking units within 9” at -1 BS - Summoning is not a psychic ability anymore, normal deep striking with psyker as homing beacon instead
- There are spells that replenish or add wounds to demon squads
- Most vehicles have a single attack with high S, but no AP, some have considerably more like the battle waggon
- Vehicles and units fighting against vehicles usually can fall back without penalty, they cannot move in the charge phase when they have moved or shot in the same turn. Most walkers don’t have this rule
- Terrain enhances armour in assault phase for the defender, or both in consecutive turns, is negated by grenades
- Assaulting units get +1 attack
- Vertical movement does not count against the allowance but a model cannot go higher than the movement value in a given phase. Lots of exceptions for jumping, flying, etc. of course
Ranges are measured on the ground level from base or model to base or model, whichever is nearer
- Units are deployed within 3” of a transport, cannot move, but can charge in the charge phase
- No more firing from a transport, though some vehicles, especially open topped ones have extra firing points weapons if they transport enough (and sometimes eligible) models. But they use their own BS and the kind of weapon is fixed. For example Raiders have 5 fire point splinter rifles, but only if they transport kabalite warriors
- No challenges
- Hidden power fists viable again, wound allocation by owning player, any model in squad, but wounded ones first
- There are some precision weapons that let the firing player choose the wound allocation (always or on a 6)
- Units have always the same T and Save now. There are some models that have T- Sv - and adapt like drones and grots, most of the other combined units have matchings stats now, Black templar neophytes have a 3+ now, for whatever reason
- Command points allow to reroll saves, hits, wounding or charge distance, reroll any single dice throw, negate all terrain in 12” of one of your models, alter the attack sequence, boost psychic block rolls, allow additional reserves and allow units to get another charge phase after wiping out an enemy
- There are some models like Ghazghkull that have their own abilities that are triggered by command points
- perils of the war: snake eyes on the test, d6 on table, d3 mortal wounds and losing a spell are the worst cases
- Player can spend command points to choose who goes first instead of rolling, whoever spends more
- Matched games have a fixed number of turns, 5 or 6 rounds depending on mission, 18” is starting range and turn 1 charges are completely legal
- Reserves are not random, except for rounding: second turn half the units are deployed, third turn half of the remaining, fourth turn rest
- Flyers have an individual to hit modifier, mostly -2 or -3, a 6 is always a hit as usual, depends on the flying mode for flyers that have more than one
- Flyers are affected by heavy weapon malus, but most flyer weapons are assault,
flyer weapons have often a shorter range and a different name, but are otherwise identical to their ground counterparts
- Terrain does not influence movement distance per se. Some citadel terrain pieces half the movement or do other things.
- There are no warzone rules in the core rules
- True line of sight is used to establish line of sight to a model, but otherwise models count in or out of cover depending if they are in a piece of terrain or if they are touching it and the firing - line goes through the terrain
- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want
- Reserves are not random, except for rounding: second turn half the units are deployed, third turn half of the remaining, fourth turn rest
Faeit just updated the article with this disclaimer/rebuttal:
Please note that a valued source has confirmed that these are wildly off. Here is from a source we can trust about the rumors below
Some items are kinda correct due to the poster grabbing gw shares and sigmar rules, and basically throwing spaghetti at the wall. But most is either incomplete, somewhat off, or wildly off.
Charax wrote: Faeit just updated the article with this disclaimer/rebuttal:
Please note that a valued source has confirmed that these are wildly off. Here is from a source we can trust about the rumors below
Some items are kinda correct due to the poster grabbing gw shares and sigmar rules, and basically throwing spaghetti at the wall. But most is either incomplete, somewhat off, or wildly off.
privateer4hire wrote: "...You forgot that the MSU has also another 5 guys so both sides have same number left. Difference comes when you would lose more than 3 guys to battleshock...Say extra casualty from shooting so big unit would now be 3 left vs MSU 5 left.
OBVIOUSLY you don't compare 10 vs 5. You compare 10 vs 5 and 5."
So comparing 10 vs 5 and 5, let's just say that each unit suffers only 1 casualty each including the 10 man unit.
It appears one strategy is to spread attacks across the MSUs if you are attacked.
Maybe you shoot up one unit and assault like crazy with the other at each 5 man unit.
Or if it's not your turn, if they're both dogpiling your unit, you split your cc attacks across them.
Because each one that loses a unit is (unless they have a special rule in force) now has to take a battleshock test.
So either you too msu or he has 4 Small units vs your 2 big.
And causing 1 casualty to each unit to cause test lsbtw worse than combining fire against same target so if you do msu player is even happier.
I find your complaints on assault as it potentially stands very tough to follow. You don't think assault will be kind to hordes without special rules... and then are ticked that AoS is really helpful to hordes with those factions having rules that let them be good at the style of play they're oft associated with.
Yes. Again, if special rules are required to allow certain armies to function as intended, then there's something seriously wrong with the core rules.
Special rules should be there to add special stuff to armies... not to plug the holes created by core rules that don't take them into account.
. Are you truthfully saying that the only thing you want to seperate an IG blob and Orks is the stat line?
That's a bit of a simplification, but in general yes, that's pretty much what I want. That is, after all, the whole point of the statline. Everybody and his dog having special rules is fine in a small-scale skirmish game. In a game the size of 40K, it just makes things too complicated. Special rules should either apply to entire armies, or should apply to actual special things. Special rules on individual basic troop units should be avoided as much as humanly possible.
My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.
OK what? That is one of the silliest hurdles I have ever seen a person put up. Chess is a VERY basic core rule design and EVERY piece has it's special rules that let it function uniquely so it isn't just a pawn. What your doing here is making up a bullcrap standard to hold GW to. I have never heard anyone ever state that just because rules that let units interact properly in a simple coreset be located on the units card for ease of use, that somehow it's poor design. In fact, it's the total opposite and it's becoming cringe worthy just how par detached you are from playing this game. Can you name a table top miniature game with even one quarter of the models in 40k? Have you counted the number of units in the last decade? Making a core rules set that covers every u8nit and allows them to function uniquely and equally in a game so big would require a tomb of books thicker then the mess we have now. Even playing a 500pt skirmish as you say can take a dogs age because of all those massive books of core rules.
With the design of 8th, the rules scale appropriately with the game size. A 500 point game will have 1-3 scrolls, while a 2500 pt game could have 12. It's actually a very ellegant design that MANY other smaller games have been doing for years without this double standard you have constructed.
Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?
Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.
Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.
This doesn't make sense, how is losing 25 more ork boyz to a sweeping advance without mob rule because 5 died cascading wounds? See how your tailoring the argument as you go? Yea I would say your argument is poor design.
I feel horde armies are not effective in AoS but don't feel this is down to battleshock.
Skaven Verminpack, Flesh Eater Court Ghoul Patrol, are two of the top, top armies in AoS right now. In fact, in scenarios a lack of bodies/elite armies is proving to be what makes many strong lists non-winners at tournaments.
So I've begun work on building my Scouring era Black Templars to run in this new edition and shot GW a message on Facebook about wargear options which they were kind enough to ping back on this morning: all wargear options that are legal now will still be legal. Fingers crossed this means MSU Sisters and Templars can still run a special and a heavy at 5 models and that I won't need to take 10 Initiates just to field a heavy weapon in my units as I'm starting my build focused around a Initiate/Neophyte mix.
On a different note: Indepent characters not being able to join units makes sense to me on a rules level, and doesn't prevent your IC from hiding in a crowd of other bodies to gain a cover bonus, but I can see the frustration on how them being alone would ruin everyone's day. I have a couple expectations for the rules if this is the case, but these are just my expectations not any solid information of how it will actually work:
+ IC rules will become keyword bubbles instead of shared strictly with a single unit (like a Hatred Bubble for units with the Astartes keyword in, say, 6" of a Chaplain)
+ ICs being able to hitch rides in friendly transports as long as enough room is available in them (AoS has one that lets you do this, so it's not an unreasonable direction)
+ Retinues will come back properly and will be a way for the IC to gain a proper unit of bodies that can protect them from sniping (mass speculation here but as many armies have retinue options for their ICs I'd be more surprised if this wasn't the case)
+ lone ICs will have the ability to pawn wounds off to nearby units Look Out Sir style to help reduce sniping.
+ ICs in general will have a lot of wounds and likely be immune to Instant Death based mechanics.
On a different note I haven't looked at AoS in a while but I'm willing to bet chariots are likely going to be single statline models now and likely blend the toughness of the chariot with the killyness of the rider.
That being said, you can most definitely "use" your models, but might not be able to use them as they were once intended.
"Current & sell today" are the keywords.
At any given moment they could stop selling something and say "Currently out of stock" or "Currently discontinued." I'd imagine OOP models are usable as models go, but you'd have to use them with new stats if they are no longer a valid unit. "Counts as" basically.
"Sell today" is ambiguous too, because at any given moment if they stop selling a model, it still stands true to their word.
Interesting - so given the whole time marches on spiel - are we going into the 42nd Millennium?
Doubtful. It sounds like there using "the Warp did it" to explain any changes they wish to make. With some parts of the Galaxy in virtual stasis and others jumping ahead centuries, relative to Terra I imagine. Essentially anything can now be justified. Such as huge leaps in Tau interstellar capability, or Nids having wiped whole sectors of life. Or former Imperial world having suffered centuries of daemonic infestation or Xeno domination. All while still remaining at the close of the 41st millennium. It's a clever in universe cheat.
"- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want"
If that ended up being true, that would be a giant FU to anyone who modeled their stuff with a different base because of their previous "use whatever base you want" policy. Hopefully that's one of the wildly inaccurate ones.
I can see the base thing being a rule to prevent conversions being used to gain a larger foot print for consolidation abuse and the like. Strict base size isn't a bad thing for competition, but it does cause some problems with GW's whole "you can use old base sizes for the old models" thing.
This is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of situations it seems.
Crablezworth wrote: A bunch of 140$ leath bound paperweights are actually a pretty big reminder to never take the wallet out again. Especially if we never get answers for inferno.
They already are. The red books have changed/updated a lot of the units in the original black books, including point costs. The black books are for the story, legion histories, and campaign rules/games.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can see the base thing being a rule to prevent conversions being used to gain a larger foot print for consolidation abuse and the like. Strict base size isn't a bad thing for competition, but it does cause some problems with GW's whole "you can use old base sizes for the old models" thing.
This is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of situations it seems.
Woops..... i put a bunch of my cooler character models and wobbly human sized things on the 30s
Crablezworth wrote: A bunch of 140$ leath bound paperweights are actually a pretty big reminder to never take the wallet out again. Especially if we never get answers for inferno.
They already are. The red books have changed/updated a lot of the units in the original black books, including point costs. The black books are for the story, legion histories, and campaign rules/games.
they basically invalided previous stuff at least 8 or less times from editions to edition.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can see the base thing being a rule to prevent conversions being used to gain a larger foot print for consolidation abuse and the like. Strict base size isn't a bad thing for competition, but it does cause some problems with GW's whole "you can use old base sizes for the old models" thing.
This is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of situations it seems.
Big issue with that is that some people would literally be forced to buy new models or even armies just to play with...
Come to think I don't think I would have legal marine army anymore for matched play! So basically about 300 models or so invalidated from matched play...
"Please note that a valued source has confirmed that these are wildly off. Here is from a source we can trust about the rumors below
Some items are kinda correct due to the poster grabbing gw shares and sigmar rules, and basically throwing spaghetti at the wall. But most is either incomplete, somewhat off, or wildly off. "
Interesting - so given the whole time marches on spiel - are we going into the 42nd Millennium?
Doubtful. It sounds like there using "the Warp did it" to explain any changes they wish to make. With some parts of the Galaxy in virtual stasis and others jumping ahead centuries, relative to Terra I imagine. Essentially anything can now be justified. Such as huge leaps in Tau interstellar capability, or Nids having wiped whole sectors of life. Or former Imperial world having suffered centuries of daemonic infestation or Xeno domination. All while still remaining at the close of the 41st millennium. It's a clever in universe cheat.
They might use this to bring back more "dead" primarchs from the past.
JimOnMars wrote: They might use this to bring back more "dead" primarchs from the past.
They don't need "warp did it" for THAT many. Ready to come back without that much issues(apart from issue of primarch coming back in the first place): Lion, Russ, Khan, Vulkan, all chaos primarches except Horus, Alpharius/Omegon, Curze.
Really only ones that requires hefty "warp did it" would be Horus, Sanguinius, Ferrus and to a degree Dorn(though he COULD be explained without warp though would still be raising eyebrows) plus above 3 chaos ones.
Plus obviously the 2 missing ones would require some VERY HEAVY "warp did it" handwavium
So I shot GW a message on FB about some potential changes to wargear loadouts and got a reply. So first, my message:
So with this new editon and the look of pistols no longer serving to be close combat weapons does this mean we'll be seeing the issuance of knives and chainswords to our loyalist models standard?
I only ask because everyone seems to always have a knife, chainsword or bayonet in the lore (and the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer states it to be a part of a Guardsman's required kit) but on the table top that's never seen outside of specific army builds.
If you can't answer now a little article about it as a teaser this month would be good too! I'm sure a lot of us just want a better idea how war is going to be waged going into the new edition and would appreciate the insight.
And their reply:
Hey [REDACTED] - that's a great question! It does indeed sound like an article. Watch this space!
So it looks like there IS a change (potentially in the "everyone gets something to stab people with" direction (I hope), but the details will become an article in the future instead of a FB message.
JimOnMars wrote: They might use this to bring back more "dead" primarchs from the past.
They don't need "warp did it" for THAT many. Ready to come back without that much issues(apart from issue of primarch coming back in the first place): Lion, Russ, Khan, Vulkan, all chaos primarches except Horus, Alpharius/Omegon, Curze.
Really only ones that requires hefty "warp did it" would be Horus, Sanguinius, Ferrus and to a degree Dorn(though he COULD be explained without warp though would still be raising eyebrows) plus above 3 chaos ones.
Plus obviously the 2 missing ones would require some VERY HEAVY "warp did it" handwavium
I dunno about Curze, he seems pretty dead. And his story sort of came full-circle in that his death was a meaningful vindication for him.
Hope the base thing isn't a rule in 40k. The reason I say that is because my PAGK are on 32mm bases. All of my marines are on 25mm bases because that was the bases they were sold on in 1989. My eldar are also all on 25mm because well, I last played them in 2nd edition.
skarsol wrote: "- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want"
If that ended up being true, that would be a giant FU to anyone who modeled their stuff with a different base because of their previous "use whatever base you want" policy. Hopefully that's one of the wildly inaccurate ones.
I have a 2nd/3rd ed 7,000pt marine army on which all terminators (15 + characters) are still on their original 25mm bases. If no one objects, I use them on those. For players who think I'm trying to score an advantage (usually younger players who never saw them officially sold/used), I have some wood 40mm primed black bases that I bring with just in case and put them on top. That said, it's alot easier when your talking about a small subsection of the army (terminators) instead of the majority. I wouldn't relish having to do that with the 50-60 normal marines still on 25mm bases instead of the current 30mm included ones (or are they 32mm?).
skarsol wrote: "- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want"
If that ended up being true, that would be a giant FU to anyone who modeled their stuff with a different base because of their previous "use whatever base you want" policy. Hopefully that's one of the wildly inaccurate ones.
I have a 2nd/3rd ed 7,000pt marine army on which all terminators (15 + characters) are still on their original 25mm bases. If no one objects, I use them on those. For players who think I'm trying to score an advantage (usually younger players who never saw them officially sold/used), I have some wood 40mm primed black bases that I bring with just in case and put them on top.
Good idea! I'm more concerned with basic marines having moved to 32mm. That's a LOT of rebasing (temporary or otherwise).
Wait, was Rowboat always "Lord Commander of the Imperium's armies"? I'm not exactly up to speed with the SM fluff (in fact it's been not since 5th that I've actually even read their codex), but wasn't the purpose of breaking all of the Legions into 1000-man strong chapters to keep any one group from becoming too powerful again?
daedalus wrote: Wait, was Rowboat always "Lord Commander of the Imperium's armies"? I'm not exactly up to speed with the SM fluff (in fact it's been not since 5th that I've actually even read their codex), but wasn't the purpose of breaking all of the Legions into 1000-man strong chapters to keep any one group from becoming too powerful again?
skarsol wrote: "- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want"
If that ended up being true, that would be a giant FU to anyone who modeled their stuff with a different base because of their previous "use whatever base you want" policy. Hopefully that's one of the wildly inaccurate ones.
I have a 2nd/3rd ed 7,000pt marine army on which all terminators (15 + characters) are still on their original 25mm bases. If no one objects, I use them on those. For players who think I'm trying to score an advantage (usually younger players who never saw them officially sold/used), I have some wood 40mm primed black bases that I bring with just in case and put them on top. That said, it's alot easier when your talking about a small subsection of the army (terminators) instead of the majority. I wouldn't relish having to do that with the 50-60 normal marines still on 25mm bases instead of the current 30mm included ones (or are they 32mm?).
Ditto, I just blu-tac my older Terminators onto 40mm bases in the rare event that anyone objects.
I have no desire to rebase several hundred Marines from 25 to 32mm bases though.
It would be kinda funny to see all the people who bought the Forge World Avatar trying to fit him onto a 40mm base though.
daedalus wrote: Wait, was Rowboat always "Lord Commander of the Imperium's armies"? I'm not exactly up to speed with the SM fluff (in fact it's been not since 5th that I've actually even read their codex), but wasn't the purpose of breaking all of the Legions into 1000-man strong chapters to keep any one group from becoming too powerful again?
He coronated himself as that title, so... yeah. The hipocrisy is strong in him
JimOnMars wrote: They might use this to bring back more "dead" primarchs from the past.
They don't need "warp did it" for THAT many. Ready to come back without that much issues(apart from issue of primarch coming back in the first place): Lion, Russ, Khan, Vulkan, all chaos primarches except Horus, Alpharius/Omegon, Curze.
Really only ones that requires hefty "warp did it" would be Horus, Sanguinius, Ferrus and to a degree Dorn(though he COULD be explained without warp though would still be raising eyebrows) plus above 3 chaos ones.
Plus obviously the 2 missing ones would require some VERY HEAVY "warp did it" handwavium
I dunno about Curze, he seems pretty dead. And his story sort of came full-circle in that his death was a meaningful vindication for him.
That's why I put him with Horus and Alph/Om as the chaos primarches who would be very difficult to explain without "warp did it"
Rest are all alive so don't really require much justification for coming active in lore again. But those 3(4) are killed and in case of Horus was annihilated body AND soul.
Curze coming back would either require some heavy retconning(no he was not killed. he faked it) taking out one of the cooler parts of his fluff(him deliberately letting himself killed to vindicate himself by proving Imperium is no better than he was. Also fulfilling his prophecy. It would kill him mentally if his visions wouldn't be 100% true after all) or some serious "warp did it" justification.
daedalus wrote: Wait, was Rowboat always "Lord Commander of the Imperium's armies"? I'm not exactly up to speed with the SM fluff (in fact it's been not since 5th that I've actually even read their codex), but wasn't the purpose of breaking all of the Legions into 1000-man strong chapters to keep any one group from becoming too powerful again?
He was the leader the the High Lords of Terra (and a representative stood in for him in his name in the time between the Heresy and now), so it's not a stretch to say he's in charge of the Imperium before, though it looks like things were taken a step further and he's basically the Emperor 2: Electric Boogaloo at the moment.
The position of Lord Commander of the Imperium, first held by Roboute Guilliman, continued after his wounding at the hands of Fulgrim. There were still holders of the title, often simply referred to as "Lord Guilliman" in the Primarch's honor, until at least mid-M32. The Lord Commander served as the Chairman of the Senatorum.
With the destruction of Cadia and Chaos all over the place like a cheap suit, these are desperate times, so yeah, assuming the Lord Commander mantle is justified in my book.
Asmodai wrote:Ditto, I just blu-tac my older Terminators onto 40mm bases in the rare event that anyone objects.
I have no desire to rebase several hundred Marines from 25 to 32mm bases though.
It would be kinda funny to see all the people who bought the Forge World Avatar trying to fit him onto a 40mm base though.
Leaping into the air on one foot on a 40mm base? Or converting him into a Captain Morgan pose on a slanted rock? Yeah, no real good answers there. I too am curious to see what the official stance on this will be.
docdoom77 wrote:Good idea! I'm more concerned with basic marines having moved to 32mm. That's a LOT of rebasing (temporary or otherwise).
Thanks... and I share that concern. Like I said, it's a different story to do so with 3 squads of 5 terminators plus a handful of characters when the base size jump is so drastic compared with when you have to do it with 6 full squads plus triple the number of characters for a half step base size increase relatively. I know there are conversion broken rings out there to just snap onto the 25mm bases but they're not cheap when you're talking about 70ish models worth. I'm not sure that it's worth it for a 20 year old nostaliga army with all OOP models (except for a few 2nd character models they've kept) for a game that I've increasingly disliked mechanically for two editions. I've got 5 main armies (roughly one space marine classic 7k, newer all terminator marines 3k, tau 3k, eldar 3k, IG 3k) and I only bothered to update one fully to 7th edition... and played with it twice IIRC.
warboss wrote: Thanks... and I share that concern. Like I said, it's a different story to do so with 3 squads of 5 terminators plus a handful of characters when the base size jump is so drastic compared with when you have to do it with 6 full squads plus triple the number of characters for a half step base size increase relatively.
Noob I have like 200 blood angels alone! Plus dark angels and space wolves...Vehicles are in dire lack though.
Yeah ain't going to rebase those. Too much trouble. If I'm out of tournaments due to that then I'm out of tournaments.
skarsol wrote: "- In matched play, models have a fixed base size specified in the General’s Handbook. In the two other game types, they can use any base they want"
If that ended up being true, that would be a giant FU to anyone who modeled their stuff with a different base because of their previous "use whatever base you want" policy. Hopefully that's one of the wildly inaccurate ones.
I have a 2nd/3rd ed 7,000pt marine army on which all terminators (15 + characters) are still on their original 25mm bases. If no one objects, I use them on those. For players who think I'm trying to score an advantage (usually younger players who never saw them officially sold/used), I have some wood 40mm primed black bases that I bring with just in case and put them on top. That said, it's alot easier when your talking about a small subsection of the army (terminators) instead of the majority. I wouldn't relish having to do that with the 50-60 normal marines still on 25mm bases instead of the current 30mm included ones (or are they 32mm?).
Ditto, I just blu-tac my older Terminators onto 40mm bases in the rare event that anyone objects.
I have no desire to rebase several hundred Marines from 25 to 32mm bases though.
It would be kinda funny to see all the people who bought the Forge World Avatar trying to fit him onto a 40mm base though.
Seriously have never seen that model placed on an actual table top. I thought that and the FW Keeper of Secrets were sculpts for display only.
warboss wrote: Thanks... and I share that concern. Like I said, it's a different story to do so with 3 squads of 5 terminators plus a handful of characters when the base size jump is so drastic compared with when you have to do it with 6 full squads plus triple the number of characters for a half step base size increase relatively.
Noob I have like 200 blood angels alone! Plus dark angels and space wolves...Vehicles are in dire lack though.
Yeah ain't going to rebase those. Too much trouble. If I'm out of tournaments due to that then I'm out of tournaments.
I sort of did that kind of thing.
My BA/DA armies were 100% GW My Space Wolves were 80% GW My Guard were 20% GW
whembly wrote: Guys... I doubt anyone would care. Just as long as it's not an obvious 'gaming the system' sort of thing.
You'd be surprised. It happened to me multiple times in 5th edition in random friendly pick up games and that was 5 years closer to the models' original release dates AND with an official rule saying they were completely legal... in the South where supposedly (at least superficially) people are "friendlier" than in other parts of the country. It's amazing how many folks speak with utter certainty from a position of complete ignorance. I've had my metal 2nd ed terminator called illegal because of the bases and my old RT rhinos and land raider "toys" that I modelled to gain an advantage. There is a reason I carry around those 40mm wood underbases just in case (as well as my 3rd edition codex showing that the metal dreads, landspeeders, and plastic vehicles were in fact official). YMMV. Not even having an official rule allowing me to use them to fall back on would make the situation even harder although I fully admit I see the reasons why GW would discontinue some of that support (namely 25mm terminators). I wouldn't find discontinuing support for 25mm regular marines though to be reasonable given it was just changed this edition iirc and even then was only a partial rollout so far (although I haven't kept track recently... did they change all the older marine plastic kits to 32mm bases?). I also admit that I don't see an easy yet equitable way to partially rollout the change with a rule as well.
Smaller bases would be more of a detriment in 5th-7th editions over-all as you could fit more dudes under a blast template. They'll be over all closer together to maintain 2" coherency between smaller bases than larger ones.
In 5th, they had the "use the base the model comes with" rule, and I'd have zero problems with people using the small bases with old school terminators. I had a buddy whose tyrannids came with square bases back in the day (the old, metal psycher ones, I believe). Square! In 40k!
Back on topic, I'd be fine with you using your old bases in 8th edition.
kronk wrote: Smaller bases would be more of a detriment in 5th-7th editions over-all as you could fit more dudes under a blast template. They'll be over all closer together to maintain 2" coherency between smaller bases than larger ones.
In 5th, they had the "use the base the model comes with" rule, and I'd have zero problems with people using the small bases with old school terminators. I had a buddy whose tyrannids came with square bases back in the day (the old, metal psycher ones, I believe). Square! In 40k!
Back on topic, I'd be fine with you using your old bases in 8th edition.
Well, if I ever moved back to North Chicago then I'd be up for a game. In the meantime, I recommend the Rockland Cafe in Lake Bluff assuming they still exist.
I obviously didn't have an issue with people using the older bases for models that came with them. I did actually give a base free to a friend who based his modern terminator character on a 25mm base despite it coming with a 40mm one so that it would match another character he had that actually came on a 25mm one. I kept telling him that he would be ruining it for the rest of us (including himself) if he tried using Belial converted from a modern plastic kit on a 25mm base.
I do own a 3d printer. I am pretty sure there is these strangle little rings that go around a 25mm base to make them a 32mm base. I am more worried about the fact my PAGK came with 25mm bases in the box and I moved them upto 32mm bases because they look better.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: With the destruction of Cadia and Chaos all over the place like a cheap suit, these are desperate times, so yeah, assuming the Lord Commander mantle is justified in my book.
Yeah, what could go wrong with a Primarch having a position of complete authority over the military of the Imperium.
O bought lychguard after the reboxing this fall. 25mm bases, pissed me off. There are some boxes that still have the wrong base size in them which is annoying, I understand if it's the old packaging, but it shouldn't be in the newer boxes.
warboss wrote: Thanks... and I share that concern. Like I said, it's a different story to do so with 3 squads of 5 terminators plus a handful of characters when the base size jump is so drastic compared with when you have to do it with 6 full squads plus triple the number of characters for a half step base size increase relatively.
Noob I have like 200 blood angels alone! Plus dark angels and space wolves...Vehicles are in dire lack though.
Yeah ain't going to rebase those. Too much trouble. If I'm out of tournaments due to that then I'm out of tournaments.
Aha, then I do maintain a small situation advantage! Mine are all veterans of the 3rd edition rhino rush days and are almost all mounted or equipped with jump packs (also blood angels). Heck, I even had a full complement of 3rd edition drop pods! (of course, back then there was no model and you just used the 5" blast template and deep strike rules so there is that... )
I've never been a tourney gamer (despite going once to one of the earliest adepticons and playing some very small local tournies) but I've found that the tourney mentality bleeds over frequently to supposedly "friendly" pick up games.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: With the destruction of Cadia and Chaos all over the place like a cheap suit, these are desperate times, so yeah, assuming the Lord Commander mantle is justified in my book.
Yeah, what could go wrong with a Primarch having a position of complete authority over the military of the Imperium.
Red Corsair wrote: O bought lychguard after the reboxing this fall. 25mm bases, pissed me off. There are some boxes that still have the wrong base size in them which is annoying, I understand if it's the old packaging, but it shouldn't be in the newer boxes.
So you mailed Geedubs and got replacements ent, yes? Cos they'd do that in a heartbeat.
I'm nor doing any panicking over rumours. Even then, I'll play people with more sense of fun than to try "Your Marines are on 25mm I AUTO WIN HAH!"
Yea, so people will need to be on proper bases for tournaments. Otherwise those 25mm termies will be cramming way more attack in than those on 40mm.
Yes and no. Tournaments can decide to do whatever the hell they want. If GW said "you measure from the model, not the base" like in AOS, the vast majority of the player base would just ignore that rule.
Yes and no. Tournaments can decide to do whatever the hell they want. If GW said "you measure from the model, not the base" like in AOS, the vast majority of the player base would just ignore that rule.
GW for sure won't take a harsh stance. This is just a word of caution for those expecting to play small bases in tournaments - you'll have a hard time finding groups that allow it.
Ick, that's both an unnecessary complication of the melee rules, and a big nerf to the previous be in the front row or within 2 inches of the front row rule.
Now being behind the front rank mostly disqualifies you from hitting.
Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
I wouldn't count on a ton of weapons having longer than a 1" range. Pole weapons and Lances are about the only thing I would expect. And that will require balancing anyway since a longer reach weapon should cost more than a short one.
But, it does make the fact I am leaning Taser Lance over Radium Jezzail a little easier on me.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.
That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.
ClockworkZion wrote: Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
ClockworkZion wrote: Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
Its a HUGE nerf to horde armies!
Hard to overstate, in fact. Before you could expect about three rows of Hormagaunts to get to attack.
Hrrrrmmm - melee weapon ranges is* sorta* cool, except that a bolter should have a melee weapon range of like 24". Does this mean that ONLY troops within an inch can fight? That is potentially cool, and also potentially a huge pain in the butt - and base size matters. I line up my ultrakilly death guys in a line vs. your horde. If you're on 32mm bases, only one guy can fight each of my guys because one base back is more than an inch away. Probably you can cram in a bit more than that, but not much. While a line of elite dudes holding back the tide is great, A) base size really counts and I have no intention of rebasing, B) you could see serious arguments about how many dudes can fight, and C) they may not have bothers balancing that.
ClockworkZion wrote: Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
Its a HUGE nerf to horde armies!
On paper and taking into consideration the piddling amount of information about the new edition and the various melee weapons in the game, yes that is true. But this game was play tested very heavily and I can't imagine that a kick in the shins like this would really make it past all that extra work without being addressed and handled.
Let's save any panic over how bad the game is until we can actually try it out. Without everything in front of us it's easy to claim all sorts of things are basically worthless, nerfed to death, ect, but without everything we're just jumping at shadows.
With most infantry type models (25-40mm bases), you'll typically be getting two staggered rows attacking with a 1" range weapon. If you have a 2" range weapon, you'll typically get 3 staggered rows. It depends on specific placement. There are a few 3" range weapons, but those are rare. Halberds and the like. I could see the Custodes Guardian Spear being a 2-3" range weapon.
Given that different models have different weapons, it makes sense that a dude with a spear can reach more models than a dude with a dagger.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.
That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
OK what? That is one of the silliest hurdles I have ever seen a person put up. Chess is a VERY basic core rule design and EVERY piece has it's special rules that let it function uniquely so it isn't just a pawn.
And, again, that isn't the problem. You've misunderstood what I was saying.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.
That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
There's a precedent for Space Marines taking over when the High Lords have screwed things up though.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.
That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
Back when he held the seat the mortals of the High Lords of Terra were people appointed by the Emperor and Malcador, they'd likely defer to RG's decisions out of respect to him being the Big E's son.
ClockworkZion wrote: Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
Its a HUGE nerf to horde armies!
On paper and taking into consideration the piddling amount of information about the new edition and the various melee weapons in the game, yes that is true. But this game was play tested very heavily and I can't imagine that a kick in the shins like this would really make it past all that extra work without being addressed and handled.
Let's save any panic over how bad the game is until we can actually try it out. Without everything in front of us it's easy to claim all sorts of things are basically worthless, nerfed to death, ect, but without everything we're just jumping at shadows.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
There is a video on Youtube were GW themselves explain piling in in AoS. The rule basically says, if you can move closer to a model you are allowed to pile in. He then goes into explaining the model 1/2" away from a model can pile in to the other side of the model. And the models behind him may move forward. But the models that are behind other models run into an issue that they cannot pile in because they aren't able to move closer to the fight.
It is very clear on how pile in works at least for AoS. And since, these two systems appear to be identical. I would guess they work the same.
Red Corsair wrote: O bought lychguard after the reboxing this fall. 25mm bases, pissed me off. There are some boxes that still have the wrong base size in them which is annoying, I understand if it's the old packaging, but it shouldn't be in the newer boxes.
So you mailed Geedubs and got replacements ent, yes? Cos they'd do that in a heartbeat.
I'm nor doing any panicking over rumours. Even then, I'll play people with more sense of fun than to try "Your Marines are on 25mm I AUTO WIN HAH!"
Thats not the point, I had MDF 32mm bases for the whole army already, but what annoyed me was the box art had them on 32mm as it was the new packaging yet the box actually it was 4 boxes all had 25mm.
ClockworkZion wrote: Back when he held the seat the mortals of the High Lords of Terra were people appointed by the Emperor and Malcador, they'd likely defer to RG's decisions out of respect to him being the Big E's son.
But that's just my speculation of course.
True his view obviously held quite an authority in itself. But he didn't have absolute command like Horus had when he was Warmaster. Whole point was to prevent 2nd Horus.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
I don't think it has been said that he has any sort of ultimate authority, at least not de jure. He is 'just' one of the High Lords. I'm sure the other High Lords could oppose him if they had balls to do so.
No, that's just what Guilliman wants you to think. The whole point was to hand over the ultimate authority (or as close as he could manage) to Guilliman.
With most infantry type models (25-40mm bases), you'll typically be getting two staggered rows attacking with a 1" range weapon. If you have a 2" range weapon, you'll typically get 3 staggered rows. It depends on specific placement. There are a few 3" range weapons, but those are rare. Halberds and the like. I could see the Custodes Guardian Spear being a 2-3" range weapon.
Given that different models have different weapons, it makes sense that a dude with a spear can reach more models than a dude with a dagger.
That's not "fine". If GW is trying to speed up the game then a 2" kill zone was super quick now you have measure each individual models weapon range to an opposing model? There was no reason to introduce a weapons range when 2" from a friendly model in BTB worked great for many editions.
There aren't a lot of primarchs left to say he cannot have his position back. And I doubt any space marines would ever question the word of a primarch. They are kind of brainwashed to believe everything related to them.
Youn wrote: There aren't a lot of primarchs left to say he cannot have his position back. And I doubt any space marines would ever question the word of a primarch. They are kind of brainwashed to believe everything related to them.
Except it's been 10,000 years since any has seen one and during the Heresy you had a ton that rebelled against their own Primarch.
OK what? That is one of the silliest hurdles I have ever seen a person put up. Chess is a VERY basic core rule design and EVERY piece has it's special rules that let it function uniquely so it isn't just a pawn.
And, again, that isn't the problem. You've misunderstood what I was saying.
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
ClockworkZion wrote: Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.
Its a HUGE nerf to horde armies!
On paper and taking into consideration the piddling amount of information about the new edition and the various melee weapons in the game, yes that is true. But this game was play tested very heavily and I can't imagine that a kick in the shins like this would really make it past all that extra work without being addressed and handled.
Let's save any panic over how bad the game is until we can actually try it out. Without everything in front of us it's easy to claim all sorts of things are basically worthless, nerfed to death, ect, but without everything we're just jumping at shadows.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
It was tested by Tournament Organizers who usually spend all their time trying to re-balance 40k into something playable in a competitive setting. Your hyperbole is noted though and frankly is as unhelpful to any true discussion over the changes the edition is bringing as it is uninformative of the actual facts involved.
So basically the typical knee-jerk reaction that I should expect from the internet.
Stepping back for the new rules is probably the best move though. I'm still rather excited but I liked what AoS looked like when it came out and this looks like AoS 2.0. It has a lot from AoS, but hasn't stripped the game down completely. Plus we're gaining new levels of granularity. Concealment (like Smoke Launchers) has a to-hit penalty while cover (like walls) increases armour saves. The modifiers won't likely be huge, but it's enough to already start pushing tactics on which is the best protection for a given model at a given time. Not to mention stacking both means you become harder to hit and hurt.
Youn wrote: There aren't a lot of primarchs left to say he cannot have his position back. And I doubt any space marines would ever question the word of a primarch. They are kind of brainwashed to believe everything related to them.
Except it's been 10,000 years since any has seen one and during the Heresy you had a ton that rebelled against their own Primarch.
Looking at how some chapters treat the Codex Astartes, I'd say the brainwashing is still real.
With most infantry type models (25-40mm bases), you'll typically be getting two staggered rows attacking with a 1" range weapon. If you have a 2" range weapon, you'll typically get 3 staggered rows. It depends on specific placement. There are a few 3" range weapons, but those are rare. Halberds and the like. I could see the Custodes Guardian Spear being a 2-3" range weapon.
Given that different models have different weapons, it makes sense that a dude with a spear can reach more models than a dude with a dagger.
That's not "fine". If GW is trying to speed up the game then a 2" kill zone was super quick now you have measure each individual models weapon range to an opposing model? There was no reason to introduce a weapons range when 2" from a friendly model in BTB worked great for many editions.
How could measuring everyone within 1" of an enemy model be any more difficult than measuring everyone within 2" of one of your own models in base to base? In fact, it's easier, since you don't have to care about who is in base to base and who fell just short of base to base. It's actually much easier.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
A bunch of great people who do tons for the community. Who'se events have narrative components, apocalypse games, events with dozens of tables dedicated to playing fluffy games.
Honestly, what have YOU done to have any kind of expectation that you can judge the effort of people like that?
Further, there are plenty of people interested in narrative play and completely divorced from the competition scene that have worked on the game as well. They're all in the same building where the fluff, rules and models are created and have been putting 'narrative' into the game for 30+ years now.
You should be less dismissive of people who have poured years of work into making a comunity; their events (adpeticon, nova, ITC) all have components for people who don't want to play WAAC games, including large scale campaigns, painting and hoby compeitions and even showcase for new and exciting games/products.
Have you ever even been to nova or adepticon? The grand tournaments are only a small fraction of what happens, and the people who run those events are VERY well placed to give incredibly valuable insight into how the game should be adjusted for improovement.
With most infantry type models (25-40mm bases), you'll typically be getting two staggered rows attacking with a 1" range weapon. If you have a 2" range weapon, you'll typically get 3 staggered rows. It depends on specific placement. There are a few 3" range weapons, but those are rare. Halberds and the like. I could see the Custodes Guardian Spear being a 2-3" range weapon.
Given that different models have different weapons, it makes sense that a dude with a spear can reach more models than a dude with a dagger.
I was imagining 40K combat as more cinematic, in fact, I think one of the editions described it as a swirling melee. To me, that meant Lelith Hesperax was travelling across the combat and back doing backflips and what not in a single phase, not standing in the front rank and stabbing someone 8 times with her knife.
Youn wrote: There is a video on Youtube were GW themselves explain piling in in AoS. The rule basically says, if you can move closer to a model you are allowed to pile in. He then goes into explaining the model 1/2" away from a model can pile in to the other side of the model. And the models behind him may move forward. But the models that are behind other models run into an issue that they cannot pile in because they aren't able to move closer to the fight.
It is very clear on how pile in works at least for AoS. And since, these two systems appear to be identical. I would guess they work the same.
A downright surreal video frankly. The way he piles in looks like an elaborate WAAC interpretation of "if you aren't touching the enemy you can move 3 inches closer to the enemy"
And yet that's the intent. Extremely gamey and convoluted when it would have been simpler to just allow models to sidestep for their friends.
Youn wrote: There aren't a lot of primarchs left to say he cannot have his position back. And I doubt any space marines would ever question the word of a primarch. They are kind of brainwashed to believe everything related to them.
a) getting position back isn't issue. Issue is whether that gives him ultimate authority over armies or not. Haven't read gathering storm 3 so can't comment on that but at least before he was stasified he didn't have ultimate authority
b) even if marines would follow him absolutely that wouldn't be enough for Guillimann to rebel. He would need bit more than that. And by bit I mean LOT MORE.
With most infantry type models (25-40mm bases), you'll typically be getting two staggered rows attacking with a 1" range weapon. If you have a 2" range weapon, you'll typically get 3 staggered rows. It depends on specific placement. There are a few 3" range weapons, but those are rare. Halberds and the like. I could see the Custodes Guardian Spear being a 2-3" range weapon.
Given that different models have different weapons, it makes sense that a dude with a spear can reach more models than a dude with a dagger.
That's not "fine". If GW is trying to speed up the game then a 2" kill zone was super quick now you have measure each individual models weapon range to an opposing model? There was no reason to introduce a weapons range when 2" from a friendly model in BTB worked great for many editions.
How could measuring everyone within 1" of an enemy model be any more difficult than measuring everyone within 2" of one of your own models in base to base? In fact, it's easier, since you don't have to care about who is in base to base and who fell just short of base to base. It's actually much easier.
1" is 25.4mm, or just over the size of the most common base in the game. You don't even need to measure if you're in B2B contact.
Something that's been rolling around in my mind is that weapon ranges do a couple of things:
1. Choices matter more than they did when melee was based on AP values alone. A possible situation is Big Choppas with a 2" range over a 1" Power Klaw. Do you want more models to be able to strike to do more dice, or do you want to focus on the quality of your attacks.
2. The changes are part of a method to try and balance out horde vs small units in melee. Decreasing how many models can engage at the same time (without taking wargear options to do so) means that balancing could be more finely tuned. If you need to buy the ability to deal extra wounds with more models then it's worth the change.
3. There was play testing involved in this and I'm willing to bet among all of the stuff going on someone ran a horde army of some kind. The 1" thing isn't going to break horde armies, and if it somehow does, we have a living ruleset, that means feedback can change this for the better.
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
Youn wrote: There aren't a lot of primarchs left to say he cannot have his position back. And I doubt any space marines would ever question the word of a primarch. They are kind of brainwashed to believe everything related to them.
a) getting position back isn't issue. Issue is whether that gives him ultimate authority over armies or not. Haven't read gathering storm 3 so can't comment on that but at least before he was stasified he didn't have ultimate authority
b) even if marines would follow him absolutely that wouldn't be enough for Guillimann to rebel. He would need bit more than that. And by bit I mean LOT MORE.
Wait girly man is taking a seat with the hlot?
i figure he would be the type to lead from the front rather than the back. it was his whole shtick in unremembered empire.
I am hoping Demonhammers and Halberds get a 2" range on the Grey Knights. With falchions and swords having a 1" range. That will really have me trying to figure out how i am going to kit the 20 I don't have put together yet.
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.
"mass bloodshed and fire in the Damocles Gulf" I feel proud the IoM got wrecked so hard and then basically lit a warp storm to stop the Tau (which back fired big time) was one of the events to start this gak.
I knew the damn AdMech were messing with seriously heresy weapons. I dare say the weapons they unleashed would probably classify them as Here-teks and chaos tainted AdMech. Now they contributed to tearing the entire IoM in half.
Well the IoM can officially say they are reaching Eldar levels of stupidity with messing up the galaxy now. At this point the only thing worse that they could do would be if the Emperor spawned into a full chaos god and then made all the rifts 10x worse.
Also today's article mentions time distortions. I wonder if the Tau are/were under fast time mode to expand so fast in such a short time?
Youn wrote: There is a video on Youtube were GW themselves explain piling in in AoS. The rule basically says, if you can move closer to a model you are allowed to pile in. He then goes into explaining the model 1/2" away from a model can pile in to the other side of the model. And the models behind him may move forward. But the models that are behind other models run into an issue that they cannot pile in because they aren't able to move closer to the fight.
It is very clear on how pile in works at least for AoS. And since, these two systems appear to be identical. I would guess they work the same.
A downright surreal video frankly. The way he piles in looks like an elaborate WAAC interpretation of "if you aren't touching the enemy you can move 3 inches closer to the enemy"
And yet that's the intent. Extremely gamey and convoluted when it would have been simpler to just allow models to sidestep for their friends.
I think it's a perfectly fine fluff system. If you're in base contact, you're in the press. You can't move because you're literally pushed into the opponent by the swell of bodies in the brawl, or your weapons are directly crossing with theirs. If you're back away from touching, you're still in a safe enough distance to move around into a better angle, like circling around the opponent in a fight.
Anybody with martial arts experience will tell you there's a big difference between being 5" away from an enemy and 2" away (or within grappling range), which is what we're talking about from a scale perspective.
Hopefully the attack range is based also on the base size since everyone (I think) knows that a larger base means you get way less attacks (or none) if you only have a 1" range.
Desubot wrote: Wait girly man is taking a seat with the hlot?
i figure he would be the type to lead from the front rather than the back. it was his whole shtick in unremembered empire.
Well that's the image I get from what I have read about gathering storm though not sure on his level of authority in new Imperium.
And don't see why he can't be both HLOT and lead from front. Who's going to stop? Unless Lion managed to teach him to stay back but then again now no primarch to hold him back.
Especially as having him back might make him tad harder to sell
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.
Templates were fairly cheap and came with every starter set.
The combat gauge is the most absurd product I've seen from GW, entirely because of it's massive price. Not in the starter either.
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.
Templates were fairly cheap and came with every starter set.
The combat gauge is the most absurd product I've seen from GW, entirely because of it's massive price. Not in the starter either.
Its also a totally unnecessary item and one I've never seen used in a game.
It's expensive but you can make a cheap alternative for nearly nothing. You may even have a piece of plasticard laying around. It has a 1" side, 2" side and 3" side.
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.
Templates were fairly cheap and came with every starter set.
The combat gauge is the most absurd product I've seen from GW, entirely because of it's massive price. Not in the starter either.
Its also a totally unnecessary item and one I've never seen used in a game.
I find that really odd actually. People use combat measurers all the time, though generally ones that are up to 6", but it's all the same type of stuff.
The GW gauge is too pricey though. My custom Necron one with all measures between 1" and 6" plus 1/2" was less than that... but it is GW. And I guess it's metal instead of laser cut plastic, but still.
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.
You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.
Templates were fairly cheap and came with every starter set.
The combat gauge is the most absurd product I've seen from GW, entirely because of it's massive price. Not in the starter either.
Its also a totally unnecessary item and one I've never seen used in a game.
I have to disagree it's very useful! (Not the Gw gold piece of £€$ so much) I have two made of plastic card 3'' by 1'' by 1/2'' excellent to fit between models for conherency to help eye ball weapon ranges, minimum charge range etc. But mainly we use them to drop in front of units so you don't move within 3'' of them when moving or charging so much easier so manage than a tap measure in tight spaces. Normally I dish out 3'' 6'' 18'' and full length tap measures for our games. More convenient, faster measuring, and less likely to knock stuff over. I just cut down the whippie measures you get in starters for my smaller rulers and made the 'combat gauge' out of thick plastic card minus the dashing neck tie lol which i suspect is just a hinderence. I'd recommend everyone make them to try out.
Yeah, a Combat Gauge is very very usefull to speed things up in meele and moving units, really. Like, using that with a horde army can basically aford you 20-25 minutes.
Obviusly, make one for cheap, it only takes you like 2 minutes, don't buy the GW one
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
Why, in a game where you never play with just the core rules, does it matter whether the core rules cover every possible scenario evenly or not?
It doesn't make sense to me to poke holes in the core rules in isolation, especially when the entire point of this redesign is to keep the core rules streamlined so we don't have to buy 60 dollar hardback books to play in addition to our codices - they just include those for free.
Does this push the rules bloat into the codices instead? Sure. But 40k was never not going to have rules bloat. It's the nature of a game that tries to be narrative and characterful, so armies were always going to get their 'bespoke' boosts. Now they can tailor these boosts to do what they want rather than trying to interact with whether or not the Core rules provide a USR that covers it, or sort of covers it, or they have to make up exceptions and bundle rules together until you're cross-referencing your face off.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
This is why we can't have anything nice.
GW playtested? I bet they didn't take the feedback!
GW took feedback? I bet the guys giving it stand to make a profit!
They might not make a profit? Well, I bet they were interested in only one thing even though I've never met these people!
insaniak wrote: This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
That's a completely semantic argument entirely driven by where a rule happens to be printed - if a particular rule in the core rulebook it's good, but if it's on some unit cards it's bad? That's bonkers!
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
I have no idea why you and a handful of other users find the idea of some units manipulating the core rules to better suit their unique traits is wrong. It works to make the armies unique in AoS and it has the potential to make every army unique in 8th.
But, seeing as we don't have enough information to go off of whatsoever, making any kind of judgement on it right now is a waste of time.
Kirasu wrote: Hopefully the attack range is based also on the base size since everyone (I think) knows that a larger base means you get way less attacks (or none) if you only have a 1" range.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
This is why we can't have anything nice.
GW playtested? I bet they didn't take the feedback!
GW took feedback? I bet the guys giving it stand to make a profit!
They might not make a profit? Well, I bet they were interested in only one thing even though I've never met these people!
God the gaming community really sucks.
Yeah, all the great people in this hobby, but a few people complain, and on the internet no less, so the gaming community sucks. You know what sucks? Over reactions and generalisations.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: I have to disagree it's very useful! (Not the Gw gold piece of £€$ so much) I have two made of plastic card 3'' by 1'' by 1/2'' excellent to fit between models for conherency to help eye ball weapon ranges, minimum charge range etc. But mainly we use them to drop in front of units so you don't move within 3'' of them when moving or charging so much easier so manage than a tap measure in tight spaces. Normally I dish out 3'' 6'' 18'' and full length tap measures for our games. More convenient, faster measuring, and less likely to knock stuff over. I just cut down the whippie measures you get in starters for my smaller rulers and made the 'combat gauge' out of thick plastic card minus the dashing neck tie lol which i suspect is just a hinderence. I'd recommend everyone make them to try out.
I never said it wasn't useful, just that it's not mandatory in order to play the game and not an item I've seen used. Matter of fact, I'd forgotten about the combat gauge until Youn and Azreal13 posted similar items from different manufacturers.
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
The rules don't allow for horde melee armies because that would give too much benefit to ranged hordes, it also doesn't give inherent benefits to ranged horde armies for the same reason. If you want to run a giant blob of guard up the table to try and beat everything to death, it should be a bad idea (hence the "fix bayonets" memes)
So, the core rules allow for units to get really large but their unit rules are what make a particular strategy viable. That, again, is NOT a weakness of the system. The orks having furious charge wasn't considered a weakness, it just let them be viable in melee, why is an old system giving them a way to circumvent an inherent disadvantage in their stat line, but a new edition of the game doing the exact same thing is somehow a problem.
jhnbrg wrote: Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
Yes, I think you should leave if you're unable to be polite about people you've clearly never met. They are definitely competitive, make no mistake about that, but they're certainly not WAAC, and I know for a fact that both MVB and Reecius have horde armies. They also host some of the largest events for all players, including writing narrative events for them - that is not the act of someone who just wants to power game. There is absolutely no point in throwing a fit over the revealed rules working against infantry blobs when we have no idea if there's other rules which either significantly buff hordes, or are extremely detrimental to MSU tactics. There are such rules in AoS and this ruleset is clearly taking inspiration from that, so even if you hadn't been so rude, you'd be judging very prematurely. Any conceivably realistic morale rules which require a unit to make a test will penalise larger units over smaller ones because the net impact of failure is larger; retreat also does this. The fact that anyone has been arguing that low leadership hordes will struggle without special rules to mitigate the damage of morale, when such units have ALWAYS needed special rules to mitigate the impact of morale is astonishingly cavillous. It blows my mind that people don't think Orks and Tyranids large units will get leadership buffs after they've had them in every other iteration of their rules which has ever been printed.
Yeah, all the great people in this hobby, but a few people complain, and on the internet no less, so the gaming community sucks. You know what sucks? Over reactions and generalisations.
A few? Every day we have someone new declaring how today's thing is the worst thing ever and that it will make them quit.
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.
feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.
Time to get back to painting i guess...
Power gamers are the best type of people to playtest as they will stress test the rules to their limits and sometimes break them.
Not doing this is how we got things like double Lash of Submission DPs as GW "Never thought people would want to take two".
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
Except the majority seem to be on board. The facebook posts are certainly getting a very good reception. You don't like them, that doesn't mean your view is shared.
Besides, if you think either the psychic phase or morale looks worse than what we currently have, I don't know what to tell you - I'm not sure how anyone other than a masochist who thrives off poorly written rules and arguments could actually enjoy the 7e system for psychic powers.
Well you are assuming two things here.
First, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. In fact some of the most terrible things humanity has ever created have been the popular choice. You like the rules, that doesn't mean your views are shared.
And second, I never said that 7th ed. was good at all. It's a poorly designed game. I wanted an overhaul, but not a bad one.
The psychic phase is bad because it's all or nothing. There's nothing there to promote a dice management system where you can attempt to push through psychic powers that will help you win the game, or the other way around that lets you stop specific powers from going off. Now it's just "roll two dice" If it goes off then great, if not too bad. There's no risk or reward system and doesn't force you to make strong tactical decisions like it should. It's mindless.
The moral system for 40K was fine mechanically. The problem is that basically all armies are immune to it. It didn't need to change to mindless AOS nonsense. Why would a single marine run off and abandon his squad, just because he got shot at? Why isn't pinning a thing like it should be? It's unnecessarily simplified to the point of being lore and immersion breaking.
Just like Characters not being able to join units. "Sorry guys, can't join your squad and use your transport to get across the battlefield. Looks like i'll just go alone." This to me is the worst offender, it's so unnecessary. Half of my enjoyment out of this game is creating characters and running them with their honour guard or whatever. Now I can't do this because people thought that reading a single page of rules was too much to handle?
I'll admit, I wanted GW to succeed here. Even though I knew they were going to AOS the rules, I hoped beyond hope that they wouldn't dumb down the rules to that level. The first few days of rumours had me excited. I like changes to shooting and weapons profiles. It's more or less been down hill from there.
Barring some unseen rules exceptions for characters not being shot to death in the middle of the battlefield or being able to ride in transports with units, this is the deal breaker for me. You will likely never see an on foot character ever again if this is the case.
andysonic1 wrote: I have no idea why you and a handful of other users find the idea of some units manipulating the core rules to better suit their unique traits is wrong.
I don't have a problem with that.
I'm clearly not managing to make my point in a way that is not going to be misinterpreted, however, so it's probably best to just drop it and move on.
In the "WAAC doing the feedback", actually, thats the kind of player that you want to do feedback to you. Obviously, not about how to make the game, but to find the holes in it and fix them.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
Except the majority seem to be on board. The facebook posts are certainly getting a very good reception. You don't like them, that doesn't mean your view is shared.
Besides, if you think either the psychic phase or morale looks worse than what we currently have, I don't know what to tell you - I'm not sure how anyone other than a masochist who thrives off poorly written rules and arguments could actually enjoy the 7e system for psychic powers.
Well you are assuming two things here.
First, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. In fact some of the most terrible things humanity has ever created have been the popular choice. You like the rules, that doesn't mean your views are shared.
And second, I never said that 7th ed. was good at all. It's a poorly designed game. I wanted an overhaul, but not a bad one.
The psychic phase is bad because it's all or nothing. There's nothing there to promote a dice management system where you can attempt to push through psychic powers that will help you win the game, or the other way around that lets you stop specific powers from going off. Now it's just "roll two dice" If it goes off then great, if not too bad. There's no risk or reward system and doesn't force you to make strong tactical decisions like it should. It's mindless.
The moral system for 40K was fine mechanically. The problem is that basically all armies are immune to it. It didn't need to change to mindless AOS nonsense. Why would a single marine run off and abandon his squad, just because he got shot at? Why isn't pinning a thing like it should be? It's unnecessarily simplified to the point of being lore and immersion breaking.
Just like Characters not being able to join units. "Sorry guys, can't join your squad and use your transport to get across the battlefield. Looks like i'll just go alone." This to me is the worst offender, it's so unnecessary. Half of my enjoyment out of this game is creating characters and running them with their honour guard or whatever. Now I can't do this because people thought that reading a single page of rules was too much to handle?
I'll admit, I wanted GW to succeed here. Even though I knew they were going to AOS the rules, I hoped beyond hope that they wouldn't dumb down the rules to that level. The first few days of rumours had me excited. I like changes to shooting and weapons profiles. It's more or less been down hill from there.
Barring some unseen rules exceptions for characters not being shot to death in the middle of the battlefield or being able to ride in transports with units, this is the deal breaker for me. You will likely never see an on foot character ever again if this is the case.
Based in the Kharadron Overlords vehicles, you can put in a vehicle characters and units altogether. I expect something similar to 40k. And, whats the difference between having your character INTO a unit, or having it 1" away from it and giving them buffs?
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: I have to disagree it's very useful! (Not the Gw gold piece of £€$ so much) I have two made of plastic card 3'' by 1'' by 1/2'' excellent to fit between models for conherency to help eye ball weapon ranges, minimum charge range etc. But mainly we use them to drop in front of units so you don't move within 3'' of them when moving or charging so much easier so manage than a tap measure in tight spaces. Normally I dish out 3'' 6'' 18'' and full length tap measures for our games. More convenient, faster measuring, and less likely to knock stuff over. I just cut down the whippie measures you get in starters for my smaller rulers and made the 'combat gauge' out of thick plastic card minus the dashing neck tie lol which i suspect is just a hinderence. I'd recommend everyone make them to try out.
I never said it wasn't useful, just that it's not mandatory in order to play the game and not an item I've seen used. Matter of fact, I'd forgotten about the combat gauge until Youn and Azreal13 posted similar items from different manufacturers.
Believe me, when you've got 20 Ork Boyz mixed up with as many Termagants and you need to try and figure out if one of the ones in the middle is inside or outside 1", a tape measure just won't cut it.
40K players are going to need these as part of the player kit, just don't, for the love of all that's holy, waste all that cash on the GW one which doesn't offer any functional advantage, when there's so much choice of third party ones out there.
Galas wrote: In the "WAAC doing the feedback", actually, thats the kind of player that you want to do feedback to you. Obviously, not about how to make the game, but to find the holes in it and fix them.
Agreed. Find the most broken combos and fix them. That's what most fighting game patches are, fixing broken characters.
Well the lore fluff update didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Or couldn't assume myself. Starting to get bored with how they are promoting this. I spend more time as a hobbyist than a gamer. Seeing all the rules is cool but at this point I just want some peeks at the models and physical content. The models are going to sell the box for me, rules are just icing on the cake.
If 40k horde units are anything like AoS horde units then they'll balance out fewer models making it into melee by giving the units bonus attacks based on its size. For instance a skeleton horde gets +1 attack for every model when there's 20, +2 attacks at 30, and so on.
I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.
Hopefully it's something that comes in the starter set rather than being a purchased bit...
It wasn't something available right at launch for AoS, as far as I recall. It was a month or two later.
I would be down with that. Heck, they could even use the material they used to make the templates from. Include two of them in the starter set (one for each player). Otherwise I am sure someone will 3D print one (I want one with a Crimson Fists emblem that I can paint up in their colors). But they definitely should release one separately for those people that don't get the starter set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?
The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?
I think that they are using AoS as a beta test for 40k. They are fixing basically every issue I have with AoS (shooting into combat,random initiative rolls, etc...) and keeping 40k as a more tactical and complex wargame than AoS.
For me, they are taking the good of AoS and keeping enough of the good of 40k. To other people the mere mention of AoS is a heresy. Others have legitimate criticism of some aspects (Because obviously this is not gonna be a perfect wargame), or just don't like some changes, something that is totally legitimate too.
And, Kings of War has a core ruleset of 16 pages, so 12-20 pages is perfectly fine for a good Wargame. I prefer longer ones, because I'm more in the narrative kind, and I prefer narrative and complete system that the streamlined version that works better in competitive enviroments. But as I really enjoy AoS, personally I'm content with it.
The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.
I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?
Gamgee wrote:"mass bloodshed and fire in the Damocles Gulf" I feel proud the IoM got wrecked so hard and then basically lit a warp storm to stop the Tau (which back fired big time) was one of the events to start this gak.
I knew the damn AdMech were messing with seriously heresy weapons. I dare say the weapons they unleashed would probably classify them as Here-teks and chaos tainted AdMech. Now they contributed to tearing the entire IoM in half.
Well the IoM can officially say they are reaching Eldar levels of stupidity with messing up the galaxy now. At this point the only thing worse that they could do would be if the Emperor spawned into a full chaos god and then made all the rifts 10x worse.
Also today's article mentions time distortions. I wonder if the Tau are/were under fast time mode to expand so fast in such a short time?
That's just one theory among several. Considering the narrative, it's more likely that the Armless Wonder's gradual destruction of Necron pylons over the millennia, and the final destruction of the Cadian Gate, had more to do with it. Now, Chaos enjoys a major strategic advantage, with the Eye and Maelstrom being linked and the Imperium split in half.
High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.
The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.
That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.
But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.
Back when he held the seat the mortals of the High Lords of Terra were people appointed by the Emperor and Malcador, they'd likely defer to RG's decisions out of respect to him being the Big E's son.
But that's just my speculation of course.
Consider that Gorillaman was the one who dissolved the old War Council and governing Council of Terra and created the Senatorum Imperialis on his order, and was in charge of all military matters, I would say that he called all the shots considering the state of emergency and having the largest surviving loyalist Legion. With the loss of Malcador and the Emperor, there was a major power vacuum. The Imperium was in shambles, fighting was still going on, and the other remaining loyalist Primarchs were either demoralized or unfit to run things. Rowboat stepped up to the plate and took charge. The sheer scope and radical nature of his reforms wouldn't have been possible if he were just "first among equals" and had limited authority from the start.
It makes sense and fits the theme of Ultramar and Girlyman, being inspired by the Roman Republic and it's temporary office of "dictator". When things settled down/stabilized, and his reforms in place to prevent Horus Heresy 2: Electric Boogaloo, he gave up most of the authority he held in favor of the High Lords, serving as Chairman of the Senatorum and CoC of the Armed Forces (it also helped he spent a lot of his time zipping around the galaxy, personally "putting out fires" and taking on his traitor brothers).
The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.
I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?
The core 40k game was freakishly simple as it is. its all the bloated special rules that really increased the size of the brb to maybe 20-30 pages. the rest of those books tend to be a lot of examples and pictures and fluff.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.
Hopefully it's something that comes in the starter set rather than being a purchased bit...
It wasn't something available right at launch for AoS, as far as I recall. It was a month or two later.
I would be down with that. Heck, they could even use the material they used to make the templates from. Include two of them in the starter set (one for each player). Otherwise I am sure someone will 3D print one (I want one with a Crimson Fists emblem that I can paint up in their colors). But they definitely should release one separately for those people that don't get the starter set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?
The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.
The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.
I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?
The core 40k game was freakishly simple as it is. its all the bloated special rules that really increased the size of the brb to maybe 20-30 pages. the rest of those books tend to be a lot of examples and pictures and fluff.
i wouldn't say its over simplifying
simplifying for sure.
The 12 pages also don't include the 14 FOCs, or any of the information on the three ways to play.
I want to take a small shot at predicting how those 12 pages might lay out:
1. Statline - usually one of the first pages in other editions, this is a gimme on how the rules will be broken down.
2. Movement phase - rules for movement, how terrain affects it (if it does at all), and the new run movement will be all fit here. Possibly with a picture showing how to measure to move your models.
3. Psychic phase - Mastery levels, how to use powers and the Smite (and I'm guessing Force too) power(s) laid out. Maybe a generic set of psychic powers as well, but I have a feeling those will go away in favor of army specific flavors of witchery
4-5. Shooting phase - how to pick targets, how modifiers work, rolling to wound and how saves work. Probably with an example diagram for clarification.
5-6. Charge/Assault phase/Morale - the usual stuff we're used to really. New morale doesn't require much to really clarify. Most of this will likely be dedicated to charging modifiers (if terrain matters, ect), the consolidation move and how to determine which models can fight. I expect pictures here as well.
7. Terrain rules - not full datasheets for fortifications and the like, but some general stuff regarding how it works, the different modifiers it provides and how it can effect movement
8. Unit keywords - the core keywords like "infantry" and "vehicle" that are sure to be spread through the datasheets. Any special rules that are set to those keywords will likely be mentioned here too
9-10. USRs - I don't expect a lot but any that would have to be shared between multiple armies (ANTSKNF, FNP, ECT)
11-12. Ranged and special weapons that every army shares (flamers, power swords, ect) to cut down on how much they need to be repeated in every single book. Grenades will likely see some love here too.
Honestly there probably could be a dozen ways to slice the core rules up but this is how I basically expect the basics of the game to get divided and frankly it's more than enough pages to fit everything even with pictures.
No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.
This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.
The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)
What holes? Suggesting there are holes is an assumption by you that the design wasn't intentional. So far the morale system they leaked works fine, you haven't proved that it doesn't work, merely demonstrated why you dislike it, because it doesn't stand up to your standard. The same standard that includes moving targets set by yourself. Apparently, ALL scenarios and units must be addressed by the core rules and not fleshed out elsewhere. Which I demonstrated is wrong, other games do "patch," as you call it, their core system MTG being a huge example.
Your arguing for more of the same crap that so far has suffocated the game. A core ruleset where the morale section attempts to cover every scenario possible across many pages. This is a failed design, we have evidence in the form of every other edition. There are too many unit entries and scenarios in such an open game to try to cover it all in one place. Instead you get overly wordy rules that create errors in game requiring constant FAQ'ing. This intimidates new comers and irritates vets. It's much simpler to strip the morale rules down into one common abstract system and use the datacards to make unit specific changes.
Again, explain why the game is supposed to function from the core rules alone? This makes no sense, the codexes contain unit entries that literally would fall under a patch according to your own criteria. You can't play 40k without them afterall, so the core rules CLEARLY weren't designed to be stand alone.
Eyjio wrote:Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.
Just like Characters not being able to join units. "Sorry guys, can't join your squad and use your transport to get across the battlefield. Looks like i'll just go alone." This to me is the worst offender, it's so unnecessary. Half of my enjoyment out of this game is creating characters and running them with their honour guard or whatever. Now I can't do this because people thought that reading a single page of rules was too much to handle?
This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".
This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".
Ok, but why do I need to change my mindset over something that should never have been removed to begin with.
Are they going to be able to ride with units in transports? I don't know. But I do know I don't want to foot slog my terminator lord up the board.
To bad Belial can't deep strike with this Death Wing anymore, right guys? It's super unfluffy to have to join a unit that he was designed to be with, right?
Who is going to take any Dark Eldar Character if they can't take a transport? Not that anyone takes anything but a Lhamian now anyway because GW can't write a proper codex to save their life.
...
