Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
BaconCatBug wrote: Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run even a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
I mean genuinely can't take a 2k list in a single brigade as some people are complaining that they need multiple detachments to reach 2k, which I think is completely false.
Oh good it's you. The only person more "Rah rah! GW can do no wrong!" at this board than old mate Kan. This oughtta be good.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Having tried a lot of games out there like Infinity, WarmaHordes, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., I certainly came to 40K for having the best rules of anything currently on the market.
"Best rules of anything currently on the market". That's priceless man. Pure gold.
But hey, you know what they say, right? That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
Sunny Side Up wrote: Maybe not perfect, but certainly a Churchill-ian "the worst except for all the others".
Hmm... not really. If I want real rules crunch that basically always works, I'll play BattleTech. Yes, it doesn't have the cool terrain I love, and I can't play Tyranids, but at least LOS and range and movement and all that jazz is binary. BTech ain't balanced, not by a long shot, but perfect balance isn't possible anyway. I'll take imperfect balance any day. 40K has... weird balance, backed up by a group of people who have been at this so long that they should know better, yet somehow don't, and have (and likely still do) make rules design decisions based upon selling more miniatures rather than the actual health of the game.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Lol. Imagine playing a game and pursuing its evolution on the internet, when you're actually convinced it isn't the best and you could simply go get a (for you) better game off the shelve at any second. Now that sounds like some really twisted form of masochism.
Like I said, no one plays 40k for the rules. They play it for the setting, or the miniatures, or a combination of the two. No one's getting hyped up about the movement phase, or spends each turn just waiting for the moment when they can roll more armour saves.
BaconCatBug wrote: Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run even a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
I mean genuinely can't take a 2k list in a single brigade as some people are complaining that they need multiple detachments to reach 2k, which I think is completely false.
Since the last point adjustments, even Death Guard can take brigade that could be considered a decent army.
In addition, pretty much anyone who can't run a brigade can either just max out a battalion (like we did in previous editions) or just get a second detachment for CP. More decisions when building armies is good, right now 3 detachments are pretty much mandatory.
The general idea is good, let's see how they have implemented it.
BaconCatBug wrote: Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run even a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
I mean genuinely can't take a 2k list in a single brigade as some people are complaining that they need multiple detachments to reach 2k, which I think is completely false.
That's not what I said or meant. Especially given that we don't know if detachment structures will be the same. I'm just hoping that they haven't overcorrected to help out elite armies and end up penalising hordes as a result.
Ice_can wrote: Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.
Right, a brigade should give almost everyone tons of room to do what they want, but there are a few people who want no troops (some for good reasons, like a Ravenwing army, some for bad reasons, like "troops suck I want all heavies! Screw the narrative!") … those people would likely branch into one of the other options, depending on if they felt that a "troop tax" but full CP was better or if less CP but no troops "weighing them down" was better.
That'll come down to individual measures, how many CP are there, and what the generic strats are that we know exist but haven't seen yet.
Speculating on the unknown strats is going to be wild. There are a few we can trust, like the 1 CP reroll and 2 CP pass morale, but there may be others.
For instance, what if Overwatch becomes a 1 CP strat? "I'll pay 1 CP for this unit to go into Overwatch" has the potential to massively change things as not every unit will get to do it, only those you paid for at the right time.
"Hunker Down" for 1 CP give syou an additional +1 to your cover save … but what if it also means that unit can't shoot for a turn? Useful for anyone holding a point, not so much for your big guns.
"Take aim" for 1 CP - if this unit didn't moe, reroll 1's to hit in the shooting phase.
Etc etc etc.
Those are the things that we know the least about and, next to terrain, could change the battlefield the most. Detachments pulling away from CP means that you gotta get a gameplan early on, taking into account what you're after, and willhelp shape forces to look more like what GW wants on the table than "Just the good stuff".
Bonus: those units which have a variation of "If you have unit X, this unit doesn't cost a slot in your detachment" suddenly get a little better than before. Looking at you, Runtherd!
One night to think about the changes, and this is not Editon 8.5 as it may sounds first
a 180° turn in CP generation and force organisation is already big enough to make this a new game and not just an update
that there are still no adjustments for old profiles regarding the new core rules from 8th (as a new wound chart needs also an adjustment of S+T values) and changes to the "to hit" rules would need an adjustment to the BS values as well.
Now with Tanks and Monster changes incoming, without adjusting all profiles in the game to the new situation this will be a mess in the first 2 years until most factions got their new Codex
Need to wait for the written rules it is all about the details and maybe the Appendix is longer with more changes than expected, but as I know GW, the first book that is really adjusted for the new Edition will arrive 6-12 months after release of the core, and because it is written for it, it will be OP beyond a level that points can fix
Having tried a lot of games out there like Infinity, WarmaHordes, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., I certainly came to 40K for having the best rules of anything currently on the market.
So, what is 40k doing better than Bolt Action?
I can get that Infinity is too hard to understand/to learn, or that movement in X-Wing is too complicated, and WM/H needs too much math during the game.
So just talk about the rules that are on a similar level (40k is more based on warfare in WW1 so BA is the more modern one but on Platoon level it is similar enough) and nothing about that there are Aliens in one and Nazis in the other, nothing about the Setting just about the rules (as for Aliens we would talk about Gates of Antares which uses the same rules but with Aliens)
Jidmah wrote: Since the last point adjustments, even Death Guard can take brigade that could be considered a decent army.
In addition, pretty much anyone who can't run a brigade can either just max out a battalion (like we did in previous editions) or just get a second detachment for CP. More decisions when building armies is good, right now 3 detachments are pretty much mandatory.
The general idea is good, let's see how they have implemented it.
Complain was horde armies are screwed because by the time they have filled every slot in brigade they STILL need to take detachments and pay CP.
Is there army where that can really work? Orks can take brigade+others but is that what they could do to get more CP and more optimal units?
If army can fill brigade then that's fine. If you have to take suboptimal units a bit...well that's tradeoff between raw strength and CP rather than having everything with no drawbacks
BaconCatBug wrote: Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run even a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
I mean genuinely can't take a 2k list in a single brigade as some people are complaining that they need multiple detachments to reach 2k, which I think is completely false.
That doesn't matter. Most armies don't want to take the Mandatory Useless Units a brigade enforces.
Then, after enough time has passed,
after enough of the flaws have been uncovered,
after codex after codex has created exception upon exception to the core mechanics,
eventually... we will reject it and cry for a new edition to start the cycle all over again.
tneva82 wrote: Complain was horde armies are screwed because by the time they have filled every slot in brigade they STILL need to take detachments and pay CP.
Is there army where that can really work? Orks can take brigade+others but is that what they could do to get more CP and more optimal units?
I seriously doubt that any army can actually fill every slot in a brigade - that would be 5 HQ 12 Troops, 8 Elites, 5 FA and 5 HS.
Not to mention that horde armies tend to have cheap models, but expensive units.
BaconCatBug wrote: Can't? None (other than knights). Shouldn't? Pretty much all of them. Taking a 2k Brigade inherently results in sub-optimal builds. Some armies such as Custodes can't run even a brigade at 2k.
If you mean a minimum brigade, Guard can do it for less than 700 points.
I mean genuinely can't take a 2k list in a single brigade as some people are complaining that they need multiple detachments to reach 2k, which I think is completely false.
That doesn't matter. Most armies don't want to take the Mandatory Useless Units a brigade enforces.
And thus they have to choose: (1) go with a battalion instead and spend CP to get an additional detachment to get the units they do want; or (2), take units that are less desirable but keep the CP.
Depending on what the player in question is trying to do with their army, there might be times option (2) is the path they choose.
Not that such a situtation should really happen for most armies even at 2000pts. Without the need to fish for CP, a battalion should probably be enough unless they absolutely need to run more than 3 FA/HS (assuming detachments don't change in regards to number of force organisation slots).
on this Command point thing, my idea for a knight lance benefits, but my pure Tempestus idea gets a serious run around and a potential removal of command instead of a gain.
whats got me wondering is the changes to strategic reserves, and how both GSC and tempestus use rules around that so heavily. how will they change?
yay for being on standby with all of this.. and valkyries are about t'go up.
Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
Twilight Pathways wrote: I probably missed this somewhere really obvious, but do we know when 9th is actually coming out or have they not said yet
They haven't announced a date yet.
What we do know:
- Previews "start" in June on Warhammer Community.
- There's a newsletter contest for a 9th edition related prize that is worth 120 pounds and ships in July. Speculation is that it's the new starter box.
There's also two AOS armies that have been waiting for longer. I'd imagine GW will want to stick to the rough original order. So July or August would be my bet for 9th edition.
Of course this all depends on production, stock and shipping. We've no idea what that area is like and GW might not even fully know about production in terms of how much they will actally get out compared to predictions.
We also can't forget that second lockdowns could happen. UK being shutdown again will pause it; China locking down "might" slow things up etc....
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
Yeah, it's almost like a pathetically tiny fraction of GSC units can get chapter tactics after you remove
-All vehicles
-All brood brother units (including stuff like Sentinels, which for some reason must be brood brothers...after all, Genestealer Cultists could totally steal and retrofit a scout vehicle with weapons, but they could never do the same thing to a Sentinel, incredibly common imperial vehicle used for many different jobs!)
-All Genestealers (???????) including the Patriarch, head of the whole cult (???????????????????????) Wouldn't make sense for those guys to gain any subfaction benefits!
If you're going to have a total of like...five non-character units that can actually gain a cult trait, why not just make the cult traits correspond to one particular unit? feth it!
I think it was 2 months from the reveal to release for 8th. About 6 weeks to the pre-orders.
So Mid/Late July would seem logical.
Can't really comment on detachments without knowing more. Intuitively though there is a concern if troops are not needed you are going to see more skews. But then its not like slotting 3 MSU troops units has been that limiting for many factions, aside from say Custodes and Knights being weird.
Bdrone wrote: on this Command point thing, my idea for a knight lance benefits, but my pure Tempestus idea gets a serious run around and a potential removal of command instead of a gain.
whats got me wondering is the changes to strategic reserves, and how both GSC and tempestus use rules around that so heavily. how will they change?
yay for being on standby with all of this.. and valkyries are about t'go up.
Why are your scions loosing comand points you just take the same amount of scions in one detachment.
He's probably thinking he can't put 2000 points of Tempestus in a single Battalion nor can he field a Tempestus Brigade (since they lack Fast Attack and Heavy units).
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
alextroy wrote: He's probably thinking he can't put 2000 points of Tempestus in a single Battalion nor can he field a Tempestus Brigade (since they lack Fast Attack and Heavy units).
Well a Battalion can push past 2000 points with scions plus valks, Tarox and vendettas/vultures.
alextroy wrote: He's probably thinking he can't put 2000 points of Tempestus in a single Battalion nor can he field a Tempestus Brigade (since they lack Fast Attack and Heavy units).
He technically can but if he does that they can't benefit from regimental doctrine.
Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?
Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion
or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book
I am feeling positive about the terrain hints they gave yesterday. Perhaps conventional terrain like "ruins" with windows and woods with trees will now block LOS through them - so the return of Area Terrain (but called Obscuring Terrain)? This might stop some of the weird ITC spectacles of Magic Boxes and those bizarre Knight-sized L-shaped pieces with no windows that you can assault through but cannot shoot through. If they bring in something like "garrisoning" where a unit can shoot out of terrain and can in turn be shot at but that terrain blocks LOS through then I feel we will be in a good place.
I doubt that additional detachments from the same Codex will cost a prohibitive amount of CPs - I would guess something like 1 CP out of a pool that I imagine will be between 10 and 20. I think its the detachments taken from other Codexes that will cost more. I think that this will really help list construction. Want lots of AM troops supported by a Knight? Go for it - but pay up in CPs. Want an Elite army drawn from a single Codex that depends on CPs? Go for it! Want Troops for their own sake? Go for it! When we consider that CPs and detachments were new to 8th Edition I am not surprised that we are seeing an evolution in their implementation.
Stopping the stacking of modifiers to hit is a good thing. There were some extreme/frustrating builds out there that are now nerfed.
All in all a revealing Q&A yesterday despite the humours glitches in the microphone - who knows what secrets he divulged when his microphone stopped working?!?
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
I was wondering this too, but I really hope it's not 20 at 2000pts. Strategems should be perks that can help you occasionally each game, not a reliable crutch you get to do every single turn (which for many armies it has been throughout 8th). Heck, I remember playing pure Ravenwing at start of 8th with just 5CP, lol.
I'm really hoping it's not more than 15 at 2000pts, or if it is 20, we drop down to 1750pt games to keep it at 15CP.
Ice_can wrote: Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.
Pure Militarum Tempestus armies can’t make brigades.
Ice_can wrote: Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.
Pure Militarum Tempestus armies can’t make brigades.
They can break 2k with a Battalion so mute point, they can still make a 2k list in 1 detachment.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
Yeah, it's almost like a pathetically tiny fraction of GSC units can get chapter tactics after you remove
-All vehicles
-All brood brother units (including stuff like Sentinels, which for some reason must be brood brothers...after all, Genestealer Cultists could totally steal and retrofit a scout vehicle with weapons, but they could never do the same thing to a Sentinel, incredibly common imperial vehicle used for many different jobs!)
-All Genestealers (???????) including the Patriarch, head of the whole cult (???????????????????????) Wouldn't make sense for those guys to gain any subfaction benefits!
If you're going to have a total of like...five non-character units that can actually gain a cult trait, why not just make the cult traits correspond to one particular unit? feth it!
I am also wondering how they handle Dark Eldar. maybe the real space raiders detachment will count as one freebee? Otherwise it will drain CP in order to take wyches along with warriors from the same damned book lol.
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
I was wondering this too, but I really hope it's not 20 at 2000pts. Strategems should be perks that can help you occasionally each game, not a reliable crutch you get to do every single turn (which for many armies it has been throughout 8th). Heck, I remember playing pure Ravenwing at start of 8th with just 5CP, lol.
I'm really hoping it's not more than 15 at 2000pts, or if it is 20, we drop down to 1750pt games to keep it at 15CP.
I suspect it's going to be that or higher as they have said there will be a list of new core strategums in the 9th edition rule book for helping CC as it sounded like tripointing may not be a thing in 9th.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Having tried a lot of games out there like Infinity, WarmaHordes, X-Wing, Bolt Action, etc.., I certainly came to 40K for having the best rules of anything currently on the market.
"Best rules of anything currently on the market". That's priceless man. Pure gold.
But hey, you know what they say, right? That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
Are you really demanding someone present evidence of their opinion? Are you twelve?
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote: Maybe not perfect, but certainly a Churchill-ian "the worst except for all the others".
Hmm... not really. If I want real rules crunch that basically always works, I'll play BattleTech. Yes, it doesn't have the cool terrain I love, and I can't play Tyranids, but at least LOS and range and movement and all that jazz is binary. BTech ain't balanced, not by a long shot, but perfect balance isn't possible anyway. I'll take imperfect balance any day. 40K has... weird balance, backed up by a group of people who have been at this so long that they should know better, yet somehow don't, and have (and likely still do) make rules design decisions based upon selling more miniatures rather than the actual health of the game.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible someone's opinion differs from yours.
Yeah honestly I’d rather have a surplus of command points if they want them to be so integral that units are getting command abilities that should have just been on their data sheet and paid for all along.
Early on in the edition they were a triviality, but it seems since I stopped regularly playing command points have become a much more overbearing part of the core gameplay, something you actually have to pay attention to rather than the occasional reroll and a way to budget some of your Deep strikes.
Also i'd just like to know it was funny 7mins into the stream when discussing how terrain would be better Pete Foley said you wont be able to just draw line of sight through a letter box to a carnifex's wing... unless he knows something we don't.... i'll look out for those WINGED carnifexes
Latro_ wrote: Also i'd just like to know it was funny 7mins into the stream when discussing how terrain would be better Pete Foley said you wont be able to just draw line of sight through a letter box to a carnifex's wing... unless he knows something we don't.... i'll look out for those WINGED carnifexes
I noticed that too. He probably meant to say hive tyrant.
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
I don't think it'll be listed as 1CP per 100 points as they said it would be based on game size, and that their are 4 game sizes (mentioned while talking about missions) so we're more likely to see a set CP value for a points range.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
I was wondering this too, but I really hope it's not 20 at 2000pts. Strategems should be perks that can help you occasionally each game, not a reliable crutch you get to do every single turn (which for many armies it has been throughout 8th). Heck, I remember playing pure Ravenwing at start of 8th with just 5CP, lol.
I'm really hoping it's not more than 15 at 2000pts, or if it is 20, we drop down to 1750pt games to keep it at 15CP.
It sounds like you'll have more, but you'll have to spend more too. Like needing to spend CP to put things in reserves. It sounds like deep striking won't be a free option anymore for example.
Latro_ wrote: Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?
Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion
or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
Latro_ wrote: Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?
Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion
or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.
But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
Latro_ wrote: Be interesting how the soup CP unlock works. Because surely it will be based on the number of different battle-forged detachments you have?
Could effect a lot of current armies massively if it does work like this. e.g. taking that word bearer psyker patrol with say your nightlords battalion
or that badmoon spearhead with your deathskull battalion. L32 etc is a common one but you'll find a lot of the more competitive lists a lot of the time hinge on this cross keyword play from the same book
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 5cp per extra detachment after the first. That way, if you have a soup list at 2000 pts., you would have 10 CPs after two detachments (if we're assuming that 2k is going to be 20 cp).
I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Yeah, there are many GSC subfaction traits/strats/whatever that can only benefit one single unit in the codex, and the GSC codex is abysmally underpowered (see competitive WR in the dumpster BEFORE they got heavy nerfs in Chapter Approved because marinebros salty that a kelermorph killed their Primaris Lieutenant that one time ) This leads to a situation that GSC players have to soup in different subfactions to feel like particular units actually work well.
I'm not saying we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater but I really do hope that GSC gets some heavy points consideration in this appendix that they're going to be releasing with 9th. I'm guessing that they won't, and just like the indexes GW trying to release rules for everything at once will lead to them leaving the smaller factions by the wayside because they just don't have enough time to properly balance everyone, but I hope they'll at least think about reverting some of the more bonkers nerfs GSC got when they were already sitting at a 45-ish percent competitive WR. 35pt stop sign, things like that.
Imateria wrote: I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
CP generation and Detachments: I really like the sound of this. I know the original thinking was that elite armies have more powerful units but not the assets to generate command points to balance things out, which initially makes sense, but the entirety of 8th has proven that elite armies struggle really badly as they can't power these abilities beyond the first turn and lose out to armies with a lot more CP that can keep going, leveling the playing field in this way is definitely the best option IMO. I'm not entirely sure how the detachment thing is going to work out though, in both streams the talk around CP generation came up entirely from questions about soup, I got the impression that you pay CP for taking detachments from other armies rather than for taking more detachments from the same codex. At least thats how I hope it works, as a Drukhari player the idea that I have to pay CP to take units from more than 1/3rd of my codex without crippling myself is assinine bs.
Terrain: I'm optimistic here, it sounds like they are creating a list of pre-definied terrain types that all effect your units differently and are applied to terrain features pre-game. We already kind of have that but it's so light on rules content, and generally all boils down to giving Infantry cover, that it might as well not exist, what they were talking about suggests things will be cosniderably more expanded which is much needed.
To Hit Modifierst: Not entirely sure what to make of this. We certainly have far too many examples of units that can get negatives to hit stacked to -3 and -4 which I and pretty much everyone else has found to be really bad for the game. Then again these tend to be outliers and were better dealt with via errata. But some units really needed to stack negatives beyond -1 to stay alive for a bit longer (like Harlequin Troopes), or are stuck paying points for multiple abilities that may not work anymore (Ghostkeels have -1 to hit naturally and pay 20pts for drones that provide another -1, and those drones aren't optional). Not that it matters that much, the odious Chapter Master stratagem has invalidated anything less than -3 to hit anyway. We need more information on this.
Resreves: This sounds really interesting, if I got it right then you cn pay CP to put any unit into reserve and they can come on from any board edge, thats going to be really cool and very useful. It also doesn't invalidate those units that can do this as an ability already or the various Deep Strike strtagems as they give you more flexibility on where you set up. Again, I want more details but I'm liking this.
Imateria wrote: I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.
The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.
Imateria wrote: I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.
The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.
Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.
lord_blackfang wrote: Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Right. And the fact that this will cost a bunch of CP is meant to balance all that flexibility/weirdness against a vanilla list. Or did they also say that these all-whatever lists would cost lessCP to make than a standard battalion? Because I don’t remember that part.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.
But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.
Agreed with Crsis Suits, but BS4+ tends to be at the heart of it just not all of it.
Well GSC are the prime example here becuase you have to optimise across multiple subfactions just to get the army up to usable standards. Several codexes have problems where subfaction benefits haven't been particularly well thought out, or are so heavily flanderised that trying to do something that isn't the meta choice without mixing subfactions into your army severly handicaps you to the point that it wasn't worth bothering with.
Imateria wrote: I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.
The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.
Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.
Source for this? They've said that additional detachments take additional CP. It is much, much easier for me to make a list that contains only one thing in a single detachment than it is for me to make a list with a mix of different elements.
If you want to make an all-terminators list or an all-tanks list or an all-wraithknights list, that's usually 1 detachment of whatever relevant slot those things go into. There's only two slots that are more difficult to spam, and that's HQ and Troops.
lord_blackfang wrote: Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Right. And the fact that this will cost a bunch of CP is meant to balance all that flexibility/weirdness against a vanilla list. Or did they also say that these all-whatever lists would cost lessCP to make than a standard battalion? Because I don’t remember that part.
They didn't exactly specify, but I cannot imagine the CP differential would be anywhere NEAR what it is right now if you take an all-Deathwing list vs an infantry spam guard army.
You can easily start the game with like 24CP with an infantry-heavy guard army, while a deathwing army gets like 5, 6 max.They didn't say that extra detachments would cost CP (only ALLIED detachments from a different codex). All this talk about "oh battalions will be free while vanguards will cost CP" is pure speculation.
You can make an "All X" army using fewer detachments than a "mix of different stuff" army most of the time, because usually "All X" only requires 1 kind of slot to accomplish that. A deathwing army is easy to fit in one Vanguard, if that's the goal.
Imateria wrote: I really hope not, that kind of nonsense will defeate the purpose of changing the CP generation rules to help out elite armies.
Get it into your heads that CP aren't a horde vs elite balancing factor. They are a balanced list vs skew list balancing factor. GW has always intended that the player who is the closest to a traditional army with a mix of all unit types should have the most CP.
That is...literally the opposite of what was put forth by the designers yesterday.
They spent a really, REALLY long time talking about how one of their major goals with fixed CP is to allow people "to play that army they wanted in their head without a ton of units that they feel like they HAVE to include" and they specifically listed all-biker Saim-Hann and all-terminator Deathwing.
Those are examples of skew lists. Those lists do not have a "mix of all unit types" they are definitionally skew towards a single unit type.
The only difference, functionally, between an all-terminator deathwing list and an all-riptides and drones Tau list is how individually strong the unit your spamming is. If terminators got some massive bonkers buff making them super OP tomorrow, powergamers would be running all-terminator deathwing lists.
Right, and these skew lists will have less CP than a mixed list, just like they do now. They just won't be incentivised to break their theme with 32 guardsmen, because that would net them even less CP; not more.
You still haven't gotten it through your head that 8th edition has proven that approach doesn't work. You've also conveniently cut out the post I was replying to that suggested they wouldn't be surprised to see the cost of taking extra detachments being 5CP. That means you're probably spending a good 10CP to run that thematic Wraith, Ravenwing or Nidzilla list which would be such a punitive cost (assuming GW doesn't do something ridiculous like give everyone 35CP as the starting point for a 2K game) that it puts them right back to where they currently are, the trash heap. Given the stated intention is to avoid that, it seems rather counter productive to then have massive costs holding such lists back.
At first I was considering getting back into the game casually with 9th because some of the changes sounded cool (obviously still waiting for more info), but then I read about being penalized for taking “soup.” I get this to a point, to prevent exploitation of Knights and cheap troops an what not, but it means the one army I have interest in playing (Ordos combined arms forces) will be even less fun to play. It’s not as if taking Scions (counts as Inq Storm Troopers), some Sisters, and an Inquisitor with retinue would be a particularly good army to begin with. I don’t think you should be penalized for running fluffy lists.
Maybe if we ever get Guard infantry that don’t look terrible, or if Traitor Guard ever become more than a goofy seven man squad you can take two of I will reconsider.
They didn't exactly specify, but I cannot imagine the CP differential would be anywhere NEAR what it is right now if you take an all-Deathwing list vs an infantry spam guard army.
Exactly, because CP won't reward hordes just for being able to spam more detachments. The difference will be probably what the difference was at the start of 8th between a single Battalion and a single whatever-the-Elites-one-is.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
Crisis suits have a host of other issues besides BS4+ base they simply pay way to many points and for some reason GW won't admit they are busted, compair them to agressors and its laughably bad for them.
But on the topic of GSC why should one player get to optimise the subfaction bonuses, keywords and strategums across their entiee army with some sort of downside, the idea is to pay CP essentially as a handicap system for each additional step you take towards an optimised list with nothing but power units.
Agreed with Crsis Suits, but BS4+ tends to be at the heart of it just not all of it.
Well GSC are the prime example here becuase you have to optimise across multiple subfactions just to get the army up to usable standards. Several codexes have problems where subfaction benefits haven't been particularly well thought out, or are so heavily flanderised that trying to do something that isn't the meta choice without mixing subfactions into your army severly handicaps you to the point that it wasn't worth bothering with.
Space Marine Subfactions: Get rules that obliquely incentivize taking bikes by providing a benefit that biker units can most effectively use
GSC subfactions: Get a subfaction trait that can literally only possibly apply to 2 weapon options an optional 1 per 4 model that you can add on to 1 unit, which also comes with a stratagem that can be only used by that one unit if you give them another particular upgrade.
This would be comparable if the White Scars trait was "BIKER units can move and fire heavy weapons!"and their stratagem was "Reroll to wound with melee weapons equipped by one BIKER unit in your army!"
Sabotage! wrote: I don’t think you should be penalized for running fluffy lists.
It's important to realise that
1) We don't have specifics yet. We have the general idea of the changes but not specifics at all and no army level specifics which might have variations to the core rules. Ergo some armies might be able to take more allies than others because of their very nature.
2) They are trying to balance soup with non-soup mostly because in 8th edition there are several armies which, whilst perhaps very fluffy, through soup they were able to be way more powerful than most pure armies and armies from factions that couldn't do the same trick. It's less about penalising and more about trying to level the playingfield.
Wait and see, its likely a few months before we get all the details and then again before we get playing with the new system when its out on sale.
Sabotage! wrote: At first I was considering getting back into the game casually with 9th because some of the changes sounded cool (obviously still waiting for more info), but then I read about being penalized for taking “soup.” I get this to a point, to prevent exploitation of Knights and cheap troops an what not, but it means the one army I have interest in playing (Ordos combined arms forces) will be even less fun to play.
Well, without us knowing the full rules and implications, I'd simply just caution invoking the notion of a cost as necessarily a penalty, though.
It may well end up, in some way, to be the case, but I don't think we could say we know that as of yet.
Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, some armies such as GSC just "need" a lot of detachments, both because they often need Vigilus stuff for some basic functionality and because many of their basic strats that make a given unit work are tied to specific faction, since these factions had no pre-established lore-identity and GW took the shortcut of creating sub-factions based on units (e.g. the GSC-bike-faction, the GSC-Aberrant-faction), thus making a synergistic army using multiple types of units much harder to work as a single sub-faction.
I think that's intentional, and is "soup". The subfactions have a specialist unit that they do better than someone else, and every army should be suboptimal compared to the best combination of things from across multiple codexes or subfactions.
In the case of things like the Tau commander, it means things don't have to be as good as the Tau commander to be taken and the Commander can still be heroic rather than just an alternative to a Riptide.
You might always pick a commander over crisis suits as your first pick, but after that hopefully there's a few other competitive options across the army that can perform a similar role if you need more than one thing.
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
As for Tau, nobody takes Commanders instead of Riptides, they take them alongside each other but they are taken instead of Crisis Suits for one simple reason, they both pay the same points for their weapons but the Commander is BS2+ and the Crisis Suit is BS4+ making the Crisis Suit a lot more swingy whilst also being less survivable as they don't have CHARACTER protection, all for at least the same points cost. And thats not changing anytime soon as the codexes will be in use for a while yet, though at least the Farsight Enclaves stratagems in PA can make Crisis viable by giving one unit BS3+, but FSE also lets you take extra Commanders.
I play both. I wouldn't be suprised if GW see taking multiple subfactions split across detachments as 'soup', though to a lesser extent that across armies. The different armies are supposed to specialise and be better at something that others - obviously taking the best version of everything is better than just having one subfaction. But using cheap detachments to get just what you need from each subfaction makes having subfactions pointless. There's not many armies that you can argue don't get better if you mix subfactions, and I'm not going to argue that the GSC strat system is particularly well designed (that's a whole other thing and I think is mostly down to just how much better Rusted Claw bikers are) - but mixing subfactions is pretty much soup. Something for a narrative game or a thing that comes at a cost - say some amount of CP?
As for Tau, I knew as I was typing that I should have made it appear more hypothetical. But you pretty much reinterate my point - Crisis commanders are really good, as some would say a HQ should be. But they're often fundamentally doing the same thing crisis suits are because they've got access to the same weapons, they're just better at it (needing less support, being more reliable). If you're not going to strip away bonuses from the Commanders, then they need to be limited in order to allow other things to compete - which mutiple detachments then removes. Making Tau commanders unlimited options makes the job of bringing Crisis suits up to par with other units a lot harder because the Commander is so much more of a direct competitor. Does actually making Crisis commanders 0-1 improve the competitive ranking of Tau right now? Obviously not, but that's not the point I'm making and when we're looking at something that the writers have come up with, knowing that they can and will change things - complaining that tau don't work anymore because you're paying CP to get more commanders is the wrong way to think about it. It just shows that the Tau list is currently broken and the last fix didn't go far enough (in reducing the need/appearance of commanders, or making crisis teams a more viable option).
Some units being rare and needing CP to take more than one of, doesn't seem a bad mechanic in my book.
Without getting into too much speculation, I think they're trying to reward those people who want to take fluffy lists like all Deathwing while changing the narrative on using other codices. Remember Stu Black described it is "requisitioning resources". So, you're spending some of your resources to bring in the Drukhari Razorwings into your Eldar army. The more I think about how they're phrasing these changes, it seems like you're going to be unlocking Codices with CP, not necessarily detachments.
Remember, detachment bonuses are gone, so having 1 detachment versus having 3 is not that big of a deal, unless you're including allies.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
Well, while they say that 8th editions books work with 9th (and I'm sure they do) that doesn't mean that all 8th edition books will be optimal for 9th. And, while they say that 8th edition books were written with 9th in mind, I really doubt all 8th edition books are optimized for 9th. They'll work, but how well likely depends on a lot of factors.
In other words, it isn't beyond possibility that the Inquisition could get an update that allows them "free" soup or discounted soup. For example, a rule like, I don't know "for every Inquisitor Lord, you may take a <whatever> detachment at no CP cost." Again, not that this is probable, or that I somehow know it will happen, but it is something possible.
The same could go for DE, or other armies where soup is a major portion of the army's identity. We really have to wait and see what it actually looks like and where they take the idea.
That would be awesome for Inquisition to get something like that, but I think we are done with the days of Inquisition being represented in codices. It’s been what? 3 editions since they were hodge-podged into Grey Knights?
It seems a little strange considering they are one of the most popular aspects of 40k fluff and also considering how their are more Inquisitors (not henchmen, but full Inquisitors) than any given Space Marine chapter has members and far more than the number of custodes that exist.
Regarding CPs, I did a little thought experiment with my Deathwing. We know that each army will get a fixed number of CP based on the size of the game. We know that the first detachment is free, additional ones will cost CP and Allies will cost CP. We can infer that the Strats currently in play will still exist with their current CP costs since the Codexes and PA books are valid. I think that 15 CP for a 2000 point game is as good a guess as any.
In 8th Edition I could make a Deathwing army, but it would have 4 or 5 CP. Since Deathwing have access to numerous new Strats it put me in a tough spot for list construction. Now, I can make a decent Vanguard with two HQs and a number of Deathwing Squads. I would have 15 CP (or whatever the starting number is), which really opens up the playbook for me. For board control I could stay with my Vanguard and add a squad of Scouts if I felt it necessary, but now its driven by the usefulness of the Scouts to my plan as opposed to a way to generate CP. Cool. I think we'll see more variety in Detachments.
What we do not know (I think..) is if there is CP cost difference between additional detachments from the same Codex and detachments of Allies. Hopefully Allies cost more which would seem to meet the intent. We don't know about what we call "sub-factions" from the same Codex. I don't think that different Regiments from the Astra Militarum or Ork Klans would count as Allies - but who knows...There would be a CP cost, though, so you really want to bring the Klans/Regiments together. I hope that adding a Scions detachment to an AM Cadian force would cost less CP than a Knight but I guess we'll see? Drukhari might need an Errata regarding detachments - maybe make the Raiding Force a 1 CP total cost to bring those three Patrols?
In the meantime, now is a perfectly good time to panic.
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.
Sabotage! wrote: That would be awesome for Inquisition to get something like that, but I think we are done with the days of Inquisition being represented in codices. It’s been what? 3 editions since they were hodge-podged into Grey Knights?
It seems a little strange considering they are one of the most popular aspects of 40k fluff and also considering how their are more Inquisitors (not henchmen, but full Inquisitors) than any given Space Marine chapter has members and far more than the number of custodes that exist.
Well, it is only neglected until it isn't. How long were Sisters neglected? Then they weren't. Necrons are on that path too (although less dramatically long).
I think part of it, also, is that sometimes GW just doesn't have many/any ideas for things. So, it just languishes. In this edition though, maybe the idea of the Inquisition as a sort of Imperial Requisition force, where Inquisitors are a way to together many things with no/low cost, is something that inspires them to make new rules. Who knows.
A large FAQ/Errata is a given (I mean, they formally said that such would be available on day 1). Given the news about the +/-1 cap on (some?) modifiers, it seems likely that theres a large number of pieces of wargear, special rules, and abilities that will no longer be usable as written across most/all armies, that alone would make a FAQ/Errata document mandatory and require an eventual rerelease/update of the codexes, especially for those factions that were reliant on mod-stacking as part of their playstyle (Harlequins made heavy use of this, for example). I doubt GW would do more than just a blanker change in the modifier stat in the errata document, I can't imagine them reworking rules and abilities entirely in order to preserve their "value" and maintain balance.
Paying some CP for allies seems fine to me, as long as the price is not too steep. And some Inquisitorial Acolytes shouldn't have a same cost than an Imperial Knight. Furthermore, I hope that along with this they remove bonus rule pure army limitations; having those and the CP cost is too much.
So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
Crimson wrote: Paying some CP for allies seems fine to me, as long as the price is not too steep. And some Inquisitorial Acolytes shouldn't have a same cost than an Imperial Knight. Furthermore, I hope that along with this they remove bonus rule pure army limitations; having those and the CP cost is too much.
They will do it's called points.
You pay CP to acess aditional codex's, how inquisition fits ibto that considering they don't have a codex and an inquisitor can be added to any imperial detachment without breaking bonus/traits I simply don't see them really counting untill you decied to make a detachment which will cost CP like any other.
Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.
Togusa wrote: Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.
Nothing of that sort has been shown or hinted at.
If anything, more generic strats and overwatch and/or falling back from cc possibly becoming a strat and more CP would point in the opposite direction.
Togusa wrote: Has there been any word on the number of times Stratagems can be used in the new edition? I'm hoping that Stratagems are a one off, once used it cannot be used again this battle to force diversity of CP spending and keep people from spamming the same three stratagems over and over again.
Won’t happen if they’re implementing new core Strats and they rate things like Command Re-roll.
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.
That would entirely defeat the purpose.
Not really, it just creates niches. It might also be that micro factions have other negatives/bonuses to prevent them simply being the "escape to soup" options in the game. This might even come down to them being able to pick one army as a "core" force which they treat as if it were their own army (ergo no CP cost, doesn't count as allies) and then adding in other armies just as normal. That way you're only really getting the handful of niche-faction models and rules as "free allies" attached to an existing army core. Simple and effective.
Yinarri can do the same, pick either Dark or Craftworld Eldar to be the "Core" army and then all that you add from the other side must be paid for in Command Points. Each core army option is the same as normal, save that you've got the handful of Yinnari units to use as well.
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.
Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.
Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.
Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo
The price increases are absolute crap but honestly do you expect everyone to just voice it forever ? Don't mistake a lack of reading it to no one still remembering it. Not everyone is going to fall into hype or the dumbness of a logo. In fact I think once the costs of these new kits comes out some eyes are going to water for sure.
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I'm assuming the logo is a single vectored graphic that they can scale to whatever size they need rather than having dozens of files in different resolutions. Vectored graphics shouldn't experience this issue, but I have seen where sometimes they do if the overall image isn't 'flattened', leaving some elements to scale differently than the others around it. So the overhanging R is likely an issue that only happens when the logo is scaled down in size.
Lord Damocles wrote: So... I just saw a version of the cinematic as a Youtube ad, and the 'Warhammer 40,000' logo which was on it was slightly different to the version which GW have been using elsewhere - namely the A was more central, and the R didn't overhang the edge of the wing.
Have... have GW been using the wrong version of the logo..?
I don't know, but lord I hope they fix it soon. Ever since it was pointed out, the errors are all I see when I see the new logo.
Personally I think it was an intenional 'error'. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the price increase lately, they're all complaining about the off-kilter logo
The price increases are absolute crap but honestly do you expect everyone to just voice it forever ? Don't mistake a lack of reading it to no one still remembering it. Not everyone is going to fall into hype or the dumbness of a logo. In fact I think once the costs of these new kits comes out some eyes are going to water for sure.
I see some people don't understand what a joke is...
Not Online!!! wrote: Old Buddy that stoppen in 7th , states he liked the Look and asked for the price policy nowadays.
I showed hin the primaris snipers and the updated csm kits...
You can imagine his reaction, then i Pointed to the recent pricehike aswell.
The reaction in the pricetag for khorne berzerker was amusing.
That is the real thing right ? The only people who don't think the prices are insane, are those so deep invested they only need a thing or two maybe now and then. When you show it to others who don't play or have stopped and think of restarting ? The price tags make your head spin as you ponder how much a workable force will cost.
Edit: @Ghaz, sorry I didn't see it was a joke as I don't find GW prices very funny lol
I am also wondering how they handle Dark Eldar. maybe the real space raiders detachment will count as one freebee? Otherwise it will drain CP in order to take wyches along with warriors from the same damned book lol.
I’m hoping they do something like errata Raiding Force to make DRUKHARI Patrol detachments free or something, otherwise the army is going to be wrecked...
Vaktathi wrote: Hey all, as much as I can understand the feeling, if we can stick to the topic of new modles/rules/editions, this thread will be more productive.
It's entirely going to be dependent upon what the unit is setup as or how many are in it.
$60/20 might be the pricepoint to assume for Warriors if in fact they're going to be 'cheap' units.
Ice_can wrote: Which army can't actually fit enough units in a brigade to pass 2k points? MSU spam is going to be somewhat less of a thing now, but GW has never supported MSU spam, they just accidentally wrote rules that did.
Pure Militarum Tempestus armies can’t make brigades.
They can break 2k with a Battalion so mute point, they can still make a 2k list in 1 detachment.
They’re restricted in their troops and elites slots. How many unfilled Taurox Primes and/Valks would you like to see on the table? Troops and troops with less ablative wounds are Militarum Tempestus bread and butter.
I'd say look at the most recent troop box for sisters for an idea. Though I'll cease commenting on that. I'm sure they are all fine models even if I don't like the cartoony necron skull faces from the new warriors kit.
Kanluwen wrote: It's entirely going to be dependent upon what the unit is setup as or how many are in it.
$60/20 might be the pricepoint to assume for Warriors if in fact they're going to be 'cheap' units.
I personally do not think there will be 20 in a box, at most I would speculate it would be 10 per box.
That is the real thing right ? The only people who don't think the prices are insane, are those so deep invested they only need a thing or two maybe now and then. When you show it to others who don't play or have stopped and think of restarting ? The price tags make your head spin as you ponder how much a workable force will cost.
It is not about being so deep invested, but there are just small increases over time, if you are always there you just see the small steps
if you checked for a Land Raider last year, it is now just a little bit more expensive, something you can live with it.
If you stopped playing during 5th and never bought one because 45€ was too expensive for a single tank, the 65€ it costs now will just blow your mind
Same with the Starter Box, compared to the last one is seems ok, but having the same models for double the price as one of the older ones (and if the romours are true it is 3 times the price of Black Reach)
Kanluwen wrote: It's entirely going to be dependent upon what the unit is setup as or how many are in it.
$60/20 might be the pricepoint to assume for Warriors if in fact they're going to be 'cheap' units.
I personally do not think there will be 20 in a box, at most I would speculate it would be 10 per box.
That's what people said about Mortek Guard for Bonereapers, and they're $60 for 20.
Black Reach was such an exciting time for 40k to be there for it. So many new players got in with that box. It sold like hot cakes around here. The time period was one of the most excited I remember being for 40k I got to witness close up.
8th was similar in the hope we all held for the system. I don't feel like 9th will have that same feeling for a number of reasons. Some will be the kits will have perils all their own, the excitement of loss leader product won't be there, I don't think as many believe this new edition will bring balance and with the state of the world games will be few and far between for a good few people.
I hope I'm wrong but it feels like a bad time for a new fresh push and hype. The models look good and if it follows the same trend as the last starter it means necrons will get some new stuff at first and maybe a month or two after release but it more will usher in just more Marine glut and countless bloat in books past the Necron excitement.
That is if trends from the last starter and edition are anything to go by I mean past the stuff Deathguard got in the beginning of 8th they didn't even get a look, where as Marines have gotten a second codex and tons of model support.
Kanluwen wrote: It's entirely going to be dependent upon what the unit is setup as or how many are in it.
$60/20 might be the pricepoint to assume for Warriors if in fact they're going to be 'cheap' units.
I personally do not think there will be 20 in a box, at most I would speculate it would be 10 per box.
That's what people said about Mortek Guard for Bonereapers, and they're $60 for 20.
Hopefully we don't get the 10 for 40$ chainrasps, which are still just easy to build kits.
I guess it depends on whether there are 10 sculpts or 20, and how the sprue is set up. If it's 2x10, then expect we'll get 10 per box (for more than the soon-to-be-increased price of the current set, no doubt).
I'm not sure there will be scarabs with the warriors. The new ones aren't in the main picture, just in the smaller picture of the boxed set contents (or what we think is the boxed set).
Since there are at least a few weapon options, there may not be room.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure there will be scarabs with the warriors. The new ones aren't in the main picture, just in the smaller picture of the boxed set contents (or what we think is the boxed set).
Since there are at least a few weapon options, there may not be room.
Eh, I don't think not being in the big army picture means they are not in the warrior box, though it is possible they may only be available in the boxset.
I imagine they'll release them as a separate unit, making it easier for people to plan their units rather than being slaved to the number of warrior units they've bought.
I never liked the 'scarab/ripper on other unit sprues' concept, hopefully they're ending it.
I actually hope there will still be a place for troop units. I actively want to be able to use my humble chaos space marines. All those boxes of basic chaos space marines were not cheap. And I bought them because I liked the new sculpts. I would be kinda sad if it makes little sense to field them because everyone is just going for elites, heavy support, FA and characters only.
I really hope they address melee. And not melee as represented by characters but melee as represented by melee units. A lot of melee units have become almost unusable in 8th ed. And characters were more relied on in melee because they cannot be shot at, and they pack as hard a punch as melee units anyway. Melee units need to be looked at.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure there will be scarabs with the warriors. The new ones aren't in the main picture, just in the smaller picture of the boxed set contents (or what we think is the boxed set).
Since there are at least a few weapon options, there may not be room.
There are at least two Scarab bases in there, over on the right. 1 per 10 Warriors maybe? With the 20 Warriors shown, that's work out right and suggest 10 Warriors, not 5, per box.
Which would be better than the 5 for certain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The starter box shot, with Scarabs on the far right:
Voss wrote: I'm not sure there will be scarabs with the warriors. The new ones aren't in the main picture, just in the smaller picture of the boxed set contents (or what we think is the boxed set).
Since there are at least a few weapon options, there may not be room.
There are at least two Scarab bases in there, over on the right. 1 per 10 Warriors maybe? With the 20 Warriors shown, that's work out right and suggest 10 Warriors, not 5, per box.
Which would be better than the 5 for certain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The starter box shot, with Scarabs on the far right:
Yeah. The starter box- that's what I'm saying. Not the warrior kit itself.
The only reason to think there will be scarabs in the new warrior kit is because the current warrior sprue has scarabs.
That they're both in the starter box pic is happenstance, not evidence they'll be together in the warrior kit.
They’re showing those 5 because they’re the easy build ones we’ll get in the 9th Ed starter box. The proper kit will be a box of 10. That’s what I reckon anyway.
Yeah. The starter box- that's what I'm saying. Not the warrior kit itself.
The only reason to think there will be scarabs in the new warrior kit is because the current warrior sprue has scarabs.
That they're both in the starter box pic is happenstance, not evidence they'll be together in the warrior kit.
On the one hand true but on the other? That's be silly. They're just a little part that you can add to each sprue and the Warriors don't have a ton of variety... two weapons, no real options like sergeant stuff … it'd be insane to NOT have them on there.
Probably every new infantry kit will have one or three in the mix.
I assume so, but I haven't seen any images of them leaked. My comment was more that the updated Nurglings are a massive improvement over what came before and what we currently have for Scarabs.
I assume so, but I haven't seen any images of them leaked. My comment was more that the updated Nurglings are a massive improvement over what came before and what we currently have for Scarabs.
You can see them in the space marine half of the starter set image that was leaked, down in the bottom left. And they do seem to have more Scarabs per base, seems like maybe 6 or more now.
I assume so, but I haven't seen any images of them leaked. My comment was more that the updated Nurglings are a massive improvement over what came before and what we currently have for Scarabs.
You can see them in the space marine half of the starter set image that was leaked, down in the bottom left. And they do seem to have more Scarabs per base, seems like maybe 6 or more now.
You're right, completely missed them and even zooming in barely helps. Looks like 6 with actual legs now. The key stands are probably still a thing too.
Honestly I was hoping for more, like a crashing wave of little bodies but oh well. If we're getting these guys in a box sinve you can cram so many on a sprue I'd assume it'd be boxes of 5. That or we get a base worth in every kit. Or maybe both.
If Scarabs are their own Box depends on how the Core Box sprues will look like
I guess that the starter set ones will be the only source for a long time if they are not coming together with another Box
AngryAngel80 wrote:Black Reach was such an exciting time for 40k to be there for it. So many new players got in with that box. It sold like hot cakes around here. The time period was one of the most excited I remember being for 40k I got to witness close up.
a Starter with Necrons + Primaris for 60 instead of 120 would give a huge push to 40k and see much more people going for a new pure Primaris Army
the higher the price the more exclusive the game will be
But another possibility is that with the ne Edition having Missions/rules for 4 different point values, that the new game/event/torunament standard won't be the maximum but something in between.
(like 1000-1500 points for ITC, I know that they won't do that and rather increase to 2500-3000 points if there is the chance but one can dream)
I assume so, but I haven't seen any images of them leaked. My comment was more that the updated Nurglings are a massive improvement over what came before and what we currently have for Scarabs.
You can see them in the space marine half of the starter set image that was leaked, down in the bottom left. And they do seem to have more Scarabs per base, seems like maybe 6 or more now.
You're right, completely missed them and even zooming in barely helps. Looks like 6 with actual legs now. The key stands are probably still a thing too.
Honestly I was hoping for more, like a crashing wave of little bodies but oh well. If we're getting these guys in a box sinve you can cram so many on a sprue I'd assume it'd be boxes of 5. That or we get a base worth in every kit. Or maybe both.
I like it, they become a crashing wave when you put more bases together. And it seems like each base has a few more or less. One looks like it has 8 on it. And yeah I agree they’ll do a box of 5 instead of them being part of the warriors. Means they can add the second gun option on the warrior sprue, sell them for more money, and then also make more money on Scarabs.
Some random wish listing added on, it’d be cool if Scarabs had some more special rules. Stuff like being able to repair and doing more attacks or dmg or something with more in a unit.
Bdrone wrote: on this Command point thing, my idea for a knight lance benefits, but my pure Tempestus idea gets a serious run around and a potential removal of command instead of a gain.
whats got me wondering is the changes to strategic reserves, and how both GSC and tempestus use rules around that so heavily. how will they change?
yay for being on standby with all of this.. and valkyries are about t'go up.
Odds are if you have reserve rule in datasheet you get to do it for free. If not you can pay CP. Sounds like they want to INCREASE use of reserves. Making previous free version cost CP doesn't increase really.
CKO wrote: How many command points do you think you will start with in a 2000 point game? I wish I could be like Las Vegas and gamble with the odds.
My gut says 20, since they stated that "You get more" and they're adding a bunch of generic strats to the core book. I really think that the 1 Cp per 100 pts is going to be the rule, but, we'll see.
They have 4 game sizes in chart. I would dare to make a guess each is x->y points and X command points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imateria wrote: [
This just suggests you don't know anything about either of the those 2 armies. For starters Sunny Side Up was talking about Genestealer Cults only, so one codex, and how the only way that army really works is by taking multiple detachments and giving them different Cult traits thanks to some really bad rules design on GW's part, which I hav eno doubt was intentional but was really, really stupid. This is not soup in the Rusty 17/ Imperial Knights/ Guilleman manner at all which is where most problems with soup lie, this is literally trying to make a single codex work.
Orks benefit from using multiple klans either rather than say evil sun as mono(+1 move/advance/charge to shooty unit that doesn't want to get into melee! Goff lootas! Extra attacks in melee! Wee!). You should be rewarded for taking suboptimal units by staying mono rather than having your cake and eating it.
Tradeoff rather than getting everything with no drawbacks
The changes to Command Points sound great! In fact, they should expand Command Points even further. Like not only stratagems and detachments and reserves, but units themselves could cost Command Points too. Of course they would need to rebalance the costs of all the current stratagems relative to the costs of the units and probably adjust the starting amount of Command Points you have to work with too. Like maybe in a 2,000 point game each player could get, oh I don't know, let's say 2,000 Command Points.
Imateria wrote: (Ghostkeels have -1 to hit naturally and pay 20pts for drones that provide another -1, and those drones aren't optional). Not that it matters that much, the odious Chapter Master stratagem has invalidated anything less than -3 to hit anyway. We need more information on this.
I would say it's fairly safe stuff like this gets touched on day 1 errata. Maybe drones gives always in cover or some other boost instead
You still haven't gotten it through your head that 8th edition has proven that approach doesn't work. You've also conveniently cut out the post I was replying to that suggested they wouldn't be surprised to see the cost of taking extra detachments being 5CP. That means you're probably spending a good 10CP to run that thematic Wraith, Ravenwing or Nidzilla list which would be such a punitive cost (assuming GW doesn't do something ridiculous like give everyone 35CP as the starting point for a 2K game) that it puts them right back to where they currently are, the trash heap. Given the stated intention is to avoid that, it seems rather counter productive to then have massive costs holding such lists back.
I can fit nidzilla list on single detachment. Ravenwing/deathwing combo list would be fairly easy. Def no need for 3 det's. First free+another suits more than enough
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Keep in mind Inquisitor gets inside other faction detachments for free.
Grey knights, sisters, deathwatch your plan? That's 2 extra det's. Inquisitor himself doesn't take detachment.
puma713 wrote: Without getting into too much speculation, I think they're trying to reward those people who want to take fluffy lists like all Deathwing while changing the narrative on using other codices. Remember Stu Black described it is "requisitioning resources". So, you're spending some of your resources to bring in the Drukhari Razorwings into your Eldar army. The more I think about how they're phrasing these changes, it seems like you're going to be unlocking Codices with CP, not necessarily detachments.
Remember, detachment bonuses are gone, so having 1 detachment versus having 3 is not that big of a deal, unless you're including allies.
That would be substandard for balance. Multi clan/regiment/Etc soup would still get free bonus rules at no cost hurting mono goff, mono evil sun etc
Sabotage! wrote: Yeah, I suppose that’s probably the case. I suppose I’m just always bummed that playing the type of army I used to play (Witch Hunters from 4th) is always made such a chore these days (for the past 4 editions at least). Well that and the other faction I used to play has been basically forgotten.
Yeah, it sucks that factions have become so granularized at this point. Just adding a few more faction keywords to inquisitors would allow them to be more cleanly fielded with their retinues in actually fluffy imperial soup armies.Deathwatch don't even get the ordo xenos keyword...wtf...like I"m willing to give up my deathwatch chapter tactic thingy just to take them with inquisitors and henchmen and stuff.
I hope they just do the sensible thing and make micro-factions like inquisition have a reduced CP cost to include as an army special rule.
That would entirely defeat the purpose.
Not really when we are talking about some specific forces. Inquisitor detachment isn't as bad for ally as marine force. And as it is biggest thing there is inquisitor himself whom you can slot in for free. Rest is more of casual stuff to have around. You don't take those for competive lists generally anyway.
So the best part of Inquisition detachment you already would get for 0 CP by slotting inside your marine/ig/sister detachment free and not even losing mono bonus with marines/sisters
I am also wondering how they handle Dark Eldar. maybe the real space raiders detachment will count as one freebee? Otherwise it will drain CP in order to take wyches along with warriors from the same damned book lol.
I’m hoping they do something like errata Raiding Force to make DRUKHARI Patrol detachments free or something, otherwise the army is going to be wrecked...
Another one that's virtually quaranteed to be errata'ed day 1. You an use the 3 for freebie or get 3 patrols for price of 1 or something would be good bets.
Yeah. The starter box- that's what I'm saying. Not the warrior kit itself.
The only reason to think there will be scarabs in the new warrior kit is because the current warrior sprue has scarabs.
That they're both in the starter box pic is happenstance, not evidence they'll be together in the warrior kit.
On the one hand true but on the other? That's be silly. They're just a little part that you can add to each sprue and the Warriors don't have a ton of variety... two weapons, no real options like sergeant stuff … it'd be insane to NOT have them on there.
Probably every new infantry kit will have one or three in the mix.
The necron warriors in the starter sets will be different sprues than the necron warriors in solo box. That's how GW does the starter sets. They are unique mixed sprues. Could even be marines and necrons being intermingled among in same sprue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarFyre wrote: i thought we were going to see images and details of all the models on the weekend. guess not even this week :(
SF
The FAQ itself made clear they don't show all during the saturday stream.
It's at least over month before 9th launches and then not everything comes on launch day. Several solo necron kits could be easily month or two later. They need hype for later as well.
I saw that previously. It looks like someone printed it out, clipped it, and stuck it in a book.
Looking at the special rules, wth is a FIRSTBORN?
The "Firstborn" is the term used within the Adeptus Astartes and the wider Imperium since the start of the Indomitus Crusade for the original Space Marine genetic template created by the Emperor of Mankind in the late 30th Millennium.
Is 9th about to get real in the oldstartes vs Primaris divide? Does Bobby G issue the Thunder Warrior Order 66 2.0?
I saw that previously. It looks like someone printed it out, clipped it, and stuck it in a book.
Looking at the special rules, wth is a FIRSTBORN?
If assumed to be non-primaris marines, this may be a massive and amazing fluff turn at last.
I just don’t get why he’d turn on them when the Imperium needs all they can get to fight the enemies of man. I guess the old marines or, “first born,” could turn on them, though that seems a little random and petty.
I saw that previously. It looks like someone printed it out, clipped it, and stuck it in a book.
Could be its the rules at the back of a assembly instruction booklet. Dont explain the weird rules though.
Why would he have rules against Vostroyan Firstborn? Talk about holding grudges
Are you Spikey Bits? Even phone posting isn't an excuse for passing that off like it's a real leak.
I mean he doesn't have the character keyword, it's a mess of sloppy looking pixels, it's clearly a cut out, and GW has never used "FIRSTBORN" as a keyword meaning the model would be useless at launch.
EDIT: The Momento Mori is a Krieg peice of wargear which has different rules:
Are you Spikey Bits? Even phone posting isn't an excuse for passing that off like it's a real leak.
I mean he doesn't have the character keyword, it's a mess of sloppy looking pixels, it's clearly a cut out, and GW has never used "FIRSTBORN" as a keyword meaning the model would be useless at launch.
I'm just passing the info and asking if someone already saw/know about it.
Yes i believe it's probably a fake but some of the minor irks can be explained as be part of assembly booklet.
The firstborn key could be related to the new necron troop (with new weapon options) and it mimics Aos special rules from starter.
Someone on bolter and chainsword managed to zoom into a corner of the image and you can see it's clearly been cut out and stuck into a book, so tis a fake.
Are you Spikey Bits? Even phone posting isn't an excuse for passing that off like it's a real leak.
I mean he doesn't have the character keyword, it's a mess of sloppy looking pixels, it's clearly a cut out, and GW has never used "FIRSTBORN" as a keyword meaning the model would be useless at launch.
I'm just passing the info and asking if someone already saw/know about it.
Yes i believe it's probably a fake but some of the minor irks can be explained as be part of assembly booklet.
The firstborn key could be related to the new necron troop (with new weapon options) and it mimics Aos special rules from starter.
If you thought it was fake you should have posted such. Furthermore it looks like someone printed out a datasheet and pasted it in to make it look more "real", third Necrons have no reason to have a "FIRSTBORN" keyword and the Executioner isn't an anti-Necron character, and third he has a peice of Death Korps of Krieg Wargear with the wrong rules:
Spoiler:
And that's just what I spotted posting by phone. That was clearly baiting and frankly even reposting that bull was ridiculious.
ClockworkZion wrote: and GW has never used "FIRSTBORN" as a keyword meaning the model would be useless at launch.
so a very good argument for being real
at launch only useable with the units in the box until the new rules are released (new Keywords will be added with the new Codex)
Not a good arguement since "FIRSTBORN" in the lore are Classic Astartes and not Necrons, who are the other half of the box. It's trash and bait and even defending it as a joke is frankly ridiculious.
If you thought it was fake you should have posted such. Furthermore it looks like someone printed out a datasheet and pasted it in to make it look more "real", third Necrons have no reason to have a "FIRSTBORN" keyword and the Executioner isn't an anti-Necron character, and third he has a peice of Death Korps of Krieg Wargear with the wrong rules:
If people wouldn't post probably fake rumours, the dakkadakka news & rumour section would have about 3 new threads a year, max.
Between 2 wound plague marines nonesense coming back literally 20 times as a "rumour" for different releases, plastic thunderhawks, Fulgrim-nonsense, BolS posts about Black Templar starter boxes all the way back to the olden days to compulsive fake-news mass-producers like old Natfka and Hastings, approximately 98% of "rumours" about 40K posted in the last decade was fake.
Tiberius501 wrote: I just don’t get why he’d turn on them when the Imperium needs all they can get to fight the enemies of man. I guess the old marines or, “first born,” could turn on them, though that seems a little random and petty.
If you thought it was fake you should have posted such. Furthermore it looks like someone printed out a datasheet and pasted it in to make it look more "real", third Necrons have no reason to have a "FIRSTBORN" keyword and the Executioner isn't an anti-Necron character, and third he has a peice of Death Korps of Krieg Wargear with the wrong rules:
If people wouldn't post probably fake rumours, the dakkadakka news & rumour section would have about 3 new threads a year, max.
Between 2 wound plague marines nonesense coming back literally 20 times as a "rumour" for different releases, plastic thunderhawks, Fulgrim-nonsense, BolS posts about Black Templar starter boxes all the way back to the olden days to compulsive fake-news mass-producers like old Natfka and Hastings, approximately 98% of "rumours" about 40K posted in the last decade was fake.
Again, why are people.defending this trash of a fake datasheet? If you think it's fake and you post it, then say you think it's fake. It's not that hard.
Again, why are people.defending this trash of a fake datasheet? If you think it's fake and you post it, then say you think it's fake. It's not that hard.
Most people who spend more than 5 minutes on the internets know that any Games Workshop product rumour posted on Dakka, BolS, Facebook, wherever is fake until proven otherwise (which won't happen to 99.9999% of them). Spelling it out is like adding a warning label on nuts to tell people they contain nuts.
Again, why are people.defending this trash of a fake datasheet? If you think it's fake and you post it, then say you think it's fake. It's not that hard.
I think it is fake, but the arguments why it is fake are "GW would never do something like this" are just bad, as GW would write rules exactly like that.
Firstborn being something different in the fluff before, no one cares, now this is the new Necron Keyword for the forces of the Silent King
Rules are being copied from something else with mistakes, will be fixed with the next CA (maybe)
the only clesar thing why it is a fake is that someone cut it out and glued it into a book to get the impression it is from a Codex or Starter Booklet, which you only do if you want it too look real instead of taking a picture of a single sheet
Again, why are people.defending this trash of a fake datasheet? If you think it's fake and you post it, then say you think it's fake. It's not that hard.
Most people who spend more than 5 minutes on the internets know that any Games Workshop product rumour posted on Dakka, BolS, Facebook, wherever is fake until proven otherwise (which won't happen to 99.9999% of them). Spelling it out is like adding a warning label on nuts to tell people they contain nuts.
Sounds like an excuse to post something that apparently should be treated as spam posting based on your claim of 99.9999% of peopld "knowing" that such things are fake since they "clearly" don't belong in "news and rumors" if everyone "knows they're fake".
So by your arguement it should have never been posted because it's off topic and not news. Gotcha.
Again, why are people.defending this trash of a fake datasheet? If you think it's fake and you post it, then say you think it's fake. It's not that hard.
I think it is fake, but the arguments why it is fake are "GW would never do something like this" are just bad, as GW would write rules exactly like that.
Firstborn being something different in the fluff before, no one cares, now this is the new Necron Keyword for the forces of the Silent King
Rules are being copied from something else with mistakes, will be fixed with the next CA (maybe)
the only clesar thing why it is a fake is that someone cut it out and glued it into a book to get the impression it is from a Codex or Starter Booklet, which you only do if you want it too look real instead of taking a picture of a single sheet
Why would a Space Marine have a keyword that only targets Necrons in an army no one in the setting has faced before? Doesn't make sense, even by GW standards.
Plus there are other clues. Not having the character keyword, wargear from a FW Guard army with the wrong rules, Volkite not.matching existing statlines or rules for Volkite. An Infantry model exploding 3" on death like some kind of Walker.
I'm sure we can find more things wrong besides "only" the crappy paste job that was done.
Someone found something new they'd not seen before, flagged it up for the community to look over and make their own judgements on.
Aggressively decrying providing rumours, no matter how unreliable, is only going to dissuade people from sharing in the future. Just let people draw their own conclusions and discuss.
With regards the keywords that haven't existed before, they need to be first introduced somewhere. Just because it doesn't exist now, it doesn't mean it won't exist in the future.
Will be interesting to see how the frames are laid out, I suspect there will have been at least half an eye to a successor to "Conquest!" here as another partwork, likewise also configured to allow smaller starter sets - the eye watering £120 box set price is a lot easier to justify if there is also a £25 - £30 smaller one and a £50-£60 mid sized one
GW has done more ilogic rules that made now sense at all outside the box-set the model was released with
and at the moment we don't know if the model will be available outside the box at all (won't be the first one)
the rules as they are not making sense because we don't know with what bsGW will come up in the Box Set just to remove it again with the Codex later would be no surprise or something exclusive to this edition/game
and that rules are crap is the usual response to any leak prior a new edition and afterwards it will be seen as the best model ever
If the rules would be the only evidence I would say it is more real than fake, but with the cut and the glue visible it is a fake
Not to mention it's super suspect that a random no name charictor has a weapon with a stat line arguably better than any named sword including chapter master weapons. Arguably comparable stat line to the emperor's sword.
I think people are intentionally suspending their common sense in order to buy into what is clearly nonsense.
For starters, GW has always done model then story then rules. What part of the Judicator shows he is specialized in killing Necrons? Not a dang thing. Secondly if he was specialzed in killing Necrons that should be a Dynasty keyword, which "FIRSTBORN" is not. It doesn't fit the "Space Egypt" theme of how GW names the Dynasties.
Lastly, if he actually had a rule that targeted "FIRSTBORN" he wouldn't be in a box fighting Necrons because that's clearly not his actual role in the setting.
No, if he has a role targetting anyone it'd be "CHARACTERS" fitting in his lore presented as someone who executes people. And it likely wouldn't be an aura buff to nearby units but rather himself, and only in melee.
That would fit GW's approach to rules writing better.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Between 2 wound plague marines nonesense coming back literally 20 times as a "rumour" for different releases, plastic thunderhawks, Fulgrim-nonsense, BolS posts about Black Templar starter boxes all the way back to the olden days to compulsive fake-news mass-producers like old Natfka and Hastings, approximately 98% of "rumours" about 40K posted in the last decade was fake.
Hastings? Lol his track record was pretty much spot on when he was posting rumours. That you put him and nafka in same category shows you didn't actually follow who was and who wans't reliable.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think people are intentionally suspending their common sense in order to buy into what is clearly nonsense.
For starters, GW has always done model then story then rules. What part of the Judicator shows he is specialized in killing Necrons? Not a dang thing. Secondly if he was specialzed in killing Necrons that should be a Dynasty keyword, which "FIRSTBORN" is not. It doesn't fit the "Space Egypt" theme of how GW names the Dynasties.
Lastly, if he actually had a rule that targeted "FIRSTBORN" he wouldn't be in a box fighting Necrons because that's clearly not his actual role in the setting.
No, if he has a role targetting anyone it'd be "CHARACTERS" fitting in his lore presented as someone who executes people. And it likely wouldn't be an aura buff to nearby units but rather himself, and only in melee.
That would fit GW's approach to rules writing better.
You're trapped in the moment too heavily, as much as that is likely a fake; I agree, why shouldn't he have a rule about executing certain armies models? Yes it would be slightly unusual but how is dark angels who have a slew of hunt the fallen rules, whilst not fighting the fallen, any less weird from 6th/7th ed? How do you know there isn't a firstborn dynasty or keyword in the new necron range?
You're coming across as very worked up and incredulous about concepts based on the 8th edition storyline and information we have now, rather than being forward thinking.
BoLS and Spikeybits in particular are famed for just making stuff up, and presenting baseless opinion as irrefutable fact - often quoting ‘a source’.
Consider their now infamous ‘Slaanesh is being squatted’ nonsense.
Based off a single observation from the start of AoS, despite it being made clear in the background Slaanesh has been gimpnapped by the Aelven Gods. But their article of course made no mention, instead preferring to trade on hysteria.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think people are intentionally suspending their common sense in order to buy into what is clearly nonsense.
you need to intentionally remove your common sense to play a GW game anyway
if rules start making sense they are not from GW
the more stupid, and illogical a romour is, the more likley it is true (specially without the big picture of all changes)
just because rules make no sense at all and don't fit the last 6 months of rules writing, is no proof of anything and if you think otherwise you ignore everything GW has done since mid-5th Edition.
BoLS and Spikeybits in particular are famed for just making stuff up, and presenting baseless opinion as irrefutable fact - often quoting ‘a source’.
Honestly both are only in it for the clickbait titles. Half the time its made up, or its just pinched off forum threads. Far as I can tell they don't even get preview material from companies? I think most of their actual news comes out after official infobursts anyway. That said I try to avoid going to either site.
both sites copy&paste what is up on Forums and FB, while post every message that is send to them with "a reliable source told us"
from a German Forum we made the experiment several times how long it takes to post "reliable" rumours until the showed up on BolS and came back to the forum were they were created
same just sending an anonym mail with made up stuff and waited until it was posted as the new hot news
I mean, it does seem SPECIFICALLY designed to incense the folks who've barricaded themselves in their homes with their pile of non-primaris marines, 60 assault rifles and 9,000 rounds of ammo, nothing but a computer open to a dakka account to keep them company.
I'll take this about as seriously as I'd take a rumor that the sisters of battle have a special rule not allowing them to be warlord if you have any space marine characters in your army.
Now, Kirioth has proven a fairly reliable passer on of rumours. His source/s have been right about quite a few things, at least going back to the Ork Codex.
But he doesn’t blindly share everything. And he’s made videos to that effect, explaining his method of selection. Some are just clearly silly ‘ there’ll be a new Codex for X’. Well, of course there will. That’s a statement of likelihood, not a rumour as such.
Even when it’s more of a judgement call, he’s clear about it. He shares his doubts as well as the rumour
That to me is responsible, valuable community contribution.
For starters, GW has always done model then story then rules. What part of the Judicator shows he is specialized in killing Necrons? Not a dang thing.
He can't have Necon trophies on his armor since they phase out when destroyed.
Therefore the lack of necron skulls on his armor prove he is a Necron Killing specialist.
Check and mate.
I'd need to dig for it, but I'm almost certain there is a Chaos model with a Necron head on a trophy rack. And the story Veil of Darkness has a plot point revolving around Sicarius bringing back parts of Necrons after he got whooped by that Necron Lord, so it's not like they all make it out everytime.
EDIT: Found it. Necron skull on the tall spike on the back left of the image.
Someone on bolter and chainsword managed to zoom into a corner of the image and you can see it's clearly been cut out and stuck into a book, so tis a fake.
Probably a fake, but could also be from a playtesting book if they're sticking amended entries into a printed codex rather than printing the whole thing out again and again.
I'd have expected to see a bit more annotation in that case.
It very well could be fake... But I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that we could see a FIRSTBORN keyword for Marines... but in the Starter Box? Surely the rules would be relatively simple, and wholly related to the kit. Time will tell.
diepotato47 wrote: It very well could be fake... But I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility that we could see a FIRSTBORN keyword for Marines... but in the Starter Box? Surely the rules would be relatively simple, and wholly related to the kit. Time will tell.
If we see "Firstborn" keyworded, it won't be on a Loyalist unit getting benefits for killing them.
Are you Spikey Bits? Even phone posting isn't an excuse for passing that off like it's a real leak.
I mean he doesn't have the character keyword, it's a mess of sloppy looking pixels, it's clearly a cut out, and GW has never used "FIRSTBORN" as a keyword meaning the model would be useless at launch.
I'm just passing the info and asking if someone already saw/know about it.
Yes i believe it's probably a fake but some of the minor irks can be explained as be part of assembly booklet.
The firstborn key could be related to the new necron troop (with new weapon options) and it mimics Aos special rules from starter.
If you thought it was fake you should have posted such. Furthermore it looks like someone printed out a datasheet and pasted it in to make it look more "real", third Necrons have no reason to have a "FIRSTBORN" keyword and the Executioner isn't an anti-Necron character, and third he has a peice of Death Korps of Krieg Wargear with the wrong rules:
Spoiler:
And that's just what I spotted posting by phone. That was clearly baiting and frankly even reposting that bull was ridiculious.
Dude, what is wrong with you? take a chill pill.
The guy posted something he saw elsewhere, is not passing it off as "reliable" source (my buddy who works for GW, etc), and just opening up something for discussion. Somehow, the post must have pissed in your cornflakes for some bizarre reason. I know it's a post on the new executioner model, but you do not have the right to determine what posts go on the chopping block. Take some deep breaths, relax, and enjoy dumb stuff that gets posted. It really isn't a big deal.
No it's not (even taking into account it's 40k wiki, so wrong with 80% certainty). It's term invented by one 40k author then popularized by loud minority liking it for pompous sound. There is literally zero chance of it ever translating into the game term, especially seeing there are already keywords for this.
It doesn't even make any sense if you think about it, it's the Primaris who have pure, early geneseed (and even some guys from 30k), the squatmarines have seed diluted by 10000 years of use and were all born in 40k, so if anything it should be 'currentborn' or 'lastborn'...
No it's not (even taking into account it's 40k wiki, so wrong with 80% certainty). It's term invented by one 40k author then popularized by loud minority liking it for pompous sound.
It's been used in multiple books by several writers, it's not a "one 40K author" thing.
You can even check the sources, as they're right there:
Apocalypse (Novel) by Josh Reynolds, Ch. 8
Codex: Adeptus Custodes (8th Edition), pp. 27, 32, 48
Codex: Space Marines (8th Edition) (Revised Codex), pp. 69, 72, 76, 77-79, 82
Codex: Space Wolves (8th Edition) - Annals of the Space Wolves
Dark Imperium (Novel) by Guy Haley, Chs. 12, 13 15
Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Defiant (8th Edition), pg. 77
Spear of the Emperor (Novel) by Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Ch. 5
Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook (7th Edition) (Digital Edition), "Space Marines" (Image)
Albertorius wrote: You can even check the sources, as they're right there:
Apocalypse (Novel) by Josh Reynolds, Ch. 8
Codex: Adeptus Custodes (8th Edition), pp. 27, 32, 48
Codex: Space Marines (8th Edition) (Revised Codex), pp. 69, 72, 76, 77-79, 82
Codex: Space Wolves (8th Edition) - Annals of the Space Wolves
Dark Imperium (Novel) by Guy Haley, Chs. 12, 13 15
Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Defiant (8th Edition), pg. 77
Spear of the Emperor (Novel) by Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Ch. 5
Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook (7th Edition) (Digital Edition), "Space Marines" (Image)
I just checked the Codex: Space Marines (8th Edition) (Revised Codex). There is no mention of the word "Firstborn" in the entire codex.
Page 69 is the Infiltrators Entry, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 72, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 76, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 77-79, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 82, nothing about Firstborn.
Apocalypse (Novel) by Josh Reynolds: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Codex: Adeptus Custodes: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Codex: Space Wolves: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Dark Imperium: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Defiant: 3 mentions of the Vostroyan Firstborn. Page 77 details Calgar's transformation to Primaris, no mention of the word Firstborn.
Spear of the Emperor: 4 mentions of the non-Primaris Space Marines as "Firstborn"
Lexicanum tends to be a better source than the wikia.
The also have a Firstborn page. Judging from their references, I believe the only sources that directly use the term are Spear of the Emperor & potential Apocalypse & Dark Imperium. I haven't read any of them myself though, so I can't confirm.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Lexicanum tends to be a better source than the wikia.
The also have a Firstborn page. Judging from their references, I believe the only sources that directly use the term are Spear of the Emperor & potential Apocalypse & Dark Imperium. I haven't read any of them myself though, so I can't confirm.
The only mention I could find is in Spear of the Emperor, where it is used four times.
So the assertion that it's just a single Black Library writers fannon is pretty much spot on.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just checked the Codex: Space Marines (8th Edition) (Revised Codex). There is no mention of the word "Firstborn" in the entire codex.
Page 69 is the Infiltrators Entry, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 72, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 76, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 77-79, nothing about Firstborn.
Page 82, nothing about Firstborn.
Apocalypse (Novel) by Josh Reynolds: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Codex: Adeptus Custodes: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Codex: Space Wolves: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Dark Imperium: No mention of Firstborn in the entire book.
Imperium Nihilus: Vigilus Defiant: 3 mentions of the Vostroyan Firstborn. Page 77 details Calgar's transformation to Primaris, no mention of the word Firstborn.
Spear of the Emperor: 4 mentions of the non-Primaris Space Marines as "Firstborn"
So, yeah, it is just 1 Black Library writer.
I can only check the 2017 edition. Only thing I see is on page 22:
PRIMOGENITORS The Primogenitors are those Chapters created when the old Ultramarines Legion was divided during the Second Founding. Sometimes referred to as the ‘first born’, these Chapters each maintain their own histories and traditions, but they all honour Roboute Guilliman as their Primarch and adhere strictly to the procedures and tactical treatises he laid down in the Codex Astartes.
That would have been interesting, and honestly would take away some of the bile I feel towards their aim to sunset old marines if they in fact kept them current and just they were First Born. That is probably asking too much respect from a company that looks at everyone as Cash with Legs but one can always dream.
AngryAngel80 wrote: That would have been interesting, and honestly would take away some of the bile I feel towards their aim to sunset old marines if they in fact kept them current and just they were First Born. That is probably asking too much respect from a company that looks at everyone as Cash with Legs but one can always dream.
the basic first born marine units are still reasonably new. tacs marines, devestators and assault marines are all fairly new kits being released at the tail end of 7th edition. I doubt they're going anywhere fast
AngryAngel80 wrote: That would have been interesting, and honestly would take away some of the bile I feel towards their aim to sunset old marines if they in fact kept them current and just they were First Born. That is probably asking too much respect from a company that looks at everyone as Cash with Legs but one can always dream.
the basic first born marine units are still reasonably new. tacs marines, devestators and assault marines are all fairly new kits being released at the tail end of 7th edition. I doubt they're going anywhere fast
Especially when khorne bezerkers just got a price rise while being legally old enough to drive, get a degree, drink, get married and probably have a little khornelet.
I mean they are around the same age as my vintage Deathguard models. Gotta be nice to them though, they aren't as spry as they used to be but I have to say them being pewter does give me a nice model work out to carry them around.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I mean they are around the same age as my vintage Deathguard models. Gotta be nice to them though, they aren't as spry as they used to be but I have to say them being pewter does give me a nice model work out to carry them around.
Yeah now they are beating the horse after shooting it in the head a dozen times XD nobody is ever buying those berserkers. I would pay like 20$ TOPS for that box and that’s if they were gamebreaking and if I had enough old school marines to convert up with the bits...
Automatically Appended Next Post: They better make kill team amazing if they want any new hobbyists ever. Like it better be the best table top game ever.
So I was speculating on the battlefield attrition mechanic and I think it could be a penalty for losing units. Either -1 for each unit (additional -1 if you lose your Warlord), or a -1 for losing half your army and an additional -1 if you lose your Warlord.
Something that crossed my mind is the mystery box prize package might be the limited edition starter which would come with some extras we won't see in the regular starter.
It would make for a more impressive prize package over a free starter too.
I'm a old school marine fanboy, but if GW where to squat them, I'd imagine they would just say all marines crossed the rubicon instead of "Thunder warriors part 2 electric boogaloo" or even remotely consider a Horus Heresy civil war Lite situation.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I'm a old school marine fanboy, but if GW where to squat them, I'd imagine they would just say all marines crossed the rubicon instead of "Thunder warriors part 2 electric boogaloo" or even remotely consider a Horus Heresy civil war Lite situation.
Crossed the Rubicon or died in the attempt is where they're going with it so far.
If we were going to shake up the Imperium and declare some traitors we'd done it a while ago. GW won't do that though since it'll create "feel bad" moments.for players who find out their chapter is now dead or traitor over it.
Only way we could see it happen is if they pulled a Badab War and made up some chapters to throw under the bus and that wouldn't shake the setting up.
Well, they could do some nuance and instead of Feels Bad Traitors, they could go for some nuance, and different visions of what the Imperium is supposed to be.
Or some sort of psychic upheaval, since that was supposed to be vaguely relevant to something recently.
Eldarain wrote: You'd think there would be an Imperial Truth/Ecclesiarchy schism but I have admittedly not read as much of the modern era stuff.
Only if you think Gulliman is going to attempt to reverse thousands of years of social development in the middle of fighting for the Imperium's survival, some of the more idiotic primarchsmay have tried it, Gulliman is well aware he can't afford to
If everyone crosses the Rubicon. Then all old marine armies are then only usable in a historical setting, that or everyone’s army fluff will be they were in the warp so are still old marines
If everyone crosses the Rubicon. Then all old marine armies are then only usable in a historical setting, that or everyone’s army fluff will be they were in the warp so are still old marines
which is why GW won't bother for ages. old marines aren't going to go out with a bang, they'll continue producing them until the molds wear out and gradually shift more and more of them to legends over decades
If everyone crosses the Rubicon. Then all old marine armies are then only usable in a historical setting, that or everyone’s army fluff will be they were in the warp so are still old marines
Oh yay, more "original character don't steal but my Marines were lost in the warp and HATE Primaris!!!!1!" To look forward to.
Eldarain wrote: You'd think there would be an Imperial Truth/Ecclesiarchy schism but I have admittedly not read as much of the modern era stuff.
Only if you think Gulliman is going to attempt to reverse thousands of years of social development in the middle of fighting for the Imperium's survival, some of the more idiotic primarchsmay have tried it, Gulliman is well aware he can't afford to
I was more thinking it would be initiated by the High Lords/Ecclesiarchy in the classic humanity can't get out of it's own way when power and control are at stake mold. Mostly just want more division in the background to better suit all the Imperium on Imperium violence we all wage.
Eldarain wrote: You'd think there would be an Imperial Truth/Ecclesiarchy schism but I have admittedly not read as much of the modern era stuff.
Only if you think Gulliman is going to attempt to reverse thousands of years of social development in the middle of fighting for the Imperium's survival, some of the more idiotic primarchsmay have tried it, Gulliman is well aware he can't afford to
I was more thinking it would be initiated by the High Lords/Ecclesiarchy in the classic humanity can't get out of it's own way when power and control are at stake mold. Mostly just want more division in the background to better suit all the Imperium on Imperium violence we all wage.
Watchers of the Throne series might tempt you.
Highlords can do whatever they like frankly Guilliman is above them and can hire and fire Highlords as he likes.
He has Custodes, probably in excess of 50%of the marines, Harry Cawl not to mention too "most people's mind" the blessing of the emperor himself.
He is no fan of the modern Eclesiarcy but he knows it's a thing and in many ways he seems to have helped it along with some of his choices during the heresy, when dealing with loyal/penetent word bearers traitor legionairs.
Aspects of Thom wrote: For old marines, Let's face it even now if you remove Jump Pack Characters and scouts how many do you actually see.
Drop Pod Devs, Cents and Deathwatch still get use from Vets but yeah Primaris are invalidating most of it.
People have broken down how overtuned Intercessors are and with the new edition seeming to be heading the "GW fixing an issue that's a meta or two behind" in this case elite/horde while Marines are ruling the game we'll have to see how it shakes out moving forward.
Eldarain wrote: You'd think there would be an Imperial Truth/Ecclesiarchy schism but I have admittedly not read as much of the modern era stuff.
Only if you think Gulliman is going to attempt to reverse thousands of years of social development in the middle of fighting for the Imperium's survival, some of the more idiotic primarchsmay have tried it, Gulliman is well aware he can't afford to
I was more thinking it would be initiated by the High Lords/Ecclesiarchy in the classic humanity can't get out of it's own way when power and control are at stake mold. Mostly just want more division in the background to better suit all the Imperium on Imperium violence we all wage.
Watchers of the Throne series might tempt you.
Highlords can do whatever they like frankly Guilliman is above them and can hire and fire Highlords as he likes.
He has Custodes, probably in excess of 50%of the marines, Harry Cawl not to mention too "most people's mind" the blessing of the emperor himself.
He is no fan of the modern Eclesiarcy but he knows it's a thing and in many ways he seems to have helped it along with some of his choices during the heresy, when dealing with loyal/penetent word bearers traitor legionairs.
I have heard good things about the series. I'll make it my next Audible credit. I should definitely read up on the situation as it strikes me odd they would grant him so much control both from a selfish standpoint and moreso the lessons of the HH of having too much power in the hands of the demigod manbabies.
Guilliman has the power because he literally has the top seat on the High Lords after Dorn put him in charge during the Scouring.
Plus with meeting with the Emperor and having the backing of the Custodes and votes of support from Celestine and Greyfax (an Imperial Saint and a hardline Inquisitorl) only cemented his influence further.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well that "leaked" datasheet has been out for nearly a full day now and GW hasn't said a word. Safe to bet it's fake since they respond to leaks pretty quick these days.
If everyone crosses the Rubicon. Then all old marine armies are then only usable in a historical setting, that or everyone’s army fluff will be they were in the warp so are still old marines
Oh yay, more "original character don't steal but my Marines were lost in the warp and HATE Primaris!!!!1!" To look forward to.
No one needs to do that and shouldn't as how hard would it be just to produce rules for the first born even if primaris are the new poster boys ? Wouldn't take much and low effort books to add to burn and churn would be great fun for GW ! I mean they wouldn't even need a new model release or they could as a lark make a one of model now and then for first born to go with it.
Shinny new toy syndrome would mean most will be primaris before long anyways, and worrying about first born somehow upsetting balance for the game is daft when the balance is already questionable and will be so I think for as long as the game exists.
As is the game is a setting and not an exact moment in time anyways, even if they move the timeline forward.
Lets not start this debate again, Legends is as good as dead as most people will just straight up refuse to play against them. We've already been down this road, while I disagree with it most look at that as a Kiss of Death so saying they'll be in Legends is like saying you never lose something as its always in the grave.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't think GW will stop producing rules for Firstborn. Legends is always an option after all....
that and consider how old some of the kits out there are. Khorne Bezerkers are over 20 years old, and I bet some plastic kits are even older so First born are fine, I mean... what are we afraid of, not getting a new Tac marine kit every 5 years or so?
AngryAngel80 wrote: Lets not start this debate again, Legends is as good as dead as most people will just straight up refuse to play against them. We've already been down this road, while I disagree with it most look at that as a Kiss of Death so saying they'll be in Legends is like saying you never lose something as its always in the grave.
That people refuse to play using official rules provided is just pure idiocy and not GWs fault in any form. I actually hope the they Legend the minimarines, as that might put an end to that anti-Legends lunacy as half of many people's collections now depend on those rules.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Lets not start this debate again, Legends is as good as dead as most people will just straight up refuse to play against them. We've already been down this road, while I disagree with it most look at that as a Kiss of Death so saying they'll be in Legends is like saying you never lose something as its always in the grave.
That people refuse to play using official rules provided is just pure idiocy and not GWs fault in any form. I actually hope the they Legend the minimarines, as that might put an end to that anti-Legends lunacy as half of many people's collections now depend on those rules.
Let's be honest, people will still pitch fits about Forge World even with the main studio doing the rules.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Lets not start this debate again, Legends is as good as dead as most people will just straight up refuse to play against them. We've already been down this road, while I disagree with it most look at that as a Kiss of Death so saying they'll be in Legends is like saying you never lose something as its always in the grave.
That people refuse to play using official rules provided is just pure idiocy and not GWs fault in any form. I actually hope the they Legend the minimarines, as that might put an end to that anti-Legends lunacy as half of many people's collections now depend on those rules.
I really hope that doesn't happen as all that will happen is the madness people have over legends will lead to lots of people losing lots of models. It may not be GWs fault for their reaction, but GW could very easily just keep books coming out to keep first born around. It would require little effort, if they do it right will get them money it's a win win. As opposed to the legends which is just a loss wrapped in a bow. Much like working at a store and being fired but it being phrased as " You're not being fired, you're being promoted to customer. ".
AngryAngel80 wrote: Lets not start this debate again, Legends is as good as dead as most people will just straight up refuse to play against them. We've already been down this road, while I disagree with it most look at that as a Kiss of Death so saying they'll be in Legends is like saying you never lose something as its always in the grave.
That people refuse to play using official rules provided is just pure idiocy and not GWs fault in any form. I actually hope the they Legend the minimarines, as that might put an end to that anti-Legends lunacy as half of many people's collections now depend on those rules.
I really hope that doesn't happen as all that will happen is the madness people have over legends will lead to lots of people losing lots of models. It may not be GWs fault for their reaction, but GW could very easily just keep books coming out to keep first born around. It would require little effort, if they do it right will get them money it's a win win. As opposed to the legends which is just a loss wrapped in a bow. Much like working at a store and being fired but it being phrased as " You're not being fired, you're being promoted to customer. ".
Legends is still perfectly playable, just not re-balanced outside of maybe edition changes. People telling you to not play Legends are the same ones who will continue to ban Forge World and throw fits about certain units. No one, not even GW should cater to those people.
Ripping off the bandage will have to happen sooner or later just to combat the codex bloat. Keeping around units they'll phase out over time even after they're phased out.does nothing to keep the player base happy and only continues an existing problem for even longer than it should go on.
All marines should get two wounds, keep the rest as usual and move on with it. Eventually there will be marines, just marines... no numarines and no OG weenies. Just different generations of models, as should have been the case since the start.
What about Terminators then? Chaos Marines? Havocs who are Primaris size, have T5, but only 1 wound? What about... ? What about... ? And on and on it goes.
What about Terminators then? Chaos Marines? Havocs who are Primaris size, have T5, but only 1 wound? What about... ? What about... ? And on and on it goes.
All marines... including chaos. As a way to recognize super human multi organ physiology.
Why should termies get more? They should get to use 2d6 for armor saves.
Centurions should be forgotten as well should those ridiculous new jump pack restartes with auto cannons... these should never see play but this is my taste. Still, if one were to want to use them, two wounds...
Anyways with this narrative ongoing, I see just a sort of long winded excuse to end up with exactly this. I mean it never made sense that a guardsman and a Deathwatch marine both had one wound with the only real difference between them being power armor...
What about Terminators then? Chaos Marines? Havocs who are Primaris size, have T5, but only 1 wound? What about... ? What about... ? And on and on it goes.
In 8th Number of Wounds was the main defence statline, Armour Save did not really matter, and Thoughness needs to be above the S level of the most used weapons to matter
So yes if Marines can take more damage than a human, it is not the armour save that matter or T5 for Termis but 2 or more Wounds.
Instead of adding T6 2+/5+++ Termis (and equivalent), give them 3 Wounds while MEQ should have 2 Wounds.
Increasing the "killspeed" of the game because rules are written for a 10 model skirmish game and therefore it is too slow if played with armies is no solution and jut creates other problems (which than are solved by adding more save, that are compensated by mortal wounds which is "solved" by different saves etc. we have seen this before and instead of doing proper statlines designed to fit the core rules, GW just copy&paste stuff from an old game and add workarounds by special rules)
We only need more wounds because weapons cause more damage these days. The fact that a Krak Missile can just wipe away half a big bug's wounds with one failed armour save is what makes these things seem so weak.
It's a form of rules escalation that's really unhealthy if not properly cultivated and expanded upon. I don't trust GW's writers to be able to do that.
It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
It is not like that 2 Wounds for Marines/Termis was already asked for in 5th Edition instead of having 5++/5+++/6++++ saves to handle the spam of AP2 weapons
But 8th changed a lot and addeing Damage 2 weapons to kill of medium infantry easier while keeping that medium infantry at 1 Wound is a mistake at best
and yes, if you increase the damage of weapons and make a difference between a 1 Shot + Damage 2 and 2 Shot Damage 1 weapon
you also need to adjust the stat lines to make a difference between the intended targets (and keeping 1 Wound but changing Thoughness to counter Damage 2 just means that the designer don't know what they are doing)
D6 Damage is another problem, fixed values would solve it but this is notgoing to happen (Krak Missile D4, LaserCannon D6 and you can adjust point cost better and overall balance)
But this is also why I have less hope for 9th, because "we added all the crazy ideas we have every 60 seconds"
this is why 8th is what it is in the first place, none of those crazy ideas was thought thru but just added because it sounded cool with no one taking a look if anything else need to be changed as well
hence 9th will not be a 8.5 but a new game after all, with the 8th legacy "written with 9th in mind" won't work as soon as the "designed for 9th" stuff hits
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
That's part of why I know it won't happen any time soon. It'd definitely require other aspects of the game to change around it to be viable. Whether that be alternating activation or other ways to react or what have you.
Has anyone thought about the idea that the rulebook won't come with the starter set anymore? So the 120£ could be the starter and the rulebook which would mean that the starter would be cheaper by itself which in turn wouldn't make the change from Dark Imperium as apparent. This way the entry point would be more than before at 120£ but it wouldn't seem as bad as the starter would still be probably around 100£
Matrindur wrote: Has anyone thought about the idea that the rulebook won't come with the starter set anymore? So the 120£ could be the starter and the rulebook which would mean that the starter would be cheaper by itself which in turn wouldn't make the change from Dark Imperium as apparent as the "starter" would be about the same but won't include the rulebook
I don't really see the point of a "starter" with no rules to start - remember GW does intend starters for new players and not just to increase the collections of existing players.
Now I could see cutting the price by using a softcover, since they've done that in prev. editions. Then they could sell a hardback separately with the full fluff/art/etc.
As far as I recall there hasn't been a starter set without rules in it. DI sold so well that GW would probably want to double down on the hardnack book again. Also, the production would have started at least an year ago before all the crisis stuff so my money is for a hardback inside
we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set
my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:
- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive
- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)
- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)
- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year
kodos wrote: we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set
my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:
- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive
- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)
- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)
- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year
Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?
I'm curious to know if pistols will continue to be usable in close combat, and if so, if they will take the Necromunda route by firing them with WS instead of BS.
Also, let's see how/if they rework the subfactions/clans system, because for some armies (like orks) it doesn't fit that much, and I'm not talking from the standpoint of rules. Things like Bad Moon Kommandos or Goff Lootas make little sense thematically, and I'm sure that all armies have their own odd examples.
Esper wrote: I'm curious to know if pistols will continue to be usable in close combat, and if so, if they will take the Necromunda route by firing them with WS instead of BS.
Also, let's see how/if they rework the subfactions/clans system, because for some armies (like orks) it doesn't fit that much, and I'm not talking from the standpoint of rules. Things like Bad Moon Kommandos or Goff Lootas make little sense thematically, and I'm sure that all armies have their own odd examples.
I'm quietly hopeful there'll be a CP tax to using a different subfaction keyword, just to try and encourage armies staying in theme a little more as you say.
kodos wrote: I expect the new guy to act in the Psyker Phase and Necrons have something to shut Psyker down
OR:
Psyker Phase will be re-done as general Hero-Phase were all abilities from Heros are activated
Certainly would mirror sigmar and allows armies with no psykers to interact/enable some play in that phase.
Agree, it would also help out clean up the mess of all sorts of random abilities triggering at the start/end of turns or phases. Some abilities need to trigger at a specific time to work or be as powerful as they are, but many like orders, c'tan powers, MW auras or the tau command auras would change little or not at all if they were done in the psychic phase, except people forgetting their stuff less often because they now have a "now I need to do the fancy stuff" reminder as part of the game.
My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
Mathematically it's all the same.
You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.
My only complaint about it are the times it robs the game of those epic moments that stay with you.
A lone guardsmen on an objective survives against all odds. He lunges at the badly wounded Chaos Lord looming over him who will undoubtedly crush him in short order. Somehow the bayonet finds it's mark. The armor save tumbles to a stop. A 1! The Lord slumps into the rubble. The guardsmen stands triumphant...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.
I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.
This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.
Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
And then go full lotr and ditch ugoigo for alternating phases. It is an actual workable and balanced ruleset after all, much to the gnashing of teeth of 40k only grognards.
Eldarain wrote: My only complaint about it are the times it robs the game of those epic moments that stay with you.
A lone guardsmen on an objective survives against all odds. He lunges at the badly wounded Chaos Lord looming over him who will undoubtedly crush him in short order. Somehow the bayonet finds it's mark. The armor save tumbles to a stop. A 1! The Lord slumps into the rubble. The guardsmen stands triumphant...
Or at least he would have. "I'll reroll that"
Exactly. This is my huge issue with them in particular.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.
I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.
This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.
Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.
I can understand that but then they're essentially choosing not to use their other strats, which is a strategic decision on their part (even if it is a boring one). I've never seen anyone burn 6cp on single die re-rolls in a turn though, rarely more than 2 though from personal experience. I do agree the prevalence of re-rolls from auras however does need to die, it just slows everything down and a modifier would be far quicker /easier to use or instead make it apply to 1 unit.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
I don't, but I don't like people who over use them. One here or there is fine, but when every phase you use one it's just meh.
I agree. I detest all of the re-rolls. Especially with all the hitting on 2's re-roll 1's etc. I would be glad to see the back of it. But, others really like it for those clutch rolls. I re-roll per turn maybe more palatable. It's been a long time since I've seen a psyker suffer perils of the warp.
This is part of the reason, maybe if some rolls were absolutely not allowed to be re-rolled it would be better. For example explode results, a 1/36 chance to make the first vehicle/MC of the turn explode/deathroes if ridiculous, considering how difficult it can be to pop multiple vehicles/MC in one turn.
Vehicle/MC explosion results should be easier anyway, its the sort of carnage that should be in the game, but that is a different conversation.
I can understand that but then they're essentially choosing not to use their other strats, which is a strategic decision on their part (even if it is a boring one). I've never seen anyone burn 6cp on single die re-rolls in a turn though, rarely more than 2 though from personal experience. I do agree the prevalence of re-rolls from auras however does need to die, it just slows everything down and a modifier would be far quicker /easier to use or instead make it apply to 1 unit.
In own turn
Psychic Phase - Re-roll a failed cast/perils
Shooting Phase - Re-roll a failed hit/wound/damage
Charge Phase - Re-roll a failed charge
Assault Phase - Re-roll a failed hit/wound/damage
Opponents turn
Movement Phase - Reroll a failed counter strat (auspex scan, however rare)
Psychic Phase - re-roll a counter strat
Shooting Phase - Re-roll a failed save/Explode
Charge Phase - Re-roll overwatch damage/wound (rare)
Assault Phase - Re-roll a save/Explode
That's how easy it is to blow through 6ish command points in a single turn, and it absolutely happens. I also find it super cheap to do so as that one wound could have cost your opponent 3x CP's to pull off for example, which is super swingy then, you are effectively paying 1CP for the chance to negate multiple CP's worth of investment from the opponent.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
Mathematically it's all the same.
You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.
I'd also like to point out that rolling saves is neither interactive nor does it allow you to influence the game. It just gives you something to do.
The only way to interact with your opponent during their shooting phase is stratagems and rare abilities of units that allow you to respond to getting shot.
A rules only softcover in the starter is exactly the opposite of what they need for the intended used (ie new players)
One of the things that keeps a new player interested is the background and art that all the long term players frequetly know off by heart so a nice hardcover with plenty of eye candy will help keep new player buying (at least for a while)
a small softcover with just the rules in is dry and offputting to a new player even though it might be convenient for established players who travel to their games
If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.
Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.
But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
Mathematically it's all the same.
You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.
With d6 you get lot less variety than with 2d6.
4+ to wound, 4+ to save. 25% chance of going through. Single d6 it's 16% or 33%.
3+, 5+, 22% chance.
So yeah it's mathematically same...for SOME combos. Not all.
Idea can work but would need dice with more granularity or killing is more samey. Plasma gun or lascannon? Bolter or heavy bolter? More targets for both will be same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.
Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.
But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.
Issue with rerolls is specifically it makes things too reliable. Why even bother have dice rolls? Just remove perils from the game since you just avoid them with rerolls.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that rolling saves is neither interactive nor does it allow you to influence the game. It just gives you something to do.
By giving you something to do it is therefore interactive. It's something you can do to save your troops. Not having it and just sitting there with nothing to do would be awful.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it'd probably be better if Armour and AP were just taken acount in a model's T & Weapon's S just to remove a whole sequence of rolls and rescale defensiveness from there.
You would remove armour saves from the game completely? That would drastically reduce the interactivity of the game. During your opponent's turn your only task would be to remove the things that die. That's not fun. UGOIGO has its problems, but further reducing the "off" player's ability to influence the game when it is not their turn would be a terrible change.
Mathematically it's all the same.
You can fold wound rolls into armour rolls instead so each player has one roll per attack.
With d6 you get lot less variety than with 2d6.
4+ to wound, 4+ to save. 25% chance of going through. Single d6 it's 16% or 33%.
3+, 5+, 22% chance.
So yeah it's mathematically same...for SOME combos. Not all.
Idea can work but would need dice with more granularity or killing is more samey. Plasma gun or lascannon? Bolter or heavy bolter? More targets for both will be same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: If your spending 3CP in strategums to cause 1 wound that can be saved the problem is your probably using a strategum at the wrong tine or it's an overcosted strategum.
Some people go way to ham on the reroll strategum but that is their choice. I would say many people use it way too much but if they want to burn all their CP turn 1 go ahead.
But see when you snake eyes on your 2d6 shot weapon it can really help.
Issue with rerolls is specifically it makes things too reliable. Why even bother have dice rolls? Just remove perils from the game since you just avoid them with rerolls.
I would argue part of the problem is perils being only a 1 in 16 chance, I get that they dont want then to become the suicide units but maybe it should have been all doubles as some psychic powers are game changing especially when they get the 90% success rate some factions can build.
kodos wrote: we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set
my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:
- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive
- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)
- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)
- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year
Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?
Dark Imperium didn't have any Psykers in it either so I don't think it's a requirement for the starter set to show off all the rules in that sense.
Dudeface wrote:
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
That's exactly why I hate the re-roll strat. Games so very rarely have these amazing, memorable moments now where luck favours one side over the other because everyone knows to save their CP re-roll for that one specific moment. I've experimented playing without the core rulebook strats and the game was massively better for it, IMO. Morale suddenly mattered more, there were fewer janky interactions in the assault phase where a random guy charging in one corner of the battlefield got your warlord killed due to the combat interrupt, and things like damage rolls became more random, which required more reacting on the fly fomr both players as the reduced reliability meant you couldn't basically plan out your turn with a high degree of accuracy before the turn started. I'm a little worried by the idea of GW introducing more core stratagems, TBH.
kodos wrote: we have seen 2 pictures of the forces instead of the combined picture
the Marine part is identical to the original Dark Vengance Set
my conclusion on the stuff we have seen:
- the 3rd Hero in the box is limited to the initial release and/or pre-order exclusive
- the forces will be available as stand-alone box set (like with the first AoS one)
- therefore there will be rules in the box, a booklet with the downloadable rules printed + booklet with printed datasheets for the models and scenarios together with a big rulebook (similar to the AoS box)
- hence the big hardcover book with the full rules will not see a stand-alone release until later that year
Further thought, they're usually keen on displaying all phases of the game in starter boxes. The game has a psychic phase, there are no psykers in the marine faction so is there maybe something for crons in there?
Dark Imperium didn't have any Psykers in it either so I don't think it's a requirement for the starter set to show off all the rules in that sense.
Dudeface wrote:
endlesswaltz123 wrote: My personal absolute biggest wish, and this is to be honest from watching battle reps on youtube etc as opposed to my own playing.... Removing the command point re roll, it is easily my most detested mechanics of 8th edition, more so than the long unwelcome random charge distance of the last few editions.
Or at least curb it down to once a turn, it has long been my theory one of the main reasons you don't see some strategems, or limited use of them is because you have people burn through 6 command points on re-rolls within the phases of a complete turn (maybe a slight over exaggeration but you get the point). It has then lead to this 'baiting' of command re-rolls by the opposing player, even them suggesting the other player should re-roll as they are so desperate for them to spend it early on.
If they had to stay around, I'd prefer them to be once per turn, alternatively, instead of a re-roll, allow a dice to be modified by +1 or -1 for 1 cp once per turn.
If you don't like the strat, don't use it? If your opponent wants to blow CP on re-rolls that's their choice. It's a nice to have as a just in case for a lot of situations such as low damage rolls.
That's exactly why I hate the re-roll strat. Games so very rarely have these amazing, memorable moments now where luck favours one side over the other because everyone knows to save their CP re-roll for that one specific moment. I've experimented playing without the core rulebook strats and the game was massively better for it, IMO. Morale suddenly mattered more, there were fewer janky interactions in the assault phase where a random guy charging in one corner of the battlefield got your warlord killed due to the combat interrupt, and things like damage rolls became more random, which required more reacting on the fly fomr both players as the reduced reliability meant you couldn't basically plan out your turn with a high degree of accuracy before the turn started. I'm a little worried by the idea of GW introducing more core stratagems, TBH.
I agree that, somehow, wound and save rolls should be unified. After all, wearing armor can be considered as a way to compensante for the lack of a natural toughness.
4+ to wound, 4+ to save. 25% chance of going through. Single d6 it's 16% or 33%.
3+, 5+, 22% chance.
So yeah it's mathematically same...for SOME combos. Not all.
Idea can work but would need dice with more granularity or killing is more samey. Plasma gun or lascannon? Bolter or heavy bolter? More targets for both will be same.
In "Tabletop Wargames: A Designers’ and Writers’ Handbook" Rick Priestley explains that the decision to have 3 rolls per attack came about to keep roughly 100 possible outcomes when they switched from D100 to D6, so you are right that it would need a bigger dice. Two D10 rolls would come out to 100 results again.
Or you can just come up with a rule that let's player agree that 10 intercessors shooting can become 5 intercessors shooting with bolters that infilict double the wounds (or simply become damage 2 bolters if you are shooting at a multi wound target). instead of shooting 6 agressors, just make two shoot and they will inflict triple the number of wounds (all 6 need to be in range of course).
Those d6 dices are not going anywhere we all know that, sadly. but there are simple ways to avoid throwing more than 20 of them. I mean for a new player it can be fun throwing tons of dices around, but it gets old pretty fast doesn't it.
I have comme to really hate stuff like agressors shooting, or bad moon lootas, or acolyte close combat phases (or flamethrowers), but if I could just double or triple the damage and throw that much less dice, then I would be happy again using these units.
It is why I love mortal wounds, they are just so relaxing
addnid wrote: Or you can just come up with a rule that let's player agree that 10 intercessors shooting can become 5 intercessors shooting with bolters that infilict double the wounds (or simply become damage 2 bolters if you are shooting at a multi wound target).
Those d6 dices are not going anywhere we all know that, sadly. but there are simple ways to avoid throwing more than 20 of them. I mean for a new player it can be fun throwing tons of dices around, but it gets old pretty fast doesn't it
Yes if we want to alter the odds of things lots of things can be done. We do have to be sure we know it's going to be altering game play and results though
addnid wrote: Or you can just come up with a rule that let's player agree that 10 intercessors shooting can become 5 intercessors shooting with bolters that infilict double the wounds (or simply become damage 2 bolters if you are shooting at a multi wound target).
Those d6 dices are not going anywhere we all know that, sadly. but there are simple ways to avoid throwing more than 20 of them. I mean for a new player it can be fun throwing tons of dices around, but it gets old pretty fast doesn't it
Yes if we want to alter the odds of things lots of things can be done. We do have to be sure we know it's going to be altering game play and results though
Yeah more variance, so for tournament play I dunno if it is easy to implement. But for anything else, if both players agree, then match play rules should allow for it. It is a shame 9th ed doesn't seem to offer anything so far to speed games up, aside from discouraging hordes (hordes are faster to play for someone like me than elite units throwing insane amounts of dice, because i am fast at moving units, but not that fats at throwing dice, don't ask me why...) .
Even for tourney play, "I am an nice guy you are a nice guy too, so lets agree to triple damage my 20 attacks instead of me making 60 attacks", would probably not change much to the outcome of the game honestly. Variance over 20 dice make for a reliable enough outcome, no need to throw 60 if you think about it...
I wonder what is going to happen to the rule of 3 in the new edition. Currently it's an add-on for Matched Play, but not a core rule. Some of these new armies they have been talking about can't really exists with it in place. For example, a pure deathwing army is going to struggle since it only has one terminator squad (not including knights), instead of 2 separate unit entries. Normally this is a bonus (mixed weapons) but it would be a pain with rule of 3. Granted, Combat Squadding 10 man sqds does exist too.
I certainly want some form of cap though as I don't want a return of 9x best unit in codex, etc.
It's possible that the new Detachment rules are closer to AoS, where you have a minimum requirement of Core units and Heroes that scales based upon the points values you're playing at.
They did seemingly mention different 'styles' of gameplay as well.
Galas wrote: I mean deathwing have tartaros and cathapractii too.
Yes, because four units of indomitus terminators is broken cheese, but three units of indomitus terminators, three units of tartator terminators and three units of cataphrachtii terminators is fine and dandy. Rule of thee is just stupid. In this instance it would force the Deathwing player to field mismatched hodgepodge of terminators instead of having an unified look and certainly not for any improvement in balance. I really hope they remove it in the 9th edition.
bullyboy wrote: I wonder what is going to happen to the rule of 3 in the new edition. Currently it's an add-on for Matched Play, but not a core rule. Some of these new armies they have been talking about can't really exists with it in place. For example, a pure deathwing army is going to struggle since it only has one terminator squad (not including knights), instead of 2 separate unit entries. Normally this is a bonus (mixed weapons) but it would be a pain with rule of 3. Granted, Combat Squadding 10 man sqds does exist too.
I certainly want some form of cap though as I don't want a return of 9x best unit in codex, etc.
I am very interested in the Matched Play rules that 9th will bring in - they did keep taking about all-Deathwing armies. Perhaps this was just guys on Zoom saying the first thing that pops in their head, but it was noticeable (and a little encouraging?)
The Detachment structure (assuming its still Detachments) is also something I am curious about, linked to the discussions on CPs etc.
Galas wrote: I mean deathwing have tartaros and cathapractii too.
Yes, because four units of indomitus terminators is broken cheese, but three units of indomitus terminators, three units of tartator terminators and three units of cataphrachtii terminators is fine and dandy. Rule of thee is just stupid. In this instance it would force the Deathwing player to field mismatched hodgepodge of terminators instead of having an unified look and certainly not for any improvement in balance. I really hope they remove it in the 9th edition.
Jeez. With how many people is embarked on their own personal crusade in this forum, one could assume this is a Horus Heresy roleplaying one.
Galas wrote: I mean deathwing have tartaros and cathapractii too.
strongly dislike both of those armour types for 40K and only have Indomitus. But still. we'll see what the new edition brings in light of army building. I will be happy to not b hamstrung by the 8th edition CP system.
They could (should) implement the rule of 3 as a key word, as opposed to a blanket across the board rule.
Then, units that should be limited, are done so, and units that do not need to be limited would not be.
Even more efficient, would be the unlimited keyword. And then for specific armies, Deathwing as its the working example, they are able to grant units the unlimited keyword if all units in the army have the Deathwing keyword.
Galas wrote: I mean deathwing have tartaros and cathapractii too.
Yes, because four units of indomitus terminators is broken cheese, but three units of indomitus terminators, three units of tartator terminators and three units of cataphrachtii terminators is fine and dandy. Rule of thee is just stupid. In this instance it would force the Deathwing player to field mismatched hodgepodge of terminators instead of having an unified look and certainly not for any improvement in balance. I really hope they remove it in the 9th edition.
Jeez. With how many people is embarked on their own personal crusade in this forum, one could assume this is a Horus Heresy roleplaying one.
It would be great indeed if they understood that no ones gives a f about their terminator ramblings. Maaaaaaan... I usually have a high tolerance for that kind of stuff, but some just take it too far...
I second that wound rolls are beginning to feel some what redundant and old fashioned. I mean, to hit is how good your dude is at aiming, to wound is how strong your weapon is, save is your armour, then dmg is how... strong your weapon is. So shouldn’t an amount of wounds and an amount of dmg be showing you how tough a unit is/ how strong a gun is now?
The way I see it is that all the rolls make sense so far. I haven't played in a little however, so not sure how it would hold up. But to hit = did you hit them anywhere, wound = it hit a fleshy piece (not glancing off a shoulder guard), save = did the armor hold, and damage = did I hit you in the chest with a lascannon or did I hit just blow off a hand?
I don't know. I just want Crusader squads to have a purpose again.
Rule of 3 feels like a sledgehammer solution that could use a more nuanced alternative, like maybe limiting especially problematic units to '1 per detachment' or similar.
It never felt right that I can take several dozen Leman Russes, but not four units of Veterans.
Tiberius501 wrote: I second that wound rolls are beginning to feel some what redundant and old fashioned. I mean, to hit is how good your dude is at aiming, to wound is how strong your weapon is, save is your armour, then dmg is how... strong your weapon is. So shouldn’t an amount of wounds and an amount of dmg be showing you how tough a unit is/ how strong a gun is now?
Yeah, this is pretty much how I've felt for most of 8th; what Damage currently does is what Strength used to do (eg Instant Death). There aren't many weapons with high S / low Dam, or low S / high Dam, and statistically they don't behave very differently on the tabletop. It would make more sense to roll to hit, roll to beat armor (including 'innate toughness'; just use a unified stat for 'how hard is this thing to hurt'), then apply damage. The problem is that, as stated by others, the D6 system doesn't allow for a ton of variance within that paradigm, especially when most things in the game hit on 3+ to start with- but rolling extra dice to get the desired bell curve is a pretty clunky resolution. Switching to a different die type- or combining different dice, like how Apocalypse does it- would help.
Not sure if you're familiar with it, but the Starship Troopers game system managed to condense it all down to a single attack roll. If you beat the target's Hit value, then they get to roll a Save, and take a wound if they fail. If you beat the target's Kill value, no save, take a wound. Unit runs out of wounds, it dies. Differences in weapon effectiveness are represented by numbers of dice, types of dice and modifiers, so a basic assault rifle might be D6, a super-armor-piercing sniper round might be D10+2, and a low-penetration but high-damage bomb might be 6D6. Throw in bonuses/penalties (eg due to accuracy) as straight modifiers, and you get a very fast-playing system that still has a usefully deep design space.
catbarf wrote: Rule of 3 feels like a sledgehammer solution that could use a more nuanced alternative, like maybe limiting especially problematic units to '1 per detachment' or similar.
It never felt right that I can take several dozen Leman Russes, but not four units of Veterans.
.
That would be essentially same except worse in 8th and not likely to be much better in 9th...
Yeah that sounds quite good. I like the idea of D12’s or whatever taking over from D6’s, and then rolling less dice, and moving to units having unit stats, rather than individual model stats.
Unit has X amount of wounds, hits on a 3+ or whatever, shoots a couple of dice, enemy rolls to save, takes dmg. The new Apocalypse game is quite close to that actually, and seems a lot better. I’m just not a fan of the weird random ability deck thing that goes on.
Anyway, this will never happen, unfortunately, and as much as I’d like it, 8th works okay, and 9th seems to be improving on the biggest issues, besides these things.
Jidmah wrote: I'd also like to point out that rolling saves is neither interactive nor does it allow you to influence the game. It just gives you something to do.
By giving you something to do it is therefore interactive. It's something you can do to save your troops. Not having it and just sitting there with nothing to do would be awful.
But that's not interaction. You basically being degraded to a dice rolling machine because the rules say you have to roll them instead of your opponent. If saves were rolled by the shooting person, it would change nothing about the game.
Actual interaction like previous editions going to ground would be really awesome. As it is now, I'd personally prefer wandering off and talking to other people over sitting there and rolling a few dice every minute or so. As ork or DG player I'm completely obsolete during my opponent's shooting phase.
I for one am all for the rule of three. Until recently there was The force organization chart where players only had 3 fast attack, heavy support, and elite slots. So you couldn't have more than three non-troop units anyways and I find that to be much better than running into all the spam lists in more recent years.
Anybody claiming for a "1 per detachment" as a solution to the rule of three isn't a Tau player. Feth that nonsense approach. Rule of three is extremely fine. Theres a couple outliers here and there but as a general rule it has accomplished what it wanted.
After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
jeff white wrote: After the excitement is wearing off, I am getting worried abot boltpistols blowing up tanks again. Ick. That always reminds me of the bridge science during Saving Private Ryan. If grots can't stop your tank, then they shoudn't be able to damage it without appropriate arms, either.
I do remember irritating a friend a long time ago, when I kept talking about how to design a tank-killing potato gun. I stole the idea of using bromine from my chem prof. Just hollow out the potato, put a flask of bromine in there, cap it, wrap it, and aim for something tender for the bromine to eat. Best I could do, but the very idea pissed him off.
I don't really want to go back to that system since it means having a tank one shotted by a good damage table roll.
Besides, there are parts of a tank that can be damaged by other weapons. Heck, get it to throw a track and it's a sitting duck.
