Gamgee wrote: Honestly these rules seem very finalized to me other than them tweaking the values. I would expect release any month now. As a person who has tested numerous beta games on pc (before it became a lame early access fest).
I expect the core rules to be pretty much done. The thing is the rules for the hundreds of different units in the game.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
There's been nothing mentioned about all armour save's being capped on a single d6 has there? If for example Terminators and Land raiders took there save on 2d6 you would need something with a high save modifier to reliably take them out.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
nintura wrote: Remember guys, games are supposed to be around 90 minutes. That means stuff is going to die quick and often. Get used to it.
Thats not entirely true, they said 1500pts took ~90 minutes, furthermore, rarely is tabling your opponent the objective of most missions. A well written system could take an hour without everything dying.
The only thing I would expect to not be done at this point. Assuming a June 7th date for Pre-release. Is typeset, artwork setting and sending to the printers. I would expect the point they announced it was coming out was probably the same day they sent it to printers for first layout print check.
Remember, there is always a period of time you send to printers, Get box sets ready at distributors and fire off the run. It takes about a month and a half to get all of that done.
I haven't yet heard anyone say: Vehicles have Leadership now. Maybe they're still Fearless, but could this make them more vulnerable to Psychics and other attacks against Leadership?
and reposting for new page:
axisofentropy wrote: How much time passed between Age of Sigmar's official announcement and release?
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh the new books are certainly in shipping crates right now, even if release is later in June. Nothing's gonna change.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
Probably Space Marine Captain has a rule "all units get +1 to Leadership" or something similar. That'd be good, gives some impression that the Captain is really leading the army instead of just being a Melee monster.
Latro_ wrote: Time to invest in some wound counters then! anyone know of any good sites selling em?
i wouldn't get carried away, you have no idea how wound allocation works. That is something that changes every edition. I am hoping you put wounds on a model until it dies which cuts down on the need for a thousand counters.
axisofentropy wrote: I haven't yet heard anyone say: Vehicles have Leadership now. Maybe they're still Fearless, but could this make them more vulnerable to Psychics and other attacks against Leadership?
and reposting for new page:
axisofentropy wrote: How much time passed between Age of Sigmar's official announcement and release?
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh the new books are certainly in shipping crates right now, even if release is later in June. Nothing's gonna change.
Yeap assuming a June release they have to be finalized the unit stats. On the last signals from the frontline they discussed how they were still under an nda, but at the same time it seems like the testing phase is over since they are allowed to at least say they did it. There is a huge amount of lead in time to printing and shipping books. I'm agreeing with you if that's not obvious. Just explaining things for others who might not know.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
That doesn't really matter because of how the AoS bravery system actually works.
Marine squad has 5 guys in it. They take 3 deaths in that turn. You roll 1d6+3. If you roll a 5+3 you remove 1 more guy, If you roll a 9+ you remove both of the rest of the guys. So, assuming your marine squad is 10 guys. You lose 5 guys. 1d6+5 and roll a 6+5. 11 - 7 = 4 more casualties. So, the leadership cannot be extremely high per say.
A dreadnought having a leadership will only really have an effect if something else affects leadership. As 1 dreadnought losing 1 dreadnought doesn't cause the thin air to roll a leadership test.
Youn wrote: The only thing I would expect to not be done at this point. Assuming a June 7th date for Pre-release. Is typeset, artwork setting and sending to the printers. I would expect the point they announced it was coming out was probably the same day they sent it to printers for first layout print check.
Remember, there is always a period of time you send to printers, Get box sets ready at distributors and fire off the run. It takes about a month and a half to get all of that done.
There was rumor or leak if a I recall of an events itinerary which had how to paint death guard listed as a seminar at the end of May. My bet is the starter includes the numarines as well a death guard and that the whole hog is released in early to mid May. AoS didn't have a split release between BRB and starter after all and I doubt this will. I am guessing everything is done at this point.
Probably Space Marine Captain has a rule "all units get +1 to Leadership" or something similar. That'd be good, gives some impression that the Captain is really leading the army instead of just being a Melee monster.
I would expect the Space Marine Captain has a COMMAND ABILITY called Inspiring presence. That says, one unit within 12" of the captain may ignore battle shock that turn.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
That doesn't really matter because of how the AoS bravery system actually works.
Marine squad has 5 guys in it. They take 3 deaths in that turn. You roll 1d6+3. If you roll a 8 you remove 1 more guy, If you roll a 9+ you remove both of the rest of the guys. So, assuming your marine squad is 10 guys. You lose 5 guys. 1d6+5 and roll a 8. 13 - 7 = 5 more casualties. So, the leadership cannot be extremely high per say.
A dreadnought having a leadership will only really have an effect if something else affects leadership. As 1 dreadnought losing 1 dreadnought doesn't cause the thin air to roll a leadership test.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
Probably Space Marine Captain has a rule "all units get +1 to Leadership" or something similar. That'd be good, gives some impression that the Captain is really leading the army instead of just being a Melee monster.
Would also be neat to see something like this implemented with the Imperial Guard, or dare I say, via vox casters, like back in the old days.
Yes, but in what form...please just let me pick my spells...
In the new AoS stuff they usually let you pick or roll at your discretion. I don't play any armies with spells though so I could be wrong. In the KO book though for warlord traits and stuff like that it says pick or roll. So I would assume it's the same way.
Love the unit profiles. AV was a mechanic that had to go and for those that haven't played AoS weapons have multi wound damage profiles and rend so stuff dies easy plus monsters get weaker and is very balanced in play. These are great changes.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
Need to look were my 2nd Edi books are
was sure they had 7, same as scouts
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
And Toughness 3 until it was bumped up in a WD sometime later.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people,
it had always been 7, just the sergeant made the troop having 8, until they later removed (they forgot about one edi earlier) the rule that the unit leader improves the LD and just added a plain LD8 to marines
as far as i remember Marines have always been 8 and were 9 with a unit leader, guardsmen were always 7 with an 8 sergeant.
Space Marines had LD8 in the original Rogue Trader - looking at my copy right now
Need to look were my 2nd Edi books are
was sure they had 7, same as scouts
No, they always had 8.
But the really importent question is: will people who bought this in the last 8 weeks get the voucher?
Chessex, crystal caste, Q Workshop, koplow, GameScience, FFG, 3"x5" index cards, gem stones like MtG used to use, aquarium rocks, pennies, old codecies, etc.
Hmmm. Having both toughness and multiwound weapons is somewhat inelegant, unless it is done with great care. If they've made the mistake of allowing wound allocation shenanigans they're going to have a big problem. Given how often GW design screws that up, I'm a bit concerned. The "500 lasguns to kill a landraider thing is fine (hey, they discovered statistics), the problem is that unless they've done the design really carefully (and continue to do so), they'll wind up with "10 scatterbikes boosted by X psychic power kill anything"
Pete Foley has been answering a lot of questions on Twitter.
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities, but often they cannot come in within 9" of an enemy, which is a good tradeoff in my book (but I play DS Stormcast lol)
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying. Good, since Zooming/Hover/Swooping was too generic for the various different flyers out there imo.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing (yay cards!)
-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though. Guess the systems will still have some differences
kestral wrote: Hmmm. Having both toughness and multiwound weapons is somewhat inelegant, unless it is done with great care. If they've made the mistake of allowing wound allocation shenanigans they're going to have a big problem. Given how often GW design screws that up, I'm a bit concerned. The "500 lasguns to kill a landraider thing is fine (hey, they discovered statistics), the problem is that unless they've done the design really carefully (and continue to do so), they'll wind up with "10 scatterbikes boosted by X psychic power kill anything"
If characters don't join units any longer then you don't have to worry about mixed armor saves and you can then 'pick a model and apply wounds until it is dead; repeat'.
But that would make characters in transports problematic...
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
I'm not going to get into people who like AoS's core rules, because that's a huge argument and neither side is capable of comprehending one another.
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
Also I mained Necrons for years and never cared I went last, because that's part of the army's character. It was only a problem for Orks because they're a poorly balanced army.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
I'm not going to get into people who like AoS's core rules, because that's a huge argument and neither side is capable of comprehending one another.
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
Also I mained Necrons for years and never cared I went last, because that's part of the army's character. It was only a problem for Orks because they're a poorly balanced army.
Never heard anyone say this about AoS before you. It's a great tactical mechanic that engages the opponent in your turn by giving them decisions to make, and also gives you some very tough desicions to make too. I'm very excited to see it come to 40k and also excited that 40k will have a slight variation in that charging trumps player activation.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
Jambles wrote: Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.
TonyL707 wrote: And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?
Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."
Anything the Lasgun does the Tau Pulse Rifle should do better. Theoretically speaking of course. The problem is there is a large chunk of the tournament scene play testing the rules and a huge amount of people hate the Tau even existing so likely tone us down way more than they should. Eldar probably safe though. I hope I'm wrong. I'm fine with Riptide, Stormsurge, and other Tau nerfs as long as everything else that is currently way more powerful and actually winning tournaments is toned down equally and fairly. I just doubt it will happen.
Yeah given some dubious faq's from the fans designing this game I am a little worried about some of the prejudice shown previously.
Never heard anyone criticize the alternate combat activations... Most common complaints I hear are related to movement (no flanking), shooting (into/out of combat), fixed to hit/to wound and the random turn roll. Alternating close combat is one I've seen very little controversy about.
Never heard anyone say this about AoS before you. It's a great tactical mechanic that engages the opponent in your turn by giving them decisions to make, and also gives you some very tough desicions to make too. I'm very excited to see it come to 40k and also excited that 40k will have a slight variation in that charging trumps player activation.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people, but maybe the scale for that stat is different. A Dreadnought under the old AV paradigm should be analagous to T8 with AV12, but is shown now as T7 in the new rules, does that represent a new scale or is it just a rebalance for including 8 wounds and a 3+ save?
Interesting stuff.
A Space Marine with leadership 7 is not a problem if a Guardsman has leadership 5 or even 6. It's all relative
It is when they have mob rules ask ork players, unless they keep and they shall ignore most rules.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.
Defenders of the concept every time it's brought up claim it's -more- tactical rather than less because it's a decision to be made.
As to the about six people saying they've never heard of this complaint: I can assure you I've seen it around a lot, only slightly less than the alternating turns complaint. I kinda suspect if you haven't you've been focusing more on the wailing and gnashing of teeth complaints about AoS rather than the "I dislike specific thing X for Y specific reason" discussion.
Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.
Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...
So... not very close, then.
Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
You've got three units in CQC, opponent does too and it's my turn. I go, he goes, I go, he goes, I go and he goes. Then it's his turn: He goes, I go, He goes, I go.
If I killed a unit before it would be: He goes, I go, He goes, I go, Igo.
So... er... in movement round, I move "one unit", then my opponent moves "one unit"... alternating till you/opponent can't move?
Then, repeat in shooting/assaulting/etc...
O.o
Odd system...
It's quite common, outside of the GW ecosystem. There's variations (Bolt Action isn't strictly alternate, dice are drawn, X Wing has a stat which determines activation order, so dependent on list construction, Guild Ball is strictly alternate) but quite common nonetheless.
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
4 units are in a combat. A, B, C, and D.
Units A and C belong to Player 1. Unit B and D belong to Player 2.
Unit D is engaged with Unit A. Unit C is fighting Unit B.
It's Player 2's turn, so they activate their unit first. P2 activates Unit D. P1 activates Unit C.
You don't resolve a combat at the same time. You resolve by units, activating them one at a time and resolving their attacks, until you run out of units. Once one side runs out of units to activate, it then just goes to whoever has to finish activating units.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.
I'm going to continue and call bullpucky because that means you need more tactics to paliate the uncertainity. As for lowering variation, my guess the source is a certain place... But, don't worry, we won't burst the bubble. You totes have an actual argument.
So... er... in movement round, I move "one unit", then my opponent moves "one unit"... alternating till you/opponent can't move?
Then, repeat in shooting/assaulting/etc...
O.o
Odd system...
Only for combat.
We have combat A on one side of the table, combat B on the other side. Each one has one unit from each of our armies. I activate my unit in Combat A, dealing damage. You activate your unit in combat B, swinging before my combat B dudes get to swing. Your combat A dudes are "safe" because the only thing that hit them already went, so you don't have to activate them until all is done.
That's the simplest version, it gets complicated and tactical once you have lots of combats with variable amounts of units in them. Do you swing your strong unit that is in combat with three different weak chaff units? Or do you swing your weak unit that is going to die so it does some damage before going down? Do you swing your hero so he can kill the thing that is trying to kill him, or swing the unit that is with him which can potentially do more damage? Etc.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
You've got three units in CQC, opponent does too and it's my turn. I go, he goes, I go, he goes, I go and he goes. Then it's his turn: He goes, I go, He goes, I go.
If I killed a unit before it would be: He goes, I go, He goes, I go, Igo.
GOT IT! Thanks!
I'll reserve judgment if that's a good system... but, since there's no initiative value, that looks like the direction we're heading.
Requizen wrote: -Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.
Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.
I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".
Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.
You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.
Defenders of the concept every time it's brought up claim it's -more- tactical rather than less because it's a decision to be made.
As to the about six people saying they've never heard of this complaint: I can assure you I've seen it around a lot, only slightly less than the alternating turns complaint. I kinda suspect if you haven't you've been focusing more on the wailing and gnashing of teeth complaints about AoS rather than the "I dislike specific thing X for Y specific reason" discussion.
I'd love to have more detail as to why it lowers versimilitude and tactics, because I'm really not seeing how.
I guess it means that traditionally 'fast' armies don't necessarily get the first strike against traditionally 'slow' armies, but frankly that's always been a bit of a drag and can be compensated for with things like faction-based command point uses and special rules.
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
4 units are in a combat.
A, B, C, and D.
Units A and C belong to Player 1.
Unit B and D belong to Player 2.
Unit D is engaged with Unit A.
Unit C is fighting Unit B.
It's Player 2's turn, so they activate their unit first.
P2 activates Unit D.
P1 activates Unit C.
You don't resolve a combat at the same time. You resolve by units, activating them one at a time and resolving their attacks, until you run out of units.
Once one side runs out of units to activate, it then just goes to whoever has to finish activating units.
As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?
After resolving charge moves, the person whose turn it is picks one unit from the whole board that is within 3" of an enemy, pile-s that unit in 3" and resolves all their attacks, wounds are caused, casualties are pulled, etc. Then the opponent does the same, etc etc.
The alternating combat makes things go much faster than 40k as it removes the layers of resolving a particular combat at a time, and each at a particular initiative step. It still has a good amount of depth, choices and anticipation. It does have some weakness and gamey-ness to it but overall I have liked the mechanic so far.
Zatsuku wrote: Wondering how alternate unit activation combat will work with the charger's attacking first rule.
I imagine the player whose turn it is resolves all charging unit attacks, then all remaining units are activated one at a time, alternating between the players, starting with the player whose turn it is.
I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.
Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".
Lord Kragan wrote: I'm going to continue and call bullpucky because that means you need more tactics to paliate the uncertainity. As for lowering variation, my guess the source is a certain place... But, don't worry, we won't burst the bubble. You totes have an actual argument.
You cut out the bit where I already made this argument for you, don't pretend I'm less listening to your side of the argument than I actually am.
Anyhow I'm not a chess player so take this as an example rather than chess elitism, but uncertainty =/= tactics. Some of the games thought of as most tactical have the least uncertain elements beyond each player's ability to track what's going on. This is just a less extreme version of the "You have to plan for double turns, so they're tactical" argument.
Now, the charger goes first mechanic is a fairly good mitigator, it means that dedicated assault units can reliably do their job when they charge a unit that they can kill or cripple in a single turn, but I'm still not pleased at this being ported over to 40k.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.
Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".
That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.
Requizen wrote: -Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?
If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?
It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to
better get into CC instead
Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.
I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)
I saw it in Shadow War first Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks! If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!
Requizen wrote: -Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?
If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?
It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to
better get into CC instead
Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.
I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)
I saw it in Shadow War first Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks! If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!
Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.
Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".
That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.
In theory, a lower initiative army will have greater strength or durability, assuming we're still talking assault units anyhow. For an example of this done right, look at Necrons who are currently great in assault but I2.
I'd consider lowering verisimilitude between editions bad design in and of itself. Maybe in a vacuum it's less of a big deal so long as it runs smoothly.
Exactly, Ironjawz are a force that's very good on speed that can move 4 (2 for abilities and 2 for charging)d6+4 inches a turn! Coupled with a few things, you could give your boys a 32 inches maximum threat radius.
Requizen wrote: -Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?
If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?
It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to
better get into CC instead
Thats what i am afraid of, orks will be a one dimensional target for everyone.
I bet they will get movement 4... (you saw it here first!)
I saw it in Shadow War first Move 4 won't be the worst thing to happen to Orks - just be sure to bring trukks! If I'm right about to-hit mods, I don't think it will change much for Ork shooting. It was all about volume of fire before, and that certainly won't change!
Yeah... no more shootas, lootas and flashgits. Just slugga boyz in trucks.
I have close to 300 painted footsloggers that i really would love to be able to use again.
Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!
For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.
I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...
Initiative is gone, but I bet close combat weapons have some sort of weapon speed attribute attached to them that determines when they strike in melee. Since all the weapons a model has are probably on their datasheet, it would allow for things like Commander Dante' s extremely fast attacks with a power axe, or a regular captain attacking slow with a power fist.
I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.
Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?
Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!
For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.
I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...
And who did the playtesting.
I'm excited for the new stat line when it comes to MC, Walkers and Vehicles. Hopefully they'll all prove tougher to kill. MC should see more wounds on their profile, and the like of Dreads seem less likely to be one-shotted, or worse immobilised in their deployment zone.
Fixed To Hit rolls don't bother me none. There wasn't an awful lot of variety previously after all, so this arguably just removes the chart.
The one thing I'm intrigued by is who strikes when during Ongoing Combat. As a friend pointed out, Emperor's Children in Heresy work around having that important higher Initiative - and much the same for Eldar and Dark Eldar. Sure, you can spunk a Command Point to get a tactically well timed slapping in, but without I, who knows?
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't think the alternating player combat order is less tactical, though I do dislike that it is more abstract. It is really hard for me to imagine what it would possibly be representing.
Especially if we are in a game where a lot of models get removed easily, it means that sometimes unit A might wipe out most of unit B before B gets to attack, and B will therefore do very little damage in return. And sometimes the exact opposite. And for no other reason than a choice made by the player that doesn't seem to relate to anything "in universe". To me it lessens the immersion and the narrative and seems "gamey".
That's a reasonable criticism. I don't think there's a great way to represent the chaos of melee, though. At least not one that I've played. I never though Initiative was much better - sure it represents someone with better reflexes or skill going first, but just because you're quick doesn't mean you butcher every opponent before they throw a punch. Plus, the whole charging through cover and grenades rules really made it feel blah in some cases.
In theory, a lower initiative army will have greater strength or durability, assuming we're still talking assault units anyhow. For an example of this done right, look at Necrons who are currently great in assault but I2.
I'd consider lowering verisimilitude between editions bad design in and of itself. Maybe in a vacuum it's less of a big deal so long as it runs smoothly.
I don't think It's fair to require that low Initiative assault units be as resilient as Necron in order to be viable.
Initiative always struck me as too all-or-nothing of a system. If they add army specific rules that let armies like Eldar have advantages during melee activation, they could replicate the same finesse effect without having to use Initiative as a permenant bonus (unless you trip on a branch and don't have grenades).
Well while they aren't the same game, AoS Orks (Orruks, bleh) have lots of things that give them extra movement. So many times they'll be moving 4" + d6" and can still Charge since that extra move isn't a Run. We may see similar stuff in 40k!
For sure; Rokkit packs, red paint job, trukks, waaagh... Hell wounds may even come from whever you want now! That means we can pick our drops off the back of a squad.
I really dont care how it works, as long as its ballanced.... and they're telling us that they've playtested all the units...
And who did the playtesting.
A bunch of the different American tournie groups, for a start.
jullevi wrote: If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
Well the article does say land raiders and knights will have dozens of wounds...so like..24 or more. I bet meltas will do double damage under a certain range or something like that with big rend. And ceramite armor will ignore that rend.
jullevi wrote: If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
Well the article does say land raiders and knights will have dozens of wounds...so like..24 or more. I bet meltas will do double damage under a certain range or something like that with big rend. And ceramite armor will ignore that rend.
Yeah I think that sounds right. Maybe Rend -2 Damage 2; Damage 4 against Vehicles if within 6".
It is quite interesting (realism aside) how infantry will now be pretty effective against everything but on the flip side with armour mods they'll be more vulnerable.
I'd go out on a limb and say its gonna be orks and nids time to shine esp with no templates on top of all that. They care little about armour mods and can pack a lot of bodies.
that said if thy have playtested it perhaps grunts will be adjusted to go up in points or marines etc go down in pts
Latro_ wrote: It is quite interesting (realism aside) how infantry will now be pretty effective against everything but on the flip side with armour mods they'll be more vulnerable.
I'd go out on a limb and say its gonna be orks and nids time to shine esp with no templates on top of all that. They care little about armour mods and can pack a lot of bodies.
that said if thy have playtested it perhaps grunts will be adjusted to go up in points or marines etc go down in pts
But then those units will also be facing more losses from the morale checks. It's going to be fun to explore in any case.
jullevi wrote: I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.
Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?
At a guess not going full AoS was probably down to playtesting as from my admittedly limited experience the AoS system is at it's weakest when involving shooting rather than multi unit melee dogpiles and cheesy model placement "tactics"(my personal theory why still no elves is they literally break the game if given the new style stats and upgrades). My biggest concern is we see a swing too far back the other way from 7th to the whole main battle tank drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword stupidity. Melee and shooting should be equally effective overall with it being a tactical choice on which to do at any time.
The shooting into and out of combat bollocks only exists in AoS because they ran out of page count to include anything else, if they tried that with 40k chances are playtesting went for example Tau drop drone unit into tactical squad tying it up and fire warriors/suits/pretty much anything erases tac squad. Shooting out of combat is just a bad rule full stop.
It still looks like weight of fire will be king overall compared to quality of fire, but the weapon profiles tomorrow should show more on that.
I'm excited for the new stat line when it comes to MC, Walkers and Vehicles. Hopefully they'll all prove tougher to kill. MC should see more wounds on their profile, and the like of Dreads seem less likely to be one-shotted, or worse immobilised in their deployment zone.
Fixed To Hit rolls don't bother me none. There wasn't an awful lot of variety previously after all, so this arguably just removes the chart.
Yes MC's will get more wounds, I expect Carnifex to have similar stats to Dread, except maybe with 4+ Save.
Down side of this is that small arms fire won't do much to MC's.
I would have liked WS chart to remain, if it just had more substance in it. It was just never very meaningful - you always hit on 4+, or 3+ if you had a high WS. It was pretty pointless.
Too bad that BS is now capped at 5. It was cool when some super heroes like Phoenix Lords had BS7 and so on even if it seldom came to play. Though, undoubtely some units will have rerolls etc.
I considered you were making a point rather than asking an honest question, but there didn't appear to be a point to make.
Well the tournaments in question have had some let's call them controversial FAQ's over the years regarding the treatment of different armies not always being equal.
jullevi wrote: I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.
Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?
At a guess not going full AoS was probably down to playtesting as from my admittedly limited experience the AoS system is at it's weakest when involving shooting rather than multi unit melee dogpiles and cheesy model placement "tactics"(my personal theory why still no elves is they literally break the game if given the new style stats and upgrades). My biggest concern is we see a swing too far back the other way from 7th to the whole main battle tank drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword stupidity. Melee and shooting should be equally effective overall with it being a tactical choice on which to do at any time.
The shooting into and out of combat bollocks only exists in AoS because they ran out of page count to include anything else, if they tried that with 40k chances are playtesting went for example Tau drop drone unit into tactical squad tying it up and fire warriors/suits/pretty much anything erases tac squad. Shooting out of combat is just a bad rule full stop.
It still looks like weight of fire will be king overall compared to quality of fire, but the weapon profiles tomorrow should show more on that.
God it is impossible to get through anything you barf out. You don't know how aos works, stop talking about it.
Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...
So... not very close, then.
Disagree! If more than 25% of both players's armies still live, it was a dull affair!
Seconded! As a 40K player, what I most want to do is to blow stuff up. With that I've gotta accept that my own stuff can also blow up, otherwise I would be a terrible hypocrite. What I do have a problem is if my own stuff blows up, and other guy has some broken combo/marysue anime monster which results to his stuff not blowing up, or even not dying at all.
Well, and there goes my excitement. Marines still with T4 and W1. Expanding characteristics beyond 10 would have given much more freedom for difference.
Hanskrampf wrote: Well, and there goes my excitement. Marines still with T4 and W1. Expanding characteristics beyond 10 would have given much more freedom for difference.
It's for working Superheavies into the system from the start without the awkwardly tacked on feel they currently have. See also multiple wounds instead of D weapons, and everyone can potentually damage anything which means you can apply chip damage to that imperial knight barrelling down on your lines to better cope with it's existence.
jullevi wrote: I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.
Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?
At a guess not going full AoS was probably down to playtesting as from my admittedly limited experience the AoS system is at it's weakest when involving shooting rather than multi unit melee dogpiles and cheesy model placement "tactics"(my personal theory why still no elves is they literally break the game if given the new style stats and upgrades). My biggest concern is we see a swing too far back the other way from 7th to the whole main battle tank drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword stupidity. Melee and shooting should be equally effective overall with it being a tactical choice on which to do at any time.
The shooting into and out of combat bollocks only exists in AoS because they ran out of page count to include anything else, if they tried that with 40k chances are playtesting went for example Tau drop drone unit into tactical squad tying it up and fire warriors/suits/pretty much anything erases tac squad. Shooting out of combat is just a bad rule full stop.
It still looks like weight of fire will be king overall compared to quality of fire, but the weapon profiles tomorrow should show more on that.
God it is impossible to get through anything you barf out. You don't know how aos works, stop talking about it.
Geez dude, calm down. There's literally a million ways you could have said something with the same point but less vitriol.
No one's going to make you be nice to strangers on the internet, but a little kindness goes a long way.
Hanskrampf wrote: Well, and there goes my excitement. Marines still with T4 and W1. Expanding characteristics beyond 10 would have given much more freedom for difference.
That's what gullimarines are for t5 and 2w with higher leadership and better equipment, if completely replacing minimarines expect either a higher natural to hit roll and strength or equipment that acheives the same.
I'm glad D weapons are going. They just throw the balance out of the window. I'm wondering if mortal wounds will be brought in to replace them or if they'll just give them regular weapon stats cranked up to 11.
Hanskrampf wrote: Well, and there goes my excitement. Marines still with T4 and W1. Expanding characteristics beyond 10 would have given much more freedom for difference.
That's what gullimarines are for t5 and 2w with higher leadership and better equipment, if completely replacing minimarines expect either a higher natural to hit roll and strength or equipment that acheives the same.
Maybe Guilliman's authorized the reformation of the legions, so most of the "regular" Space Marines are a little more expendable than they were before?
Gamgee wrote: Trying to imagine how much wounds my Ta'unar will have under this system haha.
I'll be honest here. The thing that has me most thrilled about all of this, is what they will do with my Vespids... oh my Vespids, how I love you. Please, be at least viable! I don't ask for more!
streetsamurai wrote: to be honest, my comment was deliberately provocative since I'm tired of the ridiculous argument that everyone who doesn't like AOS hasn't played it.
This is a violation of Rule #1. If you're tired of hearing something here on Dakka Dakka, maybe get out of the house and go to a park or something.
He no it wasn't. You do realise that being provocative and being insulting/impolite are two completely distinct things ?
Congrats on such an absurd banning.
As for 8th edition:
The bad Removing templates 12 pages rules is worrysome Everything wounding everything Vehicule and MC being the same (absurd that two thins that are so different use exactly the same rule)
THe ugly
The apparent removal of facing from vehicule. Such a shame that one of the most tactical aspect of the game is removed The probable streamlining of the psychic phase. Really liked how it went in 7th, and it will be a shame if it went back to a boring leadership test or something like that. Removal of AV. As someone said, tanks are now similar to what they are in a RTS, and not like they are in steel panther (which was the case before). And for someone who grew up playing steel panther, it is a huge minus
The good
Commande point: this has the potential to make this edition a classic, and could make the game a lot more interesting and tactical than AOS: my first wargame, depite the streamlining Modifiers on to hit rolls (about time) Cover affecting saves and not being a distinct roll (about time too) Adding movement Keeping strenght and toughness.
Overall, I'm pretty optimistic about this edition now. Sure, not everything wen how I would like, but there's still a few idea that are really interesting, and they didn't import the worst aspect of AOS (for example: shooting into and out of combat).
jullevi wrote: I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
I am actually happy that Vehicles now follow the same statlines as anyone else. Dreadnought and Terminators still appear to be very resilient to small arms fire. I expect lasgun to hit Dread on 4's, wound on 6's and have no save modifier, meaning that 1 in 36 shots should cause a wound. With 50 lasgun shots, that is 25% chance of doing no damage at all, and 83% chance of doing 0 or 1 wound.
Speaking of vehicles, I wonder how they are going to deal with melta weapons and other stuff that should be able to wreck them. If Land Raider has 14 wounds (just a guess), is it possible to destroy it outright with one lucky melta gun shot?
If I knew more about current 40k and release was a bit further away, I would have fun guessing at new rules. Choppas have -1 Rend at first round of combat? Orks get +1 to hit in close combat if unit has 20 or more models? Gauss weapons cause a mortal wound on a 6 to hit? All Psykers get access to 2 basic Psychic Powers: offensive power that inflicts D3 mortal wounds on one enemy unit within 18" and defensive power that gives +1 to armour saves for one friendly unit within 18"?
At a guess not going full AoS was probably down to playtesting as from my admittedly limited experience the AoS system is at it's weakest when involving shooting rather than multi unit melee dogpiles and cheesy model placement "tactics"(my personal theory why still no elves is they literally break the game if given the new style stats and upgrades). My biggest concern is we see a swing too far back the other way from 7th to the whole main battle tank drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword stupidity. Melee and shooting should be equally effective overall with it being a tactical choice on which to do at any time.
The shooting into and out of combat bollocks only exists in AoS because they ran out of page count to include anything else, if they tried that with 40k chances are playtesting went for example Tau drop drone unit into tactical squad tying it up and fire warriors/suits/pretty much anything erases tac squad. Shooting out of combat is just a bad rule full stop.
It still looks like weight of fire will be king overall compared to quality of fire, but the weapon profiles tomorrow should show more on that.
God it is impossible to get through anything you barf out. You don't know how aos works, stop talking about it.
Geez dude, calm down. There's literally a million ways you could have said something with the same point but less vitriol.
No one's going to make you be nice to strangers on the internet, but a little kindness goes a long way.
Nahh Erjak starts at that level in his normal posts but if you tarnish AoS's honour also expect bile, condescension and no explaination of why someone is wrong I would guess he spends a lot of time going purple
Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.
Anecdotal, obviously, but one of the more frequent complaints I've come across over the years, and one of the biggest issues for me personally, is that the ability to kill things too quickly renders objectives largely meaningless, and too often your big, impressive units that you spent so much time assembling and painting stay on the table for all of three and a half minutes before going back into the case.
I would have preferred the new edition to have made it harder to kill things and concentrate more on objectives, suppression and unit synergy.
Yeah, I've been sitting on the parts to make a custom/kitbashed Morkanaught for a long time, but never bothered because of how bad their rules are. That might change in the near future if they become almost as good as Knights.
What's really preventing me from being negative is that everything is being released basically simultaneously, so that means that GW can test everything for balance at the same time, and we don't suffer from the "waxing/waning codex power level" that's been a thing for multiple editions.
SJM wrote: So my Squiggoth counts as Gorkanaut maybe useful? To the work station!!
what if your Squiggoth is just awesome to begin with? Then you can get a Gork and/or Morkanaut and use that too.
I now have a hankering to assemble the two Venerable Dreadnoughts I have sitting in boxes AND my remaining Furioso Dreadnoughts. The dawn of the angry washing machine is upon us!
In other news, I am hoping that I might have a reason to field my Tactical Squads in Rhinos over my Scouts in Land Speeder Storms now.
Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.
Anecdotal, obviously, but one of the more frequent complaints I've come across over the years, and one of the biggest issues for me personally, is that the ability to kill things too quickly renders objectives largely meaningless, and too often your big, impressive units that you spent so much time assembling and painting stay on the table for all of three and a half minutes before going back into the case.
I would have preferred the new edition to have made it harder to kill things and concentrate more on objectives, suppression and unit synergy.
7E kinda broke both ways. Lots of stuff just died way too quickly and could not deal with the barrage of firepower thrown about. Then we had stuff that was effectively unkillable, even relatively small scale stuff, from 2++ rerollable screamerstars to RP Wraiths and TWC deathstars and Decurions and the like.
BrookM wrote: They made mention of some models getting that much needed boost, the Morkanaut singled out as the example.
Fingers crossed for the DE Tantalus getting a boost one of the coolest FW models I own with what can be described at best as overcoated iffy rules. In fact there is a fairly wide selection of FW models I have that I am crossing my fingers get better.
Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.
Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...
So... not very close, then.
I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.
Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.
Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...
So... not very close, then.
I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.
I was happily chucking my painted Grenadiers out of my Valkyrie back when I had to use the Valk to round up my 2k list. And I did spend a lot of time painting and customizing them.
All of this sounds awesome and so far many fans have positive reply to this changes the way I see it.
The only thing that interest me are the templates. If they are gone does this mean that rules for artillery and area of effect weapons will be changed as well?
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, or if this is the place to mention it.
I just saw on the Warhammer main page for facebook linking to Warhammer TV that they'll be having a match on Friday showcasing an Adepta Sororitas army. Maybe I'm too hyped on all this news and new things coming, but could this be a sign for plastic Sisters? Oh man...
Didn't see it mentioned so maybe I missed it, but we got confirmation that cover adds to saving throw, which is cool, though I think I'd have preferred a hit modifier still.
Dagstyrr wrote: Not sure if this has already been mentioned, or if this is the place to mention it.
I just saw on the Warhammer main page for facebook linking to Warhammer TV that they'll be having a match on Friday showcasing an Adepta Sororitas army. Maybe I'm too hyped on all this news and new things coming, but could this be a sign for plastic Sisters? Oh man...
Requizen wrote: Pete Foley has been answering a lot of questions on Twitter.
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities, but often they cannot come in within 9" of an enemy, which is a good tradeoff in my book (but I play DS Stormcast lol)
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying. Good, since Zooming/Hover/Swooping was too generic for the various different flyers out there imo.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing (yay cards!)
-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though. Guess the systems will still have some differences
Dagstyrr wrote: Not sure if this has already been mentioned, or if this is the place to mention it.
I just saw on the Warhammer main page for facebook linking to Warhammer TV that they'll be having a match on Friday showcasing an Adepta Sororitas army. Maybe I'm too hyped on all this news and new things coming, but could this be a sign for plastic Sisters? Oh man...
Good to hear Hope they kick ass
If they come out it will destroy my Heresy Death Guard Army.
Hrm, what weapons do Squiggoths have? Back to delaying the build
It may get new wargear, so who knows? Just put a bunch of tankbustas on it's back (oh wait...that's 7e thinking...)
Put a bunch of burnas on it's back! Or nobs! Or maybe deffguns won't be heavy anymore, so lootas! Or just fill it with charging, snarling, first-attacking choppa boys!
I would definitely wait a little more before cutting in to it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.
If I'm gonna be honest, 8th edition WHFB was this for me as a Wood Elf player.
I unpacked, stuff died to gentle breezes whether in cover or not cause y'know...no armor saves on basically everything.
jullevi wrote: I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).
Different isn't always better, I like that the stat line is still mostly familiar.
Hmmm. Well, here's how I see it:
Chance I'll play it more than 7th - 90% Didn't play 7th at all really, and i'll put up with a lot from free/very cheap rules if others are playing..
Chance it will be brilliantly simple and elegant - Decreasing. About 10-20%. There don't really seem to be mechanics for much of anything other than killing things, and that doesn't really float my boat. Things like cover save modifying armor = Meh. The difference between cover and armor was one of the better mechanics in 40K, until rerolls and buffs broke it. Marines strode around boldly (until plasma showed up), guard hugged the trees, which was just how I thought it should be.
Chance that it will be awful, probably due to overlooked problems created by simplification - also decreasing: 10-20% They are showing signs of having put a fair amount of work into it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.
If I'm gonna be honest, 8th edition WHFB was this for me as a Wood Elf player.
I unpacked, stuff died to gentle breezes whether in cover or not cause y'know...no armor saves on basically everything.
In AoS? My stuff sticks around a lot longer now.
I mean i expect it with clan rats. always have always will.
Eyjio wrote: Didn't see it mentioned so maybe I missed it, but we got confirmation that cover adds to saving throw, which is cool, though I think I'd have preferred a hit modifier still.
This one surprised an delighted me. Traditionally, the only mod armour has seen in 40k was down. So having cover balance that out while leaving to-hit mostly static has a nice effect on things.
I tend to actually like cover (especially heavy cover) affecting both but in a game where your randomizer is a d6, you have to be choosey. By making it defender-facing, you make cover feel more relevant to the person getting shot at. But now it gets rid of the silly edge cases where cover affected small arms less because most things got their saves versus AP5-6 shots.
It also avoids the potential of over-stuffing the to-hit mods with special rules. Back in the day, it could get really silly. It allows for "agility" design space and it allows for "intervening cover" design space. In 3rd Edition on, those two used to often be the same thing (or an invulnerable save). And it led to absurd things like units jinking with a 2+ or 3+ cover save. So now you can, say, make Harlequins evasive by giving folks a -1 to hit them, without making them impossible to hit in cover (which provides a +1 to their save instead).
Basically it gives you more space to apply modifiers in different places. In 2nd, everything got stacked in the to-hit roll and armour saves only ever adjusted down, not up. It ended up having this affect where armour felt like an afterthought and where stacking to-hit mods in your favour became a favourite tactic of some for the power-players in that edition.
Eyjio wrote: Didn't see it mentioned so maybe I missed it, but we got confirmation that cover adds to saving throw, which is cool, though I think I'd have preferred a hit modifier still.
This one surprised an delighted me. Traditionally, the only mod armour has seen in 40k was down. So having cover balance that out while leaving to-hit mostly static has a nice effect on things.
I tend to actually like cover (especially heavy cover) affecting both but in a game where your randomizer is a d6, you have to be choosey. By making it defender-facing, you make cover feel more relevant to the person getting shot at. But now it gets rid of the silly edge cases where cover affected small arms less because most things got their saves versus AP5-6 shots.
It also avoids the potential of over-stuffing the to-hit mods with special rules. Back in the day, it could get really silly. It allows for "agility" design space and it allows for "intervening cover" design space. In 3rd Edition on, those two used to often be the same thing (or an invulnerable save). And it led to absurd things like units jinking with a 2+ or 3+ cover save. So now you can, say, make Harlequins evasive by giving folks a -1 to hit them, without making them impossible to hit in cover (which provides a +1 to their save instead).
Basically it gives you more space to apply modifiers in different places. In 2nd, everything got stacked in the to-hit roll and armour saves only ever adjusted down, not up. It ended up having this affect where armour felt like an afterthought and where stacking to-hit mods in your favour became a favourite tactic of some for the power-players in that edition.
If you want things to last longer than i guess you will need to play with a TON of terrain which is fine by me. i hate barren tables.
Has anyone heard about OOP models getting rules? Getting worried for my Plague Hulk now.
Their language seemed carefully chosen. "Everything we currently sell will get rules." It is quite likely that some select OOP stuff might not make the cut.
Eyjio wrote: Didn't see it mentioned so maybe I missed it, but we got confirmation that cover adds to saving throw, which is cool, though I think I'd have preferred a hit modifier still.
This one surprised an delighted me. Traditionally, the only mod armour has seen in 40k was down. So having cover balance that out while leaving to-hit mostly static has a nice effect on things.
I tend to actually like cover (especially heavy cover) affecting both but in a game where your randomizer is a d6, you have to be choosey. By making it defender-facing, you make cover feel more relevant to the person getting shot at. But now it gets rid of the silly edge cases where cover affected small arms less because most things got their saves versus AP5-6 shots.
It also avoids the potential of over-stuffing the to-hit mods with special rules. Back in the day, it could get really silly. It allows for "agility" design space and it allows for "intervening cover" design space. In 3rd Edition on, those two used to often be the same thing (or an invulnerable save). And it led to absurd things like units jinking with a 2+ or 3+ cover save. So now you can, say, make Harlequins evasive by giving folks a -1 to hit them, without making them impossible to hit in cover (which provides a +1 to their save instead).
Basically it gives you more space to apply modifiers in different places. In 2nd, everything got stacked in the to-hit roll and armour saves only ever adjusted down, not up. It ended up having this affect where armour felt like an afterthought and where stacking to-hit mods in your favour became a favourite tactic of some for the power-players in that edition.
If you want things to last longer than i guess you will need to play with a TON of terrain which is fine by me. i hate barren tables.
Andy Chambers had the right of it in the 2nd Edition rules: "The more terrain, the better the game."
It is a mantra that, while proving hard to store, has served me well over the years. Never could jive with the 25% coverage thing that started in 3rd Edition.
I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way but I've always found the 40K community (mostly) lacking heavily behind most other wargames in terms of attention to tabletop terrain and the table's design. It may be because of the cost, or the size of armies, or just general laziness - particularly at local game stores (where all games suffer normally), but the tables rarely impress.
The terrain coverage is often poor and just limited to flat line-of-sight blocking stuff. I really like seeing people who put a lot more effort into their tables. Just a little too rare in 40K games.
loki old fart wrote: Could do with information on.
Beam weapons.
kustom force fields.
torrent.
summoning.
The thing with 40k is so much stuff.
FTFY
Hugely complicated but strangely lacking in any real complexity has been a deep rooted problem for a long time. Games that come with rules leaflets offer more depth than 40Ks hundreds of pages.
Elbows wrote: I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way but I've always found the 40K community (mostly) lacking heavily behind most other wargames in terms of attention to tabletop terrain and the table's design. It may be because of the cost, or the size of armies, or just general laziness - particularly at local game stores (where all games suffer normally), but the tables rarely impress.
The terrain coverage is often poor and just limited to flat line-of-sight blocking stuff. I really like seeing people who put a lot more effort into their tables. Just a little too rare in 40K games.
This is totally true in my experience. I think the reasons you list are definitely factors. The bar for entry is just so high - something extra like terrain falls by the wayside. It's really a shame given how nice the GW terrain kits are.
I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be. How does AOS handle terrain? I've heard it doesn't slow movement. Also how does AOS do casualty removal? If it is closest model we're going to see lots of stupid record keeping and argument. "NO, that WASN"T the Ogrynn you shot last time, and BTW that lanraider has 17wounds now not 16". Don't see that as a plus, but again good design could mitigate it.
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be. How does AOS handle terrain? I've heard it doesn't slow movement. Also how does AOS do casualty removal? If it is closest model we're going to see lots of stupid record keeping and argument. "NO, that WASN"T the Ogrynn you shot last time, and BTW that lanraider has 17wounds now not 16". Don't see that as a plus, but again good design could mitigate it.
This is all true. Some models will benefit from cover more than others. However, it also makes sense to a degree that unarmored stuff - albiet in cover - is still more killable than armored stuff in cover. Also, there is a reason for Marines to stand in Ruins now. Even Terminators might want to sit in Ruins - if cover save modifier could cancel out -1 Rend or something. I like that. All models should want to utilize cover.
Elbows wrote: I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way but I've always found the 40K community (mostly) lacking heavily behind most other wargames in terms of attention to tabletop terrain and the table's design. It may be because of the cost, or the size of armies, or just general laziness - particularly at local game stores (where all games suffer normally), but the tables rarely impress.
The terrain coverage is often poor and just limited to flat line-of-sight blocking stuff. I really like seeing people who put a lot more effort into their tables. Just a little too rare in 40K games.
Really hope GW makes terrain worthwhile.
One of my favourite things about Infinity are the tables (look at what the starter comes with); what "forces" that is that the game needs great tables to work, so people can't skimp.
Outside of display tables; the WW2 guys take the cake though (don't even play it myself).
Elbows wrote: I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way but I've always found the 40K community (mostly) lacking heavily behind most other wargames in terms of attention to tabletop terrain and the table's design. It may be because of the cost, or the size of armies, or just general laziness - particularly at local game stores (where all games suffer normally), but the tables rarely impress.
The terrain coverage is often poor and just limited to flat line-of-sight blocking stuff. I really like seeing people who put a lot more effort into their tables. Just a little too rare in 40K games.
This was definitely a thing that started happening after 3rd Edition was released. Back then it was a platoon level skirmish game, pretty easy to buy in to (even if we all kvetched about the price back then as well), and it encouraged heavy table coverage. Back then, WD had a ton of make your own terrain articles (I still cherish the article on trees in one of my dog eared issues). And this was back when the 2nd Edition starter box contained a small city's worth of cardboard ruins (which I still use for low scatter cover to this day). But when 3rd rolled around, the encouraged amount of terrain was cut in half and a whole load of other changes were made to make terrain less essential.
Where a 2nd Edition board would be a sprawling cityscape with multi-level terrain, 3rd Edition tables looked relatively empty, with a few neatly cordoned off sections of area terrain and plenty of space to put vehicles down. In 2nd, the amount of terrain made using the vehicle movement rules a learned skill on par with X-Wing (the amount of times I had to make emergency skid turns with my Ravenwing because I was overconfident...). But with simplified vehicle rules and a greater emphasis on vehicle combat, more open space was required to accommodate.
This led to much sparser battlefields and very little verticality.
It's easier to make real life terrain since it's real life and we all have a frame of reference to what it looks like and there's plenty of stuff available. 40k terrain is often fantastic sci fi terrain pieces that need insane amounts of work and detail from professionals to really look well done and believable.
I need to dig out my old Citadel terrain building guide. It was the first Warhammer book I bought, back before I even knew there was a game. I just thought the whole thing was like doing model railroads but with laser rifles and hover tanks.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I need to dig out my old Citadel terrain building guide. It was the first Warhammer book I bought, back before I even knew there was a game. I just thought the whole thing was like doing model railroads but with laser rifles and hover tanks.
If your playing humans sure. If you play Xenos and want to make a cool board for them it's a lot more work.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I need to dig out my old Citadel terrain building guide. It was the first Warhammer book I bought, back before I even knew there was a game. I just thought the whole thing was like doing model railroads but with laser rifles and hover tanks.
If your playing humans sure. If you play Xenos and want to make a cool board for them it's a lot more work.
Not sure I follow. The book was all about scratch-building terrain, but yeah it did tend to look like things we would see on Earth.
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be.
To be perfectly honest, the way cover has worked in 40k for the past 18 years has been completely bass-akwards to how cover actually works. It has been straight up disbelief unsuspending, verisimilitude damaging .
It gives us so many gob-smacking edge cases that it made me wonder why they even bothered.
Stormtroopers getting fired on by bolters? That ruined building they are in has no effect! Someone fires plasma at them, suddenly those walls spring to life, catching shots. Perfectly logical, cover is well known to have little effect on small arms fire, certainly seems internally consistent!
So if this cover system works completely differently, then it is off to a good start. And while you may bemoan marines in cover getting harder to budge, it is at least internally consistent with itself. Being in cover is always better than being in the open, and even if Orks are only getting a small boost, it is a consistent boost. It is logical that cover will always make you more survivable, regardless of the weapons being fired at you, and it makes more sense that someone that starts more survivable will be even more so in cover than someone wearing less armour.
This was kind of the issue with a lot of 40k's "simplified" all-or-nothing mechanics. So many of them left weird edge cases and caused play to warp in to this odd space. Cover has been, for the longest time one of the worst offenders in this and it is good to see it change in a way that finally makes it consistent again.
ok what do people think they will get in 8th ed. surely that is the question.
As the person who posed the question to both GWFB and @geekjockpete, I can tell you that both sources confirmed that the the WW Exclusive SM Command Tanks will be getting rules in 8th Ed.
ok what do people think they will get in 8th ed. surely that is the question.
As the person who posed the question to both GWFB and @geekjockpete, I can tell you that both sources confirmed that the the WW Exclusive SM Command Tanks will be getting rules in 8th Ed.
I am aware of that. But what are they getting? that's what i'm speculating about. Something like skyfire within a set radius.
Stormtroopers getting fired on by bolters? That ruined building they are in has no effect! Someone fires plasma at them, suddenly those walls spring to life, catching shots. Perfectly logical, cover is well known to have little effect on small arms fire, certainly seems internally consistent!
Half your body is covered by a wall or half is covered by armor that stops the weapon being shot at you, the effect is the same - 4+ save for either case. You have to be shot in the eye to kill you? Well, it doesn't really matter if you are behind a wall (2+ save). It was a reasonable enough abstraction, and it created interesting dynamics. Marines had to go into cover after guard since they weren't easily shifted. Giving a to hit penalty would be equally beneficial to everyone. Basing it on armor creates a huge benefit for some and none for others (orks being shot by -2 rending for example) - that can be compensated with game design, but I still don't like it.
I agree, and really there is no reason why people couldn't come up with just as beautiful a table as you have shown there. Even if you need to cheat and use non-xenos trees, etc. I just don't see nearly as much attention lavished on terrain - sadly it's almost all the GW produced plastic stuff which is...mediocre to say the least (and huge repetitive).
'Fixing' To Hit rolls for shooting ain't no thang. BS was pretty much fixed already, so this is just a different way of showing it. Warhammer Quest did that back in the 90's.
The fixed To Hit for HTH combat seems a bit odd though. Presumably Mr. Bloodthirster will have something that makes him less likely to be hit than regular Marines. Won't make much sense if his much-vaunted martial prowess is matched by lesser beings. Some sort of bespoke rule that makes him harder to hit because of the sheer reality-warping awesomeness (or vileness) of his presence.
For vehicles... well the Dread at T7 annoys me to no end, but that's for personal reason (I've always thought walkers should have Toughness Values, and always thought the Marine/Chaos/Ork Dread should be T8 like the Wraithlord). But, we've been using T8 W3 Dreads for ages now, and T7 W8 is actually tougher.
I'm not sold on the change to cover saves. One of the things I liked in 3rd compared to 2nd was that the cover save system was simple. In cover? Take this save instead. Armour saves meant virtually nothing in 2nd Ed with the (over) abundance of save modifers, and Guard players did nothing in their opponent's turns than remove models without even rolling any dice. Cover saves changed that.
Ronin_eX wrote: Andy Chambers had the right of it in the 2nd Edition rules: "The more terrain, the better the game."
I've been saying that for years. Always wondered where it came from.
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be.
Let me see. A +1 to Save means one additional roll out of 6 succeeds whether you have a 6+ save or a 3+ save? How is the the opposite of what should happen?
kestral wrote: Giving a to hit penalty would be equally beneficial to everyone. Basing it on armor creates a huge benefit for some and none for others (orks being shot by -2 rending for example) - that can be compensated with game design, but I still don't like it.
This doesn't follow. A to-hit roll and an armour roll are both d6 roll-over situations. A penalty to one or the other will have varying effects depending on who gets hit with it.
Orks eating a -1 to-hit are now missing half their shots (6+ to-hit) while a unit with a hypothetical 2+ BS is now hitting on 3+'s (barely any change). This change gaks on lower skilled armies, and worse, if they implement further negative to-hit mods then we are suddenly getting in to territory where those 7+ to-hit rules need to be called on more often.
Meanwhile, armour saves are only currently worrying about negative modifiers. So stacking in some positive mods to counteract that actually makes sense while freeing up design space in the to-hit mod section.
But either way, whether it is a -1 mod to-hit or a +1 mod armour, then it will end up adversely affecting units in different ways. So if your previous objection (it barely affects marines and feths Orks!) is your hangup with a +1 armour mod, then a -1 to-hit mod shares the exact same downsides.
Either is an improvement over the terrible cover system of previous iterations, but I think positive armour mods are a design space that 2nd Edition failed to exploit and the over-piling of to-hit mods had an adverse effect on the game as a result.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The fixed To Hit for HTH combat seems a bit odd though. Presumably Mr. Bloodthirster will have something that makes him less likely to be hit than regular Marines. Won't make much sense if his much-vaunted martial prowess is matched by lesser beings. Some sort of bespoke rule that makes him harder to hit because of the sheer reality-warping awesomeness (or vileness) of his presence.
Kind of seems that way at first, but then I realized that a great many wargames actually tend toward having "fixed" HtH values as well. And in the end, I think that's cleaner and lends itself to more variety. The current HtH chart is actually pretty crap for the most part. Models are either hitting on 3+ or 4+ and most. Sometimes a 5+ (in very rare cases). With fixed to-hits, they can now give combat masters a high to-hit (2+ say) and give them a rule to dump their opponent's to-hit down. If I were to clean up 2nd Edition's close combat, then I think this would have been the way I did it (i.e. convert WS to using the BS chart).
For vehicles... well the Dread at T7 annoys me to no end, but that's for personal reason (I've always thought walkers should have Toughness Values, and always thought the Marine/Chaos/Ork Dread should be T8 like the Wraithlord). But, we've been using T8 W3 Dreads for ages now, and T7 W8 is actually tougher.
Who knows, the Wrathlord may actually be getting a similar downshift. GW has kind of show us with these marine profiles that they aren't afraid of bucking over 20 years of tradition to make a stat line fit the new system.
I'm not sold on the change to cover saves. One of the things I liked in 3rd compared to 2nd was that the cover save system was simple. In cover? Take this save instead. Armour saves meant virtually nothing in 2nd Ed with the (over) abundance of save modifers, and Guard players did nothing in their opponent's turns than remove models without even rolling any dice. Cover saves changed that.
At the end of the day, the overabundance of save mods was a big problem in 2nd Edition. But that had more to do with a liberal application of -1 and -2 ASM's on basic weaponry. If they go with a more measured usage (as we see in AoS) then things get a lot better. Personally, it may have been simple, but cover saves were so counter-intuitive in play that I never got on board with them. Especially not after we started getting effects that actually modified your cover save. At that point, it seemed kind of weird to bother with them in the first place.
In the end, having positive and negative ASM's and using them more sparingly (and in smaller values) will help get rid of the issues that plagued 2nd Edition's overuse of modifiers.
In this case, a little can go a long way.
Hopefully the weapon previews tomorrow will give us a better idea of whether or not we'll be seeing an improvement or a step backwards.
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be.
Let me see. A +1 to Save means one additional roll out of 6 succeeds whether you have a 6+ save or a 3+ save? How is the the opposite of what should happen?
Let's see: I score 12 wounds on marines in cover. 2 die instead of 4, 30 points of marines are saved by being in cover. I do 12 wounds on orks in cover. 8 die instead of 10. 12 points of orks saved. 3+ save, high cost models benefit the most from cover by far, which the exact opposite of how it used to work. To put it another way, if it took me 3 turns to shoot a squad of marines to death in the open it would take me 6 turns if they were in cover. On the other hand if took me 3 turns to shoot a squad of Orks to death in the open it would take me 3.5 turns if they were in cover. Marines now have far more incentive to hug cover than guardsmen. That is unfluffy for me - I like guard to play like WWI or II soldiers and marines to play like armored supermen. Cover has waxed and waned as to how its role in the game worked - from well balanced to abusive, but I don't see this as a step in the right direction. Also, what are the odds that GW learned its lesson about rerollable saves? Will Devestator squads in cover with rerollable armor saves be the new cheese?
Changing templates to a number of hits is an odd switch in the opposite direction. Ork mobs used to fear artillery, now it is marines who need to worry more. Don't like that much either, although again I'll wait to see how it actually works before really pissing and moaning. Could be balanced through other mechanics.
Yes, but Pete Foley confirmed that they will be getting rules in the new edition.
hopefully this means eventually those command tanks will be made avaliable to the general public.
I'm glad to see chapter/legion tactics aren't going away, hopefully GW will expand this to other deserving armies
I asked them about the WW tanks before and they said there were no plans to release them worldwide. I got mine off eBay, so Pedro Kantor has a nice ride. I do hope they give them a wider release though. I would love a set for my Blood Angels as well.
I agree on Chapter Tactics. I am really hoping that they move toward Dark Angels and Blood Angels using the same units, but gaining chapter tactics like the other SM armies (SW and GK are top off the wall to pull that off, IMO). Deathwatch could maybe be done that way as well. Maybe we will finally get official rules on how to run Blood Ravens. I wouldn't mind seeing all the Forgeworld Chapters getting an update either, especially given how popular many of them are.
kestral wrote: Giving a to hit penalty would be equally beneficial to everyone. Basing it on armor creates a huge benefit for some and none for others (orks being shot by -2 rending for example) - that can be compensated with game design, but I still don't like it.
This doesn't follow. A to-hit roll and an armour roll are both d6 roll-over situations. A penalty to one or the other will have varying effects depending on who gets hit with it.
Orks eating a -1 to-hit are now missing half their shots (6+ to-hit) while a unit with a hypothetical 2+ BS is now hitting on 3+'s (barely any change). This change gaks on lower skilled armies, and worse, if they implement further negative to-hit mods then we are suddenly getting in to territory where those 7+ to-hit rules need to be called on more often.
That is fair, I was simply talking about the side being shot at. However, orks aren't the only case, you have Dark Eldar at BS 4, 5+ save who are clearly better off. This is part of the reason they got rid of modifiers in the first place back in the day (at least, that is what I thought) since these issues always come up. Cover saves (at least in their early form) worked pretty well IMO. If you had armor, you didn't need cover.
I also think it is odd that they kept S vs T while giving things huge numbers of wounds. If we are going to have to keep track of all these wound totals, why not eliminate the toughess check altogether and just give high T models more wounds and high S weapons more damage?
I'm not a fan of cover that is miraculously useless depending on how much armour you have at the time you hide and depending on what you're being fired on with.
Marines still need to hug cover because everyone and their dog has AP2 toys that make a mockery of their armour, but being in cover does sweet all to mitigate incoming small arms fire. They're hiding behind a thick plascrete wall but apparently reducing their exposure only matters when a weapon that can melt through TDA is being fired at them. Normal bullets will pass straight through as if they were standing in the open.
Meanwhile armies that rely on vast numbers of ill-protected folks on the cheap basically don't need armour in the first place. Everything ignores their armour save (why do they even have it?) and cover is all they really need.
For the latter, cover basically always works the same, for the former cover evaporates if they are being hit by weaker weapons. This is inconsistent and it all over verisimilitude. Works fine as an abstraction in a game about lightly/un-armoured Napoleonic troops firing at each other with muskets. Adding in tank-armoured supermen to the mix and cover seems to flicker in and out of existence based on what is getting fired at them.
At least a modifier provides a consistent bonus or malus.
To me, marines making proper use of cover is fluffy, and a cover system that acts consistently is just good design. Cover saves were a neat idea, but they just never worked with what GW was trying to go for and I honestly think they ended up more complex than the modifiers they sought to replace.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?
Also, does Objective Secured exist anymore? What units can score?
That is another one where a lazy sentence of two of game design makes a big difference. Transports/vehicles in general scoring or not is something they should get a clear handle on and design accordingly. I'd prefer it a unit's entry clear said "Scoring" or "Not Scoring" in it's rules. That would eliminate many issues.
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be. How does AOS handle terrain? I've heard it doesn't slow movement. Also how does AOS do casualty removal? If it is closest model we're going to see lots of stupid record keeping and argument. "NO, that WASN"T the Ogrynn you shot last time, and BTW that lanraider has 17wounds now not 16". Don't see that as a plus, but again good design could mitigate it.
Well, this is true but your also not considering the fact that marines have been getting fethed by the rules for 20 years now. Consider the fact that if I shoot 30 heavy bolter shots at a squad of marines in ruins or in the open they have a 3+ How the hell does that make any sense and how is that fair when I fire 30 heavy bolters at ork boys in a ruin and they get a 4+ save when in the open they get none. Hell, even when a marine dives for cover and goes to ground in ruins his save doesn't ever improve until he is shot at by a stronger weapon. Think about that for a minute, a marine that has gone to ground in a ruin has the same 3+ against anything ap 4 or greater as he has in the open. It makes sense that a marine in ruins would be half as likely to die to small arms fire. Its not lazy, its actually very eligant. Whats bad design is the current rules which suggest a marine gone to ground in a ruin is just as likely to die to las gun fire as a marine standing upright in the wide open.
In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.
Marines still need to hug cover because everyone and their dog has AP2 toys that make a mockery of their armour, but being in cover does sweet all to mitigate incoming small arms fire. They're hiding behind a thick plascrete wall but apparently reducing their exposure only matters when a weapon that can melt through TDA is being fired at them. Normal bullets will pass straight through as if they were standing in the open.
A marine firing out of a gap in a wall probably offers about the same vulnerable target area to a lasgun as one standing the open - about a square foot at most. Personally, I think you should be able to go to ground in cover and be completely immune to small arms at least at long range. That is the kind of major change to the game I'd like to see, since it would mean you could no longer shoot an enemy off the table from a static position. Kind of sad that we DON"T see any major changes of that sort, just tweaking on the process of killing enemy units. A meaningful suppression mechanic (that wasn't too awful for the one being suppressed) would also please me. It is possible they might give some kind of "covering fire" ability to some units which would be OK too, but it certainly doesn't look like we'll be seeing any of that sort of thing in the core rules.
Well, this is true but your also not considering the fact that marines have been getting fethed by the rules for 20 years now. Consider the fact that if I shoot 30 heavy bolter shots at a squad of marines in ruins or in the open they have a 3+ How the hell does that make any sense and how is that fair when I fire 30 heavy bolters at ork boys in a ruin and they get a 4+ save when in the open they get none. Hell, even when a marine dives for cover and goes to ground in ruins his save doesn't ever improve until he is shot at by a stronger weapon. Think about that for a minute, a marine that has gone to ground in a ruin has the same 3+ against anything ap 4 or greater as he has in the open. It makes sense that a marine in ruins would be half as likely to die to small arms fire. Its not lazy, its actually very eligant. Whats bad design is the current rules which suggest a marine gone to ground in a ruin is just as likely to die to las gun fire as a marine standing upright in the wide open.
Again, a marine has only a few small vulnerable points to a bolter. In cover they still only have a few small vulnerable points. Shooting a marine in the eye is equally hard when they are standing in the open and in a window. One of the things I immediately liked about cover saves was that Armor gave you more freedom to move in the open, but unarmored troops had to use cover to stay alive, much like the last 100 years on earth. I saw this as a boon for armor really.
In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.
That is a relief!
I've just realized I'm debating in a news thread and maybe shouldn't, so I'll stop.
Azreal13 wrote: For this to work, do we need 1+ to be a thing and an auto success (as I believe was the case in WHFB, dunno if it still applies in AOS?)
In 8th WHFB, a 1+ was not an auto-success. You still failed on a 1. However, a 1+ armor save was still good, because it meant that your armor was reduced less by stuff that could penetrate your armor. So you were still at +2 armor save even with a "-1 Rend".
Azreal13 wrote: For this to work, do we need 1+ to be a thing and an auto success (as I believe was the case in WHFB, dunno if it still applies in AOS?)
In 8th WHFB, a 1+ was not an auto-success. You still failed on a 1. However, a 1+ armor save was still good, because it meant that your armor was reduced less by stuff that could penetrate your armor. So you were still at +2 armor save even with a "-1 Rend".
Yup, I always tried to aim for a 0+ re-rollable on my Dwarf Lord. If I wasn't ever going to get the charge, I was damn well going to survive it.
Red Corsair wrote: In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.
1. Anywhere?
-OR-
2. Anywhere within range?
-OR-
3. Anywhere within LOS?
-OR-
4. Anywhere within range and LOS?
Red Corsair wrote: In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.
1. Anywhere?
-OR-
2. Anywhere within range?
-OR-
3. Anywhere within LOS?
-OR-
4. Anywhere within range and LOS?
After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding
the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they
see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When
inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating
wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated.
Did..did someone just ask a rules question about a GW game, and then get a clear concise response quoted from the rules that completely and unambiguously answered said question?
Has anyone heard about OOP models getting rules? Getting worried for my Plague Hulk now.
Their language seemed carefully chosen. "Everything we currently sell will get rules." It is quite likely that some select OOP stuff might not make the cut.
Fisher-Price: Baby's First Wargame wrote:...the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit...
I would hope that a game where shooting is more the focus would not have such simplistic rules.
Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(
Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(
That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The fixed To Hit for HTH combat seems a bit odd though. Presumably Mr. Bloodthirster will have something that makes him less likely to be hit than regular Marines. Won't make much sense if his much-vaunted martial prowess is matched by lesser beings. Some sort of bespoke rule that makes him harder to hit because of the sheer reality-warping awesomeness (or vileness) of his presence.
I've been saying that for years. Always wondered where it came from.
I've always wondered how he's able to parry things that are barely up to his ankles.
Requizen wrote: Pete Foley has been answering a lot of questions on Twitter.
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities, but often they cannot come in within 9" of an enemy, which is a good tradeoff in my book (but I play DS Stormcast lol)
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying. Good, since Zooming/Hover/Swooping was too generic for the various different flyers out there imo.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing (yay cards!)
-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though. Guess the systems will still have some differences
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be.
Let me see. A +1 to Save means one additional roll out of 6 succeeds whether you have a 6+ save or a 3+ save? How is the the opposite of what should happen?
Let's see: I score 12 wounds on marines in cover. 2 die instead of 4, 30 points of marines are saved by being in cover. I do 12 wounds on orks in cover. 8 die instead of 10. 12 points of orks saved. 3+ save, high cost models benefit the most from cover by far, which the exact opposite of how it used to work. To put it another way, if it took me 3 turns to shoot a squad of marines to death in the open it would take me 6 turns if they were in cover. On the other hand if took me 3 turns to shoot a squad of Orks to death in the open it would take me 3.5 turns if they were in cover. Marines now have far more incentive to hug cover than guardsmen. That is unfluffy for me - I like guard to play like WWI or II soldiers and marines to play like armored supermen. Cover has waxed and waned as to how its role in the game worked - from well balanced to abusive, but I don't see this as a step in the right direction. Also, what are the odds that GW learned its lesson about rerollable saves? Will Devestator squads in cover with rerollable armor saves be the new cheese?
Changing templates to a number of hits is an odd switch in the opposite direction. Ork mobs used to fear artillery, now it is marines who need to worry more. Don't like that much either, although again I'll wait to see how it actually works before really pissing and moaning. Could be balanced through other mechanics.
For me, having cover save the same number of Marines (2) as Orks (2) from death is fair. Why should it save more Orks? Certainly not because they are cheaper than Marines.
Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(
That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.
I am confused, wouldn't that increase micromanagement? Because there is a lot more at stake if you make a mistake. At the moment if one dude pops his head out by accident, or is easy flanked, one dude dies, in the other way you lose a whole unit potentially.
To me the only way to have comprehensive terrain effect is to keep on second edition: modifier on to hit test. Nevertheless I believe limitating it to -1 and never having better than 2+ to hit is enough to really matter (2nd edition was too complicated is what I mean). Same should apply on saves. -1 on D6 test is a huge modifier
Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(
That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.
Agreed. It makes things run smoothly, removes nit-picking and is a good game mechanic. I do understand the concern regarding one guy in a squad being visible, therefore allowing 9 Heavy Bolter shots from a heavy weapons team to smash the whole unit.
I just think that "You can only kill what you can see/is in range" is a far simply thing to grasp, and leads to far fewer problems, then "As long as you can see something you can kill everything that's part of that unit".
I don't think that 'LOS Sniping' was as big a problem as people make it out to be, and really is it a problem? I don't see how thinking about the positioning of your units both in an offensive and defensive manner is a bad thing.
Plus the old rules for Independent Characters (cannot be targeted if within 2" of an enemy unit, unless closest target at 6" or 12", whichever it was) worked fine.
Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.
*That's less an LOS issue and more a general concern over the T/W style of vehicles.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just think that "You can only kill what you can see/is in range" is a far simply thing to grasp, and leads to far fewer problems, then "As long as you can see something you can kill everything that's part of that unit".
I don't think that 'LOS Sniping' was as big a problem as people make it out to be, and really is it a problem? I don't see how thinking about the positioning of your units both in an offensive and defensive manner is a bad thing.
Plus the old rules for Independent Characters (cannot be targeted if within 2" of an enemy unit, unless closest target at 6" or 12", whichever it was) worked fine.
Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.
*That's less an LOS issue and more a general concern over the T/W style of vehicles.
I agree with all of this.
EDIT: On a side note, I have emailed Forge World asking if the Plague Hulk of Nurgle (and therefore other OOP models) will be getting 8th edition rules.
You don't want to get into a situation where people can rotate models out of line of sight. Paladins become very annoying at that point if they have 3 wounds each. Oh, you hit model 1 for 1 wnd. I will put him behind building to move next wound to another model.
This obviously makes the assumption that Paladins are terminators with +1 wound.
I wonder if Deathwatch will go up to two wounds each. I sure hope so because their unless its a casual game or allied to another army they aren't great on their own right now.
A valid concern, however it is easily solved by making it so that shooting removes whole models first, and that you cannot spread wounds around.
So if a unit of 5 models that each have 2 wounds takes 5 wounding hits, you remove 2 models and the unit, and not a specific model, has one wound against it. Next turn it takes another single wounding hit, enough to cause another casualty, which the player can pull from any of the models (in range/LOS).
As you don't wound models (with the exception of singular things, like ICs attached to units) but rather units, you never have that problem.
We've had rules like this in 40K before. It's really simple to figure out, and stops the whole wound sharing nonsense.
I am confused, wouldn't that increase micromanagement? Because there is a lot more at stake if you make a mistake. At the moment if one dude pops his head out by accident, or is easy flanked, one dude dies, in the other way you lose a whole unit potentially.
The micromanagement comes from people fussing about with their units to make sure that their heavy hitters can shoot at stuff while not being the only valid casualties when the enemy shoots back.
Under the 'anybody in the unit can die' system, that's less of a concern... either the unit is a valid target, or it's not, and the individual placement on each model in the unit is far less important.
Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.
In a smaller game, I completely agree.
In a game with as many models on the board as 40K has these days, I would much rather have interactions between units rather than individual models. So positioning and terrain should matter... but they should affect the unit (this unit is in/out of cover, this unit can/cannot be seen) rather than individuals in the unit.
Hmm. I just bought a bunch of dkok some time ago. Haven't painted them yet but I was going to get back into 40k with those lads. Seeing that a new edition is coming that leaves me wondering if forgeworld will release a new book for my dkok or if they are relegated to being common imperial guard.
In a game with as many models on the board as 40K has these days, I would much rather have interactions between units rather than individual models. So positioning and terrain should matter... but they should affect the unit (this unit is in/out of cover, this unit can/cannot be seen) rather than individuals in the unit.
Agreed, I think when playing Shadow War and other skirmisher games it should be about the individual. However, I do think that the focus in 40k should be the unit.
insaniak wrote: I'd be very surprised if Forgeworld don't release new books for the new rules. May not happen straight away, but seems a no-brainer.
I'm still afraid Fires of Cyraxus is cancelled.
No, i'm positive the book will be released 8th friendly, hence the delay.
An interesting concept would fear, terror, or similar effects causing stacking levels of penalties to weapon skill or ballistic skill.
This concept causes me to not be so concerned by fixed WS rolls.
I really want to see how psychic powers are handled. Could be simple leadership test.
I'm a bit concerned that as GW don't currently sell a model for a Chaos Marine Lord on a Juggernaut, they wont have rules in 8th until they get round to updating World Eaters.
Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(
That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.
I still remember playing a 3rd ed game where the other player spent 10 minutes carefully arranging his 2 rhinos JUST SO so there was a very small, straight gap where ONLY his plasmagunner could ONLY see and hit my veteran sergeant. Indeed, I remember how excited our RTT organizer was when the Pete Haines FAQ hit in 4th ed that specifically addressed being able to remove casualties that were out of LOS or remove figures that were not directly hit by a blast template. I personally LOVED the way 4th ed handled LOS and wound allocation/casualty removal, with level 1/2/3 ruins acting like forest templates (no true-LOS bullcrap) and Torrent of Fire allowing you some measure of removing specific models. It was quick, it was effective, it let you play the important aspects of the game without having to diddle with bending down for a "model's eye view" every 5 seconds to make sure you had a shot. t was intentionally abstract for the purpose of playability and most people I knew appreciated that. 5th ed going to true-LOS was a step in the wrong direction and 6th/7th ed "closest model always always always dies first" bullcrap adds very little and yet takes forever to resolve compared to rolling saves and simply removing casualties of your choice. There's a bit of tactics involved in placement within the unit, but not nearly enough to justify how much time is wasted rolling out individual saves
If 8th ed moves to the AoS casualty removal system I will shout it's praises from the mountaintops. If it keeps the "closest model always always dies first" crapfest then I'll probably sit around the house despondently and randomly cry into a bucket of ice cream for a few months
In a game with as many models on the board as 40K has these days, I would much rather have interactions between units rather than individual models. So positioning and terrain should matter... but they should affect the unit (this unit is in/out of cover, this unit can/cannot be seen) rather than individuals in the unit.
Absolutely. True-LOS is great in Infinity with a dozen models per side and tons of dense, blocking terrain where each move is directly countered by all visible opposing models. I don't need or want that level of granularity when there's dozens of models per side
H.B.M.C. wrote: A valid concern, however it is easily solved by making it so that shooting removes whole models first, and that you cannot spread wounds around.
So if a unit of 5 models that each have 2 wounds takes 5 wounding hits, you remove 2 models and the unit, and not a specific model, has one wound against it. Next turn it takes another single wounding hit, enough to cause another casualty, which the player can pull from any of the models (in range/LOS).
As you don't wound models (with the exception of singular things, like ICs attached to units) but rather units, you never have that problem.
We've had rules like this in 40K before. It's really simple to figure out, and stops the whole wound sharing nonsense.
Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).
Per AoS rules (because LOS isn't needed for the guy to take wound), the guy with one wound takes his third wound and is removed.
Per requiring LoS and wound management silliness that jerks have manipulated for several editions, the guy in the open must take the wounds as he's the only valid model in LOS.
I'm starting to wonder if the 5 books might actually be in a different format to what we expect.
e.g. It makes little sense for a space perspective to include the rules for a rhino in multiple books. Perhaps it might take more of a unit centred approach with a book for armies and rules then one for tanks etc etc
Latro_ wrote: I'm starting to wonder if the 5 books might actually be in a different format to what we expect.
e.g. It makes little sense for a space perspective to include the rules for a rhino in multiple books. Perhaps it might take more of a unit centred approach with a book for armies and rules then one for tanks etc etc
I'm expecting Astartes, Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos. And the "New Faction" to be Death Guard.
Panzerkanzler wrote: Hmm. I just bought a bunch of dkok some time ago. Haven't painted them yet but I was going to get back into 40k with those lads. Seeing that a new edition is coming that leaves me wondering if forgeworld will release a new book for my dkok or if they are relegated to being common imperial guard.
They did say that FW were getting rules for their models day 1 as well
Latro_ wrote: I'm starting to wonder if the 5 books might actually be in a different format to what we expect.
e.g. It makes little sense for a space perspective to include the rules for a rhino in multiple books. Perhaps it might take more of a unit centred approach with a book for armies and rules then one for tanks etc etc
I'm expecting Astartes, Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos. And the "New Faction" to be Death Guard.
Eldars not being Xenos is weird but also correct. Stupid eldars ruining the xenos threat with their fancy "alliances" and "prophecys". Make Xenos threat great again.
Imperial Astartes would cover six factions by itself. While they do share some units and wargear they also have plenty of unique units and variants as well as being the settings poster boys. so I wouldn't be surprised to see one book concentrating on them. The rest of the Imperium has three full army factions(IG, SoB and AM) with the rest being covered by one or two units.
Could see it as Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/Tyranids(and cults)/Xenos.
Looking at the galaxy map, the Tau are cut off from the Imperium by the Nihilakh Dynasty and Chaos. From the overview we have, it doesnt seem like the Necrons have moved in on the Tau.
Maybe it wasnt the Eldar who saved the Tau back in the day, ut the Necrons? I mean, the Necrons could have the motivation, since a low warp signature race with none if that silly psyker business would be pretty good for a body transfer...
kestral wrote: I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be. How does AOS handle terrain? I've heard it doesn't slow movement. Also how does AOS do casualty removal? If it is closest model we're going to see lots of stupid record keeping and argument. "NO, that WASN"T the Ogrynn you shot last time, and BTW that lanraider has 17wounds now not 16". Don't see that as a plus, but again good design could mitigate it.
Well, this is true but your also not considering the fact that marines have been getting fethed by the rules for 20 years now. Consider the fact that if I shoot 30 heavy bolter shots at a squad of marines in ruins or in the open they have a 3+ How the hell does that make any sense and how is that fair when I fire 30 heavy bolters at ork boys in a ruin and they get a 4+ save when in the open they get none. Hell, even when a marine dives for cover and goes to ground in ruins his save doesn't ever improve until he is shot at by a stronger weapon. Think about that for a minute, a marine that has gone to ground in a ruin has the same 3+ against anything ap 4 or greater as he has in the open. It makes sense that a marine in ruins would be half as likely to die to small arms fire. Its not lazy, its actually very eligant. Whats bad design is the current rules which suggest a marine gone to ground in a ruin is just as likely to die to las gun fire as a marine standing upright in the wide open.
In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.
I think there is a major point in this. It's not so much of the "realism", but more of a balance thing. Why to pay any extra for a better armour, if most of the time you'll get the same benefit from hugging cover (especially as after 4th edition it was super easy). This again led to inclusion of increased amount of "ignore cover" weaponry, which increased another exception over an exception, increasing the rules clutter. This could be seen clearly with chaos space marines, why would you ever take the marines as most of the time the cultists do everything the marines did (i.e. took objectives and shots), but with a fraction of price.
In any case, for me, even if the updates look really good this far, the make it or break it moment is how they handle the shooting. If there isn't any reaction mechanism or advanced morale rules inducing pinning to shot units, there is also big chance I won't be playing this game much as I have got comfortable with games having this kind of elements. Without interaction, the shooting game turns too quickly in to "who rolls more dice" competition.
Bobthehero wrote: Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.
That still doesn't explain why the to-wound roll is improved against the toughness of the battlesuit. The weak shot carrying the poison should have to attempt to break through the battlesuit's toughness and armor save (virtually impossible for most poisoned weapons, fluff-wise) and only then should it have a chance to wound the pilot. As it is now the poisoned weapon gets the same to-wound roll against a battlesuit and a naked grot, with the high toughness of the battlesuit offering no protection at all.
privateer4hire wrote: Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).
And? I already covered this in my example. If units are taking wounds, and not models, then this isn't a problem.
So why does the game follow some arbitrary things from real life like laws of physics, weapons ranges, vehicle speeds, Armour protection etc etc but not others?
It's a game. They do that.
The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways,
Except, you know, they always have. It was like this before you started playing and it'll be this way when you're gone.
and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.
In these days of internets, there's someone to complain, loudly, about everything.
People moving miniatures to minimize splash damage was never a problem for me, because real-life military units have a loose formation when moving and firing at any rate anyway.
This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line
Of course, a key factor here is intent of the rules vs pure RAW. When I used to play 40k regularly , before it became the current clusterfeth that it is now, I used to space my guys out to minimise template damage, but I didn't use a 2" tool to make sure I was exactly the maximum spread. I did it by eye. Much like members of real life military units do it by eye rather than by tape measure between them.
I think it's also worth pointing out that with the advent of 32mm bases, and more models moving onto them (optionally in many cases for veteran players), it creates a form of advantage for models using those slightly larger bases in avoiding multiple hits from template weapons. I used to love dropping templates on the enemy, in particular that flamer template was satisfying, but I'm ok with going to a different form of abstraction in an already heavily-abstracted system (or set of systems).
In regards to line of sight, you may be able to wound models outside of line of sight, but if there aren't any models in sight the wound pool empties. I use a similar system in a home brew game I'm playtesting, if you wanna sacrifice guys to save a special weapon, go ahead. But the casualties may make you think twice about if it is worth it.
As for cover, in AOS it increases your save by one or two. If this ports over then a marine in cover will be dramatically more durable than an ork boy or guardsmen in the same position.
Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.
Almost all vahicles have pilots in 40k. And don't forget the dreadknight - penitent engine paradox.
This of course isn't an issue with the core rules, the fact there's a bunch of vehicles that for no reason use the rules for monsterous creatures rules is an issue with the codexs.
Nobody complained that carnifexs were OP compared to tanks, the riptide / wraith knight started the unbalance.
alanmckenzie wrote: [
And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.
I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?
Sounds like a very reasonable suggestion. Did they do that with AoS? It was during "White Dwarf Weekly", wasn't it? I stopped buying for pretty much that entire. period.
alanmckenzie wrote: [ And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.
I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?
Sounds like a very reasonable suggestion. Did they do that with AoS? It was during "White Dwarf Weekly", wasn't it? I stopped buying for pretty much that entire. period.
Didn't bundle the core rules with AoS, no mate. They were available to download from the GW main website on day 1 though.
Current 40k doesn't allow that though, you have to be in range and LoS to die.
It's just it's lumbered with the tedious 'closest models first' which can devolve into an exercise of "which model is a fraction of a millimetre closer than the other".
I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.
The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.
After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.
I'm quite excited about most of the changes mentioned so far, especially to Vehicles and the introduction of save modifiers. Also, the fact that multiple people worked to balance all the factions simultaneously. Glad to hear that it may be finally viable for me to play a mono-DE army.
I certainly won't miss all the unkillable Frankensteinian deathstars, or bringing a 2000 pts army to a 1500 pts game.
Power level - more for Narrative, less granular, sounds more like AoS where upgrades aren't taken into account.
Matched Play - current 40k style where models/weapons/upgrades all costed.
This is very good, the AoS thing where you just pick whatever upgrades you like is batgak mental.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: They just hinted that IC wont be able to join units. Instead they will pass traits on to unit(S) nearby.
Oooohh, not sure about this one. Unless they're going to radically bump up the power level of all ICs or change the vast majority of weaker ICs into upgrades for unit leaders ala Straken/Creed for IG command squads, this seems like a recipe for making almost every character but the Special Characters non-viable - a lot of characters need a unit's worth of ablative wounds and challenge interceptors to survive long enough that their other abilities are actually viable.
NivlacSupreme wrote: If the heresy gets on this system the "anything can hurt vehicles" will be funny. "Oh that's a nice Leman Russ. Shame if someone was to shoot 80 bolters shots at it"
Too bad it will probably have like 30 wounds or what not.
and a 2+ armour save
Oh a 2+ save, well that's OK then, it's not like 2+ units have anything to fear from volume of fire
Overall this seems fairly positive - they appear to be actually learning from AoS' mistakes, and they seem to be trying to find ways to retain complexity while still streamlining play somewhat, which is better than the AoS approach of streamlining via raw simplification. What will be interesting to see is whether they decide to incorporate these changes back into AoS in the next GHB revision. Still, Allies sounded like a great idea at first, so I'll keep the wallet shut until I've had a chance to view the rules in detail and see what exactly they mean by "some changes" to the fluff.
Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.
Anecdotal, obviously, but one of the more frequent complaints I've come across over the years, and one of the biggest issues for me personally, is that the ability to kill things too quickly renders objectives largely meaningless, and too often your big, impressive units that you spent so much time assembling and painting stay on the table for all of three and a half minutes before going back into the case.
I would have preferred the new edition to have made it harder to kill things and concentrate more on objectives, suppression and unit synergy.
Well, this is a mixed bunch. Yeah it's annoying when your painstakingly finished Vanguard Veteran unit is wiped out in R1, OTOH games take longer if much of the armies remain on table towards later rounds. Plus killing stuff is gratifying. Some time ago I had a game where my opponent had super durable Necron army and I played very cautiously. It was really boring and took very long time - my shooting wouldn't do anything, he couldn't reach most of my units.
I remember version of Steel Panthers: WW2 where infantry was hugely durable. Casualties were rare and most of the time units just got pinned. It was extremely frustrating and slow to play. Then again, I remember Close Combat 3 where infantry pretty much auto-died if they heard tank's clatter nearby...obviously going to opposite end is no good either.
Oooohh, not sure about this one. Unless they're going to radically bump up the power level of all ICs or change the vast majority of weaker ICs into upgrades for unit leaders ala Straken/Creed for IG command squads, this seems like a recipe for making almost every character but the Special Characters non-viable - a lot of characters need a unit's worth of ablative wounds and challenge interceptors to survive long enough that their other abilities are actually viable.
I think what will happen is that Independent Character-rule is removed but Look out,sir! remains. That way they won't get auto-sniped by heavy weapons, and complicated IC rule becomes unnecessary.
I think what will happen is that Independent Character-rule is removed but Look out,sir! remains. That way they won't get auto-sniped by heavy weapons, and complicated IC rule becomes unnecessary.
That, or a return to 4th edition's rule which didn't allow you to target ICs unless they were the closest available target.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.
If I'm gonna be honest, 8th edition WHFB was this for me as a Wood Elf player.
I unpacked, stuff died to gentle breezes whether in cover or not cause y'know...no armor saves on basically everything.
In AoS? My stuff sticks around a lot longer now.
Yeah and that's one of several reasons why I quit WHFB with 8th. I'm sure I can go off on a rant about how GW should have fixed WHFB instead of killing it
Proof of the Pudding, by Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 36 and 11/12ths
So GW are telling us this has been roundly playtested, both internally and externally - including by those who run major tournaments in the USA.
Now, that all sounds very welcome and positive.
But....but for me, the real Proof of the Pudding won't be how well balanced it is on release - the simple fact there is that game hours massively increase, so it's likely some oddities will be shown up quickly. Others still might come out in the wash in say, 6 months time.
So the litmus test is how well they tweak and update things, as they've promised they will.
At the moment, that's largely an unknown quantity. We're not talking FAQs here, but updates and changes to Scrolls and core rules where needed.
We've seen some tweaks done here and there on AoS, and from what I'm told (it's not been for armies I'm familiar with ) they've done a decent job - and GHB2 is just around the corner, which promises to tweak the points (little bird tells me some characters are going up in points, and 'too cheap' units like Skyfires are going up as well).
That my chums is when I'll know enough to pass a balanced, experienced judgement
(But hey that's just me. I'm only a role model to my God Daughter. Everyone else can do as they please )
I think the age of ICs being able to join any almost any unit and giving them their buffs is over. Rather I think either they have to slog it alone (still protected by some means like in AoS) or can only join units whose job in the fluff is to protect them (Honour Guard, Tyrant Guard, Incubi, etc).
So GW are telling us this has been roundly playtested, both internally and externally - including by those who run major tournaments in the USA.
Now, that all sounds very welcome and positive.
But....but for me, the real Proof of the Pudding won't be how well balanced it is on release - the simple fact there is that game hours massively increase, so it's likely some oddities will be shown up quickly. Others still might come out in the wash in say, 6 months time.
So the litmus test is how well they tweak and update things, as they've promised they will.
At the moment, that's largely an unknown quantity. We're not talking FAQs here, but updates and changes to Scrolls and core rules where needed.
We've seen some tweaks done here and there on AoS, and from what I'm told (it's not been for armies I'm familiar with ) they've done a decent job - and GHB2 is just around the corner, which promises to tweak the points (little bird tells me some characters are going up in points, and 'too cheap' units like Skyfires are going up as well).
That my chums is when I'll know enough to pass a balanced, experienced judgement
(But hey that's just me. I'm only a role model to my God Daughter. Everyone else can do as they please )
We also know that the 40kGHB will have yearly updates (they said it on the stream). Don't know if they'll change stuff in between, or even if they should! Some things need time to settle and it takes a while for people to find out if something is really broken or not.
I'd hope we don't get what could be 'knee-jerk' tweaks, simply because it seems likely people will have to adapt their strategies and tactics to the new rules, so previously sure-fire stuff might not work as well.
If stuff is clearly really out of whack, around 6m would be good for me (but as before, that's just me)
I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*
For GW waiting to update Horus Heresy to 8th for like a half a year sounds like a good business plan. With 8th launching everyone and their dog will jump onto 40k, test everything, buy things they wouldnt need in Horus Heresy games and when the first enthusiasm will be settled they will go back to Horus Heresy afresh in 8th edition rules.
Chaos Legionnaire wrote: I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*
Chaos Legionnaire wrote: I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*
>MFW I have read all 70 pages
That is a first for me I think thanks for the entertaining news guys (except those land raider losers earlier)
Tamereth wrote: I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.
The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.
After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.
This is why the free AoS app is a complete godsend for me - I simply add the warscrolls my opponent is using to 'My Battle', giving me quick (and free!) access to all the rules for the units involved in the game, unlike before when I'd have to borrow/buy/memorise whole army books to know what was what. It's like creating a mini codex tailored specifically to your game on the fly.
That's picking just one factor and ignoring all the speed-increasing factors we know of such as removing templates, and likely others we don't, and claiming it alone will bog the game down. Doesn't work as an argument. Multiwounds alone doesn't really mean anything re: game speed.
JohnnyHell wrote: That's picking just one factor and ignoring all the speed-increasing factors we know of such as removing templates, and likely others we don't, and claiming it alone will bog the game down. Doesn't work as an argument. Multiwounds alone doesn't really mean anything re: game speed.
Particularly if you always remove whole models when possible.
As suggested earlier, it may be that you can only have one wounded model in a unit (so you only need to track a wound on one of your five terminators). Wounds pile onto already wounded models until they are removed, and then pass onto the next model.
I'm very sad to see templates and scatter dice go, although I admit both had issues (who doesn't space their guys out 2" rendering the small blast useless, and scatter dice always cause arguments over which precise degree the arrow is pointing).
I'm a bit concerned at the 'everything can hurt everything' because that renders volume of fire as tier 1. But without seeing weapon profiles etc, all of that is moot.
VERY happy that maelstrom is in and I really hope we get to keep the cards!
Mezmerro wrote: GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds
Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you? Tons of armies have multi-wound models as a rule (StD, Ironjawz, SCE, BCR) and matches usually take half what a 40k game does.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just think that "You can only kill what you can see/is in range" is a far simply thing to grasp, and leads to far fewer problems, then "As long as you can see something you can kill everything that's part of that unit".
I don't think that 'LOS Sniping' was as big a problem as people make it out to be, and really is it a problem? I don't see how thinking about the positioning of your units both in an offensive and defensive manner is a bad thing.
Plus the old rules for Independent Characters (cannot be targeted if within 2" of an enemy unit, unless closest target at 6" or 12", whichever it was) worked fine.
Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.
*That's less an LOS issue and more a general concern over the T/W style of vehicles.
I agree with all of this.
EDIT: On a side note, I have emailed Forge World asking if the Plague Hulk of Nurgle (and therefore other OOP models) will be getting 8th edition rules.
While I agree I guess buckets of dice being rolled and then buckets of models being removed is the name of the game. We are not going to be far off just multibasing and using wound markers is going to be the most practical thing to do.
I wouldn't worry too much about 12 pages of rules being 'inferior' to what you're normally used to.
The Osprey wargames series of books, which I would recommend to anybody, mostly contain 30 pages of rules, so quality rues can be squeezed into fewer pages.
None the less, concerns about 'dumbing down' are valid in my book. Streamlining is fine, but it's a fine line between simple and simplistic.
Mezmerro wrote: GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds
Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?
They said in the stream they have done a TONNE of play testing and game time for 1500 points has pretty much halved.
privateer4hire wrote: Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).
Mezmerro wrote:GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds
Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?
This kind of thinking is really frustrating. it boils down to taking a rule and saying it's ridiculous because it would be in the context of the old edition, joking and making a "it would be" remark is one thing, but getting upset and judging a new edition (before release) like this is a failure of logic.
It's a new edition, why would all (or any) of the new rule have to work in the context of the old edition.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.
Tamereth wrote:I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.
The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.
After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.
AoS does probably have more rules total if you include the warscrolls. Those are significantly more manageable because of the warscroll system though. Lots of rules are terrible if you have to find them all over several sections of several books. If you put all the rules that apply to a unit on one page it's feasible to have each unit be unique.
Chaos Legionnaire wrote:I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*
We don't know, it is probable that units will have rules that make them work in a similar way to how they work now (but compatible with the new mechanics).
My guess is that invul saves are somewhat obsolete without the AP system. Assuming a warscroll system; models that need such effects can have extra rolls to ignore damage (similar to FnP) or straight up have abilities that just let them ignore save modifiers.
Lord Kragan wrote: You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?
You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.
or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.
Lord Kragan wrote: You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?
You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.
or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.
If they're saying a 1500 point game takes on average, 90 minutes, then I wonder how complex or streamlined the game will actually be? If the scales tip to heavily to one side, there could be a problem of depth and playability.
For example, I was playing En Garde the other week, a skirmish game.
I had 5 models on my side and my opponent had 7 on his side. Total set up and playing time on a 3x3 board was around 40 minutes.
We managed to get two games in, so that's a total of 1 hour 20 minutes.
A 1500 hundred point of 40k would have what? 30-50 models per side depending on army. So that's a longer set up time and it has to be a long playing time.
If it takes us on average 40 minutes for a 5 Vs. 7 skirmish game, then it has to take long than 90 minutes for a game of 40k.
Yes, we're weren't doing speed runs to get through the games, and of course, if you play hundreds of games of 40k, and don't have to refer to the rules constantly, it will be quick.
But 90 minutes? I wonder at the depth of this new game...
Lord Kragan wrote: You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?
You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.
or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.
Do you really need a MOD to tell you guys?
Nope, I'm going to leave it at that and say that, should they go for AOS' wound allocation system, even having a ton of multiple wound models will mean the game will go faster.
Lord Kragan wrote: You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?
You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.
or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.
Do you really need a MOD to tell you guys?
Nope, I'm going to leave it at that and say that, should they go for AOS' wound allocation system, even having a ton of multiple wound models will mean the game will go faster, which I think they will do so there's nothing to worry about termies having 2 wounds.
Gamgee wrote: Imperium with everything including marines.
Chaos
Xenos
The 40k version of the generals handbook.
5th book no idea. Perhaps an updated setting book that sets up the basics for new players?
No need for a GHB in 40k at launch remember it only exists in AoS to polish the turd it was at launch, I would kinda hope that even GW could get it right this time.(The fact the core rules are 3x longer than AoS show that)
I am working on the assumtion that thd new faction is Gulimarines or at really long odds space skaven. They way they split the galaxy backs this up as the majority of Mininmarine Chapters are in the lost zone while gulliman is on the other with his Custodes mk2, Custodes, SoS,GK but a much smaller number of minimarines.
Forces of Imperium (includes Minimarines)
Mortals of Chaos
Deamons of Chaos
Gullimarines and Talons of Teh Emmprhaa
Everything else
Is what I would guess at if all 5 books are codexs, if only 4 codexs then either combine chaos or drop xenos to pdf only.
If they really were not kidding about the focus being on Imp v Chaos then.
Forces of Imperium
Codex Khorne
Codex Nurgel
Codex Tzeentch
Codex Horned Rat
Xenos go into free pdf and army builder only for now.
To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.
.
.
