Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What do the Chaos Gods see in Abaddon anyway? He has a 10,000 year long track record of failure after all.
Considering that Horus fought about that long in the BLHH novel fluff just to gain all the Chaos god's favor during the Heresy, I suppose they're playing the long game. When you're immortal, you really don't sweat the small millenial stuff.
Huh?
No spoilers, but reading Vengeful Spirit should make that a little clearer for you, Bulldogging.
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think they'd say even if they weren't going to be better but instead worse? That you wasted your money and should use them as office paperweights? It's naive to assume that you're going to get anything but a positive response from a GW employee. If you go back a few years, unbound and formations were the best thing since sliced bread and exactly what the community wanted according to official channels. Obviously, they weren't (and not even in hindsight but rather first glance for some of us). It's nice to get an answer (if only to ridicule it later worst case scenario) but the proof is in the full rules release pudding. Everything until then is assumed to be marketing spin first and foremost. This isn't necessarily directed at you since you flat out said possible good news but rather to the gullible silent readership that fell hook, line, and sinker for marketing spin the last two editions.
I don't think we can specifically say that summoning is gone as a concept, but I'm pretty sure we can say it's gone as a way of bringing free models.
Spoiler:
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
I like how getting free models is Literally The Worst, right up until chaos does it.
You have to pay for models.
Agreed, free models is bad.
In a game that revolves around equal points anything free is terrible game design. This was never even a question until 7th Ed books and formations warped people's perception of quality rules...
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think they'd say even if they weren't going to be better but instead worse? That you wasted your money and should use them as office paperweights? It's naive to assume that you're going to get anything but a positive response from a GW employee. If you go back a few years, unbound and formations were the best thing since sliced bread and exactly what the community wanted according to official channels. Obviously, they weren't (and not even in hindsight but rather first glance for some of us). It's nice to get an answer (if only to ridicule it later worst case scenario) but the proof is in the full rules release pudding. Everything until then is assumed to be marketing spin first and foremost. This isn't necessarily directed at you since you flat out said possible good news but rather to the gullible silent readership that fell hook, line, and sinker for marketing spin the last two editions.
Yup that's true.
Thing is, there still can't be statements that are outright false.
There are a bunch of ways Pete could have replied without saying they'd be better.
Of course, he says he thinks they'll be better, automatically rendering it an opinion rather than an out and out fact, but nevertheless it would be hugely naive to say something like that when it can be danced around so easily ("there's going to be lots of opportunity to get your Kans on the table" or "we've addressed the concerns that came out of feedback and playtesting" etc.)
I'd say it's fair to say he does feel they're better now, it is just a concern whether that's borne out in a wider ecosystem.
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think they'd say even if they weren't going to be better but instead worse? That you wasted your money and should use them as office paperweights? It's naive to assume that you're going to get anything but a positive response from a GW employee. If you go back a few years, unbound and formations were the best thing since sliced bread and exactly what the community wanted according to official channels. Obviously, they weren't (and not even in hindsight but rather first glance for some of us). It's nice to get an answer (if only to ridicule it later worst case scenario) but the proof is in the full rules release pudding. Everything until then is assumed to be marketing spin first and foremost. This isn't necessarily directed at you since you flat out said possible good news but rather to the gullible silent readership that fell hook, line, and sinker for marketing spin the last two editions.
Yup that's true.
Rofl, we didn't get responses before. No one said they would be great because no one said anything and because they didn't used to care what the community wanted at all.
Then they killed fantasy and severely muffed the very expensive launch of its replacement, lost a ton of money and had to do a total 180 on their conduct customer side just to bail themselves out. They followed it up with some lucky lightning in a bottle (thank you UK tournament scene) and community initiatives that started getting results and now we're in a place where hating on GW is considered skepticism rather than simple facts.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles died for our sins and as much as the people who are still...verbose about it irratate me I think we all have to agree that we owe pretty much every good thing that's happened in the past two years to Warhammer Fantasy.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Literally only one LoW is unbalanced and that's the Wraithknight. You can make an argument for the Stormsurge but I don't see it as too much a problem.
Sure, if all we were considering was the balance today, I could see that argument; I don't think the Stormsurge is a particular issue even. However, if you go through all of 7e, we first had the hilariously broken T C'tan (first draw a Str D straight line over a unit, then use a Str D hellstorm in case it survived), wwe've had the Eldar Lynx (flying Str D large blast) and then we had issues where Imperial Knights were on every table - the only thing which really came in to stop this was the advent of the new SM codex with grav spam everywhere, which basically invalidated almost every vehicle and MC in the game without invuln saves. They've always been a thorn in the game, just from the fact that they're so polarising in the current rules - either you can kill them, in which case you likely win every game, or you can't and just lose. With potentially degrading performance and "everything can hurt everything", I'm interested to see what they'll be like in 8e.
If you want to make mention of the Escalation supplement that literally nobody used, sure.
Lynx wasn't broken but it was definitely bordering on super good.
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think they'd say even if they weren't going to be better but instead worse? That you wasted your money and should use them as office paperweights? It's naive to assume that you're going to get anything but a positive response from a GW employee. If you go back a few years, unbound and formations were the best thing since sliced bread and exactly what the community wanted according to official channels. Obviously, they weren't (and not even in hindsight but rather first glance for some of us). It's nice to get an answer (if only to ridicule it later worst case scenario) but the proof is in the full rules release pudding. Everything until then is assumed to be marketing spin first and foremost. This isn't necessarily directed at you since you flat out said possible good news but rather to the gullible silent readership that fell hook, line, and sinker for marketing spin the last two editions.
Yup that's true.
Rofl, we didn't get responses before. No one said they would be great because no one said anything and because they didn't used to care what the community wanted at all.
Then they killed fantasy and severely muffed the very expensive launch of its replacement, lost a ton of money and had to do a total 180 on their conduct customer side just to bail themselves out. They followed it up with some lucky lightning in a bottle (thank you UK tournament scene) and community initiatives that started getting results and now we're in a place where hating on GW is considered skepticism rather than simple facts.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles died for our sins and as much as the people who are still...verbose about it irratate me I think we all have to agree that we owe pretty much every good thing that's happened in the past two years to Warhammer Fantasy.
As someone who was thinking of starting fantasy (Tomb Kings). I agree with that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you want to make mention of the Escalation supplement that literally nobody used, sure.
Lynx wasn't broken but it was definitely bordering on super good.
If by no-one you mean "multiple of the major tournaments at the start of 7e", then sure, "no-one" used it.
The Lynx was indisputably broken until it's update though, I'll hear no argument on that. From memory, every single top Eldar list which could use FW stuff took it, and they were almost always in the top 2. It was absurdly broken - essentially, every Eldar army had a Str D large blast on a nigh-invincible platform firing every single turn for what, like 420 points?
With the death of formations, I wonder how the Deathwatch will be handled. I thuoght those kill teams where the coolest part of the Codex. Hopefully, they come up with a way to keep them.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What do the Chaos Gods see in Abaddon anyway? He has a 10,000 year long track record of failure after all.
You don't understand Chaos - if they win the war - the game and the fun ends
Constant and unending warfare, strife is a joyful thing for the Chaos gods and those followers that truely understand them.
Indeed, if you have an eternity of time to win, 10k years of fun and games is a great pastime, and the person responsible for that fun needs to be rewarded.
Chris521 wrote: With the death of formations, I wonder how the Deathwatch will be handled. I thuoght those kill teams where the coolest part of the Codex. Hopefully, they come up with a way to keep them.
They were fun, but they also created a ton of problems. Transports didn't work right with them. Movement modes didn't work right.
Who knows what we can expect from them. Perhaps each Kill Team type will be made into a Troops choice, with the Kill Team members being Veterans as base, but being able to be upgraded into a Vanguard Veteran, Terminator, or Biker. Just a thought.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you want to make mention of the Escalation supplement that literally nobody used, sure.
Lynx wasn't broken but it was definitely bordering on super good.
If by no-one you mean "multiple of the major tournaments at the start of 7e", then sure, "no-one" used it.
The Lynx was indisputably broken until it's update though, I'll hear no argument on that. From memory, every single top Eldar list which could use FW stuff took it, and they were almost always in the top 2. It was absurdly broken - essentially, every Eldar army had a Str D large blast on a nigh-invincible platform firing every single turn for what, like 420 points?
The issue came from everyone buying that landing platform giving them a 4++ from all shooting. Take that out of the equation and I hadn't had issues with them.
Also I know most tournaments didn't because otherwise I'd have seen that Transcendent C'Tan everywhere. I'll definitely agree with you that model was fething stupid.
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think they'd say even if they weren't going to be better but instead worse? That you wasted your money and should use them as office paperweights? It's naive to assume that you're going to get anything but a positive response from a GW employee. If you go back a few years, unbound and formations were the best thing since sliced bread and exactly what the community wanted according to official channels. Obviously, they weren't (and not even in hindsight but rather first glance for some of us). It's nice to get an answer (if only to ridicule it later worst case scenario) but the proof is in the full rules release pudding. Everything until then is assumed to be marketing spin first and foremost. This isn't necessarily directed at you since you flat out said possible good news but rather to the gullible silent readership that fell hook, line, and sinker for marketing spin the last two editions.
Honestly, if there weren't things he believed made improvements to walkers, he could easily have ignored me. He get's a lot of questions. That said, I''m cautiously optimistic and yes, I make sure to say POSSIBLE good news, since as an Ork player, I'm never convinced of good things for Orks. So, yeah, I agree with you but with reservations.
We know Dreadnoughts are generally more resiliant now (111 Scatter Laser shots to go down vs 40 it currently takes when they have the benefit of cover), so I can see the idea that walkers in general have gotten better.
If KFF is a -1BS then walkers under the bubble may be hard to hit and thus hurt too.
These Detachments come with a few benefits and restrictions. The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Does this mean that that the Patrol, Battalion, and Brigade Detachments can mix-and-match from Imperium factions? The line in the actual article has the word Imperium link to all Imperium stuff in the store. So you might be able to put use a Space Marines HQ with Imperial Guard Troops and Custodes Elites?
These Detachments come with a few benefits and restrictions. The most common restriction is that all units in a single Detachment must share a faction keyword (Tyranid, Blood Angels or Imperium for example).
Does this mean that that the Patrol, Battalion, and Brigade Detachments can mix-and-match from Imperium factions? The line in the actual article has the word Imperium link to all Imperium stuff in the store. So you might be able to put use a Space Marines HQ with Imperial Guard Troops and Custodes Elites?
I believe so as it follows the same logic as allowing units from different Order factions to mix in AoS.
That said the balance in this is in not sharing rules thus decreasing synergy between units.
I don't think we can specifically say that summoning is gone as a concept, but I'm pretty sure we can say it's gone as a way of bringing free models.
Spoiler:
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
I like how getting free models is Literally The Worst, right up until chaos does it.
You have to pay for models.
I don't know who you were responding to. You quoted me, but your responce doesn't make sense in context to what I said.
I get that "free" models was perceived negatively, and I understand why they may do away with it in 8th.
Since you mentioned Chaos, at least Chaos had to work for it in the Psychic phase, which was never guarenteed. SM and AM could get tons of free points worth of stuff during army building. Necrons could get free scarabs, with minimal risk.
But my original point, which I may not have explained clearly, was is that if you have to:
1.) Pay points for the models
2.) Keep a Pysker alive to summon them
3.) Then succesfully roll a psychic power to summon then.
It's effectively a worse version of reserves.
If what you summon is not fixed when you pay the points, it offers some versatility over standard army building, but it seems at significantly more risk.
That being said, 8th Edition summoning, which I admit has not been spoiled in any detail, seems at this point D.O.A., or at the very least a suboptimal army building choice included to remain fluffy.
It's only a "worse version of reserves" if it doesn't offer any other facility. If it allows units to deploy in a manner or at a time they otherwise wouldn't be allowed, it could still have a place.
In AoS, you also don't have to have purchased the specific models you want to summon. So I can set aside 300 points for summoning, and on-the-fly decide what I want to spend those points on. Vs. purchasing specific models and being stuck with those models in reserve.
It's a side-board you can reactively change and adapt anytime in the game.
Summoning in AoS at the beginning was insane without points. Now, with matched play rules, they hit it pretty hard with the nerf-bat and really is not a viable option to competitive gaming.
Maybe they will find a better and middle ground to make him balanced in 40k, but I doubt it. Is very difficult to make it a fun mechanic, not broken or underpowered.
Personally, I think that to make summoning viable, they need to make summoning-specific characters/HQ that summong a new "only summon" type of unit, to give them appropriate point costs.
Elbows wrote: It just makes sense on the consumer side. There have been (to date) seven major rulebooks or revamps of the game mechanics. We've arbitrarily assigned edition numbers to them.
That's the opposite of arbitrary.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
On an unrelated note to Splog's face, I'm sad to see Cadia still existing. This was the best opening for GW to re-do Guard and move away from the "Cadian Pattern" everything. The Cadia aesthetic is old and tired (never that interesting to begin with). Would have liked to have seen GW launch a new wave, perhaps even some options instead of the same thing. I'll be sad if they re-do Guard and choose to stick with the same thing again for the next 10 years. It doesn't hurt anyone's armies if you ditch Cadia (unless you're in the middle of building one - eBay would have you covered anyway). They can simply be Cadian regiments/battalions/armies off-world at the time and still in service to the Imperium.
Boo. Hiss.
Agreed. IG definitively need a style makeover
Automatically Appended Next Post:
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Lol, it always make me laugh when people get excited because of messages like this. Like they would say that Kans and walkers will be crap this edition
Based on the dreadnought stats, I have high hopes for walkers of all types being pretty good this edition. Hope that the Killa Kans, Deffdreads, and Morka/Gorkanaut specifically get their much needed boost.
Cadians don't need a style makeover. They're an iconic and well established part of the 40K lore and artwork, and have a huge range of products.
What we need are new releases to cover and/or expand on the other Imperial Guard Regiments, especially ones that don't follow the Cadian pattern of equipment. Updated infantry for Valhallans, Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Tallarns, Mordian Iron Guard, Praetorian Guard.... New kits for command squads, independent characters and heavy team weapon teams. Conversion kits for vehicles.
And maybe even kits for Regiments that have never been represented by GW, like the Harakoni Warhawks, Savlar Chem Dogs, Mordant Acid Dogs and new original Regiments.
yeah, he doesn't answers all the questions, cause answering some of them would spoil some of the future daily infos.
But don't worry, with so much time to go, they'll go through pretty everything, and everything will be fine and great according to them
BTW, I'm not blaming them, nor saying that they are deliberatively trying to mislead us, but le'ts be serious for a second, these are worthless marketing claims
adamsouza wrote: if you have to:
1.) Pay points for the models
2.) Keep a Pysker alive to summon them
3.) Then succesfully roll a psychic power to summon then.
It's effectively a worse version of reserves.
Who's to say it won't work like 3.5 where icons or sorcs aren't basically built in with free demon teleport homers? That's a lot of assumptions- yes, if they do stack a bunch of requirements and costs on something without buffs, it will be worse than the current form, but that makes a lot of assumptions, based on no information. Unless we have the whole picture, jumping to conclusions doesn't mean anything, since we don't know what the balance will be. What if every summoner gives you 50 free points for reserves for summoning, or 200? Or what if they have 4 kinds of utility and summoning is the icing? What if they're bizarrely underpriced? What if their stats suck? What if things get a heinous buff when they arrive from summoning?
streetsamurai: you get how marketing, promoting a forthcoming product you want to sell, and working for a company and wanting to keep your job work, right? Yes?
JohnnyHell wrote: streetsamurai: you get how marketing, promoting a forthcoming product you want to sell, and working for a company and wanting to keep your job work, right? Yes?
Absolutely, since I happen to be a prof in marketing at an university. But I fail to see what this have to do with my post?
streetsamurai wrote: which would make it equally worthless, since they lack the detachment to be objective about it
Pure supposition.
Absolutey not, one has to be gullible to think that someone who is involved in the developement of something will be as objective as someone who wasn't. This is a well known thing in psychology
when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.
Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless
Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?
Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless
Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?
Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.
Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion
Which is fine, in the meantime, perhaps don't come in to threads intimating that people are being stupid or naive for being optimistic about stuff and I won't pick holes in your shonky justifications for your cynicism?
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.
Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion
Which is fine, in the meantime, perhaps don't come in to threads intimating that people are being stupid or naive for being optimistic about stuff and I won't pick holes in your shonky justifications for your cynicism?
I'll continue to post whatever I feel like, as long as a mod doesn't tell me im OT
And if you think you've picked any hole in my argument
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless
Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?
Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?
I honestly don't underststand your point here ?
I'm supporting your point.
The language of the previews and answers has been less than perfectly truthful, albeit in many cases because of subjective "this is going to be great and we guarantee you'll love it" rhetoric.
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless
Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?
Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?
I honestly don't underststand your point here ?
I'm supporting your point.
The language of the previews and answers has been less than perfectly truthful, albeit in many cases because of subjective "this is going to be great and we guarantee you'll love it" rhetoric.
Tha'ts a given. It is actually incredible that some give some credence to these claims.
We can not objective state if the opinions of e designers on how the game is are truly off the mark due to their lowered level of objectivity when we don't have the full ruleset. It is indeed worth taking into consideration in terms of ensuring we don't ride the hype train blindly, but since all information comes out of the studio and is tainted with their point of view it is basically impossible to view any objective "sneak peeks" on 8th's rules.
Basically we should just all carry on with what we know, speculate about what we don't and generally stop worrying on how good or bad everything actually is this early in thte month. We have at least a solid month of teasers left and as we go on we may be able to form a clearer picture but not this soon.
On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.
Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion
Which is fine, in the meantime, perhaps don't come in to threads intimating that people are being stupid or naive for being optimistic about stuff and I won't pick holes in your shonky justifications for your cynicism?
I'll continue to post whatever I feel like, as long as a mod doesn't tell me im OT
And if you think you've picked any hole in my argument
You're right. Making assumptions on the motivations of someone and the veracity of a statement you aren't even in a remotely plausible situation to know and implying negative things about people who chose to take it differently is just unsubstantiated opinion, I did it too much credit calling it an argument.
Claiming that the game developpers and/or GW employee want to sell this new edition to us is not an assumption, and neither is stating a well known fact that being involved in the developement of something make you less objective about it.
I don't think we can specifically say that summoning is gone as a concept, but I'm pretty sure we can say it's gone as a way of bringing free models.
Spoiler:
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
I like how getting free models is Literally The Worst, right up until chaos does it.
You have to pay for models.
I don't know who you were responding to. You quoted me, but your responce doesn't make sense in context to what I said.
I get that "free" models was perceived negatively, and I understand why they may do away with it in 8th.
Since you mentioned Chaos, at least Chaos had to work for it in the Psychic phase, which was never guarenteed. SM and AM could get tons of free points worth of stuff during army building. Necrons could get free scarabs, with minimal risk.
But my original point, which I may not have explained clearly, was is that if you have to:
1.) Pay points for the models
2.) Keep a Pysker alive to summon them
3.) Then succesfully roll a psychic power to summon then.
It's effectively a worse version of reserves.
If what you summon is not fixed when you pay the points, it offers some versatility over standard army building, but it seems at significantly more risk.
That being said, 8th Edition summoning, which I admit has not been spoiled in any detail, seems at this point D.O.A., or at the very least a suboptimal army building choice included to remain fluffy.
You help to reinforce my point, armies that get free points are considered cancerous BS unless they get the special Chaos forcefield. The fact that there are hoops to jump through doesn't negate the fact that on the other side of those hoops you get a pretty massive advantage. Gladius forces very strict, often suboptimal army building and pretty much locks you out of the best unit in the codex(centurions are too expensive and require another detachment to get a delivery system) Warcon basically builds the army for you and suffers in terms of adaptability because of it, which is why many added libcons for...you guessed it, summoning. Chaos, for it's part did have to bring a Cabal or Tzeentch to be able to summon reliably but once they did it was 100% guaranteed and basically unstoppable.
Free point detachments created some VERY strong feelings and summoning got to sneak under the radar a bit but creates the exact same problems. Side note: why do care about optimal army building in a narrative army?
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
streetsamurai wrote: Claiming that the game developpers and/or GW employee want to sell this new edition to us is not an assumption, and neither is stating a well known fact that being involved in the developement of something make you less objective about it.
You seem to be rather confused
Not in the slightest.
That one of the designers should choose to answer a question in the positive, while ignoring many others, and choosing to answer in the positive rather than simply give some positive sounding empty answer, on their personal Twitter feed outside of work hours, have it be entirely sales motivated and still be ultimately false is the assumption I'm taking issue with.
That and the slightly snide and condescending tone aimed at the people who simply took it at face value and chose to Ben optimistic about it.
streetsamurai wrote: Claiming that the game developpers and/or GW employee want to sell this new edition to us is not an assumption, and neither is stating a well known fact that being involved in the developement of something make you less objective about it.
You seem to be rather confused
An inverse straw man, I like it. Misrepresent your own argument to make it seem more rational than it actually is. The only problem is we can still read the yammering from earlier. Well they can, I block you and only come in once the things other people quote of yours circle around from 'hate-mongering tinfoil hat nonsense' to 'pretending it wasn't totally hate-mongering tinfoil hat non-sense'.
streetsamurai wrote: Claiming that the game developpers and/or GW employee want to sell this new edition to us is not an assumption, and neither is stating a well known fact that being involved in the developement of something make you less objective about it.
You seem to be rather confused
An inverse straw man, I like it. Misrepresent your own argument to make it seem more rational than it actually is. The only problem is we can still read the yammering from earlier. Well they can, I block you and only come in once the things other people quote of yours circle around from 'hate-mongering tinfoil hat nonsense' to 'pretending it wasn't totally hate-mongering tinfoil hat non-sense'.
Care to give an explanation on how I misrepresented my own argument?
I guess not, since you would be unable to do so.
And again with the totaly baseless acusation of hate mongering. Yeah, that's why I claimed numerous times that I liked most of the change of 8th edition and I'm excited about it. It seems that for some, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm is akin to hating.
And if you blocked me, why are you responding to one of my post? That's a completely juvenile thing to do
Galas wrote: It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Galas wrote: It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.
Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information.
streetsamurai wrote: when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless.
Anyways, this is boring and rather OT. If you guys want to get excited cause the developpers are saying this will be the greatest thing ever, go ahead. Me, I'll wait till we have some credible facts before forming an opinion
Galas wrote: It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises. But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.
Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].
i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.
Oh yes. As someone that follow pretty closely the Videogames scene I have seen the hurt that the hype can cause to project. The over spectations that people put into things many times are absurds.
When I was talking about healthy, I was referring to the own people. Being a reasonable adult if the best solution, obviously, but many times I have find people that just works hard to be depressed and always see the bad side to everything.
I'm not wanting to do here a psychologycal analysis of anyone, just sharing my mind about this "Good vs bad"... I only wanted to participate in your conversation.
Since not everyone makes it over to the nuts and bolts subforum, I figured this would be a good time to post the salt sprinkling orkmoticon I submitted a week ago in honor of this thread.
It seems appropriate given the current discussion.
Galas wrote: It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises.
But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.
Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].
i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.
What, and nothing decent ever got a rough ride because people didn't give it a fair shot because there was negativity surrounding it?
It's a bs argument, neither is any good, and advocating one over the other is just a question of whichever one fits your personal echo chamber.
Galas wrote: Oh yes. As someone that follow pretty closely the Videogames scene I have seen the hurt that the hype can cause to things. The over spectations that people put into things many times are absurds. When I was talking about healthy, I was referring to the own people. Being a reasonable adult if the best solution, obviously, but many times I have find people that just works hard to be depressed and always see the bad side to everything. I'm not wanting to do here a psychologycal analysis of anyone, just sharing my mind about this "Good vs bad"... I only want to participate in your conversation.
But sorry for the OT, I will stop now.
Yes, I do agree that some persons seems to enjoy being miserable and finding a problem with everything and anything. And this attitude seems to be more common in the nerd community. I still rebember, when PP announced that the Convergence will be a one time only release, that some people were complaining that PP deliberstely misled them by not telling them so earlier. And PP made the announcement prior to the release of the faction in question
Galas wrote: It all comes down to optimistic people vs pesimistic people and how they approach the same situation. In this case, a company making promises. But all of that is a complex theme that can spawn is own thread!
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a company making promises in the example that started this all (will a kan wall be better?)... but rather an employee whose livelihood depends in part on the success of the product offering a highly biased opinion. In the end, reviews are just opinions and we'll all have to form our own in a few weeks. After being misled about how awesome formations and unbound were going to be and how it is what the community wanted (despite by my recollection no one ever did) by employees in similar positions with 7th edition, holding the position of "show, don't tell" is more accurately described IMO as realistic rather than pessimistic. Luckily for us, GW is actually trying to do that this time around unlike with the rollout of 7th where we had to depend on WD leaks to read the marketing spin and find out just how much of a turd it would be.
Yeah, thats my same approach to all of this. I don't call pesimistic the people that just remains healty skepticism with GW, but this thread is full of people that just wan't to encounter the worst possible scenario the every one single advancement we have had. And people that do the inverse! But normally I find more healthy people that want to look for the good side of things that people that just work hard to see the worst every time. Even if both of them have the same information[/u].
i disagree on this. Your satisfaction on something is based a lot on the expectations you had prior to using or experimenting the thing in question. Those that are irrationnally optimistic about 8th edition are bound to create expectations that it surely won't be able to meet, even if it's a terrific game, which will lead to a lot of dissapointment. Hence why I think that they are more detrimental than eternally pessimistic persons in the grand scheme of things.
What, and nothing decent ever got a rough ride because people didn't give it a fair shot because there was negativity surrounding it?
It's a bs argument, neither is any good, and advocating one over the other is just a question of whichever one fits your personal echo chamber.
Care to give us any studies on how they are equally nocive? Cause right now, you're only trying to pass an opinion (my POV was also an opinion, but I clearly said it was an opinion) as a fact, in your usual arrogant way.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.
Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.
This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.
Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.
It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.
Antitank weapon should destroy Tanks with a cheaper investment of points. Thats why you bring Anti-X weapons to the table.
If they cost the same, then you don't need Anti-X. Just bring the X and roll with it. Obviously, this need to be balanced. It should be cheaper, but not so cheap that makes X useless.
ClockworkZion wrote: Can we not have a meta discussion about rumors and teasers please?
Indeed. Let's get it back on track, please. The topic is not 'Marketing Spin'. Nor is it 'Negativity in Online Commentary'. Both of those discussions can be held elsewhere.
What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?
Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?
If they do it like in AoS, maybe a Tervigon can give "reinforcements" to Termagants units for free, without making them bigger that they initial size. That kind of reinforcement in AoS is free.
And to the second question, in AoS, yes. You need to pay points for that. Thats why I said that summoning in AoS is pretty useless. Personally, I think Pink Horrors should be costed with the price of Blue Horrors and Brimstones included. (Not 1:1 point relation, because is better to have them separated that a unit spliting as it is killed)
Actually to take the odds thing further, a unit of Devastators shooting an unobstructed Dreadnought in the new edition would fire four times, hit 66% of the time 3+) wound on 83% of the time (2+), which would see 16% of the wounds saved (6+) after which each wound would do an average of 3.5 wounds.
Assuming this on average the Dreadnought would take roughly 6.4 wounds from a Devastator squad armed with 4 Lascannons in a shooting phase on average.
That still leaves 1-2 wounds left. Considering no more damage table for instant explodes or wrecked results from wounds, that looks like a boost to me over the old Dreadnought.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.
Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.
This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.
Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.
It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.
I think damage rolled once its got through any saves is almost a certainty, it seems the most intuitive and was also how it worked in 2nd. Having Marines need to point 6 Lascannon at a Dread to have an average chance of taking it down seems about right, but points will make a break a lot of this, of course.
What about things like the Tervigon? If you have to pay for the Termagants it spits out, why even bother taking it?
Would you need to pay points for Blue Horrors if you brought Pink Horrors? Pay points for the Brimstone Horrors that come out of Blue Horrors?
I'm willing to bet that since Tervigons and Spyders have mechanics to prevent infinite unit spawning and you have to lose a zpink Horror to gain those two Blue Horrors that these won't require points investments. The way the summoning circus was run it could potentially generate an unlimited number of points daemons over the course of a game thus requiring further balancing.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up.
Although that 4th Lascannon shot can also be a bolter shot... 8th has made it so that when your squad shoots at the front of a dreadnought, the rest of the unit isn't just standing there watching the heavy weapon guy... While it requires a lot of sixes, a single Tactical squad can potentially take out a dreadnought in the first turn without a heavy weapon.
Against any single heavy weapon, dreads might have become more durable in 8th, but they've been opened up to potential damage from a wider range of weapons. And, of course, for heavy weapons we've only seen Lascannons so far... we have no idea how much damage any of the other heavy options will do.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
AV12 is roughly equivalent to T8 compared to everything but S5. However the current Dread doesn't have an armour save, and from behind it's only AV10. T7, 3+ save and 8 wounds will probably be about right. The math hammer comparison will differ from weapon to weapon but I imagine the current dread will end up "feeling" tougher for at least the first round of Codexes.
I reckon you're right on tanks in melee. Nothing special in combat unless they charge that turn, but nasty if they're tooled up for ramming.
I also suspect you're right on the rhino, but with a 3+ save because marines.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.
Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.
This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.
Of course we're missing more information but against dedicated anti-tank weapons (particularly ones that didn't see much love by players in editons past, like the lascannon) being a weapon that can punch through a tank makes sense. The problem breaks down to how much a lascannon costs (currently around 34 points on a vanilla Devastator and not counting the rest of the unit) and how much the target costs. A lascannon at tha cost one shotting a Rhino feels fair currently because they're the same cost, but one shotting a hundred plus point tank tends to leave most of us feeling rather cold.
It will be interesting to see where this all goes and hopefully the game reaches a balance point where things feel roughly on par for the same cost. Perfection can come later, I just want something functional that doesn't have too many problems at launch.
I think damage rolled once its got through any saves is almost a certainty, it seems the most intuitive and was also how it worked in 2nd. Having Marines need to point 6 Lascannon at a Dread to have an average chance of taking it down seems about right, but points will make a break a lot of this, of course.
I agree, it does seem to make the most sense, and the level of durability of a Dreadnought feels pretty good right now, but points will make or break everything going forward.
That said I could potentially see Lascannons make their way back into the game more often since they have a strong amount of damage potential assuming they don't get shafted by their points. The inability to do more than one HP/Wound per hit and only having one shot made them less desirable for points compared to cheaper options but it looks like that will swing back the oher way a bit now.
Question I have though is if they made plasma better to take (and plasma pistols cheaper as 15 points for an exploding pistol that is worse than an Inferno Pistol that costs 10 is friggin' silly). I don't mind Get's Hot but it needs something to really give it an edge aainst other more options as right now it's more a weapon that looks cool than is useful.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up.
Although that 4th Lascannon shot can also be a bolter shot... 8th has made it so that when your squad shoots at the front of a dreadnought, the rest of the unit isn't just standing there watching the heavy weapon guy... While it requires a lot of sixes, a single Tactical squad can potentially take out a dreadnought in the first turn without a heavy weapon.
Against any single heavy weapon, dreads might have become more durable in 8th, but they've been opened up to potential damage from a wider range of weapons. And, of course, for heavy weapons we've only seen Lascannons so far... we have no idea how much damage any of the other heavy options will do.
I think the Lascannon is going to have to offer high potential damage relative to other options, as it needs to offer something to avoid a repeat of all of the last few editions, assuming they've made a fist of balancing gak out and there's going to be legitimate fors and againsts for all options, and that seems both functional and fluffy.
As for Bolters, yeah, well, I'm not overly bothered by that conceptually, and it's not that different from the Carnifex as it stands now.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
AV12 is roughly equivalent to T8 compared to everything but S5. However the current Dread doesn't have an armour save, and from behind it's only AV10. T7, 3+ save and 8 wounds will probably be about right. The math hammer comparison will differ from weapon to weapon but I imagine the current dread will end up "feeling" tougher for at least the first round of Codexes.
I reckon you're right on tanks in melee. Nothing special in combat unless they charge that turn, but nasty if they're tooled up for ramming.
I also suspect you're right on the rhino, but with a 3+ save because marines.
I definitely agree that it currently feels right. Perhaps a bit tougher han our current lists are geared for, but time will tell once we know what points look like.
Ramming being a charge thing could be quite fun. Granted that means charging your Rhino 2d6+1" into the enemy unit, but it's tough enough to make such a move useful if allowed (allowing occupants a chance to get right on top of the enemy army) and could result in new tactics centered around crushing your opponents under your treads before hopping out to charge them.
Granted that's strait wishlisting but it's cinematic right?
And I could see vehicles floating around 3+ for your average tanks and medium weight walkers, 4+ for light vehicles (Scout Sentinels, Killa Kans) and 5+ on things like Trukks.
I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.
Question I have though is if they made plasma better to take (and plasma pistols cheaper as 15 points for an exploding pistol that is worse than an Inferno Pistol that costs 10 is friggin' silly). I don't mind Get's Hot but it needs something to really give it an edge aainst other more options as right now it's more a weapon that looks cool than is useful.
.
Yeah, guns are ok, but pistols and cannons need something.
Cannons getting multiple hits rather than a small blast may be enough, perhaps with D3 damage?
A small points drop on pistols, allied with the fact they'll actually get to shoot more often, might work too.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Cadians don't need a style makeover. They're an iconic and well established part of the 40K lore and artwork, and have a huge range of products.
What we need are new releases to cover and/or expand on the other Imperial Guard Regiments, especially ones that don't follow the Cadian pattern of equipment. Updated infantry for Valhallans, Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Tallarns, Mordian Iron Guard, Praetorian Guard.... New kits for command squads, independent characters and heavy team weapon teams. Conversion kits for vehicles.
And maybe even kits for Regiments that have never been represented by GW, like the Harakoni Warhawks, Savlar Chem Dogs, Mordant Acid Dogs and new original Regiments.
And the way it's looking over at Forge World, Elysians too.
I'm all for IG model range expansion and updates. But I have a bad feeling that this is going to be the SPHESS MUHREHN edition when it comes to the Imperium. Moreso than it already is.
I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.
Calling it now, IKs get 3+ with 2+ on a facing. I know facings seem to have departed, but I can still se this happening.
I could see the shield bonus still working like that. The Baneblade varients feel like hey should be 2+ save models but then again they cold just be a 3+ with like 24 wounds.
I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.
Calling it now, IKs get 3+ with 2+ on a facing. I know facings seem to have departed, but I can still se this happening.
I could see the shield bonus still working like that. The Baneblade varients feel like hey should be 2+ save models but then again they cold just be a 3+ with like 24 wounds.
Plus the damage results are all unique to the vehicle I believe? So the big things like BBlades might have 24 wounds and all the damage results waaay down the end, like from 8 wounds down or something, so they get to keep going full bore for a good while. I can also see the LR working similarly.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What do the Chaos Gods see in Abaddon anyway? He has a 10,000 year long track record of failure after all.
You don't understand Chaos - if they win the war - the game and the fun ends
Exactly. Remember the last time when Chaos won the game? WFB got wiped and the AoS lore happened. *Shudders*
matphat wrote: Just got this from Pete...possible good news for Orks?
@GeekJockPete My Kan Wall really wants back on the table! Will we see more effective walkers this time around?
Pete Foley
I think they will be a lot better, all walkers should be in #New40k
Yeah, I think that's a given if you just take a look at the new Dreadnought profile. Same vulnerability as lascannons as they are now (as it should be, they are expensive and extremely specialized for a reason), much less vulnerable against bolters (if you were in rapid fire range and the Dead didn't get into melee you'd often just move around it and kill it with statistically 26 bolter shots from behind, that still trumps being able to but needing, what, 125 bolter shots, or over 7 turns of rapid fire from 10 Marines with bolters, to kill them from the front?) and a massive increase in survivability against its number 1 Nemesis, S6/S7 spam. Also no more lucky one-shots, no more immobilized (effectively as good as being dead for any close combat walker) and no more half your weapons getting destroyed just like that, step-by-step lowering of stats is massively better. At worst a 6+ armour save even against lascannons, likely 5+ against krak missiles and 4+ against autocannons (unless melta is AP -4, possible, but that wouldn't be much of a difference to their lethality as it is now). Likely a 2+ armour save for Dreads likeBjorn and Ironclads. And last but not least: a 2+ armour saves in cover.
How is it summoning if you just take the models out of your case and plonk them down? You gotta use actual magic to manifest the models you want to play with
Having things for free is the rotten core of what was ruining the game, you're gonna have to make some other kind of fluff justification for it, because getting things for nothing is garbage.
+1
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Cadians don't need a style makeover. They're an iconic and well established part of the 40K lore and artwork, and have a huge range of products.
What we need are new releases to cover and/or expand on the other Imperial Guard Regiments, especially ones that don't follow the Cadian pattern of equipment. Updated infantry for Valhallans, Steel Legion, Vostroyans, Tallarns, Mordian Iron Guard, Praetorian Guard.... New kits for command squads, independent characters and heavy team weapon teams. Conversion kits for vehicles.
And maybe even kits for Regiments that have never been represented by GW, like the Harakoni Warhawks, Savlar Chem Dogs, Mordant Acid Dogs and new original Regiments.
Completely agreed. The way to go is not killing the Cadians as they are and piss of thousands of players that like them and have armies of them, but to promote other regiments more. And seriously, the guard is not even the worst offender of the poster boy syndrome, I mean there is even a Catachan equivalent for almost any set or bits for them, and plenty of other regiments have unique metal sets for them, even if they should totally be replaced with plastic ones.
If you want it really bad just take a look at the Ultramarines and particularly the Order of our Martyred Lady (I mean, when was the last time you saw a SoB that wasn't white haired and wearing black and red armour anywhere besides some BL novels?), the latter still reigning absolutely supreme when it comes to being overrepresented.
In regards to the toughness and save compared to armor values, I have a vehicle and monstrous creature design rules set linked in my signature.
You can use the point totals from the math for armor values and then look for the same point costs in the toughness and save chart to get a good idea of how things will work.
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?
Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?
Clearly. If you can't get free models from hammerspace (of course, if your opponent is also able to get the same benefit----that would be unfair), then summoning is clearly worthless.
Clearly. If you can't get free models from hammerspace (of course, if your opponent is also able to get the same benefit----that would be unfair), then summoning is clearly worthless.
You know the Rick and Morty line about it being slavery with extra steps ?
8E summoning sounds like reserves with extra steps.
Shouldn't the splitting abilities of Pink Horrors be included in their cost? The idea that you'd have to pay extra points for their main ability to even function is just daft.
If its like AoS and you set aside points to pick and choose what you want to bring forth, that would be fine.
Nobody will use it, like nobody summons in AoS, but getting things for nothing (whether it be Marine Transports, AdMech upgrades, Genestealer Cults, or Chaos summoning daemons) was janky and hopefully will be changed.
The extent i could see it being alright would be Genestealer cultists adding models to existing units, and maybe buffing the amount you get if a icon is nearby, or something. Even that makes me leery, though.
ClockworkZion wrote: [
Average of 1d6 would be 3.5 which means on average it'd take 2-3 successful Lascannon shots to kill it assuming you didn't pass your 6+ armour save and hadn't popped smoke at the time.
This is assuming that the D6 applies after you wound and not before of course, as if you roll before rolling to wound the number of shots may be higher thanks to a more changes to reduce the incoming damage via saves.
He wasn't talking about averages but how many shots it can potentially take. In 7th ed there was NO WAY WHATSOEVER it takes more than 3 wounding hits to take out dread. None whatsoever. MEanwhile it was possible to blow up dread in first wounding hit.
In 8th ed minimum goes to 2 wounding hits, maximum 8.
And of course this is with specialized anti-tank weapon.
And btw whether you roll damage before or after saves has zero impact on averages. Only effects it has is reduce result curves(ie less extreme results) at the cost of more dice rolling. Ie if you roll damage after saves you can have much more likely odd scenario where dread saves all 3 6+ saves for 0 damage than if you rolled before saves when odds of getting 0 damage is much lower. Average damage same but extreme results happen more often. But you roll in average 13.5 dices vs average of 5.5 dice or so.
Question I have though is if they made plasma better to take (and plasma pistols cheaper as 15 points for an exploding pistol that is worse than an Inferno Pistol that costs 10 is friggin' silly). I don't mind Get's Hot but it needs something to really give it an edge aainst other more options as right now it's more a weapon that looks cool than is useful.
.
Yeah, guns are ok, but pistols and cannons need something.
Cannons getting multiple hits rather than a small blast may be enough, perhaps with D3 damage?
A small points drop on pistols, allied with the fact they'll actually get to shoot more often, might work too.
The question is what is the target for plasma?
Lascannons and meltaguns will be optimized for large targets with mutliple wounds. The same will probably apply to grav guns. So the remaining role of plasma is to kill armored infantry, and for that it doesn't need multiple damage.
I am willing to guess some super heavies could be a 2+ as well.
Calling it now, IKs get 3+ with 2+ on a facing. I know facings seem to have departed, but I can still se this happening.
If they wanted to have facings for IK why not facing for EVERY vehicle. I mean it's not too hard to have variable T or save based on facing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Lascannons and meltaguns will be optimized for large targets with mutliple wounds. The same will probably apply to grav guns. So the remaining role of plasma is to kill armored infantry, and for that it doesn't need multiple damage.
Heavily target infantry is pretty good target. More shots than lascannon is handy.
And as for multiple damage..Terminators? If it has d3 it has 66% chance of killing terminator per hit that gets past saves vs needing 2 hits past saves every time.
Sarigar wrote: I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.
Did you think? I always thought they were pretty clear. If unsure you dice for it.
However removing them will speed things up a little I guess. I'm wondering if there will be the same system as in Epis in that if you can trace los across the target from one unit to another it gets a -1 to armour save, or a similar mechanism.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Something that didn't really come up in the "are dreads more or less durable now" argument, that I saw, was how much swingier vehicle damage is now. While an 8th Dread may be +\- x% more or less durable than a 7th one to lascannons, the fact is that it only ever took 3 wounding lascannon shots to take down a 7th Dread, and shots one and two could severely impact the efficacy of the unit. An 8th Dread can, theoretically, take 8 wounding shots, and potentially keep operating at full capacity for far longer, depending on the damage track.
These are corner cases, sure, but every time an 8th Dread survives to require a 4th or further Lascannon shot, it has been more durable than a 7th equivalent, and those corner cases will mount up. If on each of those occasions the Dread also manages to maintain any form of optimal (i.e. normal) damage output without track results interfering, then you've got a decent boost overall.
Weapon profiles in 8ed are going to have a damage stat, though. I think the article on weapon profiles actually featured lascannons and said they do d6 wounds. That averages out to 3 wounds a hit, which makes a dreadnought basically as durable next edition as they are now. Even on consistently below average rolls, dreadnoughts would only be more survivable by one whole hit, assuming lascannnons and their ilk wound consistently. The potential exists for dreadnoughts to be more (and less) survivable, but the median average is basically the same as it is now. Of course, all of the weird corner cases in 40k come up more often than in other games, so I don't think its too much to be excited for them.
One thing I'm interested in is how Light and super light vehicles will translate into 8ed. x2+2 would make Eldar vipers 6 wounds, which doesn't quite feel right, so some adjusting up and down would be necessary but cases like these make me wonder if a lot of the rules designers just went right to whatever feels right, since a lot of algorithm results would end up being rubbish. What will sentinels look like in 8th ed? T7 W4 3+? and how different will contemptors be from normal boxy dreadnoughts? T7 W8 2+ 5++?
One of my hopes for this edition is for a lot of units that don't see a lot of play will become better. A lot of weapons will fall clearly into a "High RoF, Low Damage," or "Low RoF, High Damage" category and full size units of 2-4 wound models will make both categories inefficient, causing terminators, full size sentinel squadrons, land speeders, attack bikes in squadrons (and not upgrades to bike squadrons) and other obscure things will become desirable in order to break the metagame, so this change probably excites me the most.
streetsamurai wrote: Yeah lets hope one of the few tactical aspect of 40k goes away
Or we could replace it with an even better, more tactical version that doesn't involve arguments about fractions of angles, nor a multitude of unsupported opinions on what exactly constitutes the front of any of the various vehicles that doesn't fit into a neat box, one which doesn't require different unit types to have radically different profiles?
Specifically, the flanking rule from Epic: Armageddon, wherein if you have units within range of each other on opposite sides of an enemy unit, the enemy gets additional save and morale penalties.
So is summoning free units gone. I'm seeing talk about it but haven't found anything confirming. It's difficult to find anything thru all the arguments.
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?
Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?
Just to note. The advantage of summoning over normal reserve if that you set aside the points and then get to spend them based of the situation.
So in a tournament situation you could choose between units/equipment based on if your fighting marines or. Orks for example.
Pretty much this, provided it's a straight port of the AoS rules.
Rather than putting points aside for a specific unit, you get to choose what you summon when you cast. In essence, it's a more tactically flexible Deepstrike, as you can fit the unit to the situation.
Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.
The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.
Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.
Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.
So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect.
Is it really summoning if I'm paying the points for the models ?
If I'm paying points for the models how is that different from just briging models from reserves ?
So wait, models in Reserves should be FREE?
Does that mean I can just pull a Warhound out of hammerspace?
Just to note. The advantage of summoning over normal reserve if that you set aside the points and then get to spend them based of the situation.
So in a tournament situation you could choose between units/equipment based on if your fighting marines or. Orks for example.
Pretty much this, provided it's a straight port of the AoS rules.
Rather than putting points aside for a specific unit, you get to choose what you summon when you cast. In essence, it's a more tactically flexible Deepstrike, as you can fit the unit to the situation.
Also like with PP games it encourages more sales to get a varied sideboard as well as your normal army not a bad thing but GW will not mind.
As long as you dont have to stipulate exactly what models you are going to summon, I am fine with paying before hand. The basis of summoning is that it can be a tactical response to what your opponent put on the table or what happens on the battlefield. E.g. do I want my summoned units to hold an objective or charge one? The conundrum is that there is a high risk connected to such a system. What if my summoners are taken out before the demons can be summoned? There needs to be a system in place where the demons I paid for gets to appear on the battlefield regardless of whether the summoner died or not. The summoners just being a homer is a solution, but IIRC from earlier editions that means the demons have to be summoned close to the summoner, which takes away a lot of the tactical use of summoning.
Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.
It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.
But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???
H.B.M.C. wrote: But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???
To be honest, I'm fine with Gaunts or Scarabs or whatever. As long as the price is appropriately reduced and reliability increased. I've never really liked the way I need "backup" models for summoning, if I just pay for them and that's it I won't feel like I've wasted an opportunity because I didn't paint enough models or wasted my time painting models I'm never going to use
H.B.M.C. wrote: Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.
It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.
But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???
The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.
SeanDrake wrote: Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.
The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.
Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.
Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.
So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect..
Well, this is a genuine first. This is literally the first time I've ever heard someone defend the ridiculous length of 7e games. Around here, there's absolutely nobody I've ever talked to who hasn't complained about the length of games; I saw one match between IG and Daemons yesterday that lasted for 4 hours. The amount of downtime for players is almost farcical at this point - if someone want's to resolve a single unit of Wyverns, you can be there for 12-15 minutes watching as someone places a template, rolls, rerolls, hits, wounds, rolls, scatters, measures scatter, argues about whether there's a hair of a model's base under the template or not, etc. It's pretty common to see players have 20 minutes where the most they got to interact with the game was making a few cover rolls. Any board game which did that would be crucified by the community, and promptly forgotten for the reason that it's really boring to watch someone shuffle models around after umming and ahhing about it for a while. That you think it's solely so people can get more money as if faster games actually increases revenue somehow, when you still need to rent the space out for whole days to set up anyway is you acting in bad faith. I struggle too even get my friends to even touch 40k nowadays, because we can play 3-4 board games (3 short, 1 long) in the time it takes to play through 1 game of 40k, and there's much more interaction for everyone in those games too. If 40k was lengthy due to needing time to think through tactics and then take turns, fine, but it's not; the majority of time spend in 40k is resolving psychic powers, shooting blast weapons and resolving out-of-sequence movement. That we have fewer models starting on the table than at the start of 6e, yet games take almost twice as long is something which absolutely needs fixing, whether you believe it's an issue or not.
Incidentally, you can't claim to not speak for the community, and then turn around and say these changes are for the wishes of a minority of players. You're either speaking for yourself, or you're guessing what other's want - you can't do both. If I'm honest, it sounds like you just don't like change and feel a need to grind your axe against people who don't deserve the vitriol.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.
It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.
But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???
Blue horrors only recently started splitting into free units and didn't get any price increase when they did. People used horrors before they split and then all of a sudden they started getting free units for nothing.
With that in mind yes they should pay, either increase the cost of horrors or pay for reserves, but it doesn't matter, you pay either way.
If you had marines climb out of centurions who then shed armour into scouts or paladin out of dreadknights you'd expect a cost to be included
Yea game length is ridiculous at the minute, there's no two ways about that. It's put off most of my friends from getting into. Can nearly guarantee they will pick it up when 8th drops unless there is somehow a monumental c*ck up in army balance
Sarigar wrote: I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.
Well yes if front and rear were same effect was reduced(though you still exposed rear...when before whether opponent shot at front or side it was same so there was no benefit from moving into side. If rhino is side way that flanker now hits rear).
But rhino is obviously every vehicle in the game. There's no chimeras with 12/10/10, no leman russ with 14/12/10. Nooooo! There's only rhino's. Yes! That's it! Makes absolutely sense...NOT!
You really don't see difference? Before most of vehicles(even rhinos) had SOME drawback. Now there's NO DRAWBACK WHATSOEVER! In otherwords if you don't move them sideways in 8th ed you are basically fool.
Sorry what's the advantage of moving models sideways?
I can see a situational one for blocking line of sight by maximising the amount of vehicle obscuring a unit, but you can just pivot for that you don't need to permanently hold them side on,
Sarigar wrote: I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.
Well yes if front and rear were same effect was reduced(though you still exposed rear...when before whether opponent shot at front or side it was same so there was no benefit from moving into side. If rhino is side way that flanker now hits rear).
But rhino is obviously every vehicle in the game. There's no chimeras with 12/10/10, no leman russ with 14/12/10. Nooooo! There's only rhino's. Yes! That's it! Makes absolutely sense...NOT!
You really don't see difference? Before most of vehicles(even rhinos) had SOME drawback. Now there's NO DRAWBACK WHATSOEVER! In otherwords if you don't move them sideways in 8th ed you are basically fool.
What's the advantage of moving a truck or battlewagon sideways? I feel like I'm missing something...
SeanDrake wrote: Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.
The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.
Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.
Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.
So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect.
You seem to be making the logical leap from 'advantageous to tournament organisers' to 'not wanted by anyone else'... which is curious.
Game length has been a fairly commonly listed barrier to entry. A lot of prospective players don't want to have to invest the time that a game of 40K (particularly when new players are involved) often takes.
So while shorter games aren't something that I personally was looking for, I can certainly see it as something that was at the very least needing a bit of a look at.
insaniak wrote: You seem to be making the logical leap from 'advantageous to tournament organisers' to 'not wanted by anyone else'... which is curious.
Game length has been a fairly commonly listed barrier to entry. A lot of prospective players don't want to have to invest the time that a game of 40K (particularly when new players are involved) often takes.
So while shorter games aren't something that I personally was looking for, I can certainly see it as something that was at the very least needing a bit of a look at.
But was game length a "big concern", compared to 40k's shopping list of other problems?
And as a counter-point to game length, wasn't one of the problems with game length not that games took forever to play, but rather took forever to set up, especially when compared to the speed at which you removed models (something set to only increase with what we've seen of the new rules).
Yeah, likewise I'm not too bothered by game length, but I admit it does get kinda boring sometimes and games can easily drag on longer than they feel like they should. 4 hours to play one game is not at all ideal. 90 minutes sounds just about right, and also makes it possible to fit in multiple games in an afternoon.
It would also help too if you weren't spending large amounts of time waiting on the other player to resolve their turn before getting to do anything again, as said before.
Game length is 100% the main barrier to my playing 40k. I played a game of napoleonics in less time it took others to play though their 40k. Hell, we even did a big 8 player refight of Pegasus bridge across two tables (bolt action rules) and finished it up before the 1 vs 1 40k game had neared completion.
I'd say 40k's single biggest problem was poor integration of things that were introduced after the 3rd edition framework, such as flyers, Superheavies, the psychic phase and so on. After that, balance improvement is good, but the aforementioned was one of the biggest reasons balance wasn't working.
A standard game of 40k definitely needs to be completed within 2.5 hours in my opinion, so that 2 day, 5 game events are possible. For Age of Sigmar it takes 60mins for every 1000 points you have on the table (or near abouts). That's what I would want for 40k too. I am very happy to hear the game is speeding up.
And as a counter-point to game length, wasn't one of the problems with game length not that games took forever to play, but rather took forever to set up, especially when compared to the speed at which you removed models (something set to only increase with what we've seen of the new rules).
Yes, one problem with 6th and 7th edition games was that they weren't necessarily long to play, but they did take longer to set up, particularly with armies which had to roll for lots of stuff beforehand (Daemons...).
Another issue was when more Codices and supplements came out, army rules might be spred over 2 books, PLUS the BRB. So one would start looking for rules of certain unit from the supplement, which would then refer to the main Codex, which in turn would refer to BRB. It was pretty annoying. Also, there were too many tables, when you roll for Perils one never remembers the effects, you have to check the table and apply the effects...stuff like that, when it all adds up, it gets tiresome.
I think the time taken to play a game in 7th was completely dependent on the armies involved. Horde armies would take forever due to having massed infantry that all needed to be spaced out exactly 2" due to blast templates. Psychic heavy armies were another thing that would slow it down due to an extensive psychic phase.
A 1500pt game between my Dark Eldar and a friends Ravenwing or another friends Ultramarines would take between 90 minutes and 2 hours. Against guard, Tzeentch and GSC my same army would be looking at a 3 hour game.
Imateria wrote: I think the time taken to play a game in 7th was completely dependent on the armies involved. Horde armies would take forever due to having massed infantry that all needed to be spaced out exactly 2" due to blast templates.
just no, than the horde player does not know how to play his army (a player who is used to 100 model ork army moves faster in most cases as the 40 model marine player who really spend too much time for those 2")
played a horde army since 4th, and moving the models around was never the part were you lost time.
wound allocation, random effects/movement, Maelstrom missions (or stuff in general that need planning but you don't know before your phase starts) etc
the main time consuming stuff in 7th happens before the game starts and during turns before models are moved
so for 8th, D6 running, 2D6 charge and 3"pile in with 1" for CC, will slow a horde army more down than removing templates will speed it up
H.B.M.C. wrote: But was game length a "big concern", compared to 40k's shopping list of other problems?
No idea. Although it's one that is potentially cleaned up as a side effect of fixing the other nonsense... so it doesn't hurt to list it as a goal
This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.
I can tell you that since 7th came out the chances of me completely finishing a game went down dramatically. Either the guy I was playing with had to look up rules left and right or roll a gazillion times for various things like the Psychic Phase. 7th was cumbersome and tedious AT BEST!
*Edit* Some of us older players have more responsibilities and less time than we used to so take that into consideration.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.
I can see why they didn't though, as it'd indirectly nerf all armies which fired assault weapons before charging (coughOrkscough). The only way to avoid that is to allow shooting into combat, which personally I'm quite happy didn't migrate across from AoS. I agree that all movement at once is a "nice to have" thing though.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.
I can see why they didn't though, as it'd indirectly nerf all armies which fired assault weapons before charging (coughOrkscough). The only way to avoid that is to allow shooting into combat, which personally I'm quite happy didn't migrate across from AoS. I agree that all movement at once is a "nice to have" thing though.
It wouldn't have to if they got away from the idea that everything has to be done in a specific phase. Just because you shift all movement to a single action doesn't mean you have to take away other actions.
I don't see any reason you couldn't declare an attempt at charging, shoot assault weapons, receive overwatch fire then move assaults. If we feel that'd overly nerf short ranged assault weapons, do it the other way around, move first and then shoot, counting the shooting as if it happened while the unit was moving.
GW has a fascination with "everyone has to do everything at once", everything has to move, then everything has to shoot, then everything has to assault and so on.
Sarigar wrote: I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.
Well yes if front and rear were same effect was reduced(though you still exposed rear...when before whether opponent shot at front or side it was same so there was no benefit from moving into side. If rhino is side way that flanker now hits rear).
But rhino is obviously every vehicle in the game. There's no chimeras with 12/10/10, no leman russ with 14/12/10. Nooooo! There's only rhino's. Yes! That's it! Makes absolutely sense...NOT!
You really don't see difference? Before most of vehicles(even rhinos) had SOME drawback. Now there's NO DRAWBACK WHATSOEVER! In otherwords if you don't move them sideways in 8th ed you are basically fool.
1. Just chill and go easy on the caps. We're discussing playing with little plastic soldier dudes, after all.
2. Facing was an abstraction to the game that I believe didnt really make that much sense (charge a Leman Russ head on, extend your arm all the way to the back to punch it's rear?) and would certainly cause arguments over which facing is being viewed at times. Eliminating this streamlines the game.
3. Would you rather have Monstrous Creatures and infantry worry about their facing and firing arcs too? Does anyone get mad when a Terminator moon walks or fires an Assault Cannon out the back of his head? I'm happy to worry about this level of detail in smaller games like Infinity and SW:A, but certainly not with 100+ models on the table. But that would be the "realistic" way to do it.
4. Vehicles have been quite vulnerable and easy to kill since the introduction of hull points, and the transition to wounds is not going to break them either, since multi wound weapons will exist. Maybe your argument would hold water in prior editions. Vehicles being easier to hurt when hit fro the side or behind was yet another weakness they suffered and weren't generally thought of as the most competitive choices unless they're free (Gladius), and vehicles often get abused by deepstriking units, so come turn 2 protecting your weak facings generally can't happen.
5. Sideways moving vehicles isn't even that big of a deal, seeing as so many skimmers are out there. Again, your viewpoint is particularly punishing towards IG and Orks, who very much depend on grounded vehicles to succeed.
6. Minor nitpick, but Leman Russes have been AV 13 for how many years now? Really, side armor has been equal or almost equal to front armor for most vehicles, besides the paper-thin Chimera chassis tanks like you mentioned, which really don't deserve to be picked on for being too tough or moving out of position in almost all cases. You're fighting tooth and nail for what often only amounts to a difference of 1 in AV.
7. With the change from AV to toughness, does it really even matter? It's going to be easier to wound vehicles no matter where you're facing it. Leman Russes and Land Raiders are not going to be T 14, just as Dreadnoughts are not T 13. You don't need to flank to have a chance of hurting vehicles anymore, so be happy with that.
Today we take a look at the biggest models in the game, and how they’re going to work in the new edition.
There are a few big changes here, though we covered some of them a little when we looked at profiles. Like the three units we’ve seen already, every model will be using the same profile system, so everything will have Wounds, Toughness, Strength, etc… This includes all vehicles.
We’ve also gotten rid of specific rules for Gargantuan Creatures and Super-heavy vehicles. Instead, these units will have a suitably impressive statline, but still play by the same rules as everyone else. This also means that those units that previously sat just shy of Super-heavy status, and missed out on bunch of special rules because of it, will now be appropriately killy and durable.
You’ll soon see that some of Warhammer 40,000’s biggest hitters have A LOT of Wounds, high Toughness and a good save. The biggest Tyranid monsters now have over a dozen wounds, where Imperial Knights have over 20!
This makes them almost infinitely survivable against small arms fire, but means that high-power weapons that can take chunks of wounds off at a time (lascannons, powerfists, battle cannons, etc) can take them down relatively quickly when brought to bear in force. Gone are the days of a lucky first-turn meltagun blowing up your Land Raider. (A squad of them will still ruin its day though…)
There are almost no weapons in the game now that can instantly kill these big guys, so there will be no shortcuts to dealing with them – you have to get your hands dirty and take those Wounds off.
This can make big models very powerful, but there is a counter mechanic in the rules. As these large, powerful models take damage, their combat effectiveness starts to degrade. The best way to show you this is with an example.
Here we have a Mork(or possibly Gork)anaut (as requested by Stacy from our Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page):
Whoa, so – with 18 Wounds at Toughness 8, this guy is a tough cookie to crack – able to wade through bolter fire untroubled and requiring a lot of heavy weapons shots to take down.
You can see, though, as it gets to the point of only having half its Wounds left, this walker starts to get less effective – it will move slower and its attacks will get more clumsy as servos are fused, and sensor arrays fail to register.
At 4 Wounds left, it’s all but crippled, though its shooting output will be undiminished – so it starts as a combat wrecking ball at the beginning of the battle, crashing through enemy lines, and ends up as more of a semi-mobile shooting fortress at the end of its life.
Different vehicles will be reduced in effectiveness in different ways too – some will get worse at shooting, some will slow down, and some some will become less effective in melee.
So, the big stuff sounds pretty scary!
We’ll be back tomorrow with some good news for the little guys, when we look at how infantry work, and how combined firepower can be used to topple even the mightiest foes.
All of a sudden that Morkanaut starts to look out good.
Interesting. I'm going to go on a limb and say comparing the Dreadnought rules to the Morkanaut rules we just saw, Dreadnoughts might not degrade at all from wounds lost. That would be pretty exciting, and a definite upgrade.
I also did a bit of mathhammer for damage; that Morkanaut requires ~13.89 lascannon shots to kill on average (assuming 3+ to hit), which is about 9.26 hits. By comparison, it'd currently take 10.38 BS4 shots to kill today, or 6.92 hits; in other words, it's a third more survivable on average against lascannons, with no chance to instantly explode.
As before, it's really going to come down to what they've done with melta and grav. Those were the major threats before, and it'll be interesting to see how they compare. On the surface, vehicles look substantially more durable at least.
I assume the Morkanaught profile gives us a pretty good indication of how models will degrade. I wouldn't be surprised if non-walkers lost the ability to shoot weapons as they got weaker or lost BS as they take wounds intead of attacks.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Potentially, maybe... but it would seem odd if Dreadnought don't degrade while Rhinos do (assuming, of course, Rhinos degrade).
Or that a Carnifex degrades but a Dreadnought doesn't.
a Rhino has almost nothing going for it to lose. Reduced speed and that is about it. Losing accuracy on a stupid Storm Bolter is really not much of a drawback.
It appears to be the bigger models in the lines. So a Wraithknight and possibly Wraithlord for Eldar. The Monolith and Tessaract Vault for Necrons. Baneblades for Imperial Guard. Orkonaughts and Stompas for Orks. Land Raiders for Space Marines. Imperial Knights. And so on.
It is possible that the Dreadnought statline we saw earlier was not the complete statline though.
aracersss wrote: did anyone noticed gorkanaut got an update? he is faster now ^^
The movement speeds are different on a lot of stuff. The Dreadnought is faster as well. Terminators are slower.
On a side note, who here is looking at that big vehicle in their collection that never saw use and is thinking to themselves "It's time!"? I am having trouble debating whether I want to use a Land Raider Crusader or the Space Marine HQ Command Tanks to tote Pedro Kantor around.
More likely that Dreads, Rhinos ect will all degrade as they take damage but the wound brackets will be smaller than something like a IK or Morkanaut. As well as degrading in there own ways.
Edit- Forgot about the lack of asterisk values on the Dread profile. Either GW only showed the optimal profile so as not to ruin the reveal(but then why not use some other unit instead?), the Dread fights at full effectiveness until killed, or it degrades in some way that doesn't affect its stat line.
GoatboyBeta wrote: More likely that Dreads, Rhinos ect will all degrade as they take damage but the wound brackets will be smaller than something like a IK or Morkanaut. As well as degrading in there own ways.
As well as less numerous brackets I'm guessing. It'll likely be just a one step degredation for <10 wounds.
GoatboyBeta wrote: More likely that Dreads, Rhinos ect will all degrade as they take damage but the wound brackets will be smaller than something like a IK or Morkanaut. As well as degrading in there own ways.
As well as less numerous brackets I'm guessing. It'll likely be just a one step degredation for <10 wounds.
I am in complete agreement with Warboss. I'd imagine that with a base of 8 wounds, a Dreadnought may suffer somewhat once it hits maybe 3 wounds left.
I'm sure almost every vehicle that had 3 HP or more will have some sort of damage bracket. I am not terribly sure about particularly small vehicles like Sentinels, however. If they're like 5 wounds or something, there wouldn't be much room to divide into brackets.
GoatboyBeta wrote: More likely that Dreads, Rhinos ect will all degrade as they take damage but the wound brackets will be smaller than something like a IK or Morkanaut. As well as degrading in there own ways.
As well as less numerous brackets I'm guessing. It'll likely be just a one step degredation for <10 wounds.
Quite possibly and units with more wounds like IK and Stompas could have more than three as well. Along with the individually tailored damage/degradation effects it looks like a good system to give bigger models more character.
Just to clarify, several; people pointed out that Blue Horrors were free when they are created by killing Pink Horrors. If they were talking about AOS matched play then I think they were in error. In AOS matched play, existing units that replenish their own troops do this for free, but creating completely new units costs points. When Pink Horrors die, the Blue Horrors that are created form their own unit. The loophole is that if you have a Blue Horror unit within (I think) 8 inches, then they may join that one. So the only way to get free Blue Horrors is to buy a Blue Horror unit for every Pink Horror unit have the Blues follow the Pinks around the board. And while you're at it, blues split too, so buy a Brimstone Horror unit to follow each Blue.
The Morkanaught stats look great! And if this indicates that smaller vehicles and monsters won't deteriorate as much or at all then this will do wonders for all those vehicles that have been shafted for years by the rules. Maybe I will have my armoured company after all!
Yeah, occasionally there are things that just become problematic mechanics in a game, but far more often, you get things where 90%+ of the problem is (in)effectiveness compared to cost.
warboss wrote: Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?
No.
Points.
Exactly. Even if these units remain the same in points, they are finally worth them.
Knights were worth their points according to most folks on dakka and that was before the additional durability this offers. My gut tells me that for superheavies they may have swung the pendulum too far with 15+ wounds for relatively small LOW options unless they're increased in points. I'll reserve final judgement for when I see the full rules but just the lascannon and superheavy already previewed interactions are worriesome. Ymmv.
warboss wrote: Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?
No.
Points.
Exactly. Even if these units remain the same in points, they are finally worth them.
Knights were worth their points according to most folks on dakka and that was before the additional durability this offers. My gut tells me that for superheavies they may have swung the pendulum too far with 15+ wounds for relatively small LOW options unless they're increased in points. I'll reserve final judgement for when I see the full rules but just the lascannon and superheavy already previewed interactions are worriesome. Ymmv.
You will be able to strip wounds at lightning speed though. Works the same way in AoS with 15+ wound models. They go down quick with focused attention just like anything else.
warboss wrote: Knights were worth their points according to most folks on dakka and that was before the additional durability this offers. My gut tells me that for superheavies they may have swung the pendulum too far with 15+ wounds for relatively small LOW options unless they're increased in points. I'll reserve final judgement for when I see the full rules but just the lascannon and superheavy already previewed interactions are worriesome. Ymmv.
We don't know that Knights will be any more durable against the things which threaten them at thew moment. It's also worth noting that if a knight has 21 wounds at T8, or a weaker ion shield it may well end up effectively weaker vs heavy weapons due to the damage stat. Considering Wraithknights and Imperial Knights are the most common targets of complaints when it comes to superheavies, I really doubt they'd be making them stronger; at least, not without a proportional points increase. Also, one of the things which made them so good in combat was stomp having that silly "auto remove" 6 roll under a small blast - that has to change, because small blasts aren't in the game any more. I'd wait to see more before panicking, though you're definitely right that it's a concern.
Seems a bit superfluous to degrade both WS and A since both affect the same thing, number of hits in melee. Could just degrade one or the other at a faster rate.
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.
Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?
I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.
warboss wrote: Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?
No.
Points.
Exactly. Even if these units remain the same in points, they are finally worth them.
Knights were worth their points according to most folks on dakka and that was before the additional durability this offers. My gut tells me that for superheavies they may have swung the pendulum too far with 15+ wounds for relatively small LOW options unless they're increased in points. I'll reserve final judgement for when I see the full rules but just the lascannon and superheavy already previewed interactions are worriesome. Ymmv.
You will be able to strip wounds at lightning speed though. Works the same way in AoS with 15+ wound models. They go down quick with focused attention just like anything else.
This is my thinking.
1500 points was 3 Knights, so 60ish wounds.
That's still only 3 units for the purposes of objectives
20W is tough, but probably not "1500pts army worth of opposing anti-tank" tough, so focus fire will likely be effective.
We know that GC/SHV have lost a lot of their special rules, so we don't know if they'll have retained split fire, and if not, that's a very limited number of opposing units you can engage each turn.
Also, this
We’ll be back tomorrow with some good news for the little guys, when we look at how infantry work, and how combined firepower can be used to topple even the mightiest foes.
So something like a Knight list now sounds like it isn't going to be a binary "I tell my opponent I'm bringing them, and get antitanked by a tailored list turn 1, or I don't and I ROFLstomp them because they've not brought enough and I look like a douche nozzle" list like it was previously, it now looks like a tough list to succeed with that will offer some decent advantages played well.
FOC and points will hopefully limit a lot of smaller vehicles, to stop choking the table with cheap trukks or whatever, but at least nothing will be rendering elements of your list redundant by using a different damage mechanic.
Degrading WS can still allow swingy efficient rounds, while lowering attacks means you're just as likely but a lower cap, so there is nuance there.
However, yeah, probably GW doesn't have such a fine mechanical control to have mechanical justification, and it's instead because it feels fluffy to keep track of more things.
FOC and points will hopefully limit a lot of smaller vehicles, to stop choking the table with cheap trukks or whatever, but at least nothing will be rendering elements of your list redundant by using a different damage mechanic.
And making said elements useless through said mechanic (I.e. S5 Heavy Bolters vs a Monolith). While the argument that a balanced "take all comers" list being the best option still holds true, it's an nice way to reduce skewed lists and difficult mismatches.
The degradation is as many expected I think, as a straight port from AoS. What interests me is what will/won't degrade. Will transports be included in this category, or is there a possibility we don't see degradation on everything? Drop Pods? Carnifexes?
I think that tomorrow's topic is more interesting though, as it's something many are curious about and I would wager can make or break people's perception of the game.
We know that GC/SHV have lost a lot of their special rules, so we don't know if they'll have retained split fire, and if not, that's a very limited number of opposing units you can engage each turn.
Or if everybody basically gain split fire by 40k going the way of AOS. So far don't think GW has said anything conclusive either way.
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.
Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?
I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.
Then I guess this just isn't the war game for you.
You guys are arguing about all sorts of stuff like facing which gave reason to a whole bunch of heated debates (because having rule arguments with people about vehicles at a 90 degrees angle was so much fun: "The majority of the Chimera that my model is facing is clearly side armour! My missiles will penetrate on 3+!" - "No, that's clearly still the front armour, you are penetrating my Chimera on 5+!" - not to mention a player thinking he'd angled his vehicle sufficiently and then a judge decided his chimera was getting hit on side armour after all, I heard that argument at the other end of the tournament hall), not to mention balance concerns (because monstrous creatures and models carrying a frickin' assault shield like Bullgryns didn't have facings either - muh realism!), and are looking past the truly new information in that article:
This makes them almost infinitely survivable against small arms fire, but means that high-power weapons that can take chunks of wounds off at a time (lascannons, powerfists, battle cannons, etc) can take them down relatively quickly when brought to bear in force.
Battle Cannons and powerfists being heavily implied to deal multiple wounds of damage similar to the lascannon.
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.
Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?
I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.
The movement phase was the single most important phase in the game in old 40k, it's the most important phase in Sigmar, it'll be the most important phase in nuhammer.
Think about it and be honest with yourself, when was the last time you got side or rear armor with a unit that moves less than 12 or didn't come out of a drop pod? Is fanning out so you don't place templates over your own models really that much more tactically complex than just getting within 8 inches? Or is it just less fiddly? And is their really that much more bookkeeping than the shaken/stunned/immobilized chart?
I'm sorry you feel like these changes aren't for you but it does seem a bit like you've got your rose colored glasses on. Try instead of thinking about everytime you got an awesome 10+ man template hit you got, think about all the times you were bored out of your skull because your opponent had to space his models exactly 2 inches or lose huge bricks of guys.
Nice to see that (Morka/Gorka)naut's BS actually does not decrease as its wounds go down - Ork dakka's superior! :-) I wonder if more shooty equivalents for other factions will enjoy the same mercy...
Also with improved Movement stat it might be quite interesting to push orky heavies far into enemy's direction - supported by mobs of boyz they will provide both distraction and threat to gunlines.
I'd expect imperial, especially space marine, technology to be more resilient towards damage than ork machinery, and degrade less (and of course be more expensive), perhaps dreadnoughts won't degrade after all. Higher quality tech would better isolate and neutralize incoming damage or something along those lines.
No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence
All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.
Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?
I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.
Agreed that the vehicule rules are really dissapointing and boring thus far. Removal of facings and lineard degradation are big negatives in my book.
These, along with the terribly shallow psychic phase, are my biggest gripe with 8th edition thus far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charax wrote: No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence
All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler
Agreed that this was a waste of a time of an article
They definitely should have given more info in that CSM article, at least a unit profile or two and some more specific changes. As is it is a completely pointless article that tells us nothing at all.
I guess what they are trying to do with that article is reassure Chaos players that they got some things they've been wanting over the last decade or so. The fact that this guy is a renowned TO is supposed to lend creedence to his statements.
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.
Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?
I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.
Agreed that the vehicule rules are really dissapointing and boring thus far. Removal of facings and lineard degradation are big negatives in my book.
These, along with the terribly shallow psychic phase, are my biggest gripe with 8th edition thus far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charax wrote: No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence
All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler
Agreed that this was a waste of a time of an article
While it makes perfect sense to use the weakest armor rate in a charge, I agree the loss of facings for shooting does seem like an unnecessary oversimplification. That said 40k has never been a realistic tactical simulation. I think I can live with the idea that "it's a game" and still hope for a little bit of depth (not bloat) in whatever generals handbook type thing comes out.
As far as the article it certainly appears to be mindless hype yesterday. Either we will get a lot of that OR the release is very close at hand.
The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...
CoreCommander wrote: The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...
That, and all the typos/grammatical errors:
So, basically, he know’s his stuff.
We’ll be back in a few days to here from Reece about the Astra Militarum.
For people disappointed by the chaos article its just a tease article and as much a way of them showing off the people that have tested the game, give credence to the testing and some face time to the testers. Its not like your being mislead. All rules are out day one so not long and you can get it all. Maybe message on facebook and ask for a bit more meat 'nicely' and just maybe they will provide it or allow more in the future posts.
Platuan4th wrote: The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.
Since the Blue Horrors are a separate unit from the Pink Horrors they split from, you do pay points for the unit of Blue Horrors.
Re-read the Blue Horrors unit entry. It specifically States you can reinforce an existing unit from nearby Pink unit splitting. You don't pay points for reinforcing an existing unit in the GHB.
Considering it's a guest writer I'd not claim it's a paragon of GW writing, least not when you compare it to every other article they've done over the last month for example
v0iddrgn wrote: I guess what they are trying to do with that article is reassure Chaos players that they got some things they've been wanting over the last decade or so. The fact that this guy is a renowned TO is supposed to lend creedence to his statements.
Too bad GW is known for this "everything's great" market speech that's always full of BS.
The fact it's from playtester means pretty much zero. Not like it wouldn't go through editing. Who knows what he ACTUALLY wrote that got edited into what it is...
Would be bit more belieavable if it wasn't standard marketing speech GW has been writing like decades! No difference in text between him and GW's marketing department's writing.
Boring article. I could have read havoc's, chaos marine, berserker and daemon engine store entries and got same information.
BroodSpawn wrote: Considering it's a guest writer I'd not claim it's a paragon of GW writing, least not when you compare it to every other article they've done over the last month for example
So Frankie wrote the sentence that introduced Frankie?
Platuan4th wrote: The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.
Since the Blue Horrors are a separate unit from the Pink Horrors they split from, you do pay points for the unit of Blue Horrors.
Re-read the Blue Horrors unit entry. It specifically States you can reinforce an existing unit from nearby Pink unit splitting. You don't pay points for reinforcing an existing unit in the GHB.
With the caveat that it can't go above the unit size you payed for.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: For people disappointed by the chaos article its just a tease article and as much a way of them showing off the people that have tested the game, give credence to the testing and some face time to the testers. Its not like your being mislead. All rules are out day one so not long and you can get it all. Maybe message on facebook and ask for a bit more meat 'nicely' and just maybe they will provide it or allow more in the future posts.
That the article is 100% like GW marketing department had written it makes it MORE worrying. Far from giving credence to the testing effect is opposite...
And annoyingly this means there's 0 reason to wait for these faction focus articles. It's so useless marketing speech that no point waiting for. Unlike say today's big model article it was something to look forward as it _actually gave some info about new edition_. This article? Nothing. Only thing it told is that mentioned units won't dissapear from rules but that was already given so...
Give something concrete and not just marketing speech. If not actual unit entries etc howabout description of kind of armies the playtester ACTUALLY ran? Like "lord, 3 units of chaos marines in rhino's, havocs with 4 lascannons, dreadnought"...even that kind of little information would add something of value to the article.
Out of all the articles about new 40k this was weakest one by far. Hopefully it was just a hickup and next faction article is more interesting(poor chaos again then though )
GreenPlum wrote: Nice to see that (Morka/Gorka)naut's BS actually does not decrease as its wounds go down - Ork dakka's superior! :-) I wonder if more shooty equivalents for other factions will enjoy the same mercy...
Also with improved Movement stat it might be quite interesting to push orky heavies far into enemy's direction - supported by mobs of boyz they will provide both distraction and threat to gunlines.
CoreCommander wrote: The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...
That, and all the typos/grammatical errors:
So, basically, he know’s his stuff.
We’ll be back in a few days to here from Reece about the Astra Militarum.
So...yeah, paragon of GW Writing
Leave frankie alone. His writing is usually a bit flawed, he's not a writer so that makes sense; but he is one of the best 40k players in north america(among quite a few) and certainly worth listening to...most of the time.
The article is disappointing in content sure, but making fun of frankie for his writing isn't cool.
People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.
Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints
Yeah, I think the input from the Frontline Gaming guys must have undergone some edits before being published. At least direct links to GW shop were inserted back then and possibly some form of NDA 'censorship' took place - they've mentioned in one of their recent videos that they obviously know a lot about new edition but have to keep silent and only comment on the revealed information.
Whole thing seems a bit hasty, missing entire paragraphs and written as loose thoughts and not a coherent text - wonder if those are summed up impressions testers had to send as part of their feedback and not as complete article...
Next one up is Astra Militarum, here's hoping they've started with the weakest text and the quality will eventually improve.
Galas wrote: People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.
Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints
Surely you've noticed the pattern by now? The jumping on anything and making it the end of everything is as much a hobby as war gaming for some!
Galas wrote: People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.
Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints
IIRCGW said that they now read some forum, and since Dakka is the biggest one AFAIK, they'll hear our complaints. But anyway, I didn't see anyone being outraged by the article, only people pointing out that it is only filler
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.
Man... if things like Havoks are finally good, can we PLEASE have some non-assy models for them?
I'm thinking of starting Death Guard, or something else CSM, but if I have to pair beautiful new Nurgle Marines with those terrible Obliterator models, i'm going to puke.
Wow, that CSM thing was useless. What I could glean:
-Sorcs can be taken in some capacity consisting of more than a single model
-There's still a challenge mechanic, or maybe that's just fluff
-reminders about universal mechanics we already know about, in no more detail
-broad enthusiasm which acknowledges some balance issues and then sounds like a shill
The article is disappointing in content sure, but making fun of frankie for his writing isn't cool.
+1 to this; here's a dude that just did a ton of work to make things better for all of us, and people are slamming him for basically not breaking his NDA and for some typos that an editorial team should have seen and fixed.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.
Yeah they can't not provide rules to begin with for old options. They've committed to doing so, so "Box-only options" won't be a thing.
We *have* seen it recently with GS Cult (among other armies) whereby you could only field 3 Russ variants as the box only has them. So future factions will no doubt be 'box-only options". But try telling everyone their 2 x TWDWBLW Tyrants and Carnifexes aren't legal now. Nope. Not a thing they'll do when trying to move editions.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Man... if things like Havoks are finally good, can we PLEASE have some non-assy models for them?
I'm thinking of starting Death Guard, or something else CSM, but if I have to pair beautiful new Nurgle Marines with those terrible Obliterator models, i'm going to puke.
Worst case scenario, these guys aren't anywhere near as goofy as their paint job suggests, and that's still infinitely less goofy than the GW originals.
The fact that it doesn't list every unit in the codex by name obviously means those neglected units are going to suck.
Or that's the history according to Dakka.
It was disappointing not to see any sort of actual meat in the article, but fun to see a guest writer. This guy admitted several issues that CSM have had over the past few years (as in most CSM forces barely had any actual CSM in them), so that is kind of cool. I doubt Cultist Spam is going anywhere though.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
I think that's something we'll see changed, I can't see "a unit has what comes in the box, no options" going over very well with the fan base nor the playtesters, and arguably goes against the whole "you'll still be able to use all your models" schtick as well.
You misunderstand, units have plenty of option, the new dwarfs have more than some 40k armies, they just don't have any you can't use because they aren't in the box.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!
So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?
The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.
Galas wrote: People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.
Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints
Ah yes I forgot. IF you don't praise everything GW does without any critique don't post. Yes. That's obviously only way to post.
Galas wrote: People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.
Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints
Ah yes I forgot. IF you don't praise everything GW does without any critique don't post. Yes. That's obviously only way to post.
There is a middle ground between "critique" and "they didn't specifically name check the unit I care about in a few hundred word puff piece, ermagahd, they're gonna suuuck!!"
Dunno. That sounded more like description what chaos was before with some self-irony. Funnily enough this part was my favourite piece of entire article as I read it like that which at least gave a chuckle out of it for the irony(we have bravest troops of all with our suicide challenge champions!)
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!
Yep. GW don't miss out chance on making it expensive to get unit you want.
Also if the new GW is so good and friendly as they pretend last thing they would be doing is kill existing units like that(Especially as it continues to allow ripping money off by forcing players to buy 4 boxes to get 1 unit they want).
Such concentration might become less required though if shooting becomes AOS style. Have HB, autocannon, missile launcher and lascannon? All 4 shoots at different targets. Problem solved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?
The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.
But it DID give something new we hadn't known and gave us good ballmark to start estimating other vehicles. Much more valuable. You don't need to reveal everything to make article worthwhile. It's just a teaser. But something new would be nice.
Chaos article wouldn't even have to show crunch and rules to be interesting. Some description of armies he had played and found enjoying. What he found difficult in playtesting regarding this army etc. That sort of article would make article immediately something players would find useful to read over this standard GW marketing department speech.
Vaktathi wrote: So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?
The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.
By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.
It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.
Loving the new Morkanaut! Giving big vehicles and monsters lots of wounds should be a really interesting balancing factor to the game. You'll want to bring anti-infantry weapons as well as anti-tank to reliably deal with threats. No more Str 6 spam! It would take a ton of scatterlasers to take down a Morkanaut.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also will be interesting how they play with "Damage" on different models. Imagine the Hellbrute loses BS as it takes damage, possibly gaining Attacks as it becomes enraged. They can do all sorts of different things to represent durability differently. Venerable dreadnoughts and landraiders and such will most likely a more favorable Damage progression on the chart.
These guys? They're great!
And these guys? They're great, too!
Oh! oh! And these guys here? Yeah, they're great!
On the plus side, if that's as much content as they're going to include in the 'faction focus' articles, now that they've written the first one they can just do a word swap on the unit names for the rest of them.
On the large models... I'm a little torn. I love the idea of degrading models, but this:
Different vehicles will be reduced in effectiveness in different ways too – some will get worse at shooting, some will slow down, and some some will become less effective in melee.
...is going to be a nightmare to keep track of. Could we not just have a standardised formula so that we don't have to refer to the unit card for the entire game?
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant.
Lol, what a short-sighted opinion.
The ONLY place where positioning might not matter as much is in regards to flamers and blast weapons. On literally every other level positioning will be crucial. Cover will be as important as ever, assault units NEED to be positioned correctly due to the new bonuses for charging, ranged units need to be checkerboarded correctly to avoid getting multi-assaulted with the 3'' consolidate rule.
Only like Tau players would look at these new rules and think that positioning no longer matters... presumably because Tau ignore 75% of the phases in the game.
Vaktathi wrote: So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?
The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.
By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.
It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.
I wouldn't rule out lack of facings yet. There may be a general rule saying "+1 wound form side and rear facings" or "-1 additional rend". They then give bespoken rules to vehicles like Land Raiders and Monoliths that ignore that rule.
In 7th we're people not getting the "oh, you've moved a vehicle? Never mind, here's my insanely fast mid strength high volume shooting unit, or my deep striking multi shot melta unit (or whatever) to simply appear in your rear arc and completely negate your careful "positioning"" that I got a lot of the time?
I don't get how people seem so attached to the mechanic when so much seemed to bypass it at will.
Vaktathi wrote: So the CSM blurb basically said...nothing of any actual substance, just "it's gonna be so cool!", talk about a waste of words, why bother with material like that?
The vehicle article was rather similar, aside from showing the Mork/Gork-anaut degradation, it didn't show or tell us anything that wasn't told to use by the earlier Weapons and Statline announcements.
By showing the full Gorkanaut statline it confirmed a few things. The big one is that it seems to have confirmed their is no facing mechanic at all int he gamer anymore. It also shows how the degrading stat-lines will look and how they work.
It also re-confirmed the removal of Super Heavy Tank and Gargantuan creature rules in writing. We were only told this in the live Q&A, and since they do not seem to get properly archived they have the potential to get miss quoted at times.
I don't think it does confirm there is no facing mechanic, just no facing mechanic on based on the unit
(so no AV14 on the front but AV10 on the rear, but that does not mean there couldn't be a bonus for attacks against the rear of a vehicle in the basic rules)
you may well be right and it's gone totally, but the chance is still there, whether there is or not we'll eventually find out
Are these goblins last week's rumour mill then? Doesn't look like it to me. So if these are new then that all but confirms last weeks rumor pic to be for 40k.
But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!
Bottle wrote: A standard game of 40k definitely needs to be completed within 2.5 hours in my opinion, so that 2 day, 5 game events are possible. For Age of Sigmar it takes 60mins for every 1000 points you have on the table (or near abouts). That's what I would want for 40k too. I am very happy to hear the game is speeding up.
Aye, but I don't think the argument was "they shouldn't speed up the game" or "speeding up the game is bad", it was "considering the hilariously long list of problems that needed solving, making game length a top priority and so probably a bigger consideration when writing or balancing rules than, say, complexity and tactical depth seems to have more to do with who they chose to playtest than the priorities of the community as a whole". Seems a perfectly reasonable point to me - I don't know anyone who actually wants to spend four hours on a normal game, but I know plenty of folk who'd put getting the game down to a tournament-friendly 90 minute average way, way down on their list of wants from a new 40K edition.
Azreal13 wrote: In 7th we're people not getting the "oh, you've moved a vehicle? Never mind, here's my insanely fast mid strength high volume shooting unit, or my deep striking multi shot melta unit (or whatever) to simply appear in your rear arc and completely negate your careful "positioning"" that I got a lot of the time?
I don't get how people seem so attached to the mechanic when so much seemed to bypass it at will.
Yeah, facings might as well not have existed anyway considering how easily vehicles were destroyed, or how monstrous/gargantuan creatures like the Wraithknight, Riptide, Stormsurge, didn't have to bother with facings anyway. The really tough vehicles didn't even have differences in facing either - with AV 14 all around. It's really needless complexity to make things "feel" like they it has more realism.
Going to be deeply irritated if Chaos Chosen/Havocs can't take all Plasma Guns, etc., I'd rather not have to remodel several units - though it might just be another rule I end up ignoring
Seito O wrote: Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?
They are probably going to slowly remove all the Formation bundles on the website.
Yeah maybe.
Edit was too slow.
The Deathwatch Librarian in Power Armor too
Looks like the sets that were regular SM(or BA in the case of the Libby) kits plus the DW sprue might be going away. Now that the DW sprue is available separately and the initial release is over and done they probably don't intend to replace there stock of the combo sets to free up shelf space.
Happy that facings are gone. It's was a ridiculous mechanic which slowed down the game, didn't actually make much sense, was a pain to implement for oddly shaped vehicles etc etc. Good riddance.
I really like the fact that everything is far more streamlined and therefore much easier to balance. It also means that when new units or factions are released, they are far easier to incorporate into the system.
Finally, I really like how it is now possible to show differences between things. I always thought that armour values placed vehicles into small groups. With uncapped values and different rules for damage and degradation... what's not to like?
amanita wrote: With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant.
Lol, what a short-sighted opinion.
The ONLY place where positioning might not matter as much is in regards to flamers and blast weapons. On literally every other level positioning will be crucial. Cover will be as important as ever, assault units NEED to be positioned correctly due to the new bonuses for charging, ranged units need to be checkerboarded correctly to avoid getting multi-assaulted with the 3'' consolidate rule.
Only like Tau players would look at these new rules and think that positioning no longer matters... presumably because Tau ignore 75% of the phases in the game.
What a weird post. He never said that facing and positioning will no longer matters, only that they will be less relevant, which will obviously be the case if facings are indeed removed and no new mechanism is added to replace it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: If they are gonna add a facing mechanic, please, do it only to Box-vehicles or obvious things like Ork Trukks.
Other rare-shaped vehicles don't need that rule.
I think the best way to go would be to give front, side and rear to boxes-like vehicules, and only front and rear for the other shaped ones
Galas wrote: If they are gonna add a facing mechanic, please, do it only to Box-vehicles or obvious things like Ork Trukks.
Other rare-shaped vehicles don't need that rule.
I think the best way to go would be to give front, side and rear to boxes-like vehicules, and only front and rear for the other shaped ones
Thats a good middle ground. Personally, I have no strong feelings one way or the other in the facing issue. At least in my games never mattered much. But maybe thats because vehicles sucks and nobody used them...
Facing would not be hard to add on a case by case basis now, likely with a diagram on the unit data sheet, or a not that the facing arcs are to be marked on the base of models that have bases - but again with a diagram to clarify.
The profile system makes it easy to use, vary the toughness or save, or both for different arcs and job done.
Arcs can thus be any angles desired, ideally limited to things that are easy to measure on the models (e.g. say corner to corner on a tank, or behind a line drawn along the front of the model), for things more rounded say a front/back drawn between the shoulders.
But only doing it for models where its appropriate, the new profiles make this sort of thing easy.
Also expecting the 'day 0' profiles to change as actual books come out to provide a bit more detail
That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
streetsamurai wrote: That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.
Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.
If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.
I love the idea of stats and abilities degrading as wounds go. Now I've seen an example I'm all the more excited. Having played a game where three of my tanks were killed per turn last night, fun as it was yeah, I'm up for a change!!!
streetsamurai wrote: That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.
Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.
If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.
In a tank combat game, or Titan combat game, facing would be a fine mechanic, but as of now, it's really kind of unnecessary for 40K. I'm fine to see it go.
Regarding vehicle facings, there was a simple to follow rule in Epic: Armageddon that encouraged careful out-manoeuvring without all the horrible debates over the precise angle your shot is at. Basically you just draw a line (of limited length) between two friendly units. If that passes through an enemy unit, it counts as under a crossfire and suffers and additional -1 to any saves from shooting.
It would be nice to see something elegant like this again to make good positioning important. It could even be applied far more generally than AV was, so all units are vulnerable to being ambushed.
xttz wrote: Regarding vehicle facings, there was a simple to follow rule in Epic: Armageddon that encouraged careful out-manoeuvring without all the horrible debates over the precise angle your shot is at. Basically you just draw a line (of limited length) between two friendly units. If that passes through an enemy unit, it counts as under a crossfire and suffers and additional -1 to any saves from shooting.
It would be nice to see something elegant like this again to make good positioning important. It could even be applied far more generally than AV was, so all units are vulnerable to being ambushed.
I like the system used in Flames of War. You draw a line perpendicular to the tank across the front. If the shot came from ahead of the line, it strikes the front armor. If it comes from behind the line (i.e., the tank's sides or rear) it hits the flank armor.
streetsamurai wrote: That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.
Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.
If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.
Let's just say that I strongly disagree. Some of the most fun moments in 40k for me involved the decision on whether I should shoot at an unit with a vehicule, while exposing its rear to another, or rather play it safe.
Something out of the blue. Does anyone recall which campaign book/event does the quote: this world will burn, it will be quenched, purified and the heavens will deliver our reward! ? I keep hearing it on the trailer for the 8th edition but I've failed in so far to pinpoint which book does it rever.
warboss wrote: Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?
Yes.
Now vehicles require more firepower to reliably take down I am worried about a possibility of new spam lists.
We haven't seem everything though, and will probably be something to keep them in check weapons wise. So not throwing a wobbler yet.
However given GW's form for missing out (despite their insistence of more playtesting), I welcome the rules with a degree of caution.
Well I am just a bit concerned about how daemons are going to translate over. I'm sure Tzeentch will translate over just fine with all there ranged Psychic powers. But what about the other three gods without some serious shooting how are they to disable tanks or crack open transports? I love to be able to play without spamming FMC, or psyker heavy. Id' be nice to have all four faction be viable as mono-god lists. Without shooting to deal with all these multi-wound monsters and vehicles. I have to assume that MC can do multiple damage with their melee attacks. It also make you wonder how they'll translate Rending USR attacks over in the new addition. In AOS for instance Slaaneshi daemons just have a -1 armor save modifier. That won't be enough given that we still have S vs T, and S3 will be doing noting versus vehicles and monsters. Maybe auto wounding on a wound roll of "6"? Perhaps helblades and plague knives with do multiple damage, etc.
There could be a similar double roll like there was if you needed 7s to hit (so a 6 followed by a 4+,5+,6+ etc..)
Straight 6s wound everything is just the assumption based in the current table.
That's a good point, didn't think of it. Previous editions of WHFB had 7+ and 8+ rolls, so they might use them in 8th (even thought I still think that it will be a simple 6 to wound)
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how AoS handles unit options. What comes in the box are the options you can take.
Devastators don't come with 4 lascannons so I wonder if they will be able to equip a whole unit with them still. I think it's somewhat handy to prevent spamming certain things and makes it easier to people buying into the game to not stress about finding extra lascannons. I suppose it could go either way at this point.
In AoS you have a list of options in the warscroll and then can pretty much give them whatever you want out of the list. Sometimes it's an all or nothing swap, like all swords or all spears, sometimes it's a one member can have this weapon kind of deal.
This doesn't cost anything, although there aren't normally as many different weapons in AoS as 40k so you may still need to pay for upgrades in matched play.
You will. We already know there will be a 'Power Level' cost, akin to a flat Warscroll cost, and a granular 40K-esque Matched Play cost in the launch army list books.
streetsamurai wrote: That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.
Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.
If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.
Let's just say that I strongly disagree. Some of the most fun moments in 40k for me involved the decision on whether I should shoot at an unit with a vehicule, while exposing its rear to another, or rather play it safe.
I totally get that, I really do understand the extra depth that positioning adds.
The problem is that with tons of vehicles on the field and wonky shapes, it gives rise to lots of unnecessary disagreement and time lost to finagling with what ultimately are rather trivial micromovement details a battle commander shouldn't be concerned with, and when the mechanic only applies to one unit type with no real reason as to why (surely facing should just as much have some relevance to a Dreadknight or Carnifex as to a Dreadnaught or Killa Kan?), the mechanic just causes balance problems.
AV is a big part of why vehicles were always so wonky in 40k, and why their rules and functionality varied wildly between each edition, and why MC vs Vehicle balance in particular has never quite worked right.
streetsamurai wrote: That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong
Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.
Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.
If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.
In a tank combat game, or Titan combat game, facing would be a fine mechanic, but as of now, it's really kind of unnecessary for 40K. I'm fine to see it go.
Yeah, in an armored company battle game or something, tank on tank stuff, fine. But yeah, when it's tank vs infantry vs demigod vs godzilla vs supersoldier vs flying demigod vs ultratank, it does become rather awkward
I'm sorry for the people disappointed by facing going but I think it's a fair call and it's also likely we will still see rules on the unit cards that effect the armour and that may extend to facing, we need rules after all for void shields quantum shielding and armoured cerimite to name a few. But over all It's just not needed or relivant. In a world where people can punch a hole in a tank with their fist you'd think more vehicles would be like the land raider or necrons and equally armoured all over anyway. Also having seen a lot of tanks in person, the ones made to take a hit have fat armour all over, fair enough not the same all over but none of this no armour on back rubbish, but almost all have very little on the top yet in game top hits counted as side hits, so it was never 'realistic' or tactical. It's not like by angling your facing you could bounce another tanks shots. It was just a needless abstraction for scale and setting.
Bottle wrote: A standard game of 40k definitely needs to be completed within 2.5 hours in my opinion, so that 2 day, 5 game events are possible. For Age of Sigmar it takes 60mins for every 1000 points you have on the table (or near abouts). That's what I would want for 40k too. I am very happy to hear the game is speeding up.
Aye, but I don't think the argument was "they shouldn't speed up the game" or "speeding up the game is bad", it was "considering the hilariously long list of problems that needed solving, making game length a top priority and so probably a bigger consideration when writing or balancing rules than, say, complexity and tactical depth seems to have more to do with who they chose to playtest than the priorities of the community as a whole". Seems a perfectly reasonable point to me - I don't know anyone who actually wants to spend four hours on a normal game, but I know plenty of folk who'd put getting the game down to a tournament-friendly 90 minute average way, way down on their list of wants from a new 40K edition.
The thing is, of the 3.5 hours an 1850 game of 40k could take only about half was ever really anything tactical, so they had a lot of fat to cut.
I mean take it phase by phase, the movement phase had a lot of extra time spent just making sure things were exactly 2" apart, which isn't a particularly deep gameplay mechanic.
The psychic phase was essentially either nill or 'get off as many powers as I can while you hold all your dice to block whatever one you think is the most important.' upwards of 20 minutes for some armies with 1 tactical interaction.
Shooting had running which bogged down slightly because it was broken off into the shooting phase for no real reason when moving and running at the same time accomplished the same thing only faster. Then you had templates that could add either a handful of minutes or close to half an hour depending on army conpositions and player attitudes.
Almost the entire assault phase lacked any tactical depth. The charge phase was interesting and tactical and challenges were cool but in general it was just filling in a spreadsheet and pulling models away. Cinematic as all hell but not particular interactive or tactical and god help you if you had multiple units fighting the same combat. You could be stuck there for up to 20 minutes. Tac on all the minor time losses involves in looking up rules, arguing rules, vehicle facings, terrain tests, etc and you get an idea why 7th was collapsing under it's own weight.
Tl: dr
The 3+ hours an 1850 game of 40k takes usually tops out at about 90-120 minutes of actual strategic gameplay anyway; if they cut right they make games of 40k much more palatable without losing anything meaningful.
On the large models... I'm a little torn. I love the idea of degrading models, but this:
Different vehicles will be reduced in effectiveness in different ways too – some will get worse at shooting, some will slow down, and some some will become less effective in melee.
...is going to be a nightmare to keep track of. Could we not just have a standardised formula so that we don't have to refer to the unit card for the entire game?
It's not, really. Sure it is more than before, but I imagine similar types will degrade in similar ways.
warboss wrote: Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?
Yes.
Now vehicles require more firepower to reliably take down I am worried about a possibility of new spam lists.
We haven't seem everything though, and will probably be something to keep them in check weapons wise. So not throwing a wobbler yet.
However given GW's form for missing out (despite their insistence of more playtesting), I welcome the rules with a degree of caution.
Well I am just a bit concerned about how daemons are going to translate over. I'm sure Tzeentch will translate over just fine with all there ranged Psychic powers. But what about the other three gods without some serious shooting how are they to disable tanks or crack open transports? I love to be able to play without spamming FMC, or psyker heavy. Id' be nice to have all four faction be viable as mono-god lists. Without shooting to deal with all these multi-wound monsters and vehicles. I have to assume that MC can do multiple damage with their melee attacks. It also make you wonder how they'll translate Rending USR attacks over in the new addition. In AOS for instance Slaaneshi daemons just have a -1 armor save modifier. That won't be enough given that we still have S vs T, and S3 will be doing noting versus vehicles and monsters. Maybe auto wounding on a wound roll of "6"? Perhaps helblades and plague knives with do multiple damage, etc.
Everything already autowounds on a 6 in 8th; or at least they've said everything cam hurt everything.
On the large models... I'm a little torn. I love the idea of degrading models, but this:
Different vehicles will be reduced in effectiveness in different ways too – some will get worse at shooting, some will slow down, and some some will become less effective in melee.
...is going to be a nightmare to keep track of. Could we not just have a standardised formula so that we don't have to refer to the unit card for the entire game?
It's not, really. Sure it is more than before, but I imagine similar types will degrade in similar ways.
Yeah, you generally check the card once per turn when you attack. Most people in sigmar don't even bother remembering the tables because it takes so little time to look up.
Yeah, you generally check the card once per turn when you attack. Most people in sigmar don't even bother remembering the tables because it takes so little time to look up.
That's painful.
Armies I use regularly, I'm used to just remembering the stats. A system that is either directly 1:1 proportional, or at the very least a system that is consistent across all models that degrade, would have been vastly preferable to one that effectively forces you to check the card before doing anything with the unit.
Lack of armor facing is a downer, though 40K was not well designed to make it an actual point of game play (especially after russes went to 13 side armor) - unless you were a Chimera, in which case it was a big deal.
Maybe we get a standard formula in that at half wounds its time to check the vehicle? would be nice if gw included that whole statline in the box on a handy card.
Seito O wrote: Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?
They are probably going to slowly remove all the Formation bundles on the website.
Brood Progenitor wasn't a Formation Bundle though, it was just the Tyranid version of the Troop + Transport bundles.
In any case it's still for sale on the Australia webstore. It is listed as a webstore exclusive though (which I think is new perhaps?).
Yeah, you generally check the card once per turn when you attack. Most people in sigmar don't even bother remembering the tables because it takes so little time to look up.
That's painful.
Armies I use regularly, I'm used to just remembering the stats. A system that is either directly 1:1 proportional, or at the very least a system that is consistent across all models that degrade, would have been vastly preferable to one that effectively forces you to check the card before doing anything with the unit.
Armies you use regularly you can absolutely just learn the table, same as any other statline. I'm just saying most people don't bother because it takes almost nothing to just check.
And the issue with this idea is that you end up with some models getting absolutely murdered by their table while others don't care.
Imagine if a riptide dropped the same way a Morkanaut does, 'oh no, now i've got less movement and melee attacks, whatever shall I do with a Riptide that can't melee anymore...'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Stand by for Citadel™ Unit Card Protektorrs™ and Citadel™ Dri Wype Markers™ to allow you to check the damage off as you go!
Personally, I kind of wish that large models had a mechanic a bit like Battlefleet Gothic. You go along until you drop below half your starting hitpoints which counts as being "crippled." At that point, all your stats are halved--nice and simple mechanic. I like nuance and I'm actually happy that large models suffer performance degradation as a damage mechanic, but I'm just concerned that all of these variable stats that are different for every single unit is going to make for a lot of book keeping.
I'll be curious to see how some of the weapons profiles will work out--particularly now that we've seen a bit more about how vehicles and MCs will work now. Of particular interest to me is the new "D" stat. I think it could really make for interesting weapons profiles. I hope random damage roles of a D6 like for the lascannon are not necessarily the norm for more powerful weapons though. If, for instance, things like heavy bolters or Autocannons got a 2 or more for their damage stat, it would help to mitigate the fact that their AP might only be -1 or similar. That way, if you DID manage to get a shot through on a multi-wound model, it would really do some damage. That could actually make heavy bolters an interesting option to fire at something other than light infantry and it would make autocannons still worth shooting at dreadnoughts and other multi-wound models. Despite their [traditionally] poorer AP values.
Imagine if a riptide dropped the same way a Morkanaut does, 'oh no, now i've got less movement and melee attacks, whatever shall I do with a Riptide that can't melee anymore...'
Which is why I wouldn't imagine that.
I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.
The markers would be ten a penny still, but a bespoke unit card size isn't impossible.
I'm not unduly worried though, basically every other game I play or take an interest in has some off table bookkeeping in the form of markers, cards or checking off damage on a card in a sleeve, doesn't unduly disrupt those games, don't see why it would inherently be a problem in 40K.
Counters would be a good option to replace the lost income from blast markers, too.
Brother Xeones wrote: I hope random damage roles of a D6 like for the lascannon are not necessarily the norm for more powerful weapons though.
The fact that they gave the lascannon variable damage when it has no specific reason to have such makes me suspect that D3 or D6 Damage will be the norm for heavy weapons.
While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?
If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.
There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.
Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.
Brother Xeones wrote: I hope random damage roles of a D6 like for the lascannon are not necessarily the norm for more powerful weapons though.
The fact that they gave the lascannon variable damage when it has no specific reason to have such makes me suspect that D3 or D6 Damage will be the norm for heavy weapons.
I fear you may be correct, but I hope you aren't If they just go with either a 1, a D3, or a D6, it passes up a big opportunity for some really good options for nuance and balance tweaking.
Imagine if a riptide dropped the same way a Morkanaut does, 'oh no, now i've got less movement and melee attacks, whatever shall I do with a Riptide that can't melee anymore...'
Which is why I wouldn't imagine that.
I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.
Except again it hurts things differently because things are different.
A Hive tyrant going from 3+ to hit in shooting to 5+ is infinitely better than a gorkanaut or other orc shooting platform going from 5+ to can't hit and if you say 'well just x' now you're adding rules to cover holes in a bad system and I seem to recall someone saying that was bad...hmm...
Having monsters degrade in different ways is better for balance, it's a better design space, it's fluffier, and most importantly it's not that big of a deal to learn I mean the Sigmar players handle it just fine and they're...whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?.
Because when your stated goal is to reduce the time taken to play the game, introducing a mechanic that requires players to constantly stop and check a unit card is counter-productive.
Brother Xeones wrote: I hope random damage roles of a D6 like for the lascannon are not necessarily the norm for more powerful weapons though.
The fact that they gave the lascannon variable damage when it has no specific reason to have such makes me suspect that D3 or D6 Damage will be the norm for heavy weapons.
Lascannons run 20 points on a Devastator and upwards to twice that for some other armies while being able to actually do a single wound around 50% of the time or less due of it's low shot output. Variable damage makes them more threatening in average, takes the game from "spam melta for your tank needs" and generally makes the weapon better without breaking the game or needing to make it cheaper.
Plus a 3+ or better gets an armour save against it before the D6 goes off, so it lost a bit of bite from its shooting power with the change to AP.
A Hive tyrant going from 3+ to hit in shooting to 5+ is infinitely better than a gorkanaut or other orc shooting platform going from 5+ to can't hit...
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?.
Because when your stated goal is to reduce the time taken to play the game, introducing a mechanic that requires players to constantly stop and check a unit card is counter-productive.
Pretty sure the "90 minutes for 1,500 point games" was quoted with said degrading tables in play so it apparently doesn't need too much bookkeeping. I"m willing to bet that for most models they won't really start seeing changes for the first half of their wounds meaning you'd only need to check if it's under 1/2. Given enough games you may even be able to put the table off to the side as you won't need it anymore.
And if the "less than 10 wounds means no table" theory holds true you'll only need to keep on too of it for your big models (like Knights or the Morkanaut).
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?.
Because when your stated goal is to reduce the time taken to play the game, introducing a mechanic that requires players to constantly stop and check a unit card is counter-productive.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
The fact that they gave the lascannon variable damage when it has no specific reason to have such makes me suspect that D3 or D6 Damage will be the norm for heavy weapons.
Lascannons run 20 points on a Devastator and upwards to twice that for some other armies while being able to actually do a single wound around 50% of the time or less due of it's low shot output. Variable damage makes them more threatening in average, takes the game from "spam melta for your tank needs" and generally makes the weapon better without breaking the game or needing to make it cheaper..
Yes, I get that lascannons needed a boost. My point was that they went with D3 instead of just making it a 2 or a 3, when there is no particular reason fluffwise for the weapon's output to be variable. Which suggests that their intention is for heavy weapons to do a variable amount of damage to represent glancing vs full-on wounds.
It's supposition based on a pool of 1 for the moment, but it seems likely.
A Hive tyrant going from 3+ to hit in shooting to 5+ is infinitely better than a gorkanaut or other orc shooting platform going from 5+ to can't hit...
OK. Why are either of these happening?
They went down 2 pegs in the table system you designed less than 5 minutes ago.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.
Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.
- if they win the war - the game and the fun ends
If they just go with either a 1, a D3, or a