Shuma-Gorath wrote: Rak'gol look like old 2nd Edition Tyranids to me in all the artwork, I don't think they would be a good new race to bring in. Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.
It's interesting to see how the former blast weapons are done as the damage doesn't carry over. I guess it will need some extra ruling like "Blast D6: each hit causes D6 hits". I guess it doesn't make too much difference which way it goes as the other option could have been to give some weapons something like: "Anti-tank D6: this weapon does D6 damage against VEHICLES". This just makes it bit clumsy to do weapons that have multiple damage and blast, as they will be very powerful against single models.
There does need to be a distinction between anti-armor and anti-infantry and things that are in-between. I think the multiple wound concept can help with that so we don't have all lascannon armies. On the note of psychic powers, they need to balance them more so we can buy/choose them. People hated rolling and getting useless powers more than they hated others getting OP powers. If they were balanced I wouldn't even mind continuing to roll for them.
I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?
Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?
Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.
Rippy wrote: People have been hoping Rak'gol, that is not a rumour
Indeed that seems to be the case so far. And well, there's also the matter of this existing before and being eerily similar, right down to the name:
http://swtor.wikia.com/wiki/Rakghoul
Weazel wrote: I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?
Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?
Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.
It has been confirmed (in Twitter?) that cover is a save modifier like in AoS. I would however guess the weapons will have eventually more rules besides the statline.
I wonder what details we'll see today. Maybe physic powers or melee weapons. Either way, I'm looking forward to it.
These new beasties look cool. And it gives me hope that we'll have things like the Hrud in future too. I'd like to see chaos worshiping xenos, just to show that it isn't just humans who fall prey to the dark gods.
Weazel wrote: I'm sorry if this has been discussed already (too damn long a thread), but anyone seeing the cover rules implications between the lines?
Look at the Flamer profile. It doesn't have any "ignores cover" rule. Instead, it hits automatically. To me this would implicate cover is a hit modifier. If a weapon hits automatically (like the flamer) it would bypass said modifier and basically "ignore cover". Any thoughts?
Maybe I'm just wishing here, but I hope they made cover a hit modifier (like in SWA)... would make so much more sense than the cover save shenanigans it has been in the past.
It has been confirmed (in Twitter?) that cover is a save modifier like in AoS. I would however guess the weapons will have eventually more rules besides the statline.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:Pete Foley (one of the Dev Team memeber for 8th) said on Twitter that it increases your save like in AoS.
Meh, okay. Was aware that there was a rumour but wasn't sure it was confirmed or not. Bummer.
Mr Morden wrote: Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.
If you took this equation (3 * 2 * 2) you get 12, right?
If you did it this way (2 * 3 * 2) you still get 12.
What was calculated was the probability of something happening based on the appropriate amount of failed armor saves.
Ah Ok I didn't understand that we were assuming that armour save fails. thanks for the explanation - I sorta get it
No such assumption. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it succeeds. End result is funnilly enough...same number of wounds.
You save first, then roll for damage. Say you have 4+ save and roll 1d6 for damage and get hit 6 times. 3 times out of 6 you save so suffer 0 wounds. 3 times you fail so get d6 wounds=3d6=10.5 wounds in average.
If you roll for damage first, then save you then have 6d6 damage=21 wounds. You then roll for save so half of them fail=10.5 wounds in.
Average result is same. Save first results in more dramatic saves though. Also results in less dice rolling. 9 dice vs 27 dices in above example...Faster game vs smoother ball curve.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
That may come from the description on the community site that says "...the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted."
It seems to imply that its damage would only ever apply to one model.
More directly, it comes from this sentence:
Warhammer Community wrote:Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model.
I wasn't talking about the lasconnons, but about the flamer. I see no reason why a Flamers couldn't also do multiple wounds to one model with its D6 hits.
Mr Morden wrote: Note: it *does* matter if you make a save, but since we're working with averages we don't really take that into account.
If you took this equation (3 * 2 * 2) you get 12, right? If you did it this way (2 * 3 * 2) you still get 12.
What was calculated was the probability of something happening based on the appropriate amount of failed armor saves.
Ah Ok I didn't understand that we were assuming that armour save fails. thanks for the explanation - I sorta get it
No such assumption. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it succeeds. End result is funnilly enough...same number of wounds.
You save first, then roll for damage. Say you have 4+ save and roll 1d6 for damage and get hit 6 times. 3 times out of 6 you save so suffer 0 wounds. 3 times you fail so get d6 wounds=3d6=10.5 wounds in average.
If you roll for damage first, then save you then have 6d6 damage=21 wounds. You then roll for save so half of them fail=10.5 wounds in.
Average result is same. Save first results in more dramatic saves though. Also results in less dice rolling. 9 dice vs 27 dices in above example...Faster game vs smoother ball curve.
Wouldn' there still be different propabilities in limited number of dice rolls for different outtcomes it you comapre stuff like 1 shot that makes 6 damage to 6 shots that do 1 damage. I would say in a wargame context the latter is better almost always as it's more reliable. Getting zero damage and getting max damage have high propabilities, where in the other case getting no damage has quite low propability.
Chikout wrote: Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.
If anyone gets the chance, here's one I'd love answered: The previous info indicated a 1500pt Matched Play game would take about 90 minutes using the new rules, but roughly what size of army is 1500pts? By which I mean, are we talking 3rd Edition 1500pts, 5th Edition 1500pts, or 7th Edition 1500pts in terms of model count? A snappy streamlined ruleset is great so long as it retains enough grit and granularity to be interesting, but the idea of scooping literal bucketloads of Guard or Ork infantry off the table every turn isn't particularly appealing.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Please just let us choose our powers. Even if we have to pay for them.
This. I hate rolling for powers. If they made it so you picked your powers it would speed up the pregame as well. They did say that they made significant changes to the psychic system, so I have hopes for something good to come out of it.
Uuuuugggh, so much this. Indeed, get rid of all random rolling during the army building phase except in the rare case where it's thematically appropriate for a specific character or unit. The leaders of my armies don't change after every battle, so why the hell do they have to play Trait Roulette before every game, in one being a master tacticians, in the next as dumb as a post but dead-propah sneaky. Why do my psykers have Cyclical Selective Amnesia? Just let us choose from a set of roughly equally balanced options or, failing that, from a list with point costs reflecting the relative balance.
ERJAK wrote: The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.
It's great. It means there's more variety in weapons rather than there not being much difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry. Actually there would be little reason to NOT take anti-tank weapons since it is also very good at scything infantry. Heavy bolter? Nah lascannon is better at the job that's supposed to be job of heavy bolter. Screw it.
Basically you would have just grades of same weapon. "Weakest, weaker, weak, strong, stronger, stronger".
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
ERJAK wrote: The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.
It's great. It means there's more variety in weapons rather than there not being much difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry. Actually there would be little reason to NOT take anti-tank weapons since it is also very good at scything infantry. Heavy bolter? Nah lascannon is better at the job that's supposed to be job of heavy bolter. Screw it.
Basically you would have just grades of same weapon. "Weakest, weaker, weak, strong, stronger, stronger".
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this
Elbows wrote: The Multi-Melta rarely showed up models because they weren't available as kit pieces for Marine devastators etc. They were present on some dreads and the landspeeder though and were brutally efficient at wiping out crowds of marines and heavy armour.
And hit multiple locations on the tank boosting up it's anti-tank capability quite a bit.
As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this
But those weapons have no different preferred target's and that's the point.
As I posted above, if there isn't infinite amount of dice rolls, there is a big difference on variance due to probabilities. Making the weapon with higher amount of shots almost always preferable over the one with high damage. Everyone who has played with models having high value attacks hitting on 4+ should know this
But those weapons have no different preferred target's and that's the point.
I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.
I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.
Damage spreading like in AOS is completely stupid. It eliminates the difference between multishot and powerful singleshot weapons. I am really happy they didn't adopt this to 40K.
ERJAK wrote: The issue is if their army is min maxed one way or the other, it doesn't matter if yours is balanced, half of it will be less effective. It could definitely work, it all depends on the interactions between weapons, wounds, armor , toughness etc. My kneejerk is that non-carrying damage is silly but It could work fine.
It's great. It means there's more variety in weapons rather than there not being much difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry. Actually there would be little reason to NOT take anti-tank weapons since it is also very good at scything infantry. Heavy bolter? Nah lascannon is better at the job that's supposed to be job of heavy bolter. Screw it.
Basically you would have just grades of same weapon. "Weakest, weaker, weak, strong, stronger, stronger".
Which isn't what they've done, thankfully. Lascannons can't scythe through squads. They do the job they're meant to - feth one model up bigtime.
I guess the idea hasn't been that there would be exactly the same kind of weapons, but this would give some extra design room inside the stats, now the blast weapons and especially the ordnance stuff needs to have some extra ruling where it could just have done 2D6 damage or something like that. But on the other hand there is no going around this as there needs to be some focused high strength weaponry like krak missiles that should be good agains tsingle targets, but not so much against groups. But still, I would say that the damage spreading like in AoS would have been more simple route. However I think it's better wait for the whole picture before jumping in to conclusions.
Damage spreading like in AOS is completely stupid. It eliminates the difference between multishot and powerful singleshot weapons. I am really happy they didn't adopt this to 40K.
That's why in AoS there are weapons that make e.g. D3 damage instead of 1 against monsters and the stuff that makes lots of damage on single hit are stuff like catapults and sweeping blows.
Crimson wrote: Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
Just because two weapons produce the same average wounds per attack doesn't mean those results are distributed the same way. There is only no difference for sample sizes way larger than you'll see in an average game.
Hollow wrote: I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.
So because 100% is impossible you should settle for 10% when it could become 80%?
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
As noted by above posters you get a different distribution and different chances of results. Average damage is not always a useful stat. If I need to take out a 3 wound model on an objective this turn then there are noticeable differences in which weapon can do that. E.g if there is a 4+ Hit, Wound and Save rolls then then the D6 damage weapon is around 8 times better than the D6 attacks weapon.
But then, in AoS as you reference that, there are a lot of synergies and other abilities which affect stuff. If I have an ability that adds +1 attack then I double the damage output of the D6 damage weapon, but not so much to the D6 attacks weapon, now at D6 + 1. If something doubles damages or adds to damage then they end up different etc. Some abilities trigger on doing any damage, in which case the more attacks is better.
Then there is the target that might affect how good both weapons are. Somethings get a better save against weaker damage attacks, or get abilities against weaker attacks. Other things heal so many wounds per turn, so 1 wound per turn over 6 turns may mean that it heals all damage every turn and never counts as damaged, whereas 6 damage in one turn is not so easy to shrug off, leaving for example monsters weaker for longer and also further down the damage chart after the first hit which could be critical.
Crimson wrote:
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
Just because two weapons produce the same average wounds per attack doesn't mean those results are distributed the same way. There is only no difference for sample sizes way larger than you'll see in an average game.
They're also simply not the same.
Flamer - D6 shots doing 1 damage vs a unit can kill D6 1W models or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.
Lascannon - 1 shot doing D6 damage can kill a single 1W model, or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.
Why aren't people grasping this crucial difference?
The flamer can kill up to 6 models, but is unlikely to do the multiple wounds on big stuff due to low S and Save Mod.
The lascannon has high S and high Save Mod, so will likely do multiple wounds to a big target but can only ever kill one model per turn.
Methinks people are seeing the word 'unit' when 'model' is written.
Why aren't people grasping this crucial difference?
[...]
Methinks people are seeing the word 'unit' when 'model' is written.
I believe they're talking about the Age of Sigmar rules, where damage disperses amongst the unit. I think most people would agree that the 40k proposed method sounds better.
zerosignal wrote:So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I dunno, lascannons work out to be a fair bit better in the average case, both in terms of outcome variance and damage done, but against the vast majority of guns the dread is way more survivable. With any luck, one shotting anything worth a lot of points will be completely gone, because it's just not fun.
Games Workshop is the abusive boyfriend that you finally managed to tear yourself away from after years of maltreatment following a particularly brutal battering one night.
GW coming to me, hat in hand, saying "we've changed, we've grown as a company, we understand your needs now, we were selfish and stupid and we needed help, and we've gotten that help, just give us a chance" is too little too late.
I've moved on, I'm with another games company now, they treat me well, the way I deserve. I'm happy, for the first time in years, I'm happy. I couldn't face myself in the mirror if I was so weak I gave into the temptation to let GW back in again.
GW was important to me, I'll always have the memories we shared, there were some good times, but it's time to let go.
On the other hand, maybe they really have changed. I know that deep down, GW loves me as a customer. Maybe just a little box of new marines wouldn't hurt, I can always ebay them if it doesn't work out.
Or a starter set......just to test the waters. I know what I'm doing.
Why would you expect points compensation? The only army in game that cannot take vehicles is Tyranid. And they will have a very easy time taking down a dreadnought.
amanita wrote: Not having read the whole thread so my apologies if this has been discussed, but if a weapon such as a lascannon does D6 hits/wounds is it then possible to kill up to 6 space marines with a single shot? If so, is there a point to having blast weapons? Just curious, as I'm barely catching up on the latest rumors.
A Lascannon will hit one model and deal d6 wounds to it. A flamer will hit d6 models and deal 1 wound to each.
Where did you read the last part? I assume Flamers will do D6 hits, and those hits will do wounds in the normal way, i.e. Six wounds would kill three two-wound models.
I was just trying to keep my example simple. I wasn't going to get into how it would distribute damage to multiple wound models.
jamopower wrote: It's interesting to see how the former blast weapons are done as the damage doesn't carry over. I guess it will need some extra ruling like "Blast D6: each hit causes D6 hits". I guess it doesn't make too much difference which way it goes as the other option could have been to give some weapons something like: "Anti-tank D6: this weapon does D6 damage against VEHICLES". This just makes it bit clumsy to do weapons that have multiple damage and blast, as they will be very powerful against single models.
d6 hits like flamer is different to d6 damage. Plasma cannon could be heavy d3 with damage 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamopower wrote: Wouldn' there still be different propabilities in limited number of dice rolls for different outtcomes it you comapre stuff like 1 shot that makes 6 damage to 6 shots that do 1 damage. I would say in a wargame context the latter is better almost always as it's more reliable. Getting zero damage and getting max damage have high propabilities, where in the other case getting no damage has quite low propability.
That's why I said smoother curve. Damage first, save second doesn't affect AVERAGE result. Does result in different looking curve for probability of X amount of wounds.
So yeah damage first, save second would be where to go if you want to reduce chance of extreme results.
Albeit it has side effect of more dice rolled=slower game.
AlchemicalSolution wrote: Games Workshop is the abusive boyfriend that you finally managed to tear yourself away from after years of maltreatment following a particularly brutal battering one night.
GW coming to me, hat in hand, saying "we've changed, we've grown as a company, we understand your needs now, we were selfish and stupid and we needed help, and we've gotten that help, just give us a chance" is too little too late.
I've moved on, I'm with another games company now, they treat me well, the way I deserve. I'm happy, for the first time in years, I'm happy. I couldn't face myself in the mirror if I was so weak I gave into the temptation to let GW back in again.
GW was important to me, I'll always have the memories we shared, there were some good times, but it's time to let go.
On the other hand, maybe they really have changed. I know that deep down, GW loves me as a customer. Maybe just a little box of new marines wouldn't hurt, I can always ebay them if it doesn't work out.
Or a starter set......just to test the waters. I know what I'm doing.
Great post
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Youn wrote: Why would you expect points compensation? The only army in game that cannot take vehicles is Tyranid. And they will have a very easy time taking down a dreadnought.
On a random note, there isn't much difference between MCs and Vehicles anymore..
Crimson wrote:
Exactly. The AOS style of doing this is just bad. You get difference without distinction, like a weapon with D6 attacks that do one damage and a weapon with one attack that do D6 damage to the unit. There is no real difference between those two.
Just because two weapons produce the same average wounds per attack doesn't mean those results are distributed the same way. There is only no difference for sample sizes way larger than you'll see in an average game.
They're also simply not the same.
Flamer - D6 shots doing 1 damage vs a unit can kill D6 1W models or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.
Lascannon - 1 shot doing D6 damage can kill a single 1W model, or put up to D6 wounds on a multi-W model.
Why aren't people grasping this crucial difference?
The flamer can kill up to 6 models, but is unlikely to do the multiple wounds on big stuff due to low S and Save Mod.
The lascannon has high S and high Save Mod, so will likely do multiple wounds to a big target but can only ever kill one model per turn.
Methinks people are seeing the word 'unit' when 'model' is written.
They are talking about how it works in AOS so why you bring lascannon into this?
There is also one fundamental thing with weapons doing high damage to single models. What if there aren't any suitable targets? That's why psycannon type weapons have been (and will be) better than lascannon type, even if they would destroy tanks equally well, it's always better to have the gun with more variety. Also the cost for a weapon is harder to get right if the usefulness can vary greatly between the games depending on what you are against. This is where AoS shines as most of the statline is "always as good" not dependant on what is on the other side of the table. Of course there is some variety lost, but if balance is the goal, that is imo the way to go, whereas variable toughnesses and such are fluffier.
So flamers will still murder blobs and multiwound models like HQ's. I always wanted flamers to be worth taking. If only they remain a cheap upgrade to the probably still useless bolter...
jamopower wrote: There is also one fundamental thing with weapons doing high damage to single models. What if there aren't any suitable targets? That's why psycannon type weapons have been better than lascannon type, even if they would destroy tanks equally well, it's always better to have the gun with more variety. Also the cost for a weapon is harder to get right if the usefulness can vary greatly between the games depending on what you are against. This is where AoS shines as most of the statline is "always as good" not dependant on what is on the other side of the table. Of course there is some variety lost, but if balance is the goal, that is imo the way to go, whereas variable toughnesses and such are fluffier.
I think this lends towards bringing TAC armies with a variety of weapons. It might not in the competitive setting, but I'd love to have to maneuver my hormagaunts against a squad of flamers so he cant get the shots off at me, while he tries to make sure his lascannons can see my carnifexes and aren't hit by little gribblies. I just really like specialization. It makes the game more flavorful, rather than have everything be a "3+/3+" or "3+/4+"
Bolters will do work, for sure, as they always have.
I for one am looking forward to seeing how my Blood Angels tactical squad with a heavy flamer, flamer, and combi flamer on the sergeant work when dumping out of a drop pod. I don't foresee them doing amazing things to a high toughness target/vehicle, hurt it, sure, but against infantry they should be able to dump some pretty impressive wound counts onto infantry or standard targets.
jamopower wrote: There is also one fundamental thing with weapons doing high damage to single models. What if there aren't any suitable targets? That's why psycannon type weapons have been (and will be) better than lascannon type, even if they would destroy tanks equally well, it's always better to have the gun with more variety. Also the cost for a weapon is harder to get right if the usefulness can vary greatly between the games depending on what you are against. This is where AoS shines as most of the statline is "always as good" not dependant on what is on the other side of the table. Of course there is some variety lost, but if balance is the goal, that is imo the way to go, whereas variable toughnesses and such are fluffier.
Then why have different weapons at all? Just have same profile for every weapon, so that they're equally good against all targets! Perfect balance achieved!
jamopower wrote: There is also one fundamental thing with weapons doing high damage to single models. What if there aren't any suitable targets? That's why psycannon type weapons have been better than lascannon type, even if they would destroy tanks equally well, it's always better to have the gun with more variety. Also the cost for a weapon is harder to get right if the usefulness can vary greatly between the games depending on what you are against. This is where AoS shines as most of the statline is "always as good" not dependant on what is on the other side of the table. Of course there is some variety lost, but if balance is the goal, that is imo the way to go, whereas variable toughnesses and such are fluffier.
I think this lends towards bringing TAC armies with a variety of weapons. It might not in the competitive setting, but I'd love to have to maneuver my hormagaunts against a squad of flamers so he cant get the shots off at me, while he tries to make sure his lascannons can see my carnifexes and aren't hit by little gribblies. I just really like specialization. It makes the game more flavorful, rather than have everything be a "3+/3+" or "3+/4+"
Yes, it works if people bring TAC armies, which has always been the most fun way of playing the game for everyone partcipating, but if the game allows it, there will be someone who takes only carnifexes etc. especially if there is advantage on doing that.
My view is that for a normal single game, the list should always be done so that the opposing army on general level is known. That should give the best end result and allows to use the suitable stuff (i.e. if you know that you play against orks, you could pick up your heavy bolters with you). For tournaments it's differnt thing, but there the balancing act is with the increased number of games hat you play which should reduce the tendency of extreme armies. Unfortunately sometimes, if the points costs are determined by certain scenario / tournament setting, then stuff like heavy bolters can be utterly broken against the stuff that they are made for, because the points cost is based on their efficiency against stuff that they are not made for.
zerosignal wrote: So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
Hm, that would mean 3 standard tiers of power for vehicles dependent on their health. Much, much better than a new line in the damage table for every 2 wounds as is in AoS.
For me it sounds that there will be a "damage roll" every time when certain amount of wounds is inflicted, if there is a possibility of blowing up. And these tables are probably different for each vehicle and for each level of damage?
zerosignal wrote: So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
I hope that's wrong. Kind of kills the whole toughness and wounds thing, if it still randomly explodes. If true, it would be the first thing I don't like about the new edition so far. That, in itself is pretty amazing.
zerosignal wrote: So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
I hope that's wrong. Kind of kills the whole toughness and wounds thing, if it still randomly explodes. If true, it would be the first thing I don't like about the new edition so far. That, in itself is pretty amazing.
Degradation might be a very gradual thing for vehicles but a less gradual thing for MCs.
A Monster might degrade in effectiveness every 2 or 3 Wounds suffered, for example, while a Vehicle might degrade every 6.
Or hell, it might be that the tables(which are likely set to each vehicle rather than a thing that's shared among all vehicles) differ wildly for the "type" of vehicle. Eldar Skimmer tanks? Degrade every 3 Wounds suffered. Imperial heavy tanks? Degrade every 8 Wounds suffered.
docdoom77 wrote: I hope that's wrong. Kind of kills the whole toughness and wounds thing, if it still randomly explodes. If true, it would be the first thing I don't like about the new edition so far. That, in itself is pretty amazing.
Agreed. Can't have your cake and blow it up too.
Either use one set of rules or don't, but don't try to patch part of one on top of another. Hull Points were that, and they were stupid.
I for one am looking forward to seeing how my Blood Angels tactical squad with a heavy flamer, flamer, and combi flamer on the sergeant work when dumping out of a drop pod. I don't foresee them doing amazing things to a high toughness target/vehicle, hurt it, sure, but against infantry they should be able to dump some pretty impressive wound counts onto infantry or standard targets.
Certainly exciting times to be sure.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Im waiting to face such an army with my Salamanders and laughing all the way to the bank
On another note, 1k Sons and Warp Flamers could get very nasty, IF they get rid of the whole giving FNP to your enemies....
zerosignal wrote: So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
Phew, I thought for a moment GW was being developed by all new compentant people. The insistence on making vehicles frustratingly random assures me it's the same old crew.
zerosignal wrote: So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...
Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...
Expect points compensation.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
Source please. Just checked Foley's entire tweets&answers of the last two days and there was no such comment at all. I think people are making things up again and they go viral.
I think this lends towards bringing TAC armies with a variety of weapons. It might not in the competitive setting, but I'd love to have to maneuver my hormagaunts against a squad of flamers so he cant get the shots off at me, while he tries to make sure his lascannons can see my carnifexes and aren't hit by little gribblies. I just really like specialization. It makes the game more flavorful, rather than have everything be a "3+/3+" or "3+/4+"
I look forward to finally finishing off my Deathwatch after the great FAQ confusion!
Yeah, I'll throw my hat in and say that, if true, that's a really dumb move. The thing I hate the most is losing centrepieces to a single shot so if that comes back I'll be very annoyed. By all means when it's dead, throw in a roll to see if it explodes or wrecks, but don't just make it randomly explode from whatever random shot hits it - that's why the damage stat is there, right?
jamopower wrote: For me it sounds that there will be a "damage roll" every time when certain amount of wounds is inflicted, if there is a possibility of blowing up. And these tables are probably different for each vehicle and for each level of damage?
I would like that. I'd like it if the explosion/wreck rules were a bit better though - having things constantly explode leaving a huddle of marines standing in a crater is weird and can be done better. Plus I Like the way blazing wrecks look.
jamopower wrote: For me it sounds that there will be a "damage roll" every time when certain amount of wounds is inflicted, if there is a possibility of blowing up. And these tables are probably different for each vehicle and for each level of damage?
I would like that. I'd like it if the explosion/wreck rules were a bit better though - having things constantly explode leaving a huddle of marines standing in a crater is weird and can be done better. Plus I Like the way blazing wrecks look.
The whole idea that a tank can literally vaporize leaving an impact crater and no crew yet a transported unit can survive is stupid to a level beyond words. Furthermore the fact that I can shoot down a tyranofex with small arms fire yet my opponent removes its massive carcus yet my shot out dreadnought remains as terrain is equally silly. As cool as wrecks look, I hope models are simply removed when they die as I am not expecting my opponents to have dead MC markers, as fething awesome as that would look. If you a group wants to leave the wrecks/bodies then they can house rule it.
Running has been rolled into the Movement phase now, too. You can “Advance” when you move by rolling a dice and adding the result to your Movement to go a bit faster at the expense of shooting.
This applies to all models – infantry, vehicles, bikes – everyone. By including this roll as part of your move, the game speeds up, as you no longer have to move modes in both the Movement and Shooting phases.
Color me surprised, it's almost as if they are making it similar to AoS. Shocking development this.
I know you dont want to hear it, but hey it's pretty obvious now...
It sort of confirms there's no shooting into/out of hand-to-hand combat. And 'tarpitting' becomes less of a thing. 'running' in the movment phase makes sense - even if it's just 'd6' whether your a Terminator or a jetbike (unless there's more to it).
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
Instead of not being able to do anything after a fallback Ravenwing might be able to shoot. We'll just have to wait and see. I really enjoy the whole concept.
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
They'll probably be able to retreat and charge as in AoS.
(sarcasm on)
It makes perfect sense to mitigate the fact that your opponent managed to assault you through the whole board while being shot at. It wasn't due to his efforts after all - he just got lucky on a 2d6 charge (yeah this will probably stay too )
(sarcasm off)
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
Instead of not being able to do anything after a fallback Ravenwing might be able to shoot. We'll just have to wait and see. I really enjoy the whole concept.
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
Or just adjust their points and or give them a new rule. People need to expect and be prepared for each and every unit to change drastically here. I mean, I just painted 80 genestealer cult hybrids and I expect return to the shadows and cult ambush to disappear entirely. No way those rules will work as is, but I am also sure they get a new interpretation. I wouldn't worry I am sure ravenwing will be awesome, maybe faster bikes, maybe jink is a built in modifier to their save all the time, hello 2+ anything is possible. I mean, I haven't seen anything on overwatch, if that is gone your also losing grim resolve right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonasu wrote: Color me surprised, it's almost as if they are making it similar to AoS. Shocking development this.
I know you dont want to hear it, but hey it's pretty obvious now...
Speak for yourself bub. I love everything I have seen or heard so far and I don't play AoS.
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
They'll probably be able to retreat and charge as in AoS.
(sarcasm on)
It makes perfect sense to mitigate the fact that your opponent managed to assault you through the whole board while being shot at. It wasn't due to his efforts after all - he just got lucky on a 2d6 charge (yeah this will probably stay too )
(sarcasm off)
Yeah it may be a pain to actually get into combat, but I think the fact that by and large the assaulting unit hits first mitigates the pain of them running away next turn.
I think this mostly just eliminates one sided slaughters. If something stands a fighting chance they're probably going to slog it out.
And if you have a very one sided affair (Assault Termies vs Guard) the guys on the receiving end have probably been so reduced they won't be effective anymore. Plus, there would be a pretty sizable chance that you would have wiped them on the first turn and ended up just as vulnerable as if they had run away.
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
Or just adjust their points and or give them a new rule. People need to expect and be prepared for each and every unit to change drastically here. I mean, I just painted 80 genestealer cult hybrids and I expect return to the shadows and cult ambush to disappear entirely. No way those rules will work as is, but I am also sure they get a new interpretation. I wouldn't worry I am sure ravenwing will be awesome, maybe faster bikes, maybe jink is a built in modifier to their save all the time, hello 2+ anything is possible. I mean, I haven't seen anything on overwatch, if that is gone your also losing grim resolve right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonasu wrote: Color me surprised, it's almost as if they are making it similar to AoS. Shocking development this.
I know you dont want to hear it, but hey it's pretty obvious now...
Speak for yourself bub. I love everything I have seen or heard so far and I don't play AoS.
Oh sure, I'm not devastated, just idly wondering. I'm excited in general to see how ALL rules for ALL armies have changed.
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
They'll probably be able to retreat and charge as in AoS.
(sarcasm on)
It makes perfect sense to mitigate the fact that your opponent managed to assault you through the whole board while being shot at. It wasn't due to his efforts after all - he just got lucky on a 2d6 charge (yeah this will probably stay too )
(sarcasm off)
I get the reaction as I play many assault armies, but you have to wait and see here. If first turn assaults are a thing, if charging from reserve makes a return, if removing casualties from the rear reappears and overwatch vanishes then guess what? We are back to 5th where assault armies were WAY stronger then shooting armies, by adding the fall back rule you give every army an opportunity to shine at what they do. Being able to hide in assault has been a MASSIVE flaw since 3rd edition. When good players actively avoid making units efficient enough to win in a dingle assault so they can hide in finish in your turn then your system is out of whack.
The good: Withdrawing is in, which both eliminates the idea of tarpits (which were always dumb) and makes surrounding an enemy quite important - assuming you can't withdraw into a pile of enemies. This is fantastic news - I was having nightmares of the start of 6th edition again, with blobs on objectives just hiding from being shot by ineffectually flailing at a nigh invincible enemy until the game ends. It sounds like the unit they're opposed by gets to shoot them once out of sequence too, if I read it right which sounds kinda cool on paper, but in practice I'm worried that it'll make dedicated assault still pretty weak.
The bad: Running is still random - for goodness sake, why? Just give everyone flat +4" if you're going with 1D6, or otherwise double movement like every other game out there. Running 1" isn't thematic or interesting, it just feels ridiculous; I guess that Wraiths who completely ignore terrain also trip on their own tail for no reason. I actually hate that this hasn't changed, it adds more randomness, more pointless dice rolling and slows down the game needlessly.
The ugly: Charging is clearly still done in the assault phase, so we're likely back to 2d6". If so, that's just awful again; one of my most loathed changes from 5th to 6th was the fact that assault marines could fail to make a 3" charge in the open, yet bob the guardsman could sprint 12" across the board. I really hope it's changed, but I seriously doubt it.
Speak for yourself bub. I love everything I have seen or heard so far and I don't play AoS.
What? Your love was not in question here...
Oh I see, you weren't being sarcastic as feth now.... convenient. So what was the point of your post? To point out the painfully obvious without making any point otherwise?
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
More than likely they will get some rule built-in to give them unique flavor. I would suggest looking at this new rule set through the prism that whatever rules and capabilities X unit has now are gone/different and you'll have to wait to find out what they can do when 8th drops or is leaked.
Eyjio wrote: The good: Withdrawing is in, which both eliminates the idea of tarpits (which were always dumb) and makes surrounding an enemy quite important - assuming you can't withdraw into a pile of enemies. This is fantastic news - I was having nightmares of the start of 6th edition again, with blobs on objectives just hiding from being shot by ineffectually flailing at a nigh invincible enemy until the game ends. It sounds like the unit they're opposed by gets to shoot them once out of sequence too, if I read it right which sounds kinda cool on paper, but in practice I'm worried that it'll make dedicated assault still pretty weak.
The bad: Running is still random - for goodness sake, why? Just give everyone flat +4" if you're going with 1D6, or otherwise double movement like every other game out there. Running 1" isn't thematic or interesting, it just feels ridiculous; I guess that Wraiths who completely ignore terrain also trip on their own tail for no reason. I actually hate that this hasn't changed, it adds more randomness, more pointless dice rolling and slows down the game needlessly.
The ugly: Charging is clearly still done in the assault phase, so we're likely back to 2d6". If so, that's just awful again; one of my most loathed changes from 5th to 6th was the fact that assault marines could fail to make a 3" charge in the open, yet bob the guardsman could sprint 12" across the board. I really hope it's changed, but I seriously doubt it.
Could go the AoS route and you don't declare a target but roll possible assault range then pick a unit within that range. That makes up for it big time. I can have an easy assault lined up but if I roll box cars I can now run into that PITA unit behind them.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm not against the removal of combat locking - I would've just liked to see some sort of penalty for combat disengagement.
You mean like not being able to assault OR shoot... I mean those seem like pretty big penalties to my armies.
Yeah, yeah I know it is still inconvenient, but from from experience in AoS I feel it should get a bit more severe. Receive d6 wounds or whatever for example.
flakpanzer wrote: Other than the "not running through walls" stuff, they did not touch on difficult or dangerous terrain, did they?
Are movement rates not slowed by terrain like AoS?
I wouldn't mind if they removed the terrain penalties. I mean, in combat if you don't have cover your moving cautiously, or slower then normal generally, once in heavy cover you have the liberty to move a bit faster and liberally. That's an abstraction of course but I think you can see my point, basically cover doesn't slow you down THAT much in a live combat unless it's designed to, so maybe they will define terrain like trenches and barbed wire as a opposed to low walls and trees.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm not against the removal of combat locking - I would've just liked to see some sort of penalty for combat disengagement.
You mean like not being able to assault OR shoot... I mean those seem like pretty big penalties to my armies.
Yeah, yeah I know it is still inconvenient, but from from experience in AoS I feel it should get a bit more severe. Receive d6 wounds or whatever for example.
That's because AoS isn't a game that revolves around shooting though. If a unit of broadsides falls back and forfeits it's shooting, or a riptide, that's a big penalty. We aren't talking about a few spears or arrows here.
flakpanzer wrote:Other than the "not running through walls" stuff, they did not touch on difficult or dangerous terrain, did they?
Are movement rates not slowed by terrain like AoS?
I am guessing Terrain will be its own article so they can keep up these articles daily.
zerosignal wrote:So no more Tarpitting? :/
No shooting or charging the next turn after falling back still makes it useful to engage something with your tarpit unit, plus there may even be weapons or special rules that let you keep things in combat. We'll have to see.
flakpanzer wrote: Other than the "not running through walls" stuff, they did not touch on difficult or dangerous terrain, did they?
Are movement rates not slowed by terrain like AoS?
I wouldn't mind if they removed the terrain penalties. I mean, in combat if you don't have cover your moving cautiously, or slower then normal generally, once in heavy cover you have the liberty to move a bit faster and liberally. That's an abstraction of course but I think you can see my point, basically cover doesn't slow you down THAT much in a live combat unless it's designed to, so maybe they will define terrain like trenches and barbed wire as a opposed to low walls and trees.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm not against the removal of combat locking - I would've just liked to see some sort of penalty for combat disengagement.
You mean like not being able to assault OR shoot... I mean those seem like pretty big penalties to my armies.
Yeah, yeah I know it is still inconvenient, but from from experience in AoS I feel it should get a bit more severe. Receive d6 wounds or whatever for example.
That's because AoS isn't a game that revolves around shooting though. If a unit of broadsides falls back and forfeits it's shooting, or a riptide, that's a big penalty. We aren't talking about a few spears or arrows here.
I was hoping for more clarity here too, but maybe they'll do a teaser for "Terrain" and include it there.
flakpanzer wrote:Other than the "not running through walls" stuff, they did not touch on difficult or dangerous terrain, did they?
Are movement rates not slowed by terrain like AoS?
I am guessing Terrain will be its own article so they can keep up these articles daily.
zerosignal wrote:So no more Tarpitting? :/
No shooting or charging the next turn after falling back still makes it useful to engage something with your tarpit unit, plus there may even being weapons or special rules that let you keep things in combat. We'll have to see.
Yep, basically any unit you charge either dies in the charge, or is effectively pinned in their own turn.
Ok so now that I know the profile for the bolter and the flamethrower I just need the rules for the mighty MELTA!
Also those rules for the flamer seems a bit weak. No rending, and a low average of 3.5 hits. The only good part is not having to spend several minutes finding the best way to position your models so your 4 templates don't go over your own unit while frying as much as possible enemy guys. But really they should just have made them always make 6 hits .
And no more being stuck in combat with an invulnerable foe, that's good.
flakpanzer wrote: Other than the "not running through walls" stuff, they did not touch on difficult or dangerous terrain, did they?
Are movement rates not slowed by terrain like AoS?
Well, it may be like AoS where you'll measure the up and the down of a wall instead of making a difficult terrain check. Slows you down, but removes the random.
Yonasu wrote: Color me surprised, it's almost as if they are making it similar to AoS. Shocking development this.
I know you dont want to hear it, but hey it's pretty obvious now...
Speak for yourself bub. I love everything I have seen or heard so far and I don't play AoS.
totally agree and also don't play AoS.
I can't wait to see all the rules together and start to evaluate how my armies will play.
I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.
I hope that's wrong. Kind of kills the whole toughness and wounds thing, if it still randomly explodes. If true, it would be the first thing I don't like about the new edition so far. That, in itself is pretty amazing.
Degradation might be a very gradual thing for vehicles but a less gradual thing for MCs.
A Monster might degrade in effectiveness every 2 or 3 Wounds suffered, for example, while a Vehicle might degrade every 6.
Or hell, it might be that the tables(which are likely set to each vehicle rather than a thing that's shared among all vehicles) differ wildly for the "type" of vehicle.
Eldar Skimmer tanks?
Degrade every 3 Wounds suffered.
Imperial heavy tanks?
Degrade every 8 Wounds suffered.
Etc
I would be willing to bet that the rule would be, if a vehicle suffers say 6 or more damage in a single attack it has to make a test to not suffer catastrophic damage. So most vehicles might have up to 3 chances if they are 15-20 wounds.
The fact that you lose that unit's turn when you use Fall Back is important. Without support from the rest of the army, or some special rule or the like to ignore the downsides, Falling Back won't do you any good to escape an enemy unit. You'll just be set up to get charged again. So you'll have to play smart with it, at least. It won't just be an anti-melee button for Tau and Guard to smash.
If you look at Pete's wording during the FAQ. I don't think Heros can join Units anymore. He mentions an Space marine captain joining an Imperial guard squad then revises his statement to say is Near an Imperial guard squad.
This seems to indicate either you cannot join a squad within the same keyword or you cannot join a squad. The second would be how AoS handles heroes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jambles wrote: The fact that you lose that unit's turn when you use Fall Back is important. Without support from the rest of the army, or some special rule or the like to ignore the downsides, Falling Back won't do you any good to escape an enemy unit. You'll just be set up to get charged again. So you'll have to play smart with it, at least. It won't just be an anti-melee button for Tau and Guard to smash.
It is useful for assault units with high movements (jump packs). For instance:
Assault squad jumps in and does damage but is then countered by an enemy dreadnought.
Next turn, during their movement, They decide to jump back 12". This may leave them behind another unit that can handle the dreadnought or at least free up the dreadnought to be gunned down.
Future War Cultist wrote: Again, I'm very pleased with what they're doing. I'm so happy tarpitting is gone. And I'm imagining the tactical possibilities too.
I wonder how it works if you are surrounded (or literally have backs to a wall) as they've stated you can't move through models?
Aircraft are immune to instant hits, even in this edition.
I would actually like to see flak weapons deal multiple damage to aircraft if it hits.
How do you know this?
Sorry, I didn't formulate the my phrase right.
I meant to say that as flyers are immune to instant hits now, it is likely that they will continue being immune to instant hits.
Future War Cultist wrote: Again, I'm very pleased with what they're doing. I'm so happy tarpitting is gone. And I'm imagining the tactical possibilities too.
I've won more than a few games because opponents forget that I don't have to stay in combat, so my Skyfires dart off to seize an objective for game win.
Very fun, but also very engagjng when an opponent realizes you can do this, each person reacts to it differently.
Future War Cultist wrote: Again, I'm very pleased with what they're doing. I'm so happy tarpitting is gone. And I'm imagining the tactical possibilities too.
I wonder how it works if you are surrounded (or literally have backs to a wall) as they've stated you can't move through models?
I'm thinking that it may work similar to now, where if you cannot fall back w/o doubling back, or coming w/in 1" of an enemy model, the unit is destroyed.
Would open up some interesting tactical advancements, where you know you can't necessarily tarpit something any more, so you surround the combat either forcing them to stay and draw the combat out, or be destroyed. Now, whether you can afford to keep that combat surrounded, will also play into the tactical game a bit as well.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
I'm also firmly in the camp of just making running and charging double your base movement rate. Random movement is just a bad mechanic.
Definitely in the disappointed camp with the random run roll.
Randomisation in 7th was my biggest pet hate - random run, random charge, random warp charges, random psychic powers, random warlord traits, random objectives, random random, random.
They have definitely missed the boat with that rule.
Ratius wrote: Definitely in the disappointed camp with the random run roll.
Randomisation in 7th was my biggest pet hate - random run, random charge, random warp charges, random psychic powers, random warlord traits, random objectives, random random, random.
They have definitely missed the boat with that rule.
And if you played daemons... Random wargear. Random storm table.
Really hope overwatch is gone now. If everyone can just move their engaged unit out of combat to allow their army to shoot at the enemy unit, then there is really no need to let them have an extra round of shooting in the opponents turn.
The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Isn't it only a turn after the charge though? If so, you should have a turn to wail on them for a bit, and then shoot them when they try to retreat. Yep, it says "if you are in combat at the start of your turn". So you have one turn to deal as much damage to the unit you charged, before they coward out and run away.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
I'd not be so pessimistic, orks might get some sweet stuff. At least lootas will get a nice rend in their deffguns.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
The Orks also get to attack first if they charge, and we don't know if Orks get to pile into combat after the fights end--a way that in AoS some units can effectively keep people "locked in".
Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Isn't it only a turn after the charge though? If so, you should have a turn to wail on them for a bit, and then shoot them when they try to retreat.
Well you should of killed them faster im fine with assault lines not having assault protection anymore. and besides its possible you might be able to attempt to catch them if they try and run off. we dont have the full rules.
While I agree with the sentiment that random Run is a let down ( I would have preferred Run to equal 1/2 normal movement) Getting rid of ALL randomness in the game would suck. I liked the introduction of random charge ranges because in 5th everyone would just move outside of the 12" Move/Charge gap and keep firing at your pathetic melee units. Random charge range allowed melee units a chance to "catch" these jerks, but of course, that should never be allowed to happen in 40K so they threw in Overwatch to keep melee handicapped... :(
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Please relax, please. They didn't say assault after advance was out, also we haven't had any indication of overwatch and casualties may be removable from the rear again, don't know yet but AoS lets you remove who you want. If you have a unit that moves 12" like storm boyz, with a run roll and an assault move that average another 11" total (3d6 average) you can now assault 23" on average with something like storm boyz and all your weapons strike first. Yea, it's clearly time to shed tears s/
Chill mate, if even half what I listed is true they HAD to give shooty armies a way to disengage or you would simply be shifting the edition back to dominant assault. Besides, in AoS you must clear the engagement range with every models move, so if a horde of boys hits their line and they can't get away they are stuck. Just wait I promise it will be OK
Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Its a valid point to be fair. My first thought when I saw SMs at M6 with the likes of say hormies or bikes at 8 or even 12 was that the standard 6x4 is definitely going to "feel smaller".
the last thing gunline or more fragile armies need is t1 charges or shenanigans like that.
Im quite interested in how they actually balance out the units with much higher M stats. Perhaps terrain will be -2 or -4 inches or halfing movement etc.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Please relax, please. They didn't say assault after advance was out, also we haven't had any indication of overwatch and casualties may be removable from the rear again, don't know yet but AoS lets you remove who you want. If you have a unit that moves 12" like storm boyz, with a run roll and an assault move that average another 11" total (3d6 average) you can now assault 23" on average with something like storm boyz and all your weapons strike first. Yea, it's clearly time to shed tears s/
Chill mate, if even half what I listed is true they HAD to give shooty armies a way to disengage or you would simply be shifting the edition back to dominant assault. Besides, in AoS you must clear the engagement range with every models move, so if a horde of boys hits their line and they can't get away they are stuck. Just wait I promise it will be OK
Can't wait to see more jump troops getting used for hit-and-run tactics. Especially if Hit-And-Run turns out to be a good SR!
Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.
Wondering how this will affect units like my Ravenwing with Hit and Run... Not so special when everyone can do it...
Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.
We'll see
Instead of not being able to do anything after a fallback Ravenwing might be able to shoot. We'll just have to wait and see. I really enjoy the whole concept.
Also, Psychic Phase tomorrow!
Indeed - there are lots of units in AOS that can do this sort of thing.
Its a valid point to be fair. My first thought when I saw SMs at M6 with the likes of say hormies or bikes at 8 or even 12 was that the standard 6x4 is definitely going to "feel smaller".
the last thing gunline or more fragile armies need is t1 charges or shenanigans like that.
Im quite interested in how they actually balance out the units with much higher M stats. Perhaps terrain will be -2 or -4 inches or halfing movement etc.
Care to explain how units having the same movement = more movement? Everything moved 6 or 12 already and fleet increased charge distance for stupid units no one used like hormagaunts
Its a valid point to be fair. My first thought when I saw SMs at M6 with the likes of say hormies or bikes at 8 or even 12 was that the standard 6x4 is definitely going to "feel smaller".
the last thing gunline or more fragile armies need is t1 charges or shenanigans like that.
Im quite interested in how they actually balance out the units with much higher M stats. Perhaps terrain will be -2 or -4 inches or halfing movement etc.
Care to explain how units having the same movement = more movement? Everything moved 6 or 12 already and fleet increased charge distance for stupid units no one used like hormagaunts
Things don't have the same movement from what's been said so far.
They said Hormagaunts are at the high end of Movement values, "faster than even Eldar".
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
The Orks also get to attack first if they charge, and we don't know if Orks get to pile into combat after the fights end--a way that in AoS some units can effectively keep people "locked in".
^This! STRIKING first with Orks on the charge is such a massive boone... I'm not worried that the unit may fall back. Presumably, that unit would effectively be "pinned" in their turn.
Its a valid point to be fair. My first thought when I saw SMs at M6 with the likes of say hormies or bikes at 8 or even 12 was that the standard 6x4 is definitely going to "feel smaller".
the last thing gunline or more fragile armies need is t1 charges or shenanigans like that.
Im quite interested in how they actually balance out the units with much higher M stats. Perhaps terrain will be -2 or -4 inches or halfing movement etc.
Care to explain how units having the same movement = more movement? Everything moved 6 or 12 already and fleet increased charge distance for stupid units no one used like hormagaunts
Because there will be plenty of units that will be able to move more than the 6" that they were limited to in 7th edition. True this is borderline irrelevant to units that already had a 12" movement, but hormagaunts will like very much to have a movement of 8".
Care to explain how units having the same movement = more movement? Everything moved 6 or 12 already and fleet increased charge distance for stupid units no one used like hormagaunts
Hmm? SMs are 6, its likely Eldar will be 7 or even 8, hormies maybe even 9. Bikes/jetbikes even faster. How is that all the same?
Add a lucky run roll of 6 to that and hormies can move 15" a turn compared to 12 currently. Then throw in a charge move of X (if its like older editions this could well be double the M stat). So thats 9+6+18 for Hormies.
Thats a shrinking battlefield right there.
Granted this is all just still speculation.
Fleet didnt increase charge distacne, it simply, gave you a chance to reroll it. You could still roll a 1 for your run or the dreaded snakeyes for your charge.
keltikhoa wrote: Anyone have an idea on how "always hit first on charge" works with "alternating activations"?
Don't play aos so not sure if this is obvious.
They haven't fully explained this, but the general thought is that you'll always do chargers first and then go to alternating activations afterwards.
I doubt assaulting after an Advance move will be part of the core rules. That's something that's much more sensible to bolt on to specific armies and their strategems/special rules.
If, for example, an ork Warboss had an ability that let units within X" Advance and then Charge, then suddenly both players have strategic choices to make. Run him with your choppa boys to tie down the enemy line faster, or your slow meganobs? Overextend to snipe the lynchpin warboss, or try and thin out the tide?
keltikhoa wrote: Anyone have an idea on how "always hit first on charge" works with "alternating activations"?
Don't play aos so not sure if this is obvious.
You'd resolve units that charged first.
Let's say you're playing a game, it comes to the Combat Phase.
It is Player 1's turn, so he has what is effectively "priority".
Player 1 controls Units A, B, C, and D.
Player 2 controls Units X, Y, Z, and W.
Units A and D charged into a combat with Unit W.
Unit B is engaged in an ongoing combat with Unit X and Z.
Unit C got charged by unit Y.
Units A, D, and Y would then resolve their attacks first.
After the charges are resolved, Player 1 can activate Unit B or C. He activates Unit C, striking Unit Y.
Player 2 goes next, he can activate Units W, X, or Z. He activates Unit W, striking at both Units A and D(in AoS, you can split attacks among units that you're in combat with--you don't just have to strike one unit).
Player 1 now activates Unit B, piling his models in closer to Unit X before striking and devoting those attacks at Unit X so Unit Z no longer is in melee range(with AoS, there's a range on melee weapons).
Player 1 now has no more units to activate; Player 2 now resolves his remaining units that are in the combat.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
I'd not be so pessimistic, orks might get some sweet stuff. At least lootas will get a nice rend in their deffguns.
Why do you assume that? I've been guessing the rend system is based on current ap ratings of weapons. AP5 & 6: no rend, AP4 rend 1, AP3 rend 2, AP2 rend 3, AP1 rend 4. Something like that.
If Tau suits maintain their speed and mobility it means more shooting if they survive the assault charge. So the Riptide can probably get away with wounds and fight at reduced capacity for another turn or two.
Interesting. Please let Kroot have a buff now and I can bust out even more of my beloveds. Mmmm Kroot and Breacher teams will make for some spicey goodness.
Edit
Depending on the balancing the meta could go either way. If follow up melee or shooting is enough to destroy those who escape from charging then tar pitting and charging will still be in the meta kinda just modified. However if the chargers get killed after their targets escape then I could see the end of the tarpit meta. It all depends on balancing. Or if balancing is perfect it could simply be another tactical tool at a players disposal that may or may not work depending on the units in question. My preference is for option 3. I don't want anything to become so good its a meta. Let's hope GW hits these rules out of the park. I like this a lot.
If Tau suits maintain their speed and mobility it means more shooting if they survive the assault charge. So the Riptide can probably get away with wounds and fight at reduced capacity for another turn or two.
It also means that they're pinned for at least one turn, and then you can go around and pin the next unit in your turn without worrying about those (now thinned out) suits shooting ya
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Please relax, please. They didn't say assault after advance was out, also we haven't had any indication of overwatch and casualties may be removable from the rear again, don't know yet but AoS lets you remove who you want. If you have a unit that moves 12" like storm boyz, with a run roll and an assault move that average another 11" total (3d6 average) you can now assault 23" on average with something like storm boyz and all your weapons strike first. Yea, it's clearly time to shed tears s/
Chill mate, if even half what I listed is true they HAD to give shooty armies a way to disengage or you would simply be shifting the edition back to dominant assault. Besides, in AoS you must clear the engagement range with every models move, so if a horde of boys hits their line and they can't get away they are stuck. Just wait I promise it will be OK
We dont know how close combat work yet, I doubt that we will be able to strike with a complete 30 strong mob if it is anything like AoS. I strongly doubt that we will get more than 2 attacks on the charge if attacker strikes first.
keltikhoa wrote: Anyone have an idea on how "always hit first on charge" works with "alternating activations"?
Don't play aos so not sure if this is obvious.
You'd resolve units that charged first.
Let's say you're playing a game, it comes to the Combat Phase.
It is Player 1's turn, so he has what is effectively "priority".
Player 1 controls Units A, B, C, and D.
Player 2 controls Units X, Y, Z, and W.
Units A and D charged into a combat with Unit W.
Unit B is engaged in an ongoing combat with Unit X and Z.
Unit C got charged by unit Y.
Units A, D, and Y would then resolve their attacks first.
After the charges are resolved, Player 1 can activate Unit B or C. He activates Unit C, striking Unit Y.
Player 2 goes next, he can activate Units W, X, or Z. He activates Unit W, striking at both Units A and D(in AoS, you can split attacks among units that you're in combat with--you don't just have to strike one unit).
Player 1 now activates Unit B, piling his models in closer to Unit X before striking and devoting those attacks at Unit X so Unit Z no longer is in melee range(with AoS, there's a range on melee weapons).
Player 1 now has no more units to activate; Player 2 now resolves his remaining units that are in the combat.
How on earth did player 2's unit Y charge in player 1's turn?
keltikhoa wrote: Anyone have an idea on how "always hit first on charge" works with "alternating activations"?
Don't play aos so not sure if this is obvious.
You'd resolve units that charged first.
Let's say you're playing a game, it comes to the Combat Phase.
It is Player 1's turn, so he has what is effectively "priority".
Player 1 controls Units A, B, C, and D.
Player 2 controls Units X, Y, Z, and W.
Units A and D charged into a combat with Unit W.
Unit B is engaged in an ongoing combat with Unit X and Z.
Unit C got charged by unit Y.
Units A, D, and Y would then resolve their attacks first.
After the charges are resolved, Player 1 can activate Unit B or C. He activates Unit C, striking Unit Y.
Player 2 goes next, he can activate Units W, X, or Z. He activates Unit W, striking at both Units A and D(in AoS, you can split attacks among units that you're in combat with--you don't just have to strike one unit).
Player 1 now activates Unit B, piling his models in closer to Unit X before striking and devoting those attacks at Unit X so Unit Z no longer is in melee range(with AoS, there's a range on melee weapons).
Player 1 now has no more units to activate; Player 2 now resolves his remaining units that are in the combat.
How on earth did player 2's unit Y charge in player 1's turn?
Maybe a special rule, who knows.
I threw it in there more as an example of how it 'overrides' the priority of whose turn it is to go first.
If Tau suits maintain their speed and mobility it means more shooting if they survive the assault charge. So the Riptide can probably get away with wounds and fight at reduced capacity for another turn or two.
It also means that they're pinned for at least one turn, and then you can go around and pin the next unit in your turn without worrying about those (now thinned out) suits shooting ya
Yeah true for normal suits, but the Riptide will most definitely want to be on the frontline. If anything in your army wants to get charged it's something that can take it to escape again. SInce it will be fighting at a reduced capacity but still alive where as a smaller lesser suit team will likely get destroyed or weakened. It all depends on the numbers. Unless the Tau get something else better for frontline fodder than kroot or RIptides I expect that is all we'll have. Escaping from melee though will leave you open to other shooters. Interesting. I wonder what the meta will be. If one option is clearly better follow up melee charges or shooting those who had assaulted it will likely push the meta into melee or ranged dominance. I hope it's balanced enough that retreating isn't pointless all the time since follow up charges would annihilate everyone anyways. However I want it to still work as an option too just not an infallible one.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
Isn't it only a turn after the charge though? If so, you should have a turn to wail on them for a bit, and then shoot them when they try to retreat.
Well you should of killed them faster im fine with assault lines not having assault protection anymore. and besides its possible you might be able to attempt to catch them if they try and run off. we dont have the full rules.
Yes, we will kill their vanguard with our main force, but then our main force is eliminated, leaving their main force untouched.
Depending on the rules.
Edit: Having said that, i has a think. What if we attack their front liners with a tiny force of our own? then both vanguards die, but leaving our main force ready to assault theirs.
Edit: Having said that, i has a think. What if we attack their front liners with a tiny force of our own? then both vanguards die, but leaving our main force ready to assault theirs.
Depending on the rules.
You've described bubble wrap as it exists and has existsed for just about ever.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
Wow, that's actually a great idea. Like, 6" jog 10" sprint for typical infantry? Sounds good.
But anyone worried about the orks, don't worry. If they take inspiration from the destruction factions of AoS then they'll be really fast and hit like a tonne of bricks. Even night goblins are lethal when used right.
Pretty much. GB makes you spend a point of influence to sprint instead of a jog (and a model can only make one advance of any type per activation under normal circumstance) but forfeiting shooting would be a more than adequate cost in 40K.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
Wow, that's actually a great idea. Like, 6" jog 10" sprint for typical infantry? Sounds good.
But anyone worried about the orks, don't worry. If they take inspiration from the destruction factions of AoS then they'll be really fast and hit like a tonne of bricks. Even night goblins are lethal when used right.
That is oddly enough one of my worries about what will become of the orks, i like my orks shooty and dislike the one dimensional close combat horde.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
Wow, that's actually a great idea. Like, 6" jog 10" sprint for typical infantry? Sounds good.
But anyone worried about the orks, don't worry. If they take inspiration from the destruction factions of AoS then they'll be really fast and hit like a tonne of bricks. Even night goblins are lethal when used right.
That is oddly enough one of my worries about what will become of the orks, i like my orks shooty and dislike the one dimensional close combat horde.
Well I believe you would need to go back to 2nd edition my friend. Orks have been a horde assault element for a LONG time now.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
Wow, that's actually a great idea. Like, 6" jog 10" sprint for typical infantry? Sounds good.
But anyone worried about the orks, don't worry. If they take inspiration from the destruction factions of AoS then they'll be really fast and hit like a tonne of bricks. Even night goblins are lethal when used right.
That is oddly enough one of my worries about what will become of the orks, i like my orks shooty and dislike the one dimensional close combat horde.
Well I believe you would need to go back to 2nd edition my friend. Orks have been a horde assault element for a LONG time now.
I strongly remember ork gunlines in both 5th and 6th with lots of lootas and shoota armed boys.
Future War Cultist wrote: And in another thread we created a 'cult of dakka' faction. I don't like lumping armies into one playstyle. Variety is the spice of life after all.
Future War Cultist wrote: And in another thread we created a 'cult of dakka' faction. I don't like lumping armies into one playstyle. Variety is the spice of life after all.
Exactly!
I am sure lootas, dakka jets, shoota boyz and flash gits will still be very shooty.
Oh nice. In the current edition if you didn't kill the unit right away your melee guys at least had the privilege of not being torn to shreads during the enemy's shooting phase. Seems like 8th gonna be more in the lines of "Oh wow, you've somehow managed to not get your melee guys horribly murdered and actually make it into CQC? Well, good for you. Let me just stuff their faces with my army's worth of gunfire at point blank range anyway. I mean surely you weren't expecting them to kill anything more than 1 layer of bubble wrap, were you?" I mean melee in 7th was far from great but if alternating activation is also gonna be a thing, then melee in 8th is gonna be just a flaming pile of trash.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice.
In the current edition if you didn't kill the unit right away your melee guys at least had the privilege of not being torn to shreads during the enemy's shooting phase. Seems like 8th gonna be more in the lines of "Oh wow, you've somehow managed to not get your melee guys horribly murdered and actually make it into CQC?
Well, good for you. Let me just stuff their faces with my army's worth of gunfire at point blank range anyway. I mean surely you weren't expecting them to kill anything more than 1 layer of bubble wrap, were you?"
I mean melee in 7th was far from great but if alternating activation is also gonna be a thing, then melee in 8th is gonna be just a flaming pile of trash.
Bubble wrap had to be dealt with last edition, and it will need to be dealt with this edition too. Just the manner with which its dealt will change.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice.
In the current edition if you didn't kill the unit right away your melee guys at least had the privilege of not being torn to shreads during the enemy's shooting phase. Seems like 8th gonna be more in the lines of "Oh wow, you've somehow managed to not get your melee guys horribly murdered and actually make it into CQC?
Well, good for you. Let me just stuff their faces with my army's worth of gunfire at point blank range anyway. I mean surely you weren't expecting them to kill anything more than 1 layer of bubble wrap, were you?"
I mean melee in 7th was far from great but if alternating activation is also gonna be a thing, then melee in 8th is gonna be just a flaming pile of trash.
Bubble wrap had to be dealt with last edition, and it will need to be dealt with this edition too. Just the manner with which its dealt will change.
That's not the point though. In the current edition you can't forcefully expose enemy melee units to your gunfire.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice.
In the current edition if you didn't kill the unit right away your melee guys at least had the privilege of not being torn to shreads during the enemy's shooting phase. Seems like 8th gonna be more in the lines of "Oh wow, you've somehow managed to not get your melee guys horribly murdered and actually make it into CQC?
Well, good for you. Let me just stuff their faces with my army's worth of gunfire at point blank range anyway. I mean surely you weren't expecting them to kill anything more than 1 layer of bubble wrap, were you?"
I mean melee in 7th was far from great but if alternating activation is also gonna be a thing, then melee in 8th is gonna be just a flaming pile of trash.
Bubble wrap had to be dealt with last edition, and it will need to be dealt with this edition too. Just the manner with which its dealt will change.
That's not the point though. In the current edition you can't forcefully expose enemy melee units to your gunfire.
Yes you can; hit and run, our weapons are useless and using calgar allow you to do this as it stands. Its tactical and interesting; it will be the same in 8th
This is why I think Bolt Action has it right. Units in cc fight until one is wiped out. It's clean and makes cc very decisive. But I can't judge just yet because we don't know the full picture yet.
Disengaging in exchange for pinning is a good, clean rule and a good development. A truly amazing rule would be one that gave the assaulting troops some kind of benny in the following turn as well - so once you broke into the enemy line it was harder to stop you with gun fire, but not impossible. GW assault phase movement has always had issues, and this is a solid development. If they also eliminated having to make pile in moves all the time that would be great. It amuses me to see GW patting themselves on the back for allowing you to make your run roll during the movement phase, something just about everyone who cared about game length thought of or house ruled. I think fall back works well with fast assaults, even turn one. Yes, you get hit, but it isn't the end of the world. The long slog to a win or die assault isn't as interesting as a series of assaults.
kestral wrote: Disengaging in exchange for pinning is a good, clean rule and a good development. A truly amazing rule would be one that gave the assaulting troops some kind of benny in the following turn as well - so once you broke into the enemy line it was harder to stop you with gun fire, but not impossible. GW assault phase movement has always had issues, and this is a solid development. If they also eliminated having to make pile in moves all the time that would be great. It amuses me to see GW patting themselves on the back for allowing you to make your run roll during the movement phase, something just about everyone who cared about game length thought of or house ruled. I think fall back works well with fast assaults, even turn one. Yes, you get hit, but it isn't the end of the world. The long slog to a win or die assault isn't as interesting as a series of assaults.
im 99% sure there will be a rule to allow you to attempt to catch and or wipe out the enemy as they run away.
Anyone who has used the 7ed Hit & Run used the tactic of being in assault and in your opponent's turn "hit & run" out of combat, so that in your turn you can shoot at the same unit (possible re-assault).
Given what we know now, looks like just about every unit can utilize that tactic, except when you leave combat you're effectively "pinned" (unless you have a rule that override that, like 8th ed H&R).
Future War Cultist wrote: This is why I think Bolt Action has it right. Units in cc fight until one is wiped out. It's clean and makes cc very decisive. But I can't judge just yet because we don't know the full picture yet.
I am not positive but I think assaults resolve much quicker in that game as well. In 40k doing this for as frequent as assaults are, another thing not super common in bolt action, and you could be spending a lot of time in one phase.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Oh nice.
In the current edition if you didn't kill the unit right away your melee guys at least had the privilege of not being torn to shreads during the enemy's shooting phase. Seems like 8th gonna be more in the lines of "Oh wow, you've somehow managed to not get your melee guys horribly murdered and actually make it into CQC?
Well, good for you. Let me just stuff their faces with my army's worth of gunfire at point blank range anyway. I mean surely you weren't expecting them to kill anything more than 1 layer of bubble wrap, were you?"
I mean melee in 7th was far from great but if alternating activation is also gonna be a thing, then melee in 8th is gonna be just a flaming pile of trash.
Bubble wrap had to be dealt with last edition, and it will need to be dealt with this edition too. Just the manner with which its dealt will change.
That's not the point though. In the current edition you can't forcefully expose enemy melee units to your gunfire.
Yes you can; hit and run, our weapons are useless and using calgar allow you to do this as it stands. Its tactical and interesting; it will be the same in 8th
Hit&Run is not that common and usually only melee units have it - not the units you'd typically use to bubble wrap your forces or slow down the enemy. Also you can still fail it, although the possibilities vary from unit to unit.
Our weapons are useless would normally come in play vs armor or T7 at the very least, so its much more rare than Hit&Run.
Allowing everyone to do this (especially extremely shooty armies) is simply a bad mechanic.
Future War Cultist wrote: This is why I think Bolt Action has it right. Units in cc fight until one is wiped out. It's clean and makes cc very decisive. .
That only works if you don't have combats where neither side can actually hurt the other, as happens all too often in 40K.
kestral wrote: Disengaging in exchange for pinning is a good, clean rule and a good development. A truly amazing rule would be one that gave the assaulting troops some kind of benny in the following turn as well - so once you broke into the enemy line it was harder to stop you with gun fire, but not impossible. GW assault phase movement has always had issues, and this is a solid development. If they also eliminated having to make pile in moves all the time that would be great. It amuses me to see GW patting themselves on the back for allowing you to make your run roll during the movement phase, something just about everyone who cared about game length thought of or house ruled. I think fall back works well with fast assaults, even turn one. Yes, you get hit, but it isn't the end of the world. The long slog to a win or die assault isn't as interesting as a series of assaults.
im 99% sure there will be a rule to allow you to attempt to catch and or wipe out the enemy as they run away.
The issue is not in the ability to kill the enemy unit. If you are willing to move them out of combat chances are they would be dead in the next round of melee anyway. This will however vastly decrease the survivability of close combat units.
Begin to hear rumors about the launch of 8th edition in the comments section Sergio gives specific dates:
" Warhammer 40k 8th enters preorder on June 3 goes on sale on June 17 , the box for two typical players of all editions will be Ultramarines (new rescaled ) vs death guard ."
There are still plenty of opportunities for rules changed to Assault:
Are you still limited to charging only a unit you shot?
Are you limited to strait line movement when you charge?
Can you draw units into close combat like in AOS using your pile-in move?
JimOnMars wrote: The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.
It just means you need to be more tactical, not just rush one unit in to the middle of an army. This is better as much as it makes me sad for my Typhus and his spawn squad!
Any idea what the starter set will be? Just based on all the releases, I'm guessing it'll be Space Marines vs Death Guard, which I'm totally down for. Aside from that, what else do you think will be in there?
-Rulebook?
-Intro to play and a couple missions
-No more templates!! (Can't tell if I love this or hate this)
-Maybe some cardboard terrain?
Future War Cultist wrote: This is why I think Bolt Action has it right. Units in cc fight until one is wiped out. It's clean and makes cc very decisive. .
That only works if you don't have combats where neither side can actually hurt the other, as happens all too often in 40K.
But that's what we now right? Everything can hurt anything, even if it's unlikely.
Begin to hear rumors about the launch of 8th edition in the comments section Sergio gives specific dates:
" Warhammer 40k 8th enters preorder on June 3 goes on sale on June 17 , the box for two typical players of all editions will be Ultramarines (new rescaled ) vs death guard ."
I would guess this is the release of the starter yes, but I am banking on the digital release and new factions sooner actually. Again, I can't remember where but there was a schedule of a WW event maybe, but either way it was an event that had a GW painting seminar for death guard and it was scheduled for the last weekend in May. maybe someone else remembers better then me.
KTG17 wrote: Anyone have any ideas on the contents of the starter set?
new upscaled ultramarines, not sure if it will have the iconography forced onto the models or if we can use them for any chapter. Death Guard are pretty much guaranteed now to be the other force. I can barely make out new flying marines, tacticals obviously. Also it looks like some flying nurgle stuff as well. Honestly I just want to see some better photos of this stuff, nothing more annoying that a blurry picture like that. I think GW should 'accidentally' leak some better photos for us!
If I go half and half on the starter box with my friend I'll be taking the imperial marines. I went chaos with AoS so I have to mix it up. Even though those death guard models are pretty sweet...I'm conflicted.
I think it was Warhammerfest May 27-28th that had a schedualed deathguard painting seminar. That said, that is only the weekend prior to June 3rd. Time flies too fast either way, so despite being excited I will refrain from wishing my life away for 8th to arrive sooner ha ha.
kestral wrote: Disengaging in exchange for pinning is a good, clean rule and a good development. A truly amazing rule would be one that gave the assaulting troops some kind of benny in the following turn as well - so once you broke into the enemy line it was harder to stop you with gun fire, but not impossible. GW assault phase movement has always had issues, and this is a solid development. If they also eliminated having to make pile in moves all the time that would be great. It amuses me to see GW patting themselves on the back for allowing you to make your run roll during the movement phase, something just about everyone who cared about game length thought of or house ruled. I think fall back works well with fast assaults, even turn one. Yes, you get hit, but it isn't the end of the world. The long slog to a win or die assault isn't as interesting as a series of assaults.
im 99% sure there will be a rule to allow you to attempt to catch and or wipe out the enemy as they run away.
Hopefully
I like the fact that units can disengage from CC, but if the can do it automitacally and wth no disavantage, it would be AOS bad.
Really eager to see what they'll do with the psychic phase. Hope it doesn't turn back into a single ld roll or something boring like that.
And is the rumour about vehicules potentially exploiding true? If it is, this could be interesting
Retrogamer0001 wrote: So are the Death Guard in the new box re-scaled as well? Is everything getting rescaled, or just these marines? Are they a new unit?
No one knows and anyone who tells you otherwise is just speculating. Warhammer Community will be where to go to find that information when it drops.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: So are the Death Guard in the new box re-scaled as well? Is everything getting rescaled, or just these marines? Are they a new unit?
The numarines are probably the new faction, along with the death guard, that makes the two new factions available at launch.
I've just been struck by a thought. 6-7th have been like 2nd Ed Lite in terms of the amount of rules, bookkeeping etc..
8th is a reset akin to how 3rd was, but when 3rd came around I was the one who lost my gak about all the changes, and completely failed to look at all the positives the changes brought and only focused on what I couldn't do any more.
I sold all my models and it took til mid 5th before I could actually look back and gain some perspective and appreciate the positives.
Now I'm seeing other people going through the same process (if it isn't for the first time, shame on you for not being more self aware) and I feel compelled to tell you that it'll be ok.
I am more positive about this than I've been about anything GW for a while (I even bought some GW models for the first time yesterday in over a year, discounted on eBay, I haven't lost my mind) and I'm one of the Four Horsemen of the GW Apocalypse!!
I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?
Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition. In fact, it sometimes seems as if GW design deliberately makes something awful just so they can trumpet "X is viable again!" in next edition. What are the chances we hear "Vehicles are no longer just like monstrous creatures!" in 9th?
As for recipe analogies, I like eggs, but I don't like pepper. If something contains pepper it's not gonna be my dream food. Might still be good, would probably still eat it, especially if hungry, but it's not plus. And there are some pepper filled things I just can't enjoy. Others of course may love pepper, more power to 'em.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.
If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.
They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.
Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.
At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!
Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.
The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..
I like that! Sounds kind of like Dust: Tactics. Good system.
kestral wrote: Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition. In fact, it sometimes seems as if GW design deliberately makes something awful just so they can trumpet "X is viable again!" in next edition. What are the chances we hear "Vehicles are no longer just like monstrous creatures!" in 9th?
As for recipe analogies, I like eggs, but I don't like pepper. If something contains pepper it's not gonna be my dream food. Might still be good, would probably still eat it, especially if hungry, but it's not plus. And there are some pepper filled things I just can't enjoy. Others of course may love pepper, more power to 'em.
It's kind of disingenuous to compare the biggest change to the 40k rules in 20 years to the previous edition changes. I do get it, you don't trust GW and there is good reason for it, I myself haven't played 40k in 6 or 7 years and didn't expect to feel optimistic for this new edition, but there is also evidence to show that things are different now.
kestral wrote: Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition..
Which is precisely why it is very easy to be positive. That and they've simply come out and said they're doing a bunch of new stuff in terms of process that seems to be addressing so many criticisms of best editions.
It's not going to be flawless, but eh, what you going to do?
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?
What number wouldn't seem low to you? 10? 50? 100? 1000000? Whatever the first number that would be totally impossible to actually do right? So that you could whine no matter what?
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?
It isn't necessary for every army to play every other army to a high degree. Each faction got over 70 games...that's 14 tournaments. If the numbers are to be believed.
I'm very excited about the new edition, personally. No so much due to any particular rule changes, though they mostly sound pretty good to me. Mostly because I might actually play the game.
I haven't played a game of 40k in a long time. I don't think I've played 7th at all. I don't get together that often with my gaming group, and we have a lot of different interests. So even a game I really like I don't play that often. So when I'm deciding what game to play, and to play 7th edition 40k I'd need to buy an $85 rule book, a $50 codex, and a codex supplement or campaign book on top of that, then read and learn all those rules and rearrange my armies due to the new rules and formations, before I can even start a game... I don't have the time or money to invest in that just to play the occasional game of 40k.
On top of that, from what I hear about 7th edition and my experience with 6th edition, it honestly sounds like a chore to play a game of 40k.
This new version will have free, concise rules. I can play a game without a huge time and money investment just to try it out. So 8th edition I will actually play. And I suspect there are plenty of other people in a similar situation, that haven't kept up with the pace of 40k bloat, who are looking forward to trying out 8th edition.
I think I could live with their current level of playtesting, especially since they outsourced to get a fresh perspective on things. My point was, if this is by far their most playtested rules set, what did they do for other editions (like the ones with obvious rules holes)? I'm willing to bet many armies never saw the playtesting table at all, let alone all possible combos.
I wasn't really whining about 8th. In many ways I am actually looking forward to it. This new direction GW is going is wonderful, and I hope they keep it up. It seems not too long ago they shunned having an internet presence, took YEARS for FAQ's, barely listened to customer feedback, and all but ignored game metas that were not their own.
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
UK Games Expo runs the weekend 2nd - 4th June. This is GW's first time there and they have a 150 square foot stand. ( Im working there so going to try and get some time chatting to them)
This would seem the ideal time to announce 8th as UKGE gets around 25000 attendees so lots of new players as well as existing ones.
Furthermore Warhammer World is holding its final Throne of Skulls the weekend 17th - 18th June. If seems entirely appropriate to have a last hurrah of 7th with lots of players able to pick up all the new releases on that weekend.
I haven't played a game of 40k in a long time. I don't think I've played 7th at all. I don't get together that often with my gaming group, and we have a lot of different interests. So even a game I really like I don't play that often. So when I'm deciding what game to play, and to play 7th edition 40k I'd need to buy an $85 rule book, a $50 codex, and a codex supplement or campaign book on top of that, then read and learn all those rules and rearrange my armies due to the new rules and formations, before I can even start a game... I don't have the time or money to invest in that just to play the occasional game of 40k.
I very much agree. Cheap to free, with hopefully cheap to free updates? That is a huge change for the better, and 8th would have to be close to unplayable to outweigh it.
Azreal13 wrote: I've just been struck by a thought. 6-7th have been like 2nd Ed Lite in terms of the amount of rules, bookkeeping etc..
8th is a reset akin to how 3rd was, but when 3rd came around I was the one who lost my gak about all the changes, and completely failed to look at all the positives the changes brought and only focused on what I couldn't do any more.
I sold all my models and it took til mid 5th before I could actually look back and gain some perspective and appreciate the positives.
Now I'm seeing other people going through the same process (if it isn't for the first time, shame on you for not being more self aware) and I feel compelled to tell you that it'll be ok.
I am more positive about this than I've been about anything GW for a while (I even bought some GW models for the first time yesterday in over a year, discounted on eBay, I haven't lost my mind) and I'm one of the Four Horsemen of the GW Apocalypse!!
It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.
I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.
Flamers are still flamers. Bolters are still bolters, Space Marines are still Space Marines... they just have slightly different statlines to do pretty much exactly what they did before. Dreadnoughts, from all appearances, will die even more easily than they did in 6th edition, and that's disappointing.
I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.
cuda1179 wrote: I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?
It isn't necessary for every army to play every other army to a high degree. Each faction got over 70 games...that's 14 tournaments. If the numbers are to be believed.
Not to mention all the adjustments that didn't need to be play tested before being smacked with the nope hammer. People used to balancing the game for tournament play (or trying to) wouldn't need 70 games to conclude that a 7th Wraithknight was undercosted, they'd look at the stats, bung what they thought was an appropriate points increase on it before rolling a dice, and then refine it over a few games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.
Well, I guess there's a debate to be had at what point a game crosses the line between a new edition and simply a new game.
The main issue for me is that nearly all issues stem from the faction rules, not the core rules, and there's next to no information on those yet.
You know. Thinking over command points, and having another person comment the same I've been thinking, has made me realize they sound QUITE similar to LoTR's fate points in terms of functions.
Azreal13 wrote: I've just been struck by a thought. 6-7th have been like 2nd Ed Lite in terms of the amount of rules, bookkeeping etc..
8th is a reset akin to how 3rd was, but when 3rd came around I was the one who lost my gak about all the changes, and completely failed to look at all the positives the changes brought and only focused on what I couldn't do any more.
I sold all my models and it took til mid 5th before I could actually look back and gain some perspective and appreciate the positives.
Now I'm seeing other people going through the same process (if it isn't for the first time, shame on you for not being more self aware) and I feel compelled to tell you that it'll be ok.
I am more positive about this than I've been about anything GW for a while (I even bought some GW models for the first time yesterday in over a year, discounted on eBay, I haven't lost my mind) and I'm one of the Four Horsemen of the GW Apocalypse!!
It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.
I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.
Flamers are still flamers. Bolters are still bolters, Space Marines are still Space Marines... they just have slightly different statlines to do pretty much exactly what they did before. Dreadnoughts, from all appearances, will die even more easily than they did in 6th edition, and that's disappointing.
I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.
Couldn't you say that about pretty much any game though? 30k and AoS already ARE that, Warmahordes, Infinity, Bolt action, even malifaux all essentially boil down to 'move miniatures around and try to kill each other or get objectives. With randomization systems!.'
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
That's not true, AoS is a simple game, and he just stated that he is easily confused!
edit: Unless you were talking about Streetsamurai sorry.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I'm very excited about the new edition, personally. No so much due to any particular rule changes, though they mostly sound pretty good to me. Mostly because I might actually play the game.
I haven't played a game of 40k in a long time. I don't think I've played 7th at all. I don't get together that often with my gaming group, and we have a lot of different interests. So even a game I really like I don't play that often. So when I'm deciding what game to play, and to play 7th edition 40k I'd need to buy an $85 rule book, a $50 codex, and a codex supplement or campaign book on top of that, then read and learn all those rules and rearrange my armies due to the new rules and formations, before I can even start a game... I don't have the time or money to invest in that just to play the occasional game of 40k.
On top of that, from what I hear about 7th edition and my experience with 6th edition, it honestly sounds like a chore to play a game of 40k.
This new version will have free, concise rules. I can play a game without a huge time and money investment just to try it out. So 8th edition I will actually play. And I suspect there are plenty of other people in a similar situation, that haven't kept up with the pace of 40k bloat, who are looking forward to trying out 8th edition.
6th was a chore, 7th tried to fix 6th by just adding more rules on top of rules. I tried to play both but spent over half the game just looking up rules all the time to the point it was beyond rediculous.
It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.
I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.
Regarding balance and excesses, it is too early to get excited over basic ruleset, since it is often the armybooks and Codices which mess the things up. People always harp on how 7th Edition is bloated - and it is - but when you think about it, it is almost exactly same ruleset than 6th but most mistakes fixed over. So what changed to make people hate it? It was the Codices which brought all those Scatterbikes and free Razorbacks-formations, undercosted superdurable MC's, GMC's and superheavies etc.
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
Sorry. I promise I'll try harder
But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
Sorry. I promise I'll try harder
But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
Sorry. I promise I'll try harder
But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case
LOL40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.
They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS) ( starting my streak back )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone.
For me, it meant: - fixed to wound -shooting into and out of combat -multi wounds weapons affecting numerous models -options costing no point -streamlined and boring magic (psychic) rules (we might still get this)
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
Sorry. I promise I'll try harder
But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case
LOL40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.
They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone
I'd loosely say 8th is shaping up to be AoS done right, which I'm definitely less interested in than a sincere attempt to fix up the 3-7 framework with a ground up rebuild.
Still, it could be a lot worse and has some upsides. In the end I'm mostly fine with it but left ticked off that I won't get the satisfying feeling of slapping down a flamer, Hellstorm or apocalpytic blast anymore.
I have a theory that the mistake they made with templates is they got tournament players to do the playtesting, which is the environment where people get crazy obsessive over 2 inch spacing and arguments over how many models are under a blast. Everyone else might get a little of that, but not enough to overcome the charm of the templates.
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.
GloomyFenix wrote: One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that
yep
I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.
It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak
Sorry. I promise I'll try harder
But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case
LOL40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.
They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS) ( starting my streak back )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone
LolAoS was more tactical than 7th even when they still used the stupid 'my beard is longer than your beard' rules. Or do you just think 'Cast invis and endurance on a brick of models and roll them around the board' is what tactics mean?
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.
Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.
As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now. Battleshock is ultimately not a huge deal for the most part, it's purpose is more to make games go faster than anything.
The shooting into and out of melee I have to concede. It's 50/50 in SIgmar but would be terrible in 40k.
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.
Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.
As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now. Battleshock is ultimately not a huge deal for the most part, it's purpose is more to make games go faster than anything.
The shooting into and out of melee I have to concede. It's 50/50 in SIgmar but would be terrible in 40k.
Oh the classic" everyone who doesnt like aos hasnt played it" line of defence . How original
Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.
As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now.
We have been over this. Fixed-wound does not work remotely the same as S/T system. With fixed-wound it doesn't matter what you'r target is. It doesn't matter if you're attacking twelve goblins or a monster with twelve wounds. It is all the same. Same with multi-wound spilling. Twelve goblins or twelve-wound monster, doesn't matter, the weapon works just the same.
Furthermore, you can stop defending AOS. Could you just accept that these are mechanics some people do not like, and they're happy that they're not implemented in 40K?
Megaknob wrote: They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.
Again, do you really think that they would directly state that CC will not be viable ?
Do you think new GW would blatantly lie?
Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne
We have been over this. Fixed-wound does not work remotely the same as S/T system. With fixed-wound it doesn't matter what you'r target is. It doesn't matter if you're attacking twelve goblins or a monster with twelve wounds. It is all the same. Same with multi-wound spilling. Twelve goblins or twelve-wound monster, doesn't matter, the weapon works just the same.
Furthermore, you can stop defending AOS. Could you just accept that these are mechanics some people do not like, and they're happy that they're not implemented in 40K?
It can, but you would just need a lot of wounds. The guns in 40K are more numerous and lethal so such a large differentiation isn't needed in AoS.
Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne
1) Being untruthful to get extra sales
2) Being ignorant and getting extra sales
3) Being confident and getting extra sales
There's a vast difference between these and i'm pretty sure the FLG and other tournament guys know how close combat works.
If you can't objectively prove it to be bad then it is not bad not matter how much you will want to cling to a crummy opinion.
Why not , companies lie all the time if it can give them more sales, even more so if its something as subjective that can never be proven false. And even if they are not lying, just because they want cc to be efficient doesnt means they will succeed in making it efficient and viable. As i said before, ill play a game or two before popping the champagne
1) Being untruthful to get extra sales
2) Being ignorant and getting extra sales
3) Being confident and getting extra sales
There's a vast difference between these and i'm pretty sure the FLG and other tournament guys know how close combat works.
If you can't objectively prove it to be bad then it is not bad not matter how much you will want to cling to a crummy opinion.
I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.
Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.
If your entire army is CC it is a good thing.. as you can pinned or keep locked multiple units, the disengage option means the defender actually has some options and it isn't just a boring lets see how long we can hold out, but if the defender doesn't have a back line to hit this assault army.. then they risk just being pushed off the board..
I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.
Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.
You didn't have to directly say they were lying. The intent of your words are clear enough.
Again, do you think they would directly state that CC will not be viable?
This implies that they would know that it is not and willfully mislead us.
An interesting ramification of "no templates" is that you literally could put your models on square bases and roll them around on little trays or carts. Or run them all in base to base contact. Unless you are trying to surround someone or block off part of the board, every advantage goes to the compact unit. Not sure how I feel about that. Might be OK - more choice of formations, more speed play. Might look like the art. Might look dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW: Hey Tyranid, Ork and Daemon players?
Tyranid, Ork & Daemon Players: Yeah?
GW: *holds up movement rules* Feth you guys!
You shouldn't be able to just run away from combat scot free.
Well, it does seem the disengaging unit is pinned. If the attacker got some protection from being shot to bits it could be OK.
It isn't Scott free, your unit cannot do anything damaging the following turn and had to take an entire round of combat since they only get to disengage at the start of their turn.
I nevet said they were lying, youre the one putting word in my mouth. Only said that thinking that cc will become viable just because the game developpers said so, is naive at best.
Honestly, it is actually astonishing that some of you have an issues with what i just wrote.
You didn't have to directly say they were lying. The intent of your words are clear enough.
Again, do you think they would directly state that CC will not be viable?
This implies that they would know that it is not and willfully mislead us.
Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....
This isn't the first time they've used out-sourced playtesting. The problem last time around was that they tended to ignore the playtesters if the feedback went against GW's preconceptions.
Kirasu wrote: I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.
Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....
>When your bashing of GW doesn't work
That doesn't mean anything as many companies have gotten outside groups to playtest and then ignore the feedback. How long have the players been playtesting 40k?
I want 8th to be really fun but let's not be naive to the history.
I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.
GodDamUser wrote: It just means if you want to assault early.. you want to do a lot of assaults to mitigate any potential fallback and exposure
This is actually another strike against Death Stars. A single super powerful unit will have a hard time controlling the board and engaging a gunline. Spreading the assault power into many different units will be a more effective way to deal with units potentially.
rollawaythestone wrote: I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.
It's worth keeping in mind that running away from combat, if you don't then manage to eliminate the enemy unit with shooting, leaves your fleeing unit potentially still in range for them to just charge straight back in on their turn, hitting first with whatever charge bonuses the new game applies.
So yes, overall I think I like this change. But then, I was never a fan of being locked in combat anway...
rollawaythestone wrote: I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.
There's a lot that plays into whether or not this will be bad.
Are sweeping advances in?
Has the charge phase changed at all?
Has the math for melee changed?
How do power weapons work now?
This new flee mechanic will make my Tau Breachers much more viable. They aren't gonna just explode once they are charged. They will be able to fall back and be supported by other Breacher Teams!
Oh, so many hopes I have in my short range shooting Tau army to be viable...
rollawaythestone wrote: I am torn about the Fleeing mechanic. On the one hand, I don't like a unit I charged being able to escape. Locking something down into combat is an important tactic for a close combat army. However, they are pinned after they flee - but it does allow them to use some nice tactical opportunities to punish the assaulting units with nearby units with shooting. It gives shooting heavy armies some opportunity for interaction in the combat phase. Having to choose between staying locked in and swinging, or running away will add an interesting dynamic. So, with other aspects of the game changing, like potentially increased movement, possibly Run + Charge, and possibly no more overwatch, I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It definitely will add some back and forth in the assault phase for all armies to do interesting tactical stuff.
It's worth keeping in mind that running away from combat, if you don't then manage to eliminate the enemy unit with shooting, leaves your fleeing unit potentially still in range for them to just charge straight back in on their turn, hitting first with whatever charge bonuses the new game applies.
So yes, overall I think I like this change. But then, I was never a fan of being locked in combat anway...
Agreed, and to add to this further, they HAD to allow this with the new moral system since it would have made tar pits SOOOOOOOOOOO much more prevalent. I mean had they nopt added this could you imagine how long it would take to free up something like a guard platoon from even 1 or 2 terminators?
So thinking about it, I actually like the fall back mechanic as I think it will make you think more about charging over the straight forward "Charge here and profit!" mentality.
It's going to force CC armies to be tactical in the movement phase by setting up multiple charges on priority targets.
It's going to force shooty armies to be more tactical in target selection, compared to what I see a lot of right now of 'my stupid awesome shooty unit can see that unit. Please take it off the board.'
You don't really see CC armies these days, but I got the FLOOR wiped with me at Adepticon by Genestealer Cults. He had gotten first blood before the game started (won't be sad to see that go), and then he had 3 separate units charge on the top of turn one. Game was over by turn two. Being able to fall back out of charge range would've actually been a pretty good benefit to me in that game, although I still would've lost, so it certainly wouldn't have been game breaking.
Do the new move mechanics mean turbo boost is out? I am personally wondering what an exalted sorcerer or herald could do with a disc of tzeentch. My t sons are very curious about psychic phase.
Sorry, but spin and deceit are often the same thing,.
By Wikipedia
In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favor or against some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may also rely on altering the presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and highly manipulative tactics.[1]
I think that's probably as far as we need to go with that tangent in this thread. If you want to discuss the finer points of marketing strategies and corporate spin, that might be better off done in Off-Topic.
Ysclyth wrote: Do the new move mechanics mean turbo boost is out? I am personally wondering what an exalted sorcerer or herald could do with a disc of tzeentch. My t sons are very curious about psychic phase.
If they have it then it will likely be a rule specific to the unit. So it's all up in the air, but lots about Rubrics will become pretty awesome now.
They can't do anything after running away. Big deal. Units don't exist in a vacuum. The rest of your army no gets to blast the unit you just ran away from.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They can't do anything after running away. Big deal. Units don't exist in a vacuum. The rest of your army no gets to blast the unit you just ran away from.
this can work both ways, though. a unit fleeing CC could potentially be left out to hang much worse then the unit it was CCing.
streetsamurai wrote: I've asked the question before but got no answer. Is it true that the game designer stated that vehicule could still randomly explode?
Thanks
There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.
streetsamurai wrote: I've asked the question before but got no answer. Is it true that the game designer stated that vehicule could still randomly explode?
Thanks
There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.
thanks.
I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear
I've honestly never liked how non-interactive 40k's close combat phase is. Ever.
For me, it has been the dullest part of the game since it was released. You wind your dudes up, let them loose and roll the dice. There is so little to be done at that point, it basically felt like a bunch of busy work.
The second two units touch, it is a case of rolling things out until it resolves X turns later. No more planning, no more maneuvering, no more choices. Just a bunch of rolling.
I get that some folks enjoyed that, but the lack of emergent gameplay and planning after two units made contact was just mostly a slog for me.
Now? Not only are you rewarded for the initial maneuvering (charge strikes first), but there are decisions to be made even once you're engaged. Though abstract (though to be honest, IGOUGO is already about as abstract as a turn order gets) alternating activations instead of the old system of resolving each combat fully in I order (i.e. a completely non-interactive system) means that both players are involved now and each choice has large consequences in an ongoing combat. Better still, putting the ability to fall back (at the cost of being pinned) in the hands of the player is a great mechanic to keep non-assault armies heavily involved. And that interaction spreads out to create emergent gameplay where it was mostly just random flailing before. And we only have a hint of the interactions here. Special rules and the like can have a ton of additional interactions we can't even fathom yet. But as a basic system it seems to have made assault a lot more interactive.
I can get why some folks may not like the look of that, especially after 40k has been a wind-up-and-go sort of assault system for ages, but depending on how the rest of the game fills out, I think that's a good shakeup to a relatively boring phase of every turn.
streetsamurai wrote: I've asked the question before but got no answer. Is it true that the game designer stated that vehicule could still randomly explode?
Thanks
There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.
thanks.
I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear
So long as MC's can also be felled by a random shot to the vitals before their wounds tick to 0, then at least it would be fair. But I'm fine if all we get is staged degradation without random kills in between (though I would be fine is some vehicle units exploded when their last wound ticked off).
Megaknob wrote: They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.
Again, do you really think that they would directly state that CC will not be viable ?
Do you think new GW would blatantly lie?
GW has shown often enough they don't understand game in highly competive enviroment but play in more relaxed enviroment where even stuff even 10% competive player ignores flat out. So just because something is viable in THEIR games doesn't really mean it's viable in other enviroments.
Just for example as it is our group played with pretty relaxed lists early 7th ed before we switched to 2nd ed with house rules. Add to that lots of city terrain and even killa kans were somewhat viable for us.
But still doesn't make killa kans really viable. They only worked because they were facing less optimal lists as well in terrain that is practically custom made to negate their biggest weakness.
Until we know what kind of enviroment they are playing their "are viable" aren't all that comfortable. They have said "viable" for lots of stuff even semi competive players don't bother bringing.
Kirasu wrote: I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.
Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....
>When your bashing of GW doesn't work
Yeah...Outside playtesting. That is of course quarantee everythign is all right. Of course if that was right earlier 40k editions and codexes would also be great Outside playtesting is hardly novel concept never done in GW before. They even had them when I started with GW games in '90's! (as it is I have suspicion I ended up being small part of stealth playtesting of WHFB 6th ed. At least one tournament external playtesters ran had rather familiar looking house rules for tournament near the end of 5th ed if I don't completely misremember it)
Kirasu wrote: I'm sure gw believes CC will be viable. You just need to realize that they won't play the game the same as everyone else.
Luckily they mostly out sourced the play testing then....
>When your bashing of GW doesn't work
Yeah...Outside playtesting. That is of course quarantee everythign is all right. Of course if that was right earlier 40k editions and codexes would also be great Outside playtesting is hardly novel concept never done in GW before. They even had them when I started with GW games in '90's! (as it is I have suspicion I ended up being small part of stealth playtesting of WHFB 6th ed. At least one tournament external playtesters ran had rather familiar looking house rules for tournament near the end of 5th ed if I don't completely misremember it)
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
Rippy wrote: To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
Previous like tournament organizers etc? Not any random guys but guys who play and organize tournaments? How are current ones different from past ones?
For me the thrill of close combat lies in the tricky manuevering and planning that goes into dumping your CC dudes in charging range, and getting there. and your plan to keep em from getting shot off the board.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
Okay I guess that is a fair point. Though listening to the people who have been play testing on youtube, they were making a lot of changes based on their feedback as they were testing.
Latest rumors are showing tentative date in early June (June 3rd to be specific) for pre-orders and release for sale on June 17th. (Source: Faeit 212 via user Sergio on Mini Wars in the comments section)
We'll see what we can see and if this holds true in short order. Take it easy.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.
You can't use AoS on here as an example, because..Dakka. you right of course.
Red__Thirst wrote: Latest rumors are showing tentative date in early June (June 3rd to be specific) for pre-orders and release for sale on June 17th. (Source: Faeit 212 via user Sergio on Mini Wars in the comments section)
We'll see what we can see and if this holds true in short order. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Based on a comment section from a a dude named Sergio. Who is Sergio?
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
Age of Sigmar would be pretty good evidence in this case. I listen to all the podcasts whose hosts are on the play test team, and they certainly listen and change a ton of things during play testing. From listening to those guys talk they are treated as peers.
You can't use AoS on here as an example, because..Dakka. you right of course.
There hasn't been much to hate from the rumours so far, so it is fair they cling to something to prematurely bash GW about
The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.
Chikout wrote: The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.
Agreed. People deliberately ignoring this are best left behind imo - they are where they are for a reason.
That isn't to say skepticism is unwarranted, just be honest with yourself and others
3rd of June for preorder? Maybe a announcement at Warhammer Fest the weekend before seems like the best place to get the most number of eyes looking at it?
Chikout wrote: The key difference this time is that GW has explicitly mentioned who has been doing playtesting and let therm talk about their experiences. I don't think the enthusiasm I have seen and heard from these people is forced.
The aos testers talk about having big arguments about how best to do things. It really does seem like the playtesters have been taking a more active part than just saying unit X needs to be more points.
All the info we have points to a more collaborative approach this time.
Actually playtesters have been known before so really only thing new is pre-release playtesters comment.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It isn't Scott free, your unit cannot do anything damaging the following turn and had to take an entire round of combat since they only get to disengage at the start of their turn.
Do you want bet on what ATSKNF is going to do this editon, or it would actually be a good use for defensive grenades allowing the fall back without being pinned or leven leaving the attacker pinned.
Anyway chances are they will be exceptions is my point.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
I don't know about further in the past, but the last time they did it this way it resulted in the general's handbook which is widely accepted as one of the best things to happen to AoS, so there is positive precedent.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It isn't Scott free, your unit cannot do anything damaging the following turn and had to take an entire round of combat since they only get to disengage at the start of their turn.
Do you want bet on what ATSKNF is going to do this editon, or it would actually be a good use for defensive grenades allowing the fall back without being pinned or leven leaving the attacker pinned.
Anyway chances are they will be exceptions is my point.
Wouldn't be that weird that exception will be with units that have hit&run. H&R allowed disengaging from melee before. Not giant leap of faith to assume it might be disengage without penalty in future.
Ronin_eX wrote: I've honestly never liked how non-interactive 40k's close combat phase is. Ever.
For me, it has been the dullest part of the game since it was released. You wind your dudes up, let them loose and roll the dice. There is so little to be done at that point, it basically felt like a bunch of busy work.
The second two units touch, it is a case of rolling things out until it resolves X turns later. No more planning, no more maneuvering, no more choices. Just a bunch of rolling.
I get that some folks enjoyed that, but the lack of emergent gameplay and planning after two units made contact was just mostly a slog for me.
Now? Not only are you rewarded for the initial maneuvering (charge strikes first), but there are decisions to be made even once you're engaged. Though abstract (though to be honest, IGOUGO is already about as abstract as a turn order gets) alternating activations instead of the old system of resolving each combat fully in I order (i.e. a completely non-interactive system) means that both players are involved now and each choice has large consequences in an ongoing combat. Better still, putting the ability to fall back (at the cost of being pinned) in the hands of the player is a great mechanic to keep non-assault armies heavily involved. And that interaction spreads out to create emergent gameplay where it was mostly just random flailing before. And we only have a hint of the interactions here. Special rules and the like can have a ton of additional interactions we can't even fathom yet. But as a basic system it seems to have made assault a lot more interactive.
I can get why some folks may not like the look of that, especially after 40k has been a wind-up-and-go sort of assault system for ages, but depending on how the rest of the game fills out, I think that's a good shakeup to a relatively boring phase of every turn.
Movement wrote:"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy. You’ll lose the ability to advance, shoot or charge that turn, and crucially, enemies will be able to shoot at you!"
Emphasis mine.
Does that mean that while Falling Back at beginning of MY turn the opponent gets free shoot (during my turn) at Falling Back unit?
Movement wrote:"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy. You’ll lose the ability to advance, shoot or charge that turn, and crucially, enemies will be able to shoot at you!"
Emphasis mine.
Does that mean that while Falling Back at beginning of MY turn the opponent gets free shoot (during my turn) at Falling Back unit?
Maybe, but it could also just mean that you are no longer locked in combat and thus a valid target for normal shooting again.
To all the drones that replied with this same thing, look at who has play tested, and the amount they have. It is a massive step up from previous additions.
You've missed the point. It's not a question of the quality of the playtesters. It's a question of whether or not GW will actually listen to them. While it seems absurd that a company would employ outside talent for feedback and then ignore said talent, it's exactly what GW have done in the past.
Although, to be fair, that's not exclusive to GW... they would hardly be the first company to have outside input drowned out by whatever is bouncing around inside the corporate echo-chamber.
It would be great to be able to take the playtesting claim at face-value and assume that it means that they're actually trying to get it right this time... but they've spent a fairly large chunk of the last 30 years demonstrating to their customer base that this just isn't how they operate. So people aren't just going to accept that anything has changed until said change is actually demonstrably visible.
I don't know about further in the past, but the last time they did it this way it resulted in the general's handbook which is widely accepted as one of the best things to happen to AoS, so there is positive precedent.
It's also bit hard to judge the effect of playtesting, when it is done in secret and the large public don't have any idea what the rules where while they were tested. The rules we see are the end result after testing, it can be that there has been lots of tweaking, but those haven't been tested as well as the originals. Also in a game like 40k, it's quite impossible scenario, that all the permutations can be tested well enough as in 40k there is a very big influence on what is on the other side of the table for the effectiveness of different stuff.
streetsamurai wrote: I've asked the question before but got no answer. Is it true that the game designer stated that vehicule could still randomly explode?
Thanks
There is yet to be any evidence of that. We looked through his tweets and came up empty.
thanks.
I know i'm probably in the minority, but I think it would be a cool rule. Would make their degradation less linear
Well, as long as the same can be said about monstrous creatures (headshot, BAM!) and boh are adequately costed, I don't have a problem with it.
I hope there will be other factors that make assault effective. As with most assaults, only one side actually wants to be in it. and giving that side the ability to break from combat (if we assume the current turn structure) effectively halves the amount of damage that an assault unit can do during a game.
Regardless of the whole being left out in the open thing.
)
.
.
