Hollow wrote: I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?
The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.
If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.
That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good. This is assuming that the heroes are like in AoS, that their main function is to buff nearby units and if these buffs are any good, there needs to be some way to kill those characters, other than killing everything near them first, as anyone worth their dice, won't let the opponent to get to close combat with them if they are necessary for the overall strategy.
I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.
One of the big problems with 40K 7th Edition is that vehicles are too fragile and die too easily to spammed mid-Strength guns with high rates of fire, i.e. Scatter Lasers. There's no point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons most of the time because they simply lack the efficiency to be useful. Now? Scatter Lasers took a huge hit against vehicles while Lascannons and the like are now the best sources of dealing with tanks...as it should be.
Sure, it might be "unrealistic" (well, sorta not really if it takes hundreds of shots) for something like a lasgun to wound a vehicle, and the change seems arbitrary given that small arms fire still won't do too much to vehicles. However, what this does is give every model some form of chance to do something in a game; in many 7th Edition games, certain units are entirely useless outside of potentially grabbing an objective. It's really fun when you come up against a triple Land Raider army with your fluffy infantry-centric Tau army. Yeah, so much fun. Or hey, what about when Magnus starts flying around and it is nigh on impossible to kill him because the vast majority of armies in the game completely lack the means to efficiently deal with that?
For balance AND interactive purposes, the new system is far better. Sure, my Dreadnought can be harmed by Bolters now....but then, so can that Wraithknight that previously rendered 75% of my army obsolete. Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules.
I'm hoping that we get a system which simultaneously allows us to take cheap and fun heroes - Captains, Big Meks, Aspiring Champions - to accompany our units, but also prevents them being unkillable force multipliers. AoS manages it by just letting you shoot them freely, but that won't work for 40k and its Railguns; I suspect that we'll see something like the Look Out Sir mechanic used to help beef them up against ranged shooting.
Hollow wrote: I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?
The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.
If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.
You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.
" Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules."
Hollow wrote: I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?
The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.
If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.
You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.
Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?
I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.
And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.
I don't want to sound mean but...
How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.
This is a great point in this argument. Using the single Dread as an example ignores the fact that a Wraithknight mauls specific close combat walkers in close combat, despite having access to shooting (like the dread), and it doesn't really need to give up its CC effectiveness to take guns (unlike a dread). But I mean what is the good balance and fluff argument that a Wraithlord (for equal or less points) should trash things like maulerfiends, Deff Dreads etc. While also being more durable against most shooting, being able to shoot etc. These models that have similar roles should be relatively equal if they are costed relatively equally. It shouldn't be that one is clearly superior to the other. Lets take the wraithlord out of the picture, what about the riptide? It is superior/equal to a dread in CC right now and far better at shooting. There is literally no good argument for being upset that some of your units are slightly worse respective to other units. If you in any way hope (like I do) that all units will be good at their combat role for their points cost.
Annnnnddddd a swing and a miss from the peanut gallery, starts ranting about wraithknights and then switches to wrathlords to make his argument fit the facts being discussed. I got to ask show me on the dolly we're the bad elder touched you, also are you a marine player? Do you think Tau should be totally removed from the game? Just checking because I have noticed a correlation.
Ahhh I really give up we know have people arguing that gak game design should be excused because it's hard and that despite the evidence of litterally every other war game made that complex rules/realisim cannot be done in a balanced game. sorry that issue is a GW issue.
I am out I give up ... I know Lord K will have some free time now.
I Sean Drake do fully recant all negative opinions of GW and the parts of 8th shown and humble thank the chosen in this thread for leading my away from my heretical beliefs to promised nirvana of perfection that is 8th.
Further I no longer feel that AoS is the most shallow wargame ever gak out in one weekend on a sheet of a4 with little to no redeeming qualities other than being able to play it while blind drunk, lobotomised or both. Also the fluff in no way is ripped off Planescape,MTG and Numeneria and is both highly original and did not make a good cure for insomnia(except that one that was a knock off of the early wfb it was ok).
Bye
Ummmm.....swing and a miss by the critic. If you followed the thread I had posted previously and instead of thinking I was being malevolent in intent maybe you could instead see that I mistyped in the first line....I meant wraithlord the whole time, sorry I didn't even realize my mistake until you pointed it out. Replace my first Wraithknight with Wraithlord. Post still holds true.....
Hollow wrote: I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?
The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.
If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.
You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.
Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?
Yes, 100%. Saying my view is stupid is not the same as saying I'm stupid. I have plenty of evidence that I can show to the contrary for the latter remark. Anyone can have a stupid view, because they either don't fully understand the situation, or they are arguing for the sake of arguing, or any number of things.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.
Problem isn't unlikely scenario of grots destroying undamaged russ by themselves. Problem is having ability to even hurt in a first place it shouldn't have.
Grots shoot, knock of wound. Your "might have big gaping weak points" doesn't even apply here. Or do the gaps appear out of future somehow conveniently?
Lascannon hits, finishes of. Without grot wound that wouldn't have happened.
That is something that should not happen if game doesnt' want to break all sense of disbelief.
Ah well. Won't happen in our games and even if I go to tournament I won't be even rolling those attacks regardless of situation.
Or, the lascannon hits the tank, makes a big hole (reduces it to low wounds), and then small arms finishes it.
You would not want to use small arms against an undamaged vehicle, as there would be no reward. Potentially finishing it off after the heavy weapons have been used is a reward.
Caederes wrote: I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.
One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...
You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.
Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.
Hollow wrote: I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?
The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.
If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.
You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.
Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?
Yes, 100%. Saying my view is stupid is not the same as saying I'm stupid. I have plenty of evidence that I can show to the contrary for the latter remark. Anyone can have a stupid view, because they either don't fully understand the situation, or they are arguing for the sake of arguing, or any number of things.
Very well. I view things from a different perspective - attributing qualities or defects to a point of view also mirrors that attribute on the speaker.
But sure forget about any critique. If post isn't 100% praise to GW about how they can do no wrong don't post. That's your attitude eh?
And btw obviously you don't just forget since you are so vehemently defending the article.
You obviously need to learn to read and comprehend the written word a little (ok, a lot) better, as I haven't defended that article at all. I've said that it was a waste of time several times. My only "issue" is your cartoonish overreaction.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You would not want to use small arms against an undamaged vehicle, as there would be no reward. Potentially finishing it off after the heavy weapons have been used is a reward.
Riiiight. You have tank in range and nothing else and you wont' fire? right...
(well okay maybe you don't. I won't ever. Period. Doesn't matter if I have nothing else to shoot and getting that 1 wound will win me game. I won't roll the dice)
Caederes wrote: I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.
One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...
You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.
Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.
That may be interesting to you, to me it leads to too many bad game experiences whether it is realistic or not. Baneblade gets killed turn 1 on the first shot, from a drop pod melta gun. There goes ~1/3rd of your army in a 1500 point game. It is just not a fun experience, and usually leads to a dull game. That method also leads to the potential (and I have seen it happen) of completely crippling your opponent turn 1 if they like tanks. Shoot a lascannon at one tank, boom, the second, boom, the third immobilized, their vindicator weapon destroyed....again leads to a not fun game experience really for either play just due to super lucky rolling.
Hollow wrote: 2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.
So you've gone from "BOLTERS AREN'T REAL!" to "Anyone who does some research into a bolter..." in a page and a half?
Uh huh. I guess that's why your arguments are so...
*puts on sunglasses*
... hollow.
YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Hollow wrote: It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.
To be fair, you're not really adding anything to the debate either, what with all the position switching. And good start on the "neck-beard" insults. That's really classy stuff.
Caederes wrote: I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.
One of the big problems with 40K 7th Edition is that vehicles are too fragile and die too easily to spammed mid-Strength guns with high rates of fire, i.e. Scatter Lasers. There's no point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons most of the time because they simply lack the efficiency to be useful. Now? Scatter Lasers took a huge hit against vehicles while Lascannons and the like are now the best sources of dealing with tanks...as it should be.
Sure, it might be "unrealistic" (well, sorta not really if it takes hundreds of shots) for something like a lasgun to wound a vehicle, and the change seems arbitrary given that small arms fire still won't do too much to vehicles. However, what this does is give every model some form of chance to do something in a game; in many 7th Edition games, certain units are entirely useless outside of potentially grabbing an objective. It's really fun when you come up against a triple Land Raider army with your fluffy infantry-centric Tau army. Yeah, so much fun. Or hey, what about when Magnus starts flying around and it is nigh on impossible to kill him because the vast majority of armies in the game completely lack the means to efficiently deal with that?
For balance AND interactive purposes, the new system is far better. Sure, my Dreadnought can be harmed by Bolters now....but then, so can that Wraithknight that previously rendered 75% of my army obsolete. Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules.
You fell to exact same trap I pointed out in my earlier post - on the one hand, it's "great for gameplay" when every unit has chance to do something, on other hand, that chance is so miniscule it has no practical effect and thus doesn't destroy realism.
Which it is? You can't have it both ways. In 8th edition, your Pulse Rifle spam does NOTHING to those Land Raiders - just like in 7th. You may strip down couple of wounds, that is all. Unless you load up with EMP grenades...just like in 7th edition.
Lets be honest here: how many times you heard complaints of how an army couldn't hurt a Land Raider? How many times you heard complaints when an army couldn't hurt rerollable 2++ Deathstar?
In first instance, there was no theoretical chance to hurt the enemy unit, in second instance, there was. So Land Raiders were worse than 2+++ Deathstars....right??
One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...
You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.
Yeah, just like Monstrous Creatures can currently be killed in one shot because someone manages to hit the head, heart or other vital organs with a high powered weapon.
...
Oh wait, they can't, they only lose one wound and keep fighting and moving with 100% efficiency. Unlike vehicles you can't even immobilize them by blowing off legs or destroy their weapons by cutting off their weapon wielding arms.
Yay, realism.
Awesome when one unit type has to suffer from arbitrary extra-realism while the rest does not.
Also find it hilarious that people are up in arms about bolters being able to damage tanks from the front because of realism.
As if the same gun that was able to PENETRATE AV10 back armour would somehow not be able to cause serious damage to vital systems on the front of a tank from shredding vision ports to the point of the gunnery crew being blind, damaging side-sponson hydraulics to the point of them no longer being able to turn or to dowright blowing off track links and slowing the whole thing down. Not to mention what would happen to the crew or other vital systems inside if some bolts went through holes punched through the armour by heavier weapons.
But surely you are a former member of the armed forces and a tank crew who can confirm that vehicles being shot up until they become literally inoperable (cough, cough, by getting repeatedly hit by explose mini-rockets that are powerful enough to penetrate rear armour) doesn't happen from actual training or experience? Or is that a conclusion you reached in your arm-chair without actual sources to back it up?
I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.
Caederes wrote: I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.
One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...
You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.
Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.
So you like the ability to one-shot tanks, correct? You don't like that lasguns can harm a tank, even though they can't one-shot the tank, also correct? Sorry it's just your posts aren't very clear on that front. Judging from your other posts though, you don't like that a grot blasta/lasgun can harm a tank, then a lascannon can finish it off?
Here's the problem with your logic though. What actually killed vehicles in 7th Edition? Hull point removal, not kill shots. Removing kill shots from the game means it is less luck-oriented and - per your words - game-changing based on a single shot, and altering the way vehicles are harmed makes weapons that were previously spammed suddenly far less valuable. Yes, a Boltgun can contribute to killing a tank, but it's overall contribution is minuscule, and this will largely be the same of the weapons that populated the competitive meta - weapons that were too good at killing everything and so rendered dedicated anti-tank weapons useless. You're going to see more lascannons now even with the removal of that kill-shot chance.
And again, I'll point you to the Tyrannofex. Tyranids under the effects of Synapse are said to fight on even when near death. When you destroy a vehicle in one shot, it represents you getting a lucky shot on the engine or something to that effect. With a Tyrannofex, you're instead getting something like a piercing head-shot through that obliterates its brain. Alternatively, you can wear both the tank or the Tyrannofex down. While I'm no expert, from what I gather and contrary to what you're saying, it is possible to disable tanks - i.e. damaging treads, hitting exposed integral mechanisms, hitting an ammo feed or primed shell, etc - with small arms fire, but the chances are incredibly slim and so gradually wearing it down is an overly long and painful process. In the case of a Tyranid monster that will refuse to stop fighting until it is truly dead, one described as a living fortress like a Tyrannofex, can't you use a similar line of reasoning as to how you could slowly but surely whittle it down? It's the same with Wraithbone constructs that are essentially vehicles just like Dreadnoughts, yet in the game they have completely different rules and vulnerabilities compared to tanks. The Wraithbone constructs have pilots (in the case Wraithknights) and are fully enclosed armoured shells, just like the tanks, no? It's part of why it's never made any sense for Walkers and Monstrous Creatures in particular to have different rules, especially as there's seemingly no rhyme or reason as to why one is a Walker and one is a Monstrous Creature. Also, from a game balance perspective, it simplifies and more easily allows for differentiation between the units without breaking the logic of the game through wonky unit-specific rules (currently, Walkers are garbage compared to Monstrous Creatures).
My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.
In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).
The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K
Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.
It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.
"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"
They are willing to change it supposedly after they release the edition. playrtest it then be vocal about how to change it. Dont just prove it sucks. offer an alternative.
Zustiur wrote: I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.
You're not 100% correct.
A Strength 3 gun is only as good as a Strength 4 gun against vehicles of Toughness 5 or lower and Toughness 8 or higher, Toughness 6 to Toughness 7 gives the advantage to a Boltgun.
Additionally, you're not accounting for the Rend and Damage characteristics of the Plasma Gun which do make an impact on how good they are against tanks.
tneva82 wrote: One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...
You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.
Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.
Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.
You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser? How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot? Maybe it'd be fun if flyers couldn't be shot by ground troops at all? You can't just say "oh, well they die to one shot in real life" and not apply the same logic to everything else. Of course, if you DID apply the same logic to everything, the game would be very dull as it degenerated into 5th edition but worse, aka expensive models are completely pointless because my 5 point guardsman does the same job. Every single game I can think to mention has a damage mechanic precisely because you need one to have any semblance of balance; you simply cannot make a Land Raider worth 200+ points if it dies like a 35 point Rhino to meltaguns - it's actually impossible. If you want to play a game like that, I don't even know where to point you - maybe flames of war, but I think even in that there's a damage mechanic. It's not, and has never been, like that in 40k. Not even when it was Rogue Trader, and absolutely not in 2nd ed.
Caederes wrote: Here's the problem with your logic though. What actually killed vehicles in 7th Edition? Hull point removal, not kill shots. Removing kill shots from the game means it is less luck-oriented and - per your words - game-changing based on a single shot, and altering the way vehicles are harmed makes weapons that were previously spammed suddenly far less valuable. Yes, a Boltgun can contribute to killing a tank, but it's overall contribution is minuscule, and this will largely be the same of the weapons that populated the competitive meta - weapons that were too good at killing everything and so rendered dedicated anti-tank weapons useless. You're going to see more lascannons now even with the removal of that kill-shot chance.
And again, I'll point you to the Tyrannofex. Tyranids under the effects of Synapse are said to fight on even when near death. When you destroy a vehicle in one shot, it represents you getting a lucky shot on the engine or something to that effect. With a Tyrannofex, you're instead getting something like a piercing head-shot through that obliterates its brain. Alternatively, you can wear both the tank or the Tyrannofex down. While I'm no expert, from what I gather and contrary to what you're saying, it is possible to disable tanks - i.e. damaging treads, hitting exposed integral mechanisms, hitting an ammo feed or primed shell, etc - with small arms fire, but the chances are incredibly slim and so gradually wearing it down is an overly long and painful process. In the case of a Tyranid monster that will refuse to stop fighting until it is truly dead, one described as a living fortress like a Tyrannofex, can't you use a similar line of reasoning as to how you could slowly but surely whittle it down? It's the same with Wraithbone constructs that are essentially vehicles just like Dreadnoughts, yet in the game they have completely different rules and vulnerabilities compared to tanks. The Wraithbone constructs have pilots (in the case Wraithknights) and are fully enclosed armoured shells, just like the tanks, no? It's part of why it's never made any sense for Walkers and Monstrous Creatures in particular to have different rules, especially as there's seemingly no rhyme or reason as to why one is a Walker and one is a Monstrous Creature. Also, from a game balance perspective, it simplifies and more easily allows for differentiation between the units without breaking the logic of the game through wonky unit-specific rules (currently, Walkers are garbage compared to Monstrous Creatures).
Did I say 7th ed is perfect? I use it only for HH. For 40k we use rules where single lascannon has potential to destroy even _baneblade_. Actually short of nurgle daemon prince there's nothing lascannon CANNOT one shot. Tyrannofex? Not likely but possible.
I'm not one shot possible only for tanks. The 'thirster that just ripped itself out into reality ripping apart poor champion that gave his life looks lot less invincible beast when single lascannon(or multimelta for that matter) can threaten death.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.
In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).
The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K
Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.
It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.
"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"
No. That's stupid!
What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?
In those games, having most of your army be rendered entirely useless for anything but objective grabbing and tar-pitting is absolutely not fun. While boltguns and the like will still do little if anything to those types of models, having the ability to do *something* isn't nearly as morale crushing. It's like eating scraps versus not eating at all, it's a bad situation but at least in one of those scenarios you're not going to starve.
You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser? How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot? Maybe it'd be fun if flyers couldn't be shot by ground troops at all? You can't just say "oh, well they die to one shot in real life" and not apply the same logic to everything else. Of course, if you DID apply the same logic to everything, the game would be very dull as it degenerated into 5th edition but worse, aka expensive models are completely pointless because my 5 point guardsman does the same job. Every single game I can think to mention has a damage mechanic precisely because you need one to have any semblance of balance; you simply cannot make a Land Raider worth 200+ points if it dies like a 35 point Rhino to meltaguns - it's actually impossible. If you want to play a game like that, I don't even know where to point you - maybe flames of war, but I think even in that there's a damage mechanic. It's not, and has never been, like that in 40k. Not even when it was Rogue Trader, and absolutely not in 2nd ed.
What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?
Obviously the opponent is supposed to lose, pack up and go home because "realism", heh.
With that sort of realism only applying to vehicles, mind, just because
tneva82 wrote: Did I say 7th ed is perfect? I use it only for HH. For 40k we use rules where single lascannon has potential to destroy even _baneblade_. Actually short of nurgle daemon prince there's nothing lascannon CANNOT one shot. Tyrannofex? Not likely but possible.
I'm not one shot possible only for tanks. The 'thirster that just ripped itself out into reality ripping apart poor champion that gave his life looks lot less invincible beast when single lascannon(or multimelta for that matter) can threaten death.
If you're already house-ruling 7th Edition, why not just house-rule 8th Edition? The system can't be worse if you're changing it to suits your needs anyway
tneva82 wrote: Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.
Well, stick with 7th then.
I do find it encouraging that with each new piece of information released, people's perception and attempts to pigeon-hole and label the new edition swing wildly from one thing to the next. "Big blobs are back!" "It's all about MSU" "Small arms are too powerful" "Vehicles are now useless", these are all be fun little tangents... part and parcel of a discussion forum. What I find comforting about it so far, is that with each new attempt to lay out what somebody thinks might "rule this edition" is almost immediately countered with something that shows it ain't all that straightforward. If things continue this way then we are truly going to have the most balanced version of 40k ever, with pros and cons for all manner of builds and playstyles.
Eyjio wrote: Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.
Hit to hull, penetrate(unlikely but possible), anything but 1. Or hit sponson, penetrate, blow it up with 6 that causes secondary explosion to hull, 2+.
You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser?
That represents less jumping into and more impossibility of sniping characters like that. But yeah we don't actually have that. Of course no tanking in front either.
How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot?
Lascannon shoots at 'thirster. Hits, wounds. Fails the save(9+ on 2d6 with 4+ unmodified as a backup). Lascannon rolls 2d6 for damage. All he needs is 10+ and bloodthirster dead.
Been there done that. I have one shotted carnifex 5 times during course of 4 turn game. Albeit the bloody thing was still standing at the end. Stupid regeneration.
I don't really see how it's stupid. Bolters really can't do gak to a vehicle at full strength, even if they theoretically could the effort you'd have to put in to take a vehicle out with strictly bolters (or lasguns, etc.) would make it kinda stupid to even try. But after the armor has been pelted by other high-powered weapons and it starts opening up weak spots, there's a chance they can hit something vulnerable and do a little extra damage.
In any case, if you've genuinely got nothing better to do with your infantry than shoot at tanks with their basic guns then you've probably already won in my opinion. Either that or you're fighting a list that's literally nothing but tanks so you have no other target...in which case I guess the "realistic" thing to do would be to forfeit the game?
H.B.M.C. wrote: My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.
In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).
The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K
Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.
It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.
"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"
No. That's stupid!
And it probably isn't going to help speed up games either!
What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?
This isn't something you fix by allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fix by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.
All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.
jamopower wrote: That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good.
Say hello to buggies, land speeders etc sniping all minor characters quickly.
And the downside of that would be? I think that sounds quite interesting in game terms. Plus I wouldn't say that getting supposed ~5 wounds in a turn to a character with 3+/4+ save would be easy feat for a single land speeder/buggy and a squadron of them quickly costs as much as the character.
jamopower wrote: That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good..
That's how it worked in 4th edition. It made lone characters extremely vulnerable.
I remember that, but I don't think the characters were super vulnerable then either. Though the los rules were bit better back then. And to be remembered is that the characters most probably will have more than 2 or 3 wounds and are not automatically killed by lascannon hits any more.
H.B.M.C. wrote: My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.
In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).
The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K
Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.
It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.
"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"
No. That's stupid!
As a hypothetical counter to that "might as well take potshots", wouldn't it be cool if firing out of cover lessened the effect of cover? That way, you'd have to choose between taking shots or hunkering down and you'd have to decide whether it's worth being more exposed in order to take shots at an enemy. You'd still have the ability to do a kamikaze run at an enemy tank, but there'd be a drawback.
Backfire wrote: You fell to exact same trap I pointed out in my earlier post - on the one hand, it's "great for gameplay" when every unit has chance to do something, on other hand, that chance is so miniscule it has no practical effect and thus doesn't destroy realism.
Which it is? You can't have it both ways. In 8th edition, your Pulse Rifle spam does NOTHING to those Land Raiders - just like in 7th. You may strip down couple of wounds, that is all. Unless you load up with EMP grenades...just like in 7th edition.
Lets be honest here: how many times you heard complaints of how an army couldn't hurt a Land Raider? How many times you heard complaints when an army couldn't hurt rerollable 2++ Deathstar?
In first instance, there was no theoretical chance to hurt the enemy unit, in second instance, there was. So Land Raiders were worse than 2+++ Deathstars....right??
You're missing my point.
Currently, I can wound a Tyrannofex with a Pulse Rifle. Did you know that it's more difficult to harm a Tyrannofex than a Dreadnought with a Pulse Rifle using the new rules? And yet, here's the catch, no-one ever complained that the Tyrannofex could be harmed by a Pulse Rifle and yet the Dreadnought couldn't (unless you got behind it). A Tyrannofex is described as a literal living fortress that is incredibly heavily armoured, yet somehow it was possible for a Pulse Rifle to harm it and NOT the Dreadnought? It makes zero sense. The chances of harming that Tyrannofex with Pulse Rifles...slim to none, just like with the new Dreadnought. Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.
The "hurt anything" system address the severe consistency problems between vehicles and monstrous creatures, especially when both things are described as nearly impossible to kill yet one can be hurt by small arms fire and not the other.
Ghorros wrote: I'm hoping that Noise Marines work like the Kakophoni formation in Traitor Legions.
If they get 3 shots each, strength 5, with rerolls to wound, I will be a happy camper.
60 Noise Marines would get 180 shots against a Knight. 120 hits, 40 wounds, then shred tossing in another 26.66.
That would be enough to drop a Knight in a single round. Those sonic blasters will be death if they don't change.
That depends on a few factors. We know that it has over two twenty wounds, but that's about it, right?
Assuming it has a 3+ save, it would survive your theoretical Noise Marine shooting if it had more than 22-23 Wounds, which is not unlikely.
Remember also that formations are gone and you'd be paying out the nose for rules like that. It's great that you have such high theoretical damage output, but what if those units eat up your entire points limit and are just as easy to kill as any other Space Marine? Not good.
tneva82, I have no idea what you're playing, but it's not 40k. If you house rule that heavily, then I'm sure you'll totally change 8e to your own whims as well. Nothing you've said has been in 40k for almost 2 decades, and in the case of some of them, they've never been in the game at all. Without meaning to seem snarky, I can;t see why you're complaining about rules for a new edition when you're not even using the rules in the first place.
Caederes wrote: Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.
A system where the pulse rifle couldn't hurt the monstrous creature would achieve the same thing.
Zustiur wrote: I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.
How do we know it's the same chance? I haven't seen a toughness value for tanks yet. If they're t7, for example, the grot needs a 6 to wound while the marine needs a 5+.
What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?
This isn't something you fix but allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fox by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.
All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.
Putting it rather politely, I personally found that it was easier to deal with all Knight armies than it was to deal with quintuple Wraithknights.
You could bait Ion Shield facings extremely easily and start chipping away at hull points on the opposite facings.* With Wraithknights, there was a very real possibility of not being able to take them out if they had Psyker support(let's be real; it's Eldar--how often was that not the case?) and you didn't have certain kinds of weapons(read: Grav).
GMCs, in my opinion, were a very real example of why it is necessary to do the "allow everything to hurt everything else". There were some armies in 7th that realistically had no way to cope with GMCs but could cope with SHVs.
"But Kan, that's a stupid statement--why would you claim that?" Simple comparison: Haywire versus Poisoned Haywire weapons let you roll a Penetrating Hit just for hitting the vehicle. Superheavies did not get a protection against this. They got a protection from some of the results of the Penetrating Hit table, but would still lose a Hull Point.
Poisoned weapons, on the other hand, became a 6+ to Wound versus GMCs(unless the weapon's Strength would let it wound on a higher value--how often would that be the case with Poisoned weapons?). The exception being if the weapon had "Fleshbane" because GMC's "Unstoppable" special rule only applied to Poisoned weapons.
Pure Skitarii was not a pleasant experience against Eldar if a Wraithknight was on the field and you weren't packing tons of Onagers. *--Admittedly this required you to be willing to spend time dickering about with prepping for hitting multiple facings with heavy enough firepower to chunk away at things. But it was totally doable. I played against an all Knight army a few times with pure Skitarii, and christ was that the time that a triple Transauranic Arquebi unit of Rangers paid for themselves as effectively as an all Arc Rifle Vanguard squad.
Caederes wrote: Having a simplified system where everything can hurt anything just tidies up that core inconsistency between monstrous creatures and vehicles, i.e. why can I hurt a Wraithknight but not a freaking Dreadnought with my Pulse Rifle. Zero sense. New system? Much more sense.
A system where the pulse rifle couldn't hurt the monstrous creature would achieve the same thing.
Then you get too much of a skew towards the dedicated anti-tank weapons and the game becomes even more binary than it already is. Also, you using the Pulse Rifle to try to prove your point is a bad example, it's a Strength 5 gun; making it so something that powerful can't hurt monsters and tanks is silly.
If you play a game where most of your weapons literally can't do anything in a not-uncommon match-up, are you going to enjoy yourself?
Also, what Kanluwen said. There's a real problem with units in this game that render the majority or all of a codex utterly useless. Toning that down - even slightly - is a good way to fix this. Depending on how poison now works, Tyranids all of a sudden won't be so completely reliant on Flyrants to kill vehicles...yet have much less difficulty killing monsters. I'd rather consistent game design over what we have now.
I have a feeling that 8th edition will have a quite strong bias towards heavy weaponry, at least in the beginning as people will stock on those dreadnoughts etc. that will be very tough to kill without them.
jamopower wrote: I have a feeling that 8th edition will have a quite strong bias towards heavy weaponry, at least in the beginning as people will stock on those dreadnoughts etc. that will be very tough to kill without them.
I actually believe we'll see mixed units to take on as many menaces as possible, since everyone can split fire now.
I am very curious as to how the other special weapons (meltas, gravs, plasma) will be working.
What if it's a case of one player showing up with an entire army of Imperial Knights, or one of those ridiculous (and, importantly, BOUND) quintuple Wraithknight lists?
This isn't something you fix by allowing everything to hurt everything else. It's something you fix by not writing rules allowing armies comprised entirely of models that render large portions of every other army useless space filler.
All-Knight armies should have only ever existed in the realm of prearranged scenarios, not as a standard codex list.
These types of match-ups existed pre-knight though, where say one person brought all landraiders and you did not have much that could hurt them, or tons of Leman-Russes. Unless list building is extremely restrictive it is very hard to avoid the potential game where one person has a lot of units that cannot contribute meaningfully to the game. Fixing things by allowing all units to play a role (however meaningless) is better than allowing for models that can never be hurt.
Eyjio wrote: Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.
Hit to hull, penetrate(unlikely but possible), anything but 1. Or hit sponson, penetrate, blow it up with 6 that causes secondary explosion to hull, 2+.
You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser?
That represents less jumping into and more impossibility of sniping characters like that. But yeah we don't actually have that. Of course no tanking in front either.
How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot?
Lascannon shoots at 'thirster. Hits, wounds. Fails the save(9+ on 2d6 with 4+ unmodified as a backup). Lascannon rolls 2d6 for damage. All he needs is 10+ and bloodthirster dead.
Been there done that. I have one shotted carnifex 5 times during course of 4 turn game. Albeit the bloody thing was still standing at the end. Stupid regeneration.
So you are on here complaining about the rules, when you don't even use the current rules (at all). So for you nothing changes anyway so why bother.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Totally depending on points
They'll be over costed because they always are. Two things are constant in Space Marines which are Terminators and Dreadnoughts suck.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
There's a lot of units that were in the same boat as Dreadnoughts, where they were never really super effective to begin with but the lack of any real protections for them since they were vehicles rather than MCs/GMCs that they just kind of ceased to exist in the minds of players.
Provided they're pointed correctly, it doesn't really matter that "everything can hurt everything" since they actually get a save to begin with now.
Shuma-Gorath wrote: I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
This game has magic, chaos gods, creatures that are anatomically impossible, and altered human giants in power armor.
Shuma-Gorath wrote: I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
This game has magic, chaos gods, creatures that are anatomically impossible, and altered human giants in power armor.
Where does realism fit in?
It's the basis for everything, actually. Unless you want to believe a single stone thrown by a five year old can single handedly slay say, Kharn or make a Leviathan go kablooey.
You must always have something to build from - be it a semblance of reality, something that is already established and that you (the player/reader, etc) can relate to. That's how you know that "magic, chaos gods, creatures that are anatomically impossible, and altered human giants in power armor" are "special" so to say, because you have something established as real and they are a part from it.
Are you people aware that you can cripple a tank with small arms right? A tank is far more than simple armor, it has plenty of fragile bits that it needs to function like view ports.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Totally depending on points
They'll be over costed because they always are. Two things are constant in Space Marines which are Terminators and Dreadnoughts suck.
But 2 Wounds each!!! So for that, you will need to pay double the points
But really, the whole topic on "OMG WHY CAN A LASGUN HURT A TANK?!?!!" is really getting old. Deal with it, or play 7th
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Even with 5+ wounding, you still need quite a lot of shots to go through the 3+ save (or 2+ in cover) and all the wounds. And it doesn't stop at dreadnoughts, all vehicles are a lot more resilient in the future. But of course, the full picture remains to be seen. That's just my view on what we know currently. Also stuff like terminators will be a menace when they are mostly wounded only on 3+, get min. 3 to 4+ save against almost everything and have double the amount of wounds.
(Funnily enough, heavy weapons, terminators and vehicles were the main ups in the CSM primer as well )
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
There's a lot of units that were in the same boat as Dreadnoughts, where they were never really super effective to begin with but the lack of any real protections for them since they were vehicles rather than MCs/GMCs that they just kind of ceased to exist in the minds of players.
Provided they're pointed correctly, it doesn't really matter that "everything can hurt everything" since they actually get a save to begin with now.
Also, unless Force or something similar sticks around, Dreads can't be 1 shotted now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Personally, I'm looking forward to this edition, as I'll be putting 200 Imperial Guard Conscripts on the table.
Can't wait to blow away Land raiders with massed lasgun fire
You will need far more lasguns than that to have any realistic chance to kill a Landraider.
I'd get used to these lasgun/landraider posts, it's gonna be a couple of months at least until people get bored of the hyperbole and it becomes just another 'this edition is' joke.
I wouldn't have thought that the wounding system was going to be the sticking point for the vocal minority, but there it is. I honestly figured it was going to be the changes to the statline that would really ruffle feathers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Personally, I'm looking forward to this edition, as I'll be putting 200 Imperial Guard Conscripts on the table.
Can't wait to blow away Land raiders with massed lasgun fire
You will need far more lasguns than that to have any realistic chance to kill a Landraider.
I'd get used to these lasgun/landraider posts, it's gonna be a couple of months at least until people get bored of the hyperbole and it becomes just another 'this edition is' joke.
I wouldn't have thought that the wounding system was going to be the sticking point for the vocal minority, but there it is. I honestly figured it was going to be the changes to the statline that would really ruffle feathers.
My post was tongue in cheek.
I like the look of some the 40k models we've had recently, but I'll probably stick to Bolt Action, and wish 8th edition and its fans well.
The silly thing is that a few weeks ago everyone complained on how tough were Monstrous Creatures compared to vehicles. Vehicles now are getting stats that would have been broken last edition (T7 8W dread? T8 W18 Morkanaut?) and suddenly they are the most fragile thing.
Tyran wrote: The silly thing is that a few weeks ago everyone complained on how tough were Monstrous Creatures compared to vehicles. Vehicles now are getting stats that would have been broken last edition (T7 8W dread? T8 W18 Morkanaut?) and suddenly they are the most fragile thing.
Don't get this started again! We only just managed to reach consensus like two pages back, and even then it was just a ceasefire!
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Totally depending on points
They'll be over costed because they always are. Two things are constant in Space Marines which are Terminators and Dreadnoughts suck.
Well good thing that all the factions and races get a rules and profile reset, including points. "X is going to be like that because it always has been" isn't going to work as an argument when we have already seen that they are willing to radically overhaul the entire game in completely new ways.
Won't even bother to reply to Alpharius' "but everything will hurt everything. that's really bad for Dreads" statement because we have been going over the math over and over and over again and we still get this one liner after emperor knows how many pages. Considering how efficiently all those bolters and lasguns are murdering MCs right now, I am sure Dreads will suffer massively from them compared to losing all the vehicle chart and hull point handicaps they have right now *rollseyes*. Especially if you throw in 2+ saves with cover.
I'd get used to these lasgun/landraider posts, it's gonna be a couple of months at least until people get bored of the hyperbole and it becomes just another 'this edition is' joke.
I wouldn't have thought that the wounding system was going to be the sticking point for the vocal minority, but there it is. I honestly figured it was going to be the changes to the statline that would really ruffle feathers.
Tyran wrote: The silly thing is that a few weeks ago everyone complained on how tough were Monstrous Creatures compared to vehicles. Vehicles now are getting stats that would have been broken last edition (T7 8W dread? T8 W18 Morkanaut?) and suddenly they are the most fragile thing.
In fairness, we didn't have lascannons doing D6 wounds last edition either.
But yeah, small arms are going to be about as threatening to tanks as a kid with a potato gun.
It's the basis for everything, actually. Unless you want to believe a single stone thrown by a five year old can single handedly slay say, Kharn or make a Leviathan go kablooey..
It wouldnt, and it doesent in 8th either.
A single lasgun does not down a landraider ever. There's no way for it too happen. Same with bolters or with grots hitting it with sticks.
What it can do though, its strip the last wound after that raider has been beaten to gak by a bloodthirster, and it can do the same to a leviathan, or kharn.
kestral wrote: "Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.
Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous, but it does make it less likely that you'll want to bother shooting them at tanks. Without split fire, when your heavy weapon shoots at the tank there's no good reason to not shoot everything else at it as well, on the off-chance that you'll get a lucky shot or two through the armour. Add in split fire, and suddenly there are other targets for the regular guys that they have better odds of actually hurting... so the situations where you would shoot them all at the tank are at least reduced, if not eliminated completely.
It's not perfect, but it's better.
A lot better really. The capacity for some weapons in WH40K to completely destroy a tank always seemed absurd to me. You can shoot at a M1 Abrams all year long with a 9mm and you're never going to hurt it.... except I remember those kids in Afghanistan throwing rocks at MRAP vehicles and breaking off small bits of it or hitting a CROWS system... if a rock busted the main camera or hurt a turret gunner the effectiveness of the vehicle was degraded. If small arms bust an antennae, spot light, smoke launcher... whatever it makes sense to remove "a wound." It also makes sense that even the smallest swarm creatures could slowly tear a large machine apart.
Vehicles killed by Lasguns bugs me less than vehicles not having facing or firing arcs. Consider a devestator squad vs a Predator. Assuming you buy them so that their firepower is roughly similar, both probably have 10 wounds and a 3+ save, and probably start losing effectiveness at around the same point (6 wounds in). The Tank has T7 (or 8?), the Dev's have the rule "All weapons cannot do more than one wound at a time". This is the only major difference. The Devs hold up a bit better vs heavy weapon units, the tank holds up a bit better vs tactical units (which will have imbedded heavy weapons). I could get behind that - you need a heavy support unit, you can take whatever you like as a model without worrying too much. On the other hand, the game needs some kind of tactical depth to hold my interest, and I'm not seeing where that is going to come from at the moment.
Shuma-Gorath wrote: I just find it unrealistic which disappoints me. If I walk up to a tank today and shoot it with a revolver it won't do anything. If 100 people walk up to a tank and shoot it with a revolver, that tank isn't going to explode.
This game has magic, chaos gods, creatures that are anatomically impossible, and altered human giants in power armor.
Where does realism fit in?
y'know, realistic laser guns shouldn't be able to destroy a tank. y'know, lasers.
and bolters, which fire .75 caliber depleted uranium penetrator rounds. and we definitely have never seen 25mm bushmaster guns annihilate T-55's and T-72's in real life.
To counter the fact that these Characters cannot join units and “hide” from enemy fire, there is a rule in the Shooting phase that means you can’t target a Character unless they are the closest enemy model. This represents the difficulty in picking out individuals amidst the maelstrom of battle and applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.
Ohh I like that. Might make non-flying Daemon Princes usable again, assuming they have less than 10 wounds.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
Totally depending on points
They'll be over costed because they always are. Two things are constant in Space Marines which are Terminators and Dreadnoughts suck.
Well good thing that all the factions and races get a rules and profile reset, including points. "X is going to be like that because it always has been" isn't going to work as an argument when we have already seen that they are willing to radically overhaul the entire game in completely new ways.
Won't even bother to reply to Alpharius' "but everything will hurt everything. that's really bad for Dreads" statement because we have been going over the math over and over and over again and we still get this one liner after emperor knows how many pages. Considering how efficiently all those bolters and lasguns are murdering MCs right now, I am sure Dreads will suffer massively from them compared to losing all the vehicle chart and hull point handicaps they have right now *rollseyes*. Especially if you throw in 2+ saves with cover.
Well, 1) good thing I didn't actually say that? and 2) Thanks for replying anyway?
So yes, this thread is almost impossible to Moderate, aside from the more egregious incidences of Rule #1 being trampled on...
Character change looks OK - if they also required half the unit to be in range of the character for the Aura power to work I'd actually be pleased, but I think that's a bridge too far.
Characters can't be shot unless they're closest or have 10+ wounds, can pile into nearby assaults and often get keyword bubbles of effect. Sounds great! It's basically the same as joining a unit now, but you can't attach independent characters to each other, and don't have to worry about majority toughness, psychic powers buffing the unit+character, etc. A surprisingly subtle but hopefully effective change. It definitely fixes my worries about character sniping. I think this is an elegant solution. Also, the keyword bubbles, expected though they were, should hopefully make armies a little more fluffy than they used to be.
More weapon profiles tomorrow - who wants to bet on seeing the meltagun, plasma gun and gauss rules (they're the most requested on FB)!
Character placing is going to be key now. Curious to see how deep strike will work. I expect to see a lot of deep strikers configured for character killing if someone gets careless with their characters.
Zustiur wrote: I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.
You're not 100% correct.
A Strength 3 gun is only as good as a Strength 4 gun against vehicles of Toughness 5 or lower and Toughness 8 or higher, Toughness 6 to Toughness 7 gives the advantage to a Boltgun.
Additionally, you're not accounting for the Rend and Damage characteristics of the Plasma Gun which do make an impact on how good they are against tanks.
yes, yes I know. I knew both of those points when I wrote it. I was imagining a T10 land raider. Pick another s7 weapon with no rend. It doesn't matter. I still find the concept weird. Once you reach a certain toughness, the stronger person has no benefit over the weaker person. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
I was commenting it because it's a factor I haven't seen much in the continual back and forth on this topic, despite reading 90÷~ of the thread.
I'm actually ok with this from a crunch perspective, but honestly it takes a bit of the thematic element away for me.
I know for all intents and purposes, they can still be "with" a squad. But some part of me will always be thinking about how my Interrogator-Chaplain is hanging out near his squad instead of with them.
Not super important in the grand scheme of things, simply a personal issue, but it's definitely going to bother me for a while.
As my friend put it "Like Abbadon and the bringers of despair, now it's just Abbadon in close proximity to the bringers."
Tyran wrote: Are you people aware that you can cripple a tank with small arms right? A tank is far more than simple armor, it has plenty of fragile bits that it needs to function like view ports.
Most tanks from, like, early WW2 onwards don't really have that many fragile parts. The view ports were usually periscopes with tough glass protecting them, so shooting a view port wouldn't hurt anyone inside. If a view port did get shot out, several spares would be carried within the tank and could be swapped out from the inside so no one would have to jump out under enemy fire to replace one. See this video at 2:30....
I'm guessing there were a lot of folks that were good shots with a rifle back then, or machine guns that could spray a lot of bullets in a short amount of time, so tanks were designed as best possible to be immune to small arms fire.
Of course infantry was still deadly to tanks, if infantry got too close they often carried an array of effective short ranged anti tank weapons, which is why tanks would typically not run around on their lonesome without friendly infantry support to keep the enemy infantry at arm's length.
They're characters now. Purchased as part of a unit, but still a character unit type.
Because all the time in the past they've been a sergeant equivelant?
Not all the time. Kroot Mercenary list had them available as HQ choices in a "Shaper Council" or as a "Master Shaper".
In any regards, they're not the "sergeant equivalent" at this point. They're more of a "Veteran Sergeant" equivalent--a point costed upgrade with a special rule/loadout.
Ruin wrote: Well that's interesting. Elephant in the room is still the fate of stuff like Tyrant Guard etc.
Can be easily represented with extra synergies. E.g. extra buffs given to the "bodyguard unit" by the character and vice versa, to adding extra bonuses or even absorbing wounds directed at the character if the bodyguard is in the same combat. Same with every other bodyguard/retinue style unit.
Hopefully also eliminates non-independent characters that are part of a unit and the constant imbalance we had between them and independent characters (e.g. non-IC characters like Mordrak or Arjac having been way better than ICs in 5th edition [cough, wound allocation shenigans, cough], then the exact opposite being the case in the 6th and AFAIR 7th).
Jambles wrote: How the heck is Robby G. hiding in the middle of a Space Marine army? The dude is twice as tall as the rest of them, with a giant flaming sword!
"I can't get a clean shot at his legs!"
That's what centurions are for. Failing that, the marines could always stand on each other's shoulders.
They're characters now. Purchased as part of a unit, but still a character unit type.
I suppose I meant as a model independent of the unit (though rereading it, i suppose that isn't actually confirmed).
I mean, I think it's pretty definitive that they namedropped him in the "Characters" article and goes on to talk about how Characters can't join units.
It's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it makes me excited to see if they have more stuff planned for Kroot seeing as how the Shaper is mentioned as buffing Kroot units within a certain range.
obsidianaura wrote: If a character cant join a unit do you think they'll change transport rules?
I don't think they'll want to force your character or unit run along side the transport whilst the other is carried.
Maybe this will mean that a transport can carry multiple units.
I think the new Sky Dwarf vehicles can in AOS but away from my book.
They can, I suspect it will be similar.
Nah Man Pichu wrote:My friend just made a good point.
What about situations where you want your character to charge in with a squad, but he rolls badly on the charge?
Is that just a part of the game now? Where your character's support in a fight isn't guaranteed.
I know they have their Heroic Intervention, but I imagine it can only go so far.
Maybe it'll just have to be one of those things you plan for. Keep a couple units around your character, charge one in, roll the Character, if he fails, keep the other units around to bodyguard him.
This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Jambles wrote: How the heck is Robby G. hiding in the middle of a Space Marine army? The dude is twice as tall as the rest of them, with a giant flaming sword!
What about situations where you want your character to charge in with a squad, but he rolls badly on the charge?
Is that just a part of the game now? Where your character's support in a fight isn't guaranteed.
I know they have their Heroic Intervention, but I imagine it can only go so far.
Can any AoS players weigh in here? What's your experience in this regards?
If they fail then they fail. Most will also be giving off force multipliers like they mentioned in the article so if it takes until next turn to get them in it isn't as big of a deal (and they'll get to swing first).
Nah Man Pichu wrote:My friend just made a good point.
What about situations where you want your character to charge in with a squad, but he rolls badly on the charge?
Is that just a part of the game now? Where your character's support in a fight isn't guaranteed.
I know they have their Heroic Intervention, but I imagine it can only go so far.
Can any AoS players weigh in here? What's your experience in this regards?
It't not uncommon in AoS to have a unit and a hero charge, and only one making it there,
Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Ruin wrote: Well that's interesting. Elephant in the room is still the fate of stuff like Tyrant Guard etc.
Can be easily represented with extra synergies. E.g. extra buffs given to the "bodyguard unit" by the character and vice versa, to adding extra bonuses or even absorbing wounds directed at the character if the bodyguard is in the same combat. Same with every other bodyguard/retinue style unit.
They will be "If an hive tyrant within 3" of this unit suffers a wound, you can roll a dice. On a result of 4+ the hive tyrant does not suffert that wound, instead this unit suffers a mortal wound"
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
They're characters now. Purchased as part of a unit, but still a character unit type.
I suppose I meant as a model independent of the unit (though rereading it, i suppose that isn't actually confirmed).
I mean, I think it's pretty definitive that they namedropped him in the "Characters" article and goes on to talk about how Characters can't join units.
It's not a bad thing. If nothing else, it makes me excited to see if they have more stuff planned for Kroot seeing as how the Shaper is mentioned as buffing Kroot units within a certain range.
Oh, I'm not suggesting it would be a bad thing (I did describe it as intriguing, not generally a negative connotation to that), and I agree that this suggests interesting things happening for the lesser-loved Xenos subfactions.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Or get rid of the known and constantly heralded problems by using stuff we think works and we have had people test - you can view it either way and we won't know if it is better or worse or even just different for some time yet.
Isn't this how WarMachine Hordes handles characters? I can't recall its been years since I played.
Ruin wrote: Well that's interesting. Elephant in the room is still the fate of stuff like Tyrant Guard etc.
Can be easily represented with extra synergies. E.g. extra buffs given to the "bodyguard unit" by the character and vice versa, to adding extra bonuses or even absorbing wounds directed at the character if the bodyguard is in the same combat. Same with every other bodyguard/retinue style unit.
Hopefully also eliminates non-independent characters that are part of a unit and the constant imbalance we had between them and independent characters (e.g. non-IC characters like Mordrak or Arjac having been way better than ICs in 5th edition [cough, wound allocation shenigans, cough], then the exact opposite being the case in the 6th and AFAIR 7th).
In the old days of "shoot the big ones" (i forget what edition) the hive guard had special rules to intercept wounds, I bet that'll come back , or there will be some kind of 'character unit'
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
This will probably work fine. The problem with AOS is that the characters can be freely sniped, but that has been solved here, so not every character needs to be a ridiculously tough monster in order to survive.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
Bodyguards.
As was mentioned above: stuff like this covers that:
"If an hive tyrant within 3" of this unit suffers a wound, you can roll a dice. On a result of 4+ the hive tyrant does not suffer that wound, instead this unit suffers a mortal wound"
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
It's not as if deathstars are the only problem it solves. 8th is clearly not set up for mixed units. Not mixing and matching profiles provides a much more streamlined game.
Then again, let's wait to see their rules. I'd be happy if they got S4 back again, what with going first on the charge, and maybe they'll have a nice save in woods.
At first glance I am liking the new character rules. This does a lot to mitigate some of the other changes.
While I am not a fan of the shift from AV to T I think that hopefully the new emphasis on melee (and these new characters rules really do a lot of help improve melee) will mean that target priority plays a bigger role and even units that are made weaker overall will likely still survive because there area more urgent targets available.
Well played GW...
As an afterthought, I think that having multiple overwatches in a single turn works counter to this change. I hope that doesn't stick around.
Jambles wrote: How the heck is Robby G. hiding in the middle of a Space Marine army? The dude is twice as tall as the rest of them, with a giant flaming sword!
"I can't get a clean shot at his legs!"
Pfft. Everyone knows RG break dances while fighting. He was blessed by the Emprah with a sick sword windmill move.
Ruin wrote: Well that's interesting. Elephant in the room is still the fate of stuff like Tyrant Guard etc.
Can be easily represented with extra synergies. E.g. extra buffs given to the "bodyguard unit" by the character and vice versa, to adding extra bonuses or even absorbing wounds directed at the character if the bodyguard is in the same combat. Same with every other bodyguard/retinue style unit.
Hopefully also eliminates non-independent characters that are part of a unit and the constant imbalance we had between them and independent characters (e.g. non-IC characters like Mordrak or Arjac having been way better than ICs in 5th edition [cough, wound allocation shenigans, cough], then the exact opposite being the case in the 6th and AFAIR 7th).
In the old days of "shoot the big ones" (i forget what edition) the hive guard had special rules to intercept wounds, I bet that'll come back , or there will be some kind of 'character unit'
4th ed, I think. There were some interesting target priority rules that died out in 5th ed.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.
You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form! This method is literally 90% the same as it used to be, other than not getting unitwide buffs which were the entire problem to begin with. You still get units as ablative wounds. You still pass on effects, sometimes, now, in a more logical aura too, as opposed to only buffing 1 unit. The only real change is that this prevents deathstars and makes positioning more important.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
Bodyguards.
Bodyguards literally prevent anyone from shooting the character if they are between him/her/it and the shooter (or even just closer).
Try again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
Bodyguards.
But you still have body guards now.
Place the character behind the squad. Done, instant bodyguards.
Well, this will allow fast moving units and deep strikers to try to get past the protecting unit so that they're nearest to the character. To properly protect an IC, you now need to place it between two units, so that it can not be targeted from any angle.
Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.
You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form! This method is literally 90% the same as it used to be, other than not getting unitwide buffs which were the entire problem to begin with. You still get units as ablative wounds. You still pass on effects, sometimes, now, in a more logical aura too, as opposed to only buffing 1 unit. The only real change is that this prevents deathstars and makes positioning more important.
GW: Vehicles don't have facings any more.
Dakka: But that takes away positional play, which is important and tactical!
GW: Characters can't be shot if you position them well.
Dakka: But they should be able to join units and be safe!
Eyjio wrote: Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.
I don't like champagne.
Eyjio wrote: You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form!
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"Characters joining units is creating situations where you have hard-as-nails super squads filled with characters!"
"What if we limit the amount of..."
"Ban characters form joining units!"
"Bravo! Three hour lunches for everyone! And after lunch we'll ignore the fact that we're reintroducing movement values and make charge distances random! Then we'll make sure that every single big creature in the game has its own unique chart for damage rather than a central one that will speed up play!"
At this point whether the rule works or not isn't the issue. It's the lengths GW seem to be going to ignore the problems with the game by sweeping it under the rug and pretending it's not there, all whilst introducing entirely new systems that don't address the old problems, just ignore them. If anything this will just create all new problems.
And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.
Bjorn no longer easily killed cannonfodder that can handicap your entire game if he dies, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!*
*Assuming he doesn't have more than 10 wounds **
** At which point I wouldn't care about him being directly targetable anymore assuming he has higher toughness and save than a standard Dread or is priced accordingly
Crimson wrote: Well, this will allow fast moving units and deep strikers to try to get past the protecting unit so that they're nearest to the character. To properly protect an IC, you now need to place it between two units, so that it can not be targeted from any angle.
It'll be napoleonic tactics - have a big squad form square, put the characters in the middle.
I can't wait to get a squadron of landspeeders with multimeltas - the character assassination force
What about situations where you want your character to charge in with a squad, but he rolls badly on the charge?
Is that just a part of the game now? Where your character's support in a fight isn't guaranteed.
I know they have their Heroic Intervention, but I imagine it can only go so far.
Can any AoS players weigh in here? What's your experience in this regards?
Well, when that happens... you kind of just have to deal with it, sadly. But that's more just a problem with random charge distance being a terrible idea in general.
That said, in AoS, you roll a unit's charge distance before selecting its target. So if it rolls poorly, then you can elect to stay home, which can help things a bit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
I mean, they've been flirting with the "character who can't join a unit" idea since (at least as early as I can remember) 5th ed GK. I guess there were Marbo and I think DE had a guy before the Purifier dude as well.
I'm okay with most of the changes, but I liked 5th edition.
Characters joining units is a long time mainstay of the rules that I am glad is gone. It's not like it made that much sense anyway, having my characters move about the battlefield giving orders to different units when needed sounds great.
How do characters work in AoS? Since they are not 'in' the unit now and you charge say a unit and a nearby char you:
- have to roll a charge for both
- make sure the char can make b2b (or 1")
- the enemy unit can specifically target him/her/it alone
- you kinda have to charge the char last in case of overwatch.. which leads to the second point being an issue
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
davou wrote:wait, arent some dreads characters?
I would assume character dreads would have 10+ wounds. Same with Bobby Gills. They should still be targetable.
You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You complain about removal of certain aspects of the game that make it more tactical and you're faced with this option which both solves a problem (more than one, actually) and adds something to the game, but it's automatically bad.
And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.
Crazy...
You didn't put any critical thought into your original post. "Can characters join units? No? Then this is bad".
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
davou wrote:wait, arent some dreads characters?
I would assume character dreads would have 10+ wounds. Same with Bobby Gills. They should still be targetable.
Frankly I have to say I like the character change. It's both what we were expecting based on what we know from AoS but at the same time was better than expected thanks to being able to park an IC in the middle of a horde to protect them frommbeing targetted easilly (perhaps sniper rifles will let you override that, giving you a chance to snipe important characters once more).
Commisars and Priests will likely not change as they're basically treated as unit upgrades bought in the HQ slot to attach to units, but I question what will happen with retinues like Grimaldus' servitors or a Wolf Lord's Ferensian Wolves. Do they basically form a unit anyways or will the models purchased to act seperately.
Also nice potshot by GW at the Barkstar and all it's dumbness.
Im not a fan of RG being able to hide... that makes no sense. And even if Magnus has over 12 wounds, he's now more fragile than RG just because RG can hide...
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
davou wrote:wait, arent some dreads characters?
I would assume character dreads would have 10+ wounds. Same with Bobby Gills. They should still be targetable.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
I agree completely. Now this may turn out to be better than characters joining units done right because it is more elegant - no more majority toughness, save, target allocation issues. But the notion that the basic IC rules were responsible for " "stars, is silly.
Eyjio wrote: Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.
I don't like champagne.
Eyjio wrote: You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form!
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"Characters joining units is creating situations where you have hard-as-nails super squads filled with characters!"
"What if we limit the amount of..."
"Ban characters form joining units!"
"Bravo! Three hour lunches for everyone! And after lunch we'll ignore the fact that we're reintroducing movement values and make charge distances random! Then we'll make sure that every single big creature in the game has its own unique chart for damage rather than a central one that will speed up play!"
At this point whether the rule works or not isn't the issue. It's the lengths GW seem to be going to ignore the problems with the game by sweeping it under the rug and pretending it's not there, all whilst introducing entirely new systems that don't address the old problems, just ignore them. If anything this will just create all new problems.
And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.
Crazy...
"You people"ing rarely gets anyone to heed your POV. Jussayin.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This really does seem to be the "Too Hard Basket" edition of 40K.
"There was a problem with X, but rather than fixing X, we're just getting rid of out and instituting Y! Enjoy Y. Don't ever think about X again!"
Deathstars were bad, so let's completely remove the concept of characters joining/leading units rather than putting measures in place that solve the Deathstar problem.
Why does a character need to be in a unit. Let's start there.
Bodyguards.
They are doing that. Remember, you cannot shoot him unless he's at the spearhead, in which case bodyguards won't matter.
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
davou wrote:wait, arent some dreads characters?
I would assume character dreads would have 10+ wounds. Same with Bobby Gills. They should still be targetable.
RG has 9
Really? Was his profile one of those previewed?
They use him as an example in the article
For example, Roboute Guilliman, who has 9 Wounds, can now realistically advance in the centre of a disciplined Space Marines army, directing his troops while remaining relatively safe from incoming weapons fire. Really big heroes, like Magnus the Red, will still need to brave enemy fire, but with, in his case, over a dozen Wounds and a respectable invulnerable save, he holds his own just fine.
ERJAK wrote: ooooh characters tomorrow. Not gonna lie, this is the one that I think has the most chance of being...problematic.
Agreed. If Characters can't hitch a ride in a transport with a squad, they are going to spend the game stuck in the back unless they have an alternate movement mode like a jump pack or bike.
davou wrote:wait, arent some dreads characters?
I would assume character dreads would have 10+ wounds. Same with Bobby Gills. They should still be targetable.
RG has 9
Really? Was his profile one of those previewed?
Wound was mentioned quite early. Iirc profile article that showed dreads
Well frankly that's reason enough to not listen to your complaints then!
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How is this not substantially worse? "Hey Captain, can I join this unit?" "Sorry man, I was here first. Get your own unit you filthy Chaplain" How would leaving a unit work then? Could I just declare that, if 2 ICs were in coherency of a unit, that I'm just switching which one is "in" the unit? Why artificially restrict it like that anyway? What happens if I join the 2 ICs together? That doesn't really solve anything. The proposed solution is much more functionally similar to the old rules, has no random restrictions on what is and isn't "in" a unit, and yet prevents the rule exploits.
And I'm hardly lapping it all up. Go back two dozen pages and you'll find me being quite vocally against random running/charges, as well as hesitant about how useful command points actually will be. However, in this case, I see a neat and tidy solution where characters get the protection I want, and can't abuse the rules like they used to. So yeah, I'm happy with GW on this one. You, however, appear to be so jaded that you have to come out and be a contrarian with every blog post. Lighten up, it's a game.
RG hiding is weird, but likely one of those weirdnesses that come from not wanting to use TLOS to determine if you can see the IC to shoot them.
Isn't Magnus like twice to three times the size of RG to boot? Or are we not counting his wings as part of his model size?
Ten wounds and down feels like a good cut off to me. It means that all but the beefiest of characters have some form of protection and we'll likely see the character keyword on models to create the opportunity for protecting them.
That said, I fully expect we'll see some ways to skirt around the "can't target" rule through specific weapons and possibly even units (Deathmarks).
I justs realized that with this change the loss of templates actually helps protect characters further as ydou can't indirectly target them by overlapping templates from nearby models in the target unit.
Eyjio wrote: Good grief, give HBMC $100 and he'll complain he's not got $1000, a basket of puppies and a bottle of champagne.
I don't like champagne.
Eyjio wrote: You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form!
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
You people are acting like every time GW reveals something new with their rules that it's the One True Path™ without even considering that there might be simpler or more elegant solutions to the things they're trying to solve. If Deathstars are a problem, then resolve that in a way that isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"Characters joining units is creating situations where you have hard-as-nails super squads filled with characters!"
"What if we limit the amount of..."
"Ban characters form joining units!"
"Bravo! Three hour lunches for everyone! And after lunch we'll ignore the fact that we're reintroducing movement values and make charge distances random! Then we'll make sure that every single big creature in the game has its own unique chart for damage rather than a central one that will speed up play!"
At this point whether the rule works or not isn't the issue. It's the lengths GW seem to be going to ignore the problems with the game by sweeping it under the rug and pretending it's not there, all whilst introducing entirely new systems that don't address the old problems, just ignore them. If anything this will just create all new problems.
And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.
Crazy...
GW is only stopping one more character than you from joining the unit so is there really much difference?
The way I see it, both methods would work. GW has chosen this one. It really isn't a big deal. Characters aren't going to get sniped easily (I'm hoping sniping will be limited to, y'know, snipers) and will still be able to inspire units in a variety of different ways.
In summation, just because it's different doesn't make it bad.
I like that they're seemingly cognizant of the absurdity, both thematically and from a balance perspective, of Deathstar units and are working to dismantle that. Great stuff.
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however. We had this in 3E and 4E, and it was rather open to abuse. My favorite example was Eldar players hiding Farseers between the frontal wings of Wave Serpents and Falcons, the character is clearly in the open and visible, but because the two tips of the wings were slightly closer, they became invisible to shooting. Not a fan of this mechanic, especially with something like a Primarch, who should not only be a huge and clearly distinct and visible item on a battlefield, but is also a CC beast who can become invulnerable to shooting with little or no real tactical ability on the part of tbe commander with a rules setup like this, and thus, with little or no real tactical ability be delivered into CC punchy kill death range.
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
I like this latest change for the same reasom I enjoyed it in AoS (which would probably be gw's main reason too)-heroes now stand out better amidst the rest of the units.
I don't know that GW was ever going to find the perfect solution to the deathstar problem. Any solution would ultimately take away something.
These new changes do work, but I think the cost is a little high. I know I am probably the last remaining advocate for the fluffy bits of 40k but I think they matter an awful lot and these changes just make immersion in the setting that much less likely.
A huge part of the flavor of the game - any game depicting front line heroics - is that commanders (here; characters) actually lead from the front. The Chaplain should be leading the charge with his brothers, striking the first bloody blow and setting an example!
What we have now is that all characters that aren't played by blathering idiots will be leading from just behind the front. They'll let their buddies charge first and then pile in after the fact.
Think for a moment about the last scene from LOTR Return of the King (okay not the last scene but the last one people cared about). If Aragon hadn't lead that charge... if he waited until everyone else charged and then 'piled in'... wouldn't have had the same impact.
I like that they're seemingly cognizant of the absurdity, both thematically and from a balance perspective, of Deathstar units and are working to dismantle that. Great stuff.
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however. We had this in 3E and 4E, and it was rather open to abuse. My favorite example was Eldar players hiding Farseers between the frontal wings of Wave Serpents and Falcons, the character is clearly in the open and visible, but because the two tips of the wings were slightly closer, they became invisible to shooting. Not a fan of this mechanic, especially with something like a Primarch, who should not only be a huge and clearly distinct and visible item on a battlefield, but is also a CC beast who can become invulnerable to shooting with little or no real tactical ability on the part of tbe commander with a rules setup like this, and thus, with little or no real tactical ability be delivered into CC punchy kill death range.
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
I like that they're seemingly cognizant of the absurdity, both thematically and from a balance perspective, of Deathstar units and are working to dismantle that. Great stuff.
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however. We had this in 3E and 4E, and it was rather open to abuse. My favorite example was Eldar players hiding Farseers between the frontal wings of Wave Serpents and Falcons, the character is clearly in the open and visible, but because the two tips of the wings were slightly closer, they became invisible to shooting. Not a fan of this mechanic, especially with something like a Primarch, who should not only be a huge and clearly distinct and visible item on a battlefield, but is also a CC beast who can become invulnerable to shooting with little or no real tactical ability on the part of tbe commander with a rules setup like this, and thus, with little or no real tactical ability be delivered into CC punchy kill death range.
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
I'm willing to be all of HMBC's money (I spent all of mine last week so his will have to do) that there will be a mechanic for ignoring those intervening models for sniping characters who hide like that.
Aside from that I feel it's probably safe to say that any problem we can see folks like Frankie and Reece probably saw and reported potential abuse issues. With how much GW has been talking about how balanced the new edition is I feel reasonably optimistic that they actually took measures to prevent exploits from getting into the final product.
Eyjio wrote: It definitely fixes my worries about character sniping. I think this is an elegant solution. Also, the keyword bubbles, expected though they were, should hopefully make armies a little more fluffy than they used to be.
Characters can still be sniped, just through different methods.
If you are walking your IC 6" in front of the rest of your army, he can be targeted.
If someone drops a pod of marines right by your IC, he can be targeted.
Someone can move the skimmer right in front of your IC to target them.
The best way to protect your IC is to keep them in between two units.
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X.............IC...........Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
Or embedded within a unit.
X......X........X...........X
X......X...IC.....X........X
X......X........X...........X
H.B.M.C. wrote: And you people are just lapping it up. Like any sense of critical thought went out the fething window after you got so suck of 7th Ed's unplayableness that you'll now readily accept anything as long as it's not 7th.
I don't see how this doesn't run afoul of Rule #1.
Kinda disappointed by your behavior in this thread, HBMC.
I like that they're seemingly cognizant of the absurdity, both thematically and from a balance perspective, of Deathstar units and are working to dismantle that. Great stuff.
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however. We had this in 3E and 4E, and it was rather open to abuse. My favorite example was Eldar players hiding Farseers between the frontal wings of Wave Serpents and Falcons, the character is clearly in the open and visible, but because the two tips of the wings were slightly closer, they became invisible to shooting. Not a fan of this mechanic, especially with something like a Primarch, who should not only be a huge and clearly distinct and visible item on a battlefield, but is also a CC beast who can become invulnerable to shooting with little or no real tactical ability on the part of tbe commander with a rules setup like this, and thus, with little or no real tactical ability be delivered into CC punchy kill death range.
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
Pretty good point, but a wave serpent might be easier to clear than a bunch of infantry. You'll also want the character near a unit that it is going to buff. I don't foresee a lot of them hanging back behind a tank and getting their full use.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
nintura wrote: Im not a fan of RG being able to hide... that makes no sense. And even if Magnus has over 12 wounds, he's now more fragile than RG just because RG can hide...
Can we please stop comparing units that we don't have the stats to? They point out he has more wounds and an invul save mechanic we know nothing about not to mention the possibility that he could have negative to hit modifiers for being a flyer.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
It's your tin foil hat going on.
Roboute Guilliman is about the same size as Bellisarius Cawl. Cawl is, currently, "Infantry" and thus can join units with no issue.
Guilliman is, currently, a Monstrous Creature and cannot join units. They made a special formation(Victrix Guard) that requires ridiculous stuff and granted Guilliman a "Look Out, Sir!" save though.
Both of those models, however, are quite a bit smaller than Magnus--even discounting the size of his wings.
Eyjio wrote: It definitely fixes my worries about character sniping. I think this is an elegant solution. Also, the keyword bubbles, expected though they were, should hopefully make armies a little more fluffy than they used to be.
Characters can still be sniped, just through different methods.
If you are walking your IC 6" in front of the rest of your army, he can be targeted.
If someone drops a pod of marines right by your IC, he can be targeted.
Someone can move the skimmer right in front of your IC to target them.
The best way to protect your IC is to keep them in between two units.
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X.............IC...........Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
Or embedded within a unit.
X......X........X...........X
X......X...IC.....X........X
X......X........X...........X
You won't likely be able to do the second one. In AoS, you have to maintain a certain amount of unit coherency and there is no mechanic allowing you to be "within" another unit's coherency, friendly or otherwise.
I'm willing to be all of HMBC's money (I spent all of mine last week so his will have to do) that there will be a mechanic for ignoring those intervening models for sniping characters who hide like that.
Aside from that I feel it's probably safe to say that any problem we can see folks like Frankie and Reece probably saw and reported potential abuse issues. With how much GW has been talking about how balanced the new edition is I feel reasonably optimistic that they actually took measures to prevent exploits from getting into the final product.
There will be kinks. No doubt about it. I just don't expect them to be game breaking things and if it is I expect GW will jump on it.
AoS suffers from strong shooting armies right now so we're awaiting a point readjustment with GHB2.
nintura wrote: Im not a fan of RG being able to hide... that makes no sense. And even if Magnus has over 12 wounds, he's now more fragile than RG just because RG can hide...
Can we please stop comparing units that we don't have the stats to? They point out he has more wounds and an invul save mechanic we know nothing about not to mention the possibility that he could have negative to hit modifiers for being a flyer.
Or that RG might have nothing beyond a normal armor save now.
I'm willing to be all of HMBC's money (I spent all of mine last week so his will have to do) that there will be a mechanic for ignoring those intervening models for sniping characters who hide like that.
Two words: Sniper. Rifles ;-).
ClockworkZion wrote: Aside from that I feel it's probably safe to say that any problem we can see folks like Frankie and Reece probably saw and reported potential abuse issues. With how much GW has been talking about how balanced the new edition is I feel reasonably optimistic that they actually took measures to prevent exploits from getting into the final product.
That's how I am feeling as well (especially assuming that both were already active during 4th edition and experienced the possible shenigans there).
labmouse42 wrote: Characters can still be sniped, just through different methods.
If you are walking your IC 6" in front of the rest of your army, he can be targeted.
If someone drops a pod of marines right by your IC, he can be targeted.
Someone can move the skimmer right in front of your IC to target them.
The best way to protect your IC is to keep them in between two units.
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X.............IC...........Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
Or embedded within a unit.
X......X........X...........X
X......X...IC.....X........X
X......X........X...........X
This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.
Remember, the removal of characters' ability to join units isn't just to stop deathstars: it's a design choice consistent with AoS (like basically all the other previewed rules so far...). It also simplifies (by completley obviating for the most part) wound allocation, different saves, splitting attacks for/between characters in combat, "Look Out, Sir!" saves and challenges.
And it isn't like "joining a unit" is a real thing. It's just a mechanic inhereted from WHFB to stop heroes from being picked off in an un-heroic fashion. This achieves the same thing.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
We don't know what they consider the scale of Characters.
In AoS, a Hero on foot would have 4 for squishy humans, 5 or 6 for Stormcast (Space Marines), 7 for big things like Orcs (Orruks, sorry).
Heavy Cavalry heroes have around 7ish.
Heroes on Dragons or big monster Heroes like Nagash have 12-18ish.
RG with 9 might seem like he's just there to gain the cover rule, but in honesty most Heroes will probably have 5~6 so he's probably built with the amount of Wounds to indicate that he's bigger than most, but not as massive as a Daemon Prince.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Yup, you are for sure wearing a ton foil hat. This isn't done just for Ultras. You do know they are releasing other Primarchs that will be 9 wounds and under. I expect Deamon Promarchs to be above this as they are, well deamon+primarch
I like that they're seemingly cognizant of the absurdity, both thematically and from a balance perspective, of Deathstar units and are working to dismantle that. Great stuff.
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however. We had this in 3E and 4E, and it was rather open to abuse. My favorite example was Eldar players hiding Farseers between the frontal wings of Wave Serpents and Falcons, the character is clearly in the open and visible, but because the two tips of the wings were slightly closer, they became invisible to shooting. Not a fan of this mechanic, especially with something like a Primarch, who should not only be a huge and clearly distinct and visible item on a battlefield, but is also a CC beast who can become invulnerable to shooting with little or no real tactical ability on the part of tbe commander with a rules setup like this, and thus, with little or no real tactical ability be delivered into CC punchy kill death range.
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
Hiding in a unit, or hiding next to a unit. Does it really make a difference?
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Yup, you are for sure wearing a ton foil hat. This isn't done just for Ultras. You do know they are releasing other Primarchs that will be 9 wounds and under. I expect Deamon Promarchs to be above this as they are, well deamon+primarch
The rule actually says if you have 10 or less wounds you get to hide, so there's no credence to them setting the big G to 9 to keep him just under the threshold. If anything, it proves they specifically set his wounds to what they thought it should be and didn't try to put him just under the hiding limit.
I'm willing to be all of HMBC's money (I spent all of mine last week so his will have to do) that there will be a mechanic for ignoring those intervening models for sniping characters who hide like that.
Two words: Sniper. Rifles ;-).
Most likely. Sniper Rifles might actually do the job they're supposed to do.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Yep. One has 9 wounds and can hide, for 350 points (?), the other has 12, cannot hide and costs 650 points (?). Going off memory, probably wrong on the points. Let's hope things get balanced a little more.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Yup, you are for sure wearing a ton foil hat. This isn't done just for Ultras. You do know they are releasing other Primarchs that will be 9 wounds and under. I expect Deamon Promarchs to be above this as they are, well deamon+primarch
Really? And your source for this absolute knowledge is what exactly? You know the statlines of all primarchs to come?
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
It's your tin foil hat going on.
Roboute Guilliman is about the same size as Bellisarius Cawl. Cawl is, currently, "Infantry" and thus can join units with no issue.
Guilliman is, currently, a Monstrous Creature and cannot join units. They made a special formation(Victrix Guard) that requires ridiculous stuff and granted Guilliman a "Look Out, Sir!" save though.
Both of those models, however, are quite a bit smaller than Magnus--even discounting the size of his wings.
Eyjio wrote: It definitely fixes my worries about character sniping. I think this is an elegant solution. Also, the keyword bubbles, expected though they were, should hopefully make armies a little more fluffy than they used to be.
Characters can still be sniped, just through different methods.
If you are walking your IC 6" in front of the rest of your army, he can be targeted.
If someone drops a pod of marines right by your IC, he can be targeted.
Someone can move the skimmer right in front of your IC to target them.
The best way to protect your IC is to keep them in between two units.
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X.............IC...........Y......Y........Y.......Y
X......X........X........X............................Y......Y........Y.......Y
Or embedded within a unit.
X......X........X...........X
X......X...IC.....X........X
X......X........X...........X
You won't likely be able to do the second one. In AoS, you have to maintain a certain amount of unit coherency and there is no mechanic allowing you to be "within" another unit's coherency, friendly or otherwise.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Yep. One has 9 wounds and can hide, for 350 points (?), the other has 12, cannot hide and costs 650 points (?). Going off memory, probably wrong on the points. Let's hope things get balanced a little more.
If we're still going on 7th rules, one is a level 5 psyker that knows 15 powers and casts on a 2+, can only be shot on a 6+, moves twice as far, has a higher toughness, rerolls saving throws of 1, etc.
This is pointless, you're complaining about a model that you know nothing about rules wise because other people got something you didn't.
A bit silly that nobody can pick out roboute guilliman on the battlefield.
Also, not sure how this solves the problem of deathstars. If I have one character that grants +1 to hit to every unit within 6", and another that grants re-rolls of 1 to hit for every unit within 6", I now can have at least two units that hit on 2+ with a re-roll. The only difference is the use of keywords to prevents the cross-faction sillyness. So it largely comes down to how they design the factions, keywords, and available abilities.
You won't likely be able to do the second one. In AoS, you have to maintain a certain amount of unit coherency and there is no mechanic allowing you to be "within" another unit's coherency, friendly or otherwise.
The rules presumably allow you to move your models.
Given that blanket allowance, there would need to be an explicit exception that PREVENTS you from using that movement to end up "within" another unit's coherency - either in the rules for coherency, the rules for movement, or the rules for characters.
Without that explicit exception, the blanket rule allowance would apply.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Not sure I would have interpreted his demonic 'ascendency' as having been that profound a difference but ... such is the nature of fantasy I suppose. I think that he would have been better suited with still having fewer wounds than his brothers but having gained more power in the form of increased sorcerous might. Running counter to that - he is a very large model and Magnus was always referred to as a giant so...
In any case, it feels a little intentional that RG can in fact 'hide' with the new rules, given that his model still towers over marines he'll likely be slogging alongside.
Seems like GW's love affair with the boys in blue will never end. If ever there were a change to pass the torch to a new chapter and have a new 'poster child' this edition was it.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Yep. One has 9 wounds and can hide, for 350 points (?), the other has 12, cannot hide and costs 650 points (?). Going off memory, probably wrong on the points. Let's hope things get balanced a little more.
If we're still going on 7th rules, one is a level 5 psyker that knows 15 powers and casts on a 2+, can only be shot on a 6+, moves twice as far, has a higher toughness, rerolls saving throws of 1, etc.
This is pointless, you're complaining about a model that you know nothing about rules wise because other people got something you didn't.
Given the option, I'd rather lose 3 wounds on my magnus to be able to hide.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Not sure I would have interpreted his demonic 'ascendency' as having been that profound a difference but ... such is the nature of fantasy I suppose. I think that he would have been better suited with still having fewer wounds than his brothers but having gained more power in the form of increased sorcerous might. Running counter to that - he is a very large model and Magnus was always referred to as a giant so...
In any case, it feels a little intentional that RG can in fact 'hide' with the new rules, given that his model still towers over marines he'll likely be slogging alongside.
Seems like GW's love affair with the boys in blue will never end. If ever there were a change to pass the torch to a new chapter and have a new 'poster child' this edition was it.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Yep. One has 9 wounds and can hide, for 350 points (?), the other has 12, cannot hide and costs 650 points (?). Going off memory, probably wrong on the points. Let's hope things get balanced a little more.
If we're still going on 7th rules, one is a level 5 psyker that knows 15 powers and casts on a 2+, can only be shot on a 6+, moves twice as far, has a higher toughness, rerolls saving throws of 1, etc.
This is pointless, you're complaining about a model that you know nothing about rules wise because other people got something you didn't.
Given the option, I'd rather lose 3 wounds on my magnus to be able to hide.
They said he has over a dozen wounds, you can't even say with certainty how many wounds he'd have to lose or what other rules he'd have to lose as well. Guess what, Magnus is going to have things G won't either. You can cry about it or wait till you actually know anything at all about Magnus before you complain about him.
In all likelihood, the Primarchs will all probably have more than 10 wounds and will thusly be exempt from this rule. You'll still be able to target them specifically. Magnus is not the strongest (physically) since he is a Pskyer and he has 12 wounds - the others will likely have many more.
Magnus is a daemonically ascended Primarch, even more powerful in such a form, RG was called out specifically in GW's article today as having 9 wounds and being able to hide as a result
Yep. One has 9 wounds and can hide, for 350 points (?), the other has 12, cannot hide and costs 650 points (?). Going off memory, probably wrong on the points. Let's hope things get balanced a little more.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Yup, you are for sure wearing a ton foil hat. This isn't done just for Ultras. You do know they are releasing other Primarchs that will be 9 wounds and under. I expect Deamon Promarchs to be above this as they are, well deamon+primarch
Really? And your source for this absolute knowledge is what exactly? You know the statlines of all primarchs to come?
"Look, if I mix and match old rules and some of the newly released stuff that we only know half of, it's bad! The sky is falling!"
Just wait for the rest of the rules to be released and don't use 7th edition rules/points to try and prove something about new rules.
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
So did they,
Characters cannot join units
and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?
Heroes not being able to be sniped seems like a big change from AoS, possibly for the better. In a lot of AoS batreps, it seems like the heroes always get kept at the back, lest they get shot to hell.
Not that there is a specific point to this entire thread other than to 'discuss' the changes - but that's all anyone can do right now.
GW is releasing tidbits, not the whole ruleset. All we can do at the moment is take what they are releasing and measure it against our existing metrics - even if we know that metric is subject to change when full ruleset does come out.
No harm is being done by speculating - it's all just banter anyway. Relax. No one needs to be the subject matter police.
Kanluwen wrote: You won't likely be able to do the second one. In AoS, you have to maintain a certain amount of unit coherency and there is no mechanic allowing you to be "within" another unit's coherency, friendly or otherwise.
To be fair, we don't actually know if Deathstars are actually, truly impossible now - we just know that the previous method of creating them (joining multiple ICs that grant special rules to particularly powerful units and/or using powers/equipment to buff them up) is no longer possible, and that keywords (in theory) will prevent the worst abuse.
Mortal wounds, keywords, and holistic balancing will hopefully prevent the worst excesses that we've seen, but clanging the death knell for Deathstars before we see all the rules seems... premature.
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
So did they,
Characters cannot join units
and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?
Actually, his idea would have The same effect as GW's. Considering that sergeangts and other unit leaders count as characters too
Daedalus81 wrote: This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.
That's an excellent question. I, for one, really hope that they do not and it goes back to defender's choice.
It would make foot assault armies more viable.
I'd say there's actually a bit of a difference between being "fully enclosed within the unit" like Labmouse posted and the example that GW gives there.
Hiding in a unit, or hiding next to a unit. Does it really make a difference?
hiding in a unit, the character is constrained by the unit and cannot move or act independently, and can be affected by things that affect that squad (such as morale) that may not be applicable to a single model. That's a meaningful tradeoff to being able to hide from shooting.
"Look, if I mix and match old rules and some of the newly released stuff that we only know half of, it's bad! The sky is falling!"
Just wait for the rest of the rules to be released and don't use 7th edition rules/points to try and prove something about new rules.
What a pointless post. You totally failed to realize the purpose of the discussion. I'm talking about hiding vs not hiding. Being able to hide makes you exponentially harder to kill, no matter how many more wounds the unit that cannot hide has.
Hey Clinton,
challenge rules are gone from the fight phase, but the restriction on hitting lone characters is only in the shooting phase, so expect to still see mighty heroes taking chunks out of each other in the fight phase.
and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?
Playing the Devil's advocate here.
Having the backing of accomplished persons does not mean they are going to arrive at conclusions that solve all the problems. More importantly, it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).
That is likely not what all players care about - It's purely speculative, but most of the folks I play with do so casually and only rarely engage in tournament play specifically because we don't like the added element of haste.
I've personally spent many thousands of dollars acquiring hundreds of models that I have painstakingly assembled, cleaned, primed, and painted over many hundreds of hours, which I lovingly pack into protective cases to bring to my FLGS or my buddies' place so that we can spend the time sharing and enjoying a hobby. From my perspective I enjoy that the game lasts a long while. I'd feel slighted if I put forth that much effort for only 20 minutes of gratification at the table. I'd rather play a meaningful, intense, and thoughtful game that lasts a few hours than blitz through have a dozen short matches. If I wanted the instant gratification of that playstyle I'd be playing Magic The Gathering.
I have my doubts about the new system. I can already see a few things that make me less than excited - but they sit along some things that I think have potential for good. I'll wait and see which side the scale falls on but I won't stop vocalizing my concerns simply because GW had a couple of their more fanatical players 'test' the new rules first.
Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.
Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).
"A unit can only be joined by one character at a time."
Boom. Problems with multiple character Deathstars solved. No need to deny characters the opportunity lead units. Did it in one sentence.
So did they,
Characters cannot join units
and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?
Actually, his idea would have The same effect as GW's. Considering that sergeangts and other unit leaders count as characters too
So basically it does nothing then? Good to know.
That said, with the character shooting rule does this feel like we're stepping back from TLoS to "intervening units block LoS"? I mean it seems like it might be more nuanced than that with the 11+ wounds not getting protection, but I feel like screening units actually might be a lot more useful by preventing units from getting shot at instead of just providing cover in most cases.
Unusual Suspect wrote: To be fair, we don't actually know if Deathstars are actually, truly impossible now - we just know that the previous method of creating them (joining multiple ICs that grant special rules to particularly powerful units and/or using powers/equipment to buff them up) is no longer possible, and that keywords (in theory) will prevent the worst abuse.
Mortal wounds, keywords, and holistic balancing will hopefully prevent the worst excesses that we've seen, but clanging the death knell for Deathstars before we see all the rules seems... premature.
This is from GW's release. "So here’s a big thing – Characters can’t join units anymore. The age of the <add prefix>-star is over."
We know that they did extensive playtesting with tournament players. If there was an easy way to create deathstars, I expect these players would have discovered them and submitted feedback to correct it.
While it's possible that the global player base will find ways to create deathstars missed by the playtesting team, I am leaning against it.
I think the chances of deathstars accidentally being created through the release of further material through 8th edition is a distinct possibility. That will depend on the amount of playtesting done with further expansion material.
Falls apart as soon as the unit takes casualties. Either the models holding the objective have to go or those hiding the character.
...which is awesome. Moving attacking units into flanking positions has a chance of opening up character shots. Also, a meatshield unit will need to be very large to prevent focused firing from wiping it out.
This really isn't any different from 7th. If anything, characters are safer if the defending player gets to choose which models are moved.
Hey Clinton,
challenge rules are gone from the fight phase, but the restriction on hitting lone characters is only in the shooting phase, so expect to still see mighty heroes taking chunks out of each other in the fight phase.
Challenges are gone, confirmed.
More streamlining and making alternating combats more important. Now do you activate your character first, or the unit he charged with?
Also looks like CSM should be happy: no more forced challenges.
ClockworkZion wrote: Since Magnus has over a dozen wounds, does anyone else feel like the Greater Daemons will be rolling in at above ten wounds as well?
Without a doubt. Look at the new models for the LoC and Fateweaver. Look at the BT model. All of those are likely to be over 10 wounds.
and they have the backing of very accomplished community contributors who say that this system works quickly and well on top of it. Apart from piles of pessimism, what makes you think your one sentence solution is better than theirs?
Playing the Devil's advocate here.
Having the backing of accomplished persons does not mean they are going to arrive at conclusions that solve all the problems. More importantly, it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).
That is likely not what all players care about - It's purely speculative, but most of the folks I play with do so casually and only rarely engage in tournament play specifically because we don't like the added element of haste.
I've personally spent many thousands of dollars acquiring hundreds of models that I have painstakingly assembled, cleaned, primed, and painted over many hundreds of hours, which I lovingly pack into protective cases to bring to my FLGS or my buddies' place so that we can spend the time sharing and enjoying a hobby. From my perspective I enjoy that the game lasts a long while. I'd feel slighted if I put forth that much effort for only 20 minutes of gratification at the table. I'd rather play a meaningful, intense, and thoughtful game that lasts a few hours than blitz through have a dozen short matches. If I wanted the instant gratification of that playstyle I'd be playing Magic The Gathering.
I have my doubts about the new system. I can already see a few things that make me less than excited - but they sit along some things that I think have potential for good. I'll wait and see which side the scale falls on but I won't stop vocalizing my concerns simply because GW had a couple of their more fanatical players 'test' the new rules first.
You could always, y'know, play more than one game.
On topic, this stops the slingshotting-a-character-into-combat nonsense. Which is good.
Unusual Suspect wrote: To be fair, we don't actually know if Deathstars are actually, truly impossible now - we just know that the previous method of creating them (joining multiple ICs that grant special rules to particularly powerful units and/or using powers/equipment to buff them up) is no longer possible, and that keywords (in theory) will prevent the worst abuse.
Mortal wounds, keywords, and holistic balancing will hopefully prevent the worst excesses that we've seen, but clanging the death knell for Deathstars before we see all the rules seems... premature.
This is from GW's release. "So here’s a big thing – Characters can’t join units anymore. The age of the <add prefix>-star is over."
We know that they did extensive playtesting with tournament players. If there was an easy way to create deathstars, I expect these players would have discovered them and submitted feedback to correct it.
While it's possible that the global player base will find ways to create deathstars missed by the playtesting team, I am leaning against it.
I think the chances of deathstars accidentally being created through the release of further material through 8th edition is a distinct possibility. That will depend on the amount of playtesting done with further expansion material.
Like I said, its too early to tell, and at the very least, what we've seen suggests the ability to make deathstars will be significantly curbed.
But yes, I saw GW make that claim. Claiming something, and something being actually true, are distinct things, y'know.
Crimson wrote: I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.
Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol
He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?
Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.
Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).
Hm. Curious how that'll carry over to 40k. Any penalties for shooting at them?
It actually does worse than nothing: it makes character-less units like IG conscripts the automatic choice for character caddy duty. It replaces an elegant if not-exactly-perfect solution with a weird, gamey one.
But then HBMC is so good at critical thinking compared to us lapdogs, I'm sure he's got it all figured out.
Daedalus81 wrote: This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.
That's an excellent question. I, for one, really hope that they do not and it goes back to defender's choice.
It would make foot assault armies more viable.
I am quite positive that casualties will be removed according to controlling player's choice.
At least that's how casualties are removed in AoS.
And seeing how plenty of AoS rules are implemented in the new 40K edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.
Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.
Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).
Hm. Curious how that'll carry over to 40k. Any penalties for shooting at them?
No, no penalties for shooting at Flying units. Though there is no distinction between those on Disks of Tzeentch (what would be a Jet Bike in 40k) or Aetherwings (flocks of birds).
Of course a Maw Krusha is technically a Flying unit, not sure there is much that would miss a cabbage...
Crimson wrote: I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.
Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol
He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?
No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?
It actually does worse than nothing: it makes character-less units like IG conscripts the automatic choice for character caddy duty. It replaces an elegant if not-exactly-perfect solution with a weird, gamey one.
But then HBMC is so good at critical thinking compared to us lapdogs, I'm sure he's got it all figured out.
Yeah, that would be pretty wonky.
I can definitely respect that people might feel a certain level of trepidation towards drastic changes in a game they know and probably like. That said, I can't really respect blasting others for liking the sound of said changes, or the idea that because it's different it's somehow automatically worse than before.
I won't pretend the new editionnwill automatically be good, but I do see reason to have some level of hope in it being reasonably good. Might even be tremendous great. Won't know until I have some games in to be honest. But I definitely think it's too early to get worked up over potential abuse of the game. We have the most play tested edition coming out and if we can see the problems from just these snipoets, the testers definitely saw them from the full rules. I won't promise hey're fixed, but if we can see the issue now, it's most likely not really an issue.
Crimson wrote: I don't think it is at all weird that Guilliman can hide behind infantry while Magnus can't.
Put RG up next to a regular marine though. Then tell me how he hides in the middle of that lol
He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?
No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?
It might. Depends on what the new rules for screening models are.
Daedalus81 wrote: This makes me question if models still might come off from the front.
That's an excellent question. I, for one, really hope that they do not and it goes back to defender's choice.
It would make foot assault armies more viable.
I am quite positive that casualties will be removed according to controlling player's choice.
At least that's how casualties are removed in AoS.
And seeing how plenty of AoS rules are implemented in the new 40K edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true.
I know it works counter to GW's intentions of making all matches 5 minutes or less (/s) but I think that in this case there should be one system for melee and one system for ranged. Ranged attacks should always hit/wound the units closest to the firing unit. In melee it should be players choice. I know there is always the odd explanation of how it could be explained in this way or that (pushing your friend out of the way and taking a bullet for him) but I think the law of averages with what is effectively machine-gun fire would ultimately work that out.
This also runs afoul of any models that currently have 'lot out sir!' or similar rules but we don't know if those things will continue exactly as they do now so...
Falls apart as soon as the unit takes casualties. Either the models holding the objective have to go or those hiding the character.
Yep. That's why I suggested something like what I designed. A better way would be to do something like this. This lets the IC 'buff' both units, and gives a set of coverage for the IC. It blocks the 'drop pod assassination'. It keeps the IC from becoming the closest target until both units are whittled down.
My big question is this.....Will ICs be able to ride in a transport with other models? Or will one of them take all the transport capacity of a stormraven?
That will have a big impact on how transports are used.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?
No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?
I don't see the word "if" anywhere in what you quoted. What is the source of the complaint about Guilliman being able to hide then? You just think everyone should get to hide even if 95% of the models in the game only reach someone's waist? It seems reasonable to set a criteria where some models are easy to pick out of a crowd while others are not. A towering behemoth larger than many fortifications in the game would be a good candidate for someone that can't hide while a model that can easily duck behind a rhino is a good one to get to hide.
The real fix to Death Stars is in the keyword system that they are implementing now. This allows IC's to pass out buffs to their intended recipients while cutting out the shenanigans. Players like H.B.M.C. and Liberal_Perturabo should go ahead and make sure to laminate their copies of the 7th edition ruleset then find a table somewhere in the corner where they can play 40K their way until their hearts content.
Alpharius wrote: At T7 and 'everything can hurt everything', I'm not sure that 8th will turn out to be 'The Return of the Dreadnought' Edition, unfortunately.
That makes me and my 5 loyalist stompies sad.
Takes 111 Scatterlasers to kill the new one. It'd take just as many bolters and a gak ton more lasguns.
It can be wounded by more things, but it's not the best method for dealing with it.
He could easily hide behind centurions though. The problem is there are varying sizes of infantry they'll hide behind and varying sizes of characters that will be doing the hiding. I'm betting wolf lords on thunderwolves will be able to hide too and they're taller than Guilliman. Do you just not want anyone to hide at all?
No but you're using "if" statements. Hell, I could hide Magnus behind two knights. Does that count?
I don't see the word "if" anywhere in what you quoted. What is the source of the complaint about Guilliman being able to hide then? You just think everyone should get to hide even if 95% of the models in the game only reach someone's waist? It seems reasonable to set a criteria where some models are easy to pick out of a crowd while others are not. A towering behemoth larger than many fortifications in the game would be a good candidate for someone that can't hide while a model that can easily duck behind a rhino is a good one to get to hide.
Hence the "" marks... it was said "but what about centurions." That's an "if" statement. IF I had Cents, he could hide. IF I had knights, Magnus could hide. I just dont see how the number of wounds should make it possible to hide or not. RG is twice the size, or more, of the surrounding troops.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Bite your tongue. They are calling this the Warhammer 40,000: Ultra Edition after all
I am not sure why folks think this is the most play tested version of 40k. Back in 3rd edition and early 4th they used to have all sorts of gaming groups contribute to play testing and the rules. In fact in 2nd Edition in the Chaos codex, Andy Chambers writes about going to tournaments and interviewing players to see what they wanted in the book and how he wanted the rules to be reflective of the communities wants. Granted GW stepped back from that approach the last few editions. Alot of what we are seeing is just recycled rules from past editions, there isn't much new content.
However one thing is certain, no matter what rules they come up with the players will break. 100% guarantee. In fact GW will most likely break their own rule set when they start producing paid for content- they do it every edition. 7th edition was not a bad rule set, if you just took the rules in the general rulebook. What broke the system was the formations and the individual unit rules (that came after the rule set). Hence no matter how well play tested the general rules are, unless GW has a commitment to continue after every codex to play test extensively, the rules will break down. You can say that's pessimistic, however, I have played through every edition and GW does it every time.
Do I mind the rules change- not really, I am a bit disappointed many rules have ported over from AoS which I think is a terrible system- but I refuse to believe GW is going to keep it balanced. They just can't do it, not with all the factions and content they will be putting out for sale and the genuine desire to make new models more attractive to customers than old models (and rules are a part of this process) as well as rules designers actual affinity for certain factions that lead to biases in the rules design (they want the rules to reflect the nature of the model/army which in turn gives them rules that are too good compared to other armies).
As far as ICs not joining units, it will be good for some units/some gameplay and it will be broken by others, again its not a stretch to imagine this and if you think its going to be totally balanced across the board- every single unit/ every character than you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Bite your tongue. They are calling this the Warhammer 40,000: Ultra Edition after all
I am not terribly thrilled about untargetable characters however.
*snip*
This mechanic *will* see abuse.
That said, it will be interesting to see how they handle units like IG command squads.
I agree. While I see the need to do something to protect characters, the cutoff of 10 wounds (especially if RG fall under that at 9 wounds) is laughable. Things like RG and Daemon Princes should be able to be picked out from the masses of tactical marines and cultists they're standing amidst. Quick, glance for only a second at the spoiled picture and I bet your eyes will be drawn to RG easily...
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
But if the GK character wasn't next to him you'd probably miss that one in the pic.
Once again, the pendulum in this edition feels like its swinging too far (just like with completely random charge distances in an edition with customized unit movement values). I called last edition Greedhammer 40k due to the marketing ploys masquerading as game mechanics but I'm starting to think I may have to call this the Pendulum edition this time around.
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
So wait. People have said them how the Chaos one literally didn't said nothing of value, and now they have give us some rules in this new article? Hmmm... obviously, this is the GW of old, that just want to deceive us, oh, poor people with a feble mind, that just accept what GW give to us without critical thinking and analisis...
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Commisars still help negate the penalties for morale, and that Leman Russ doesn't start slowing until it loses half of it's wounds. I think we can gather that the first half of a model's wounds won't cause degrading statlines to kick in.
Rapid Fire seems to be the total number of shots at full range and double at half (Rapid Fire 1 becomes Rapid Fire 2 under FRFSRF).
Hence the "" marks... it was said "but what about centurions." That's an "if" statement. IF I had Cents, he could hide. IF I had knights, Magnus could hide. I just dont see how the number of wounds should make it possible to hide or not. RG is twice the size, or more, of the surrounding troops.
I'm not saying "if you happen to have this one specific unit of centurions he can hide", I'm saying he's on a significantly smaller scale than Magnus and most units in the game are within a head or two of him heightwise. A lot of the scale for his model actually comes from him standing on a dramatic base. He's probably only 15-20% taller than regular marines which doesn't leave a lot of extra room to easily spot him across a battlefield and make him an easy target like you could with Magnus. The number of wounds was probably chosen as an easy way of identifying a size criteria. It's a lot better than going through and saying something like "models with a combined volume of... may hide".
nintura wrote: RG is a Primarch and has 9. I feel this is done JUST SO he can hide. It could be my tin foil going on, but that feels like they are still trying to keep things in the Ultramarines favor. I was hoping they'd stop doing that.
Bite your tongue. They are calling this the Warhammer 40,000: Ultra Edition after all
lols, fair enough. Should have seen that coming.
I am ready to roll!
This edition is turning out to look really good. Now all we need is new plastic guard kits that can make one of several famous guard armies!
En Excelsis wrote: it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).
You do realize that the people running thouse 'tournaments' also run the largest narrative events that have ever existed in 40k? Apocalypse games spanning 30+ tables, recreations of seige of terra, small killteam daylong campaigns.
Their events are nnot just a grand tournament full of people beating each other with deathstars. They have paiting and modeling showcases, fluff competitions, narrative gameplay, and even third part games. They even run game shops! They're literally everything you want, plus everything I want; but people are begruding them for their tournament success
I'm liking what I'm reading so far. As always, I need to see it written out. I'm fine with characters not joining units. If you could limit it to one character, that would be decent. However, you could still put smash-fether in a bike command squad with storm shields and have a nearby librarian in another squad buff them with invisibility or "_____" awesome power. That is still a tough nut to crack and meets the 1 character per squad rule. This way, the librarian would have to buff them individually, if he can even cast the same power twice. Just a thought.
Zero complaints about the character rules...except that GW continues on with boring/unfluffy/stupid rules for certain characters.
I hate the throw-away "uh...re-roll 1's...that's your special rule". If you're going to do a special rule, do one that makes sense or has some vague lore/fluff behind it. That was one of my biggest complaints about 7th ed and all of the heaps of characters and special rules they came with.
Re-rolling in general is crap and wastes time...so get rid of that gak.
If you can't think of a good rule for a character, don't give them one.
ClockworkZion wrote: Since Magnus has over a dozen wounds, does anyone else feel like the Greater Daemons will be rolling in at above ten wounds as well?
Without a doubt. Look at the new models for the LoC and Fateweaver. Look at the BT model. All of those are likely to be over 10 wounds.
I'd look at their AoS profiles for an idea of how many wounds greater daemons will have. 14 for BT, 10 for GUO (but I'm expecting him to get an upgrade the way LoC did with 1kSons), 14 for LoC, 10 for KoS. I doubt there'll be a direct translation from AoS daemons to 40k, but I would be surprised to see major differences.
Yes. For the most part, it's just Movement related stuff.
Flying/Swooping/Gliding things tend to have a very high Movement value to start with--and also they don't have the same restrictions for how they move(they can move over terrain and other units to get where they want to go--but cannot end their move on top of or within a certain distance of an enemy unit).
Hm. Curious how that'll carry over to 40k. Any penalties for shooting at them?
No, no penalties for shooting at Flying units. Though there is no distinction between those on Disks of Tzeentch (what would be a Jet Bike in 40k) or Aetherwings (flocks of birds).
Of course a Maw Krusha is technically a Flying unit, not sure there is much that would miss a cabbage...
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Commisars still help negate the penalties for morale, and that Leman Russ doesn't start slowing until it loses half of it's wounds. I think we can gather that the first half of a model's wounds won't cause degrading statlines to kick in.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. Some behemoths in AoS start degrading from as early as the second wound taken. Others need to take quite a few hits before it starts to wear them down.
'‘First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!’. This now makes a unit of Astra Militarum infantry treat their lasguns and hot-shot lasguns as Rapid Fire 2; that’s 4 shots per Guardsman at half range! '
'it'll be really hard to take down a dreadnought with lasguns unless you have a bucket load of shots'
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Even Ratlings – with their sniper weapons allowing them to pick out and target Characters – will now be reaping a tally on your enemy’s leaders in the name of the Emperor!
To whomever called sniper rifles as character targeters/killers a few pages back, well done! Credit where credit is due. My sniper scouts will FINALLY get used!
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Even Ratlings – with their sniper weapons allowing them to pick out and target Characters – will now be reaping a tally on your enemy’s leaders in the name of the Emperor!
To whomever called sniper rifles as character targeters/killers a few pages back, well done! Credit where credit is due. My sniper scouts will FINALLY get used!
Latro_ wrote: '‘First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!’. This now makes a unit of Astra Militarum infantry treat their lasguns and hot-shot lasguns as Rapid Fire 2; that’s 4 shots per Guardsman at half range! '
'it'll be really hard to take down a dreadnought with lasguns unless you have a bucket load of shots'
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Even Ratlings – with their sniper weapons allowing them to pick out and target Characters – will now be reaping a tally on your enemy’s leaders in the name of the Emperor!
To whomever called sniper rifles as character targeters/killers a few pages back, well done! Credit where credit is due. My sniper scouts will FINALLY get used!
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Now THAT is faction focus article that is actually more than just marketing speech.
Also one point regarding character rules. Overall I have no big issue with it(the loss of cinematics is sad but something's got to go). Mechanically there's one issue I have with it though it's minor one. Basically the gap between 10th and 11th wound is big. As it is now getting that 11th wound is huge drawback. Characters probably will prefer having 10 wounds over 16! And it intuitivitely feels WRONG being punished by having extra wounds...
Also it removes some flexibility as you can't have small character that should be able to hide with say 12 wounds. Albeit no character like that exists now(I think no character fits that description) but it does limit potential for new models.
Since they have keywords now feel this would have been good place to do it on keywords. Negative effect keywords isn't anything weird so having negative keyword that prevents hiding for heroes would be quite doable and would make more wounds be always good. And remove that artificial 10->11 wound gap that's going to be killer. I mean it feels odd you have 11 wound model and say 6 wound model with otherwise equal and have the 11 wound one be cheaper...
The Chaos article was a little light compared to this one on the juicy details, so we'll use Rubric Marines when we look at Datasheets later in the week. How's that?
The Chaos article was a little light compared to this one on the juicy details, so we'll use Rubric Marines when we look at Datasheets later in the week. How's that?
En Excelsis wrote: it means that they will arrive at conclusions which favor whatever bias was present in those specific pockets of the community - which seems specific to tournament organizers. Their interest in clearly in streamlining the game for greater efficiency (here: shorter matches).
You do realize that the people running thouse 'tournaments' also run the largest narrative events that have ever existed in 40k? Apocalypse games spanning 30+ tables, recreations of seige of terra, small killteam daylong campaigns.
Their events are nnot just a grand tournament full of people beating each other with deathstars. They have paiting and modeling showcases, fluff competitions, narrative gameplay, and even third part games. They even run game shops! They're literally everything you want, plus everything I want; but people are begruding them for their tournament success
My bad, I didn't realize that these playtesters were in fact deities who know and love everything about 40k and can do no wrong. Forgive me oh Lord of the Tournament Host!
My statement is no less true just because you think more highly of the playtester than I do. For the record, I wasn't exactly calling them bad people either, I simply stated that because they are in the role of playtesting and as such they have the ear of GW, it will be their bias that finds its way into the rules. All human beings have bias - impartiality is less common than unicorns.
Without using the same words GW has already confirmed as much - their own verbiage clearly illustrates a strong desire to streamline play for shorter matches. They are clearly in the market for more games played at a more rapid pace (quantity over quality).
The only issue I see with this pro-longed marketting campaign is our FLGS are suffering a lack of interest in buying at the moment. Heck, my store I go to is having people even bother to play 7th edition.
It means they pretty much have to weather no real sales for 2 months. Until June 17th....
Went up there last night and people were sitting around chatting instead of playing.
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Commisars still help negate the penalties for morale, and that Leman Russ doesn't start slowing until it loses half of it's wounds. I think we can gather that the first half of a model's wounds won't cause degrading statlines to kick in.
Rapid Fire seems to be the total number of shots at full range and double at half (Rapid Fire 1 becomes Rapid Fire 2 under FRFSRF).
Limit. Not negate(as in no battleshock). Hopefully bit better than just reroll if blops are still a thing.
Ratius wrote: Some juicy updates today Notably Rough Riders are still a thing
Gross...
That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.
Also really bummed to STILL not have an answer as to whether or not Guard Sergeants can take a flipping Lasgun. ARGH! Marine Sergeants can take Boltguns, Tau squad leaders don't upgrade, etc. Why the frig do Guard have mandatory ones?
The Chaos article was a little light compared to this one on the juicy details, so we'll use Rubric Marines when we look at Datasheets later in the week. How's that?
That excites me greatly, good catch and thanks for sharing it! I was disappointed with Rubric performance in traitor legions but I'm hoping they'll get a good second chance here. I miss their 2 wound durability and immunity to small arms fire from past editions.
Youn wrote: The only issue I see with this pro-longed marketting campaign is our FLGS are suffering a lack of interest in buying at the moment. Heck, my store I go to is having people even bother to play 7th edition.
It means they pretty much have to weather no real sales for 2 months. Until June 17th....
Went up there last night and people were sitting around chatting instead of playing.
You know they have released enough info now that you could run some basic games reasonably accurately. Makes me actually want to try it. Some basic marines and IG vs orks. Nothing too fancy.
Obviously need SOME extrapolation but still gives some idea what the 8th ed will look like.
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Commisars still help negate the penalties for morale, and that Leman Russ doesn't start slowing until it loses half of it's wounds. I think we can gather that the first half of a model's wounds won't cause degrading statlines to kick in.
Rapid Fire seems to be the total number of shots at full range and double at half (Rapid Fire 1 becomes Rapid Fire 2 under FRFSRF).
Limit. Not negate(as in no battleshock). Hopefully bit better than just reroll if blops are still a thing.
Plenty of ways that this could happen. Give him a rule that says "disregard all casualties exceeding LD for squads within 6"? So at most the unit loses 6 guys. Or have him kill D6 models instead of taking the test if desired.
Time to roll up the Q&A comments on Facebook again:
Characters Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?
Q: So how about tanky IC's, will they be able to soak fire in lieu of their units still? Or can you bypass an IC to shoot up a unit behind them?
A: Nope.
If you want something "tanky" in Warhammer 40,000, you should put your units in a tank.
No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield.
Q: to avoid indipendent character to join a nearby unit it's an idiocy... a very bad rules and poor design. my character should led his comrades to the victory fighting in first line, and not hiding himself behind his comrades to avoid being targeted from enemy fire. very poor decision gw... there are countless sistem to avoid death star and this is the worst. welcome to the era of coward heroes in 41k millenium
A: Hey Gisberto,
We suggest you give it a try first. It really does work. Even in the current rules these heroes tend to deploy at the back of units.
In the new Warhammer 40,000, we tend to find characters used to accompanying units, advancing alongside the main battleline, possibly flanked on either side by squads, which looks great on the tabletop.
Q: Does that mean a Commissar can stiffen the backs of more than one unit of glorious Astra Militarum!? The Commissar union will have them on strike after this blatant downsizing and cost cutting venture from Terra!
A: We're pretty sure that going on strike is against the Commissariat guidelines.
Q: Will there be weapon types such as the sniper rifle that will avoid the closest target rule and be able to pick out characters?
A: Wouldn't that be something...
Q: I like this!! I am just wondering how the wording will be for the command benefits from some characters. I can see people trying to fin the loop hole and mix matching characters around a unit to beef them up with out having the characters join the unit.
I am hopeful the just canceled the deathstars for the most part!!!
A: Hey Allan,
It's certainly still beneficial to have your units accompanied by Characters, but the days of units benefitting from special abilities from heroes outside their faction is gone, and generally, it is harder to keep both the unit, and character totally safe from harm, which has been an issue in the past.
Q: How will this effect deployment in transports like drop pod lists etc? Will the character need to buy a pod for himself or can he still hitch a ride with another squad and separate once he's landed?
A: Hey Kevin,
Good question. We'll be looking at transports in detail in an article soon.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 but there's still a big part of characters I'm dying to know...challenges! Do challenges still exist for characters? Or is that gone from this edition?
A: Hey Clinton,
challenge rules are gone from the fight phase, but the restriction on hitting lone characters is only in the shooting phase, so expect to still see mighty heroes taking chunks out of each other in the fight phase.
Q: I'm intrigued as this would appear to mean no more command squads/ honored guards etc but you've also stated that everything will still be usable. Any clues how this is going to work?
A: Why would that mean you can't have Command Squads? You can totally still have Command Squads.
Q: Girlyman is just too shy so he hide behind his smurfs while my man, Magnus who is a sorcerer need to fight like a man. Good job!
A: Also, he's as big as a house.
You ever tried to hide a flying red cyclops the size of a house? Not so easy.
Q: The shooting rule makes sense since there would have been a wall of rage over hero's being sniped.
Is magic similarly effected or can characters still be sniped with long range psyker spells?
Any chance of getting this in AoS? Would be awesome to protect my Savage Maniak Weirdnobs as they move up behind boarboys
A: We saw already that "Smite" (your default killy-power) targets the closest unit only. Some other powers might be different though.
Q: Greatly disliking this change- now my Company Master can't join up with his COMMAND SQUAD, and is essentially reduced to just a passive buff-bot following his troops around and leading from the rear. There must have been a better way to fix deathstars, like more accurate point costs, or doing away with allies or something.
A: Hey Peter, There is nothing stopping you having your commander advance to battle with his Command Squad.
Q: What about when characters are in combat? Can they be targeted if they are the closest model? (e.g. A tactical square with a chaplain is charged by a unit of assault terminators. If one of the terminators is "base to base" with the chaplain, can he be targeted by that terminator?)
A: Indeed, you can't hide in Melee.
Q: Really disappointed with this, though at least it seems to only apply to independent characters.
I get why but yet again it feels like a sledgehammer approach over a scalpel.
Yeah,Guilliman will be fine with his crazy stats or the Chaplin type hero where they have good T and armour stat along with an inv save and the wargear options to make them good at close range shooting and cc but what about the ones that don't?.
Guard commissars and colonels,pretty much every type of Eldar,Dark eldar and quin character, necron cryptek and mini lords etc.
It's ok being "safe " when outside 12" or behind a unit but many races have podding unit's or deep strike capable of getting in that range easily,or flyers that are quick enough to get behind them. With many of those "support " characters having only a 4/5 save before modifiers they feel horribly exposed.
I know we haven't seen full rules yet but that feels so unbalanced towards Sm level hqs who were the worst offenders for deathstars
A: Hey Kaibong,
Jeremy's right about being able to hide a little either in, or between units. Also, we've yet to cover how things like Drop Pods work in the new game (we will, don't worry.)
In practice, all armies will have ways to protect their characters.
Q: please reconsider this change. I fully understand nerfing death stars, but banning chericters from joining any unit is one of the worst rules in aos and has no place in 40k. it would have been much better to limit chericters to joining units of their own faction. i was really looking forward to 8th, but this has just killed all of my enthusiasm for it. I guess I'll stick to 7th and hope you reverse this terrible decision with 9th ed.
A: Hey Andrew,
Thanks for your thoughts.
It is still pretty hard to kill a character with shooting here - they have to be the closest model to be targeted, unlike in Warhammer Age of Sigmar. So you still find characters advancing into battle alongside their squads, much as many of them do today. What's been removed, are the more extreme examples of multiple-character mega-units.
Q: So with area effects, why can't you just keep 3+ hqs huddled together behind an infantry blog or two, keeping them alive and adding cumulative buffs (possibly to each other)?
A: Hey Aaron,
Lots of reasons - like getting all those units dragged into a combat with a single unit, and not being able to shoot next turn. Or being so packed together, you can't take objectives easily.
Q: Will currently legal conversions such as Chaos Lords on Bikes or jump pack sorcerers that do not have current models still have rules in 8th?
Also will characters be able to jump in with a squad in there dedicated transport (if there's room)?
A: Hey Tim,
Good questions.
We're well aware loads of you out there have converted up characters for your armies with the current options - you'll be glad to hear that both of those units you mentioned are covered in the new rules.
We'll deal with transport units in an article soon.
Q: So Magnus can be shot on while girlyman the immortal can't. Makes sense. Also in a 1v1 girlyman best Magnus with his crazy sword and resurrection steroids
A: Hey Kim,
Both brothers get new rules in the new edition - who's to say that's even the case anymore?
Magnus is going to do just fine, don't worry.
Q: So are Tyrant Guard obsolete? Or are they possibly an upgrade option for a Hive Tyrant? Not like they could ever join any other kind of unit anyway...
A: Hey Robert,
Like all Warhammer 40,000 units, Tyrant Guard will get new rules, including some that might just help them keep the big guy alive if he's nearby...
Q: How will this affect the hive tyrant when he has tyrant guard that are suppose to take wounds for him?
A: Hey Jonathan,All units, including Tyranids get new rules to go along with this new edition. They will work as you imagine they should, don't worry.
Q: Really curious how Astra Militarum Command Squad will work? Should I be building up some Flag Sergeant to lead them?
A: Hey Bradley,
Good question - we know there are a lot of questions raised here.
We'll have more on specific units in articles soon, don't worry.
Q: So how does models that grant FNP work? Does FNP even exist outside of AoS Nurgle Demons any more?
A: Hey Ryan,
Good question.
Every single model has new rules in the new edition, so don't assume your character's rules will work in the same way. It may well be a bonus to certain units within range to make them more durable.
Q: How will this work with units that are "meant" to accompany an HQ? Like the Court of the Archon or Tyrant Guard?
A: Hey John,
They can totally still accompany them to battle.
All will get new rules, some to help protect their character, others will further bolster the units around them.
Q: So i built and painted my blood angel honour guard for nothing? Cheers guys.
A: Hey Christopher,
You can absolutely use your Blood Angels Honour Guard in the new edition. Why would you not be able to?
Q: Wait, are Kroot Shapers now an HQ? Are there even HQ in this edition anymore? As a Kroot Fanatic I must know.
A: Hey Hunter,
HQ's are certainly still a thing, but there are plenty of Characters aren't HQ's. The Kroot Shaper is one of these.
Q: So shadowsun cant have stealthsuit bodyguards anymore?? Her bloody rules revolved around that!!
A: Maybe she has new rules.
(She totally has new rules.)
Q: How will Drop pods work? Can they carry multiple units or do you need a separate drop pod for the character?
A: Hey Paul,
thanks for the question.
We'll cover transports in detail soon, don't worry.
Q: this will be a great change IF you can put multiple units in transports. otherwise characters will be stranded
A: Hey Jonathan,
Glad you like the changes.
We'll cover transport vehicles in detail in an article soon.
Q: will techpriest engineseers still have attached servitors? how will commissars and priests work. actually i like the idea of a comissar scaring ever unit around him into holding the line and him pulling the trigger at any unit that fails
A: Hey Lilia,
We like that image too!
You'll have to wait a little longer for full details on each unit's exact rules though.
Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.
All will get new rules, some to help protect their character, others will further bolster the units around them.
Q: So no more command squads?
A: There are absolutely still Command Squads.
Astra Militarum Imperial Guard Focus Q: When can we expect a Dark Eldar preview? Need to know how my favourite pointy eared friends will play
A: we'll have a Dark Eldar preview soon - we're going to run through all the factions.
Q: Can the chaos article be rewritten to include some juicy details as well?
A: Ace. The Chaos article was a little light compared to this one on the juicy details, so we'll use Rubric Marines when we look at Datasheets later in the week. How's that?
Q: Automatic win with Sly Marbo now, right?
A: we think it's a 2+ with re-roll.
Q: I wouldnt call a las gun trusty
A: That is why it fails you.
So some new info, some confirmations, and a bunch of snark™.
Confirms that rapid fire doubles shots at half range. Confirms that Sniper weapons can freely target characters. Leman Russ is T8 and 12 Wounds.
Commisars still help negate the penalties for morale, and that Leman Russ doesn't start slowing until it loses half of it's wounds. I think we can gather that the first half of a model's wounds won't cause degrading statlines to kick in.
Rapid Fire seems to be the total number of shots at full range and double at half (Rapid Fire 1 becomes Rapid Fire 2 under FRFSRF).
Limit. Not negate(as in no battleshock). Hopefully bit better than just reroll if blops are still a thing.
Well shooting a single model to prevent your unit from losing a bunch of them would be a limited version of the full effects.
Ratius wrote: Some juicy updates today Notably Rough Riders are still a thing
Gross...
That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.
"I dont like it when other people can take models they like, but I don't like."
Ratius wrote: Some juicy updates today Notably Rough Riders are still a thing
Gross...
That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.
Also really bummed to STILL not have an answer as to whether or not Guard Sergeants can take a flipping Lasgun. ARGH!
Marine Sergeants can take Boltguns, Tau squad leaders don't upgrade, etc. Why the frig do Guard have mandatory ones?
Even if you don't like the models personally it's better to have the option for players other than yourself to use them. Why rob them of a choice simply because you would make it differently?
I kind of wonder if this line of reasoning isn't why we haven't seen new plastic SoB models... if 8th Ed continues in its current direction the SoB are going to be a real contender and those gawd-awful pewter models deserve a swift, clean death.
Ratius wrote: Some juicy updates today Notably Rough Riders are still a thing
Gross...
That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.
"I dont like it when other people can take models they like, but I don't like."
Hasn't that been the argument against Tau since 3rd?
That, to me, is one of the biggest downfalls of them doing the whole "No model left behind!" thing. I hate Rough Riders. I've ranted/raved about it elsewhere so I'll refrain from doing it too much here, but man. I'm not happy to see that.
Yes, god forbid someone else might like them! It is obviously not enough for you to just not include them in your army, they must be eradicated from the game altogether!
