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: 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?
He thinks they would instantly be replaced with some new unit and new models. Forgetting GW doesn't need to remove rules from unit to add new one. Or what was removed to introduce Centurions?-) Guillimann?-)
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).
You realize that there's amiddle ground between deriding someone for running a tournament and exalting them as a god right?
You could perhaps, have some respect for the contributions they have made to the community at the expense of their own time?
So you don't like quick tournament play.... Fine
They run campaign events.
Have very active you-tube channels.
Organize apocalypse and less competitive play that can last upwards of days.
Run successful communities out of their own game shops.
Have the largest painting and modeling competitions by far.
and now on top of all that, they are working to address the issues in 40k that make it less than fun to play; but for some reason all you have for them is derisive criticism and sarcastic praise. I'm not asking you to give anyone a BJ, but don't dismiss them because one small facet of what they provide to the community isn't to your taste.
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!
Mmmmmm, rough riders! Now I can use these beautiful models again!
I wish they'd show off some examples of wargear and such to go along with the new character rules. There are a large number of wargear options throughout the current rule books that impact the IC and the unit he joins.
For example, the Astral Grimoire allows the IC and the unit he joins to effectively move like they have jump packs. If an IC can't join a unit any longer and this book loses a great deal of its value since the IC would then need to have a Disc to go along with the grimoire so he could keep up with the unit.
Will they change these to be worded like "The character and up to one unit within 12" or will these types of wargear just have their points costs reduced and only impact the IC?
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?
Notice I didn't say anything about the models themselves, beyond that this is a downfall of the whole "No model left behind!" thing.
I hate them not for their models but the concept. They work fine, conceptually, in Death Korps of Krieg or as a specialized unit in a specialized regiment--but they just don't work conceptually for the Guard as a generalized army.
You like 'em? Good for you. I don't. I think the design should have been scrapped ages ago and work focused on actual issues with the army to get them to a point where it wasn't just gimmicky Veteran lists or Blob Squad crap.
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?
I thought the Tau were the best argument against Tau .... damn space communists!
En Excelsis wrote: 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?
He thinks they would instantly be replaced with some new unit and new models. Forgetting GW doesn't need to remove rules from unit to add new one. Or what was removed to introduce Centurions?-) Guillimann?-)
Yeah, no.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that nothing was ever done for them beyond copy/pasting should have told anyone and everyone all they needed to know about how lackluster the Guard books have been since Cruddace's dismal book.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that the models have been discontinued for almost five years and they still haven't bothered to release a new kit should tell you everything you need to know.
Once again, very happy with the change to Characters. For an intents and purposes, the Characters remain "attached" to units. They are just easier to deal with now if you want, and perhaps easier to hide as well if you have tides of models between your character and the opponent. I like the explicit buffs that Characters will give (although re-roll 1's is a bit boring), rather than juggling USR's to make super-units.
All this hate for Reece and Frankie is funny. Yes, they are primarily competitive players, but they both really love the game in all it's aspects. A tight competitive ruleset is good for all players of the game. A balanced well-designed ruleset benefits narative players just as much as competitive players. GW doesn't need help coming up with narative content - they need help balancing the ruleset. I'm glad they'e been working with the experienced players out there to fine tune their rules.
The Russ tank, on paper given what we've seen, initially looks quite tough, but if we look at the Lascannon stats from earlier, is probably no more resilient now than it was before.
Under 7E rules, you needed 13.5 BS4 Lascannons to kill through HP loss, and a 1/54 chance to explode with any one shot. Now it will take an average of 9.25 BS4 Lascannons to kill. Going to T8 makes it easier for Lascannons to "wound", and coupled with D6 damage really undercuts the save and large number of wounds.
Now, we dont know how other effects like Haywire or Gauss will work, or what points costs or other such things may look like, but given that the Russ was already mostly immune to HP stripping stuff like Scatterlasers, overall it appears there may not be much to celebrate about Russ resiliency save for CC.
Hopefully its firepower and cost will balance that out, otherwise the Russ may not see the field any more than they do now.
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).
You realize that there's amiddle ground between deriding someone for running a tournament and exalting them as a god right?
You could perhaps, have some respect for the contributions they have made to the community at the expense of their own time?
So you don't like quick tournament play.... Fine
They run campaign events.
Have very active you-tube channels.
Organize apocalypse and less competitive play that can last upwards of days.
Run successful communities out of their own game shops.
Have the largest painting and modeling competitions by far.
and now on top of all that, they are working to address the issues in 40k that make it less than fun to play; but for some reason all you have for them is derisive criticism and sarcastic praise. I'm not asking you to give anyone a BJ, but don't dismiss them because one small facet of what they provide to the community isn't to your taste.
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
My hope for 40k is that is sees a return to form in terms of playstyle and not playtime. It's clearly just my own bias, but I will almost always prefer quality of quantity when it comes to 40k.
Deathstars have dominated 40k for years. Not having them in the game will completely change the way the game is played.
I'm incredibly excited about this.
Deathstars aren't really gone. The way they function has though.
We will still have really, really killy or really, really tough units by way of buffs and synergies, but not usually both at the same time. And the support can be cracked if you can maneuver to it.
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
What exactly do you think their malign influence will be? I promise you 40K won't turn into Call of Duty with 14 year olds saying awful things about your mother because tournament players playtested the game. I agree with you, that most 40k players are not tournament players. However, a tight well-designed game will benefit ALL players and experts are best equipped to help evaluate the design of the new edition.
rollawaythestone wrote: Mm. I love this. "No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield."
Oh yeah. Though frankly it was not the stormshield but 2+(+) rerollable that was even more annoying.
But that was one of the things I hated about previous character rules. Character jumping magically between bullets. Oh wait except if the shot actually has realistic chance of threatening him then he suddenly conveniently manages to push someone else between shot.
ARGH! That's just such a suspension killer. Character shouldn't be able to protect unit like that. Especially while being protected in turn by unit from serious character killers.
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.
Deathstars have dominated 40k for years. Not having them in the game will completely change the way the game is played.
I'm incredibly excited about this.
Deathstars aren't really gone. The way they function has though.
We will still have really, really killy or really, really tough units by way of buffs and synergies, but not usually both at the same time. And the support can be cracked if you can maneuver to it.
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
What exactly do you think their malign influence will be? I promise you 40K won't turn into Call of Duty with 14 year olds saying awful things about your mother because tournament players playtested the game. I agree with you, that most 40k players are not tournament players. However, a tight well-designed game will benefit ALL players and experts are best equipped to help evaluate the design of the new edition.
What I think will happen is that the rules will change to reflect the desires/interests of one small group of persons at the expense of the desires/interests of the community at large.
Now, admittedly this supposes a few things. For example it implies that the community doesn't want the same thing that he playtesters want (rules oriented towards expediency at the cost of fun/quality). I'm certain that there are exceptions. And I want to reiterate again that I am not calling the playtesters bad people. If I were in the business of selling tournament tickets and organizing events that people paid to participate in, it would be in my best interest to host more of those events, and it becomes easier to host more of them if the events themselves are shorter. Fairly simple logic.
I worry at the games appeal for myself and others will diminish as a result of GW's hunt for mass appeal.
With the limited information we currently have I'd say 8th seems like a wash for me. Some things are better than 7th, some things are worse. Hopefully as they reveal more information the pendulum will swing further towards 'better'. But I won't jump on the bandwagon and assume that things are going to be better just because they got a few specific people involved to playtest.
sturguard wrote: I am not sure why folks think this is the most play tested version of 40k.
Because GW has admitted they haven't put as much effort into any other edition before this one, to include when 3rd and 4th came out.
sturguard wrote: However one thing is certain, no matter what rules they come up with the players will break. 100% guarantee.
Likely true. That said, if GW holds up on their promise to keep updating the edition said breaks will be fixed in a timely manner.
What would lead you to believe that? Given GWs track record there has to be more than just "they told us so"?
How long has AoS been out? When are the Ogres getting their update?
Again, I hope GW does the right thing, but given their track record, we won't know for about 2 years or so if they have changed their old habits.
Beastclaw raiders...they've put out a TON of books for AoS. 40K is in the limelight right now though. GHB2 is confirmed and on the way as well. I don't see the basis for your statement.
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: With the limited information we currently have I'd say 8th seems like a wash for me. Some things are better than 7th, some things are worse. Hopefully as they reveal more information the pendulum will swinger further towards 'better'. But I won't jump on the bandwagon and assume that things are going to be better just because they got a few specific people involved to playtest.
Ditto. Luckily several things are easy to fix. Everything can wound everything easy to fix. LD takes bit more work but no biggie. Facings is also dirt easy to fix.
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...
Yeah, that seems like a much more simple and elegant solution. These new character rules are weird.
Ratius wrote: Now do a 20 man squad in rapid fire range
A better thought is this.
How do lasguns stack up against marines, the better target for them....
A lasgun has a 1/18 chance of killing a MEQ.
1/2 to hit * 1/3 to wound * 1/3 failed armor save.
That means 20 guard armed with lasguns will throw out 40 shots up close, killing about 2 of them. If you use FRFSRF, you will get about ~4.44 of them.
The reality is that you will likely have some special/heavy weapons in the mix. 2 flamers added to those 2 man groups will give more wounds. A sergeant with a laspistol will take away, etc...
En Excelsis wrote: What I think will happen is that the rules will change to reflect the desires/interests of one small group of persons at the expense of the desires/interests of the community at large.
More Q&As from the Guard comments section: Q: MUCH better than the pointless Chaos article, though could still do with rule tidbits rather than just HYPE for the first half!
A: But you guys love hype...
Q: Go back to calling them Imperial Guard. Please. What's funny is that even the writer had a freudian slip near the end and called them guard.
A: Call them the Guard if you like. It's just the High Gothic name for them, like Space Marines being called Adeptus Astartes. The infantry are still called Guardsmen after all.
Q: Will there be articles like this for all the factions of the game, even minor ones like the Harlequins?
A: Yes and yes.
Q: Is every vehicle going to have a 3+ save or is this just a coincidence?
A: Hey Stuart,
They certainly don't all have a 3+ save.
Q: GET ON THE HYPE TRAIN FOR ROUGH RIDERS
A: The Hype Cart, surely.
Q: please show some love for nids
A: Tyranids, being an intergalactic galaxy-eating predator, are incapable of love, and feel only hunger...
(But we will have an article on them soon, if that's what you mean.)
I'm guessing our AV10 vehicles will get a 4+, or maybe a 5+.
Wonder if Extra Armour is still a thing and what it does now.
En Excelsis wrote: What I think will happen is that the rules will change to reflect the desires/interests of one small group of persons at the expense of the desires/interests of the community at large.
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.
why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?
unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.
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.
why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?
unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.
I think that you have misinterpreted him. He was saying the opposite actually. That Dreadnoughts won't be any good in this edition.
My opinion on this is that it will come down to Point Cost. Dreadnoughts aren't Knights or Titans, they are totally killiable. They need to have a apropiate point cost to their defensive and offensive capabilities. It is not about making them inmortal.
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.
great. Challenge could have been a good idea, but they were so poorly implemented that I don't mind seeing them leave
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.
why would that be unfortunate? there is a ocean of dreadnought variants that have not seen the table in years due to the broken rules.
it will be unfortunate to see variation?
unless you mean there will be dreadnought spam.... I'm currently painting up two for 8th edition.
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!
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s. My problem is that this is more a result of GW only wanting to make rules for models as they exist but also not really being interested in keeping the whole range up to date all the time. Rough Riders could easily have a mandatory option where you pick horses or bikes and old school players who think horses in the 41st millenium are cool get to keep old models and cool conversions but us meddling kids get things that make sense in a post 90s sci fi setting.
Below is an off topic rant that originally was meant to be an analogy to another game that turned into speculative reverse-nostalgia. I will leave it here because I think its important.
Spoiler:
Its like old magic cards. If the only format you could play was standard, a lot of people who were playing in the early 90s and liked the direction of the game back then would feel very disenfranchised. But they have legacy and vintage. People who played standard in the early 2000s who dislike how WOTC has lowered the power level of standard but don't have easy access to very old cards have modern. WOTC has been very open about the fact that while they curate these formats, and sanction them, they do not intentionally make cards that would be playable in those formats. Occasionally it happens (like 1-2 per set for modern, maybe that many in every standard season makes it into legacy/ vintage) but they only make new cards with the intention of balancing standard. I think GW would not have a lot of difficulty just letting some older parts of the range age the way they will, nodding oh so subtly to the older part of the player base while letting the model range evolve in the direction it needs to. I think this is an interesting problem for millennials and the generations after them. Things like 40k and mtg didn't exist 100 years ago, so wherever they go and where we are going now is categorically uncharted territory. Will 40k or mtg be around in 20 more years?. DnD 1st edition was published in 1974. No one thought it was going to become what it is now. No one could have predicted what the game would have looked like in 40 years because I don't think a lot of people who were around for 1st edition DnD thought it would be around at all in 40 years. It is going to be very interesting to say the least when 40k, MtG, DnD and the like turn 50 or dare I say 100 years old and we can look back and see how far we've come.
Combined with the fact that every weapon has a chance to hit any target, the much-derided lasgun can now be the deadly laser weapon the Emperor’s armies need.
I'm sure that they meant 'hurt' there, and I can't help but feel that GW's trolling us by trying to re-start (?) that whole Landraider thing...again!
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
Combined with the fact that every weapon has a chance to hit any target, the much-derided lasgun can now be the deadly laser weapon the Emperor’s armies need.
I'm sure that they meant 'hurt' there, and I can't help but feel that GW's trolling us by trying to re-start (?) that whole Landraider thing...again!
Thankfully basic math shows how unrealistic it is to rely on a bunch of diddly to solve all your problems.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't 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.
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
it's bad design when people make up hypothetical characters that don't exist as a strawman.
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?
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?
I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
What exactly do you think their malign influence will be? I promise you 40K won't turn into Call of Duty with 14 year olds saying awful things about your mother because tournament players playtested the game. I agree with you, that most 40k players are not tournament players. However, a tight well-designed game will benefit ALL players and experts are best equipped to help evaluate the design of the new edition.
What I think will happen is that the rules will change to reflect the desires/interests of one small group of persons at the expense of the desires/interests of the community at large.
Now, admittedly this supposes a few things. For example it implies that the community doesn't want the same thing that he playtesters want (rules oriented towards expediency at the cost of fun/quality). I'm certain that there are exceptions. And I want to reiterate again that I am not calling the playtesters bad people. If I were in the business of selling tournament tickets and organizing events that people paid to participate in, it would be in my best interest to host more of those events, and it becomes easier to host more of them if the events themselves are shorter. Fairly simple logic.
I worry at the games appeal for myself and others will diminish as a result of GW's hunt for mass appeal.
With the limited information we currently have I'd say 8th seems like a wash for me. Some things are better than 7th, some things are worse. Hopefully as they reveal more information the pendulum will swing further towards 'better'. But I won't jump on the bandwagon and assume that things are going to be better just because they got a few specific people involved to playtest.
I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.
The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.
Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.
Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.
Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.
The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.
Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.
Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.
Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.
Fully agree 10,000%. There are definitely changes that roll the speed of the game both ways. Fluff was rolled back for balance, and speed was rolled back for fluff. The game is looking like they tried to strike a balance between balance, speed and fluff and I approve!
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?
I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.
A lot of the 10 v 11 line also comes down to general character build on either side of the line. If there are a lot of Rowboat style characters on the low end it could be an issue, but if many 11 wound+ characters have say 2+ saves, T9, other durability issues, faster movement etc. It could balance out quite a bit. As always there will probably be winners and losers in this regard.
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).
You realize that there's amiddle ground between deriding someone for running a tournament and exalting them as a god right?
You could perhaps, have some respect for the contributions they have made to the community at the expense of their own time?
So you don't like quick tournament play.... Fine
They run campaign events.
Have very active you-tube channels.
Organize apocalypse and less competitive play that can last upwards of days.
Run successful communities out of their own game shops.
Have the largest painting and modeling competitions by far.
and now on top of all that, they are working to address the issues in 40k that make it less than fun to play; but for some reason all you have for them is derisive criticism and sarcastic praise. I'm not asking you to give anyone a BJ, but don't dismiss them because one small facet of what they provide to the community isn't to your taste.
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
My hope for 40k is that is sees a return to form in terms of playstyle and not playtime. It's clearly just my own bias, but I will almost always prefer quality of quantity when it comes to 40k.
I agree with you. I'm not willing to give these guys ''god without confession'' as we say in french. Hopefully they manage to playtest in a way that the feedback they give result in a game that I like, but I'm worried since I'm far from a tournament player, and that seems to be their emphasis.
As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?
Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.
If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.
I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.
As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?
Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: I think it is a pretty large assumption that rules are being oriented toward expediency at the cost of fun/quality. Now some changes may end up that way for some people, but that has been true of every edition with rules, and it has been done to no gain as often as not. I cannot think of any rules where a particular change is measurably less "fun" or "lower quality", only areas where some people have a preference for the way things have always been.
The most complained about things I've seen are
Loss of Armor values - this seems to be a balance thing more than a speed thing. GW has obviously had issues balancing vehicles with respect to other units for a long time.
Everything wounds everything - not a change for expedience at all, actually slows the game down by allowing attacks where none existed before. This is a change for "fun"/interactivity. Now if you don't like it, that has nothing to do with whether it was made as a decision to make the game faster at the expense of fun.
Morale - this speeds things up by testing fewer times per turn, it also makes morale much more meaningful than the all or nothing game we have now. Whether it is fun or of lower quality is again opinion. Some people like it some don't, which is true of every rule.
Largely complaints are "I liked the way things were, regarding x and am unhappy it changed." Or " I think a better solution existed to y problem." The game is far from perfect but always has been. But it does not seem to me that the playtester bias is pushing toward speed at the cost of fun specifically. Knowing what I do about the playtesters the largest bias I'm aware or is against deathstar units. So in that manor if you like deathstars seeing them made weaker may upset you.
Fully agree 10,000%. There are definitely changes that roll the speed of the game both ways. Fluff was rolled back for balance, and speed was rolled back for fluff. The game is looking like they tried to strike a balance between balance, speed and fluff and I approve!
Yup, I think that where they tried to gain speed will hopefully be in several areas
1.) Pre-game rolling - no more random psychic powers (hopefully WL traits etc.)
2.) Hopefully fewer re-rolls
3.) Reducing number of rolls a bit
4.) Reducing the number of times per turn you move models - currently you can move models in every single phase, now it is only Move, charge, and pile ins. Pile-ins also have been cleaned up as I step pile in no longer matters so you only pile-in each unit once per turn.
5.) Combat no longer having an I step - this can speed things up if desired, but doesn't necessarily do so. It definitely will mean less dice are rolled in general.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.
Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.
Top of that there's no real benefit from having that triggered by W count rather than say...keyword. You remember presumably all models will have those? So not like they really need new mechanism for that.
Now we instead will have situation where it's more valuable to have 8 wounds than say 14 wounds...Which feels unintuitive. And again limits what they can do with new models.
It's minor issue but it results in unintuitive system and they had perfect system of having same effect without that unintuitive side effect AND give themselves more flexibility for future. For no cost whatsoever. There's literally no drawback in having it in keyword rather than on wounds as same models could still be targeted either way!
Just thought about someting... If Suddenly HQ dont need to join squads to provide buffs, space marine HQ's of various types equipped with jump-packs may have become the next auto include... Given that they will be able to cover ground fast and wil be able to move through intervening models.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
That's not the point in question, at least when it's coming from me, though.
My point in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders is not that "I don't like people having fun with things they own" but rather I would have gotten a newly designed unit that actually addressed some of the issues in play.
Ratlings, to me, have felt shoehorned into being the Guard equivalent of the "Scout-y unit with Sniper Rifles" when it really could/should have actually been an option for Veteran Squads. Or an Elite option ala the Detachment 99 Sniper Teams(a spotter with a NV scope that had special rules and a sniper working in tandem) rather than snipers for Guard being limited to Special Weapon Teams(where it's effectively the D99 setup just without the special rules that actually make the D99 Sniper Teams something you might consider taking) or models in squads tacked in there.
Ratlings could have been a far more interesting unit than they are currently, given that a big part of their lore is that they are the cooks and effectively quartermasters of the Regiment. Think Jokaero in terms of things that the Ratlings could have been given.
And Rough Riders? They're just a mess. I posted an idea in another thread as to how I would redesign the unit, but they currently suffer from a mixture of issues.
a) Fluff. They're either described as being part of a regiment(Death Korps and Tallarn) or as a separate regiment in and of themselves(The Attilan Rough Riders). Removing the "Rough Riders" label and instead doing "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" would solve some of those issues.
b) Competitive slot. They're part of Fast Attack meaning they compete with the Hellhound variants, Sentinel variants, and Valkyrie variants.
c) Role. They're a counter-charge unit(supposedly) that isn't really built for counter-charging, and what's more isn't really built for close combat in general.
That's why, personally, I would rather see Rough Riders removed. Ratlings I'm ambivalent on. I would rather see alternative sniper unit options than Ratlings pushed to the fore.
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
Disagree on it being automatically labeled as "bad design" with no insight on the sort of rules will be involved. That's like seeing a single cloud in the sky and complaining that it's hailing: you're jumping the gun with the worst possible interpretation. Sure it's useful to keep your expectations low, but is it really contributing anything to the discussion to look at a new mechanic and just go "looks like gak" without getting a chance to use it?
I'm guessing that 11 wounds won't be a common wound count. And for those who have over 10 will likely have other rules to help protect them (low number saves, high toughness, wargear that makes them harder to hit, ect). I'd be willing to bet some will even have rules to regenerate lost wounds, or limit the number of wounds they take (like the Stone Skeleton in AoS). If those models aren't able to withstand some punishment from dedicated firepower I'd be frankly shocked. Especially since that would be one of the first things people would be looking at in testing since you can't hide them in units anymore.
It is bad design cause it makes no sense thematically, restrict the rule creation process, and can cause a tonload of problem. For example, if a cerrtain spell give more wound to a character for a turn, the character in question might pass the 10 wounds threshold, and suddenly become targetable. And it restrict the creation of small-medium character with 10 wounds or more, and the creation of large characters with less than 10.
Using a keyword simply would have been a much better solution.
Gamgee wrote: Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.
If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.
I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.
This is false. The deathstars were rerollable 2+ for every puppy/screamer in the unit, or a tanking unit like Ghazghkull absorbing everything you throw at it. That is all gone.
Now you can just shoot the meatshields, which Tau is really good at, and pick off some of the characters with your big stuff. I'm surprised you're not thrilled at this, as this is a huge buff for Tau.
Gamgee wrote: Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.
If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.
I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.
So sniper drones don't exist? I mean it's not like Tau lacked options to snipe with, people just ignored them for markerligts, big robots and crisis suits. Now those options have merit and importance ina an army.
This is not a bad thing.
More varied unit selection to enforce balance is good.
Plus Tau character buffs will likely be auras too.
On the otherhand Orks have no snipers unless your opponent is playing the Celestial Lions chapter...
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good
Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.
If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings. Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.
Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.
Top of that there's no real benefit from having that triggered by W count rather than say...keyword. You remember presumably all models will have those? So not like they really need new mechanism for that.
Now we instead will have situation where it's more valuable to have 8 wounds than say 14 wounds...Which feels unintuitive. And again limits what they can do with new models.
It's minor issue but it results in unintuitive system and they had perfect system of having same effect without that unintuitive side effect AND give themselves more flexibility for future. For no cost whatsoever. There's literally no drawback in having it in keyword rather than on wounds as same models could still be targeted either way!
It doesn't limit anything as long as their effectiveness is commensurate with cost.
davou wrote: Just thought about someting... If Suddenly HQ dont need to join squads to provide buffs, space marine HQ's of various types equipped with jump-packs may have become the next auto include... Given that they will be able to cover ground fast and wil be able to move through intervening models.
this was very common in 4E, IC's zipping around on their own with jump packs and jetbikes because they couldnt be targeted.
streetsamurai wrote: It is bad design cause it makes no sense thematically, restrict the rule creation process, and can cause a tonload of problem. For example, if a cerrtain spell give more wound to a character for a turn, the character in question might pass the 10 wounds threshold, and suddenly become targetable. And it restrict the creation of small-medium character with 10 wounds or more, and the creation of large characters with less than 10.
Using a keyword simply would have been a much better solution.
Well the spell thing probably doesn't affect. After all getting wounds reduced in game doesn't make you untargetable.
But other points yeah that's what the issue is. It's not broken but it results in unintuitive system where midwounds is actually more valuable and restricts future options leading to more samey(and GW has already reduced lots of ranges they have. Dice results 2 and 6 are very underutilized for example).
If keyword had some negative I could see but it has...zero drawbacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: It doesn't limit anything as long as their effectiveness is commensurate with cost.
Yes it does. Or how you suggests they create smallish sized model(ie something that you can't snipe) with say 15 wounds? You don't.
With keyword you apply keyword(or don't put depending does keyword allow you to hide or be targeted) and put 15 wounds.
Seriously why you even try to defend that? Guess you just defend everything GW does even when it's obvious it's not defendable. There is ZERO drawback to having this on keyword. None whatsoever. But there's drawbacks in having it on wounds.
Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
Vitali Advenil wrote: Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.
Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.
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...
Yep, I also have a lot of problem with that, and it is simply bad design. They should have simply put a keyword under the character that are targetable
it's bad design when people make up hypothetical characters that don't exist as a strawman.
Using a fictive but but plausible example to show the limitation of a rule is not a strawman
Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.
Gamgee wrote: Instead of Deathstars they've made a Death Armada.
No, just a Deathwing.
Re: keyword to determine who can hide and who can't:
I have a feeling much of this may follow the same logic that they already are. I mean Magnus is 3x taller than RG and has at least four more wounds to match. The models who are likely going to have more han ten wounds are likely to be biiger than RG. I mean R G oukd at least take a knee to gain some over, what can Magnus do amongst most armies?
It might not even be a character specific rule but one that applies to all models. If so, it creates target priorities and allows those melee units to better screen their important stuff.
Right now it's too early to tell the fll scope of this so I withhold judgement on its quality of use. It's functional and I don't currently see any major issue with it. In the future I may change my mind.
Oh, and since AoS doesn't have penatlies for shooting sooping models a winged Daemon Prince looks like he gained some protection. Neat.
Gamgee wrote: Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.
If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.
I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.
Depends on a lot of things, can you kill the bubble wrap protecting them? How does supporting fire function in the new edition? Will wargear exist that allows some units to target characters....until we have all the faction rules it is impossible to know. Maybe it will turn out that characters are terrible against Tau tech.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.
Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.
Top of that there's no real benefit from having that triggered by W count rather than say...keyword. You remember presumably all models will have those? So not like they really need new mechanism for that.
Now we instead will have situation where it's more valuable to have 8 wounds than say 14 wounds...Which feels unintuitive. And again limits what they can do with new models.
It's minor issue but it results in unintuitive system and they had perfect system of having same effect without that unintuitive side effect AND give themselves more flexibility for future. For no cost whatsoever. There's literally no drawback in having it in keyword rather than on wounds as same models could still be targeted either way!
I'm skeptical it would be that bad to have 10 or 11 wounds because we've been playing the game with models that had far less wounds but couldn't join units already. It seems like the guys that will have more than 10 wounds will be things that were considered solo units already like a carnifex or a daemon prince. If Guilliman didn't pass the threshold for not being allowed to hide, then I can't think of any character that was able to join units in the past but would have more wounds than him.
If they give a new character 11 wounds it seems like they'd still be better off to me than the numerous monstrous creatures and walkers that we've been playing with.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good
Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.
If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings.
Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.
And the other models in the unit can split fire a other targets instead of solely being ablative wounds.
Vitali Advenil wrote: Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.
Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.
My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.
Vitali Advenil wrote: Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.
Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.
My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.
AoS transport works based on models, not units.
So if a Transport can have 10 models with the "Adeptus Astartes" keyword, for example, you can put two squads of 5 Space Marines on it. Or 1 squad of 5 models, other of 4 because it has lost one, and a Adeptus Astartes character.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.
10 wound characters still get to hide. You hide if you have 10 or less wounds. Anything with 11+ wounds is probably going to be something that has been walking the game by himself already because of Monstrous Creature or Vehicle status. Look at Guilliman for reference. He has 9 and gets to hide and I can't think of another character that would have more wounds but should still be allowed to hide.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.
Why is that, considering the article says the following...
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...
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
You lose the protection at 11 wounds, 10. That aside, we know that Magnus has over 12. We can be fairly certain that the Greater Daemons will likely follow their rules from AoS. What we don't know is if this shooting rule is only for characters, or all models.
Vitali Advenil wrote: Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.
Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.
My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.
AoS transport works based on models, not units.
So if a Transport can have 10 models with the "Adeptus Astartes" keyword, for example, you can put two squads of 5 Space Marines on it. Or 1 squad of 5 models, other of 4 because it has lost one, and a Adeptus Astartes character.
Okay, that makes much more sense and gives a lot more options. I hope this is the path they go down.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I suspect they're trying to reduce the number of keywords that they have to type up rules in other places for. As it is now, think how many pages are tied up with flipping through the pages of bikes, jetbikes, infantry, jetpacks, jump packs, monstrous creatures, independent character, transports, skimmers, etc. I've been under the impression they're trying to do away with references to external rules to reduce that kind of thing. All rules on the data sheet and what not.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
I feel sorry for the characters that get exactly 10 wounds. It's almost as if GW has put a "kick me" sign on their backs.
ten wounds or less can hide behind friendly models to gain protection.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
Not many especially now but whatabout in future?
Thing is they would have lost NOTHING by putting it into keyword. There's no drawback whatsoever and this one has illogical side effects like wounds being actually detrimental. Assuming Magnus has say 16 wounds he would be better off by giving up 6 of those...That's pretty odd result. You get hurt by getting more wounds. Don't remember many games where you are worse off by having more wounds.
If there was drawback in having protection/deprotection by keyword sure but there isn't. So they made illogicality and hamstrung their choices for future for no benefit. That's not good game design.
Vitali Advenil wrote: Couldn't find where it was covered earlier, but how is this IC rule going to affect transports? Are ICs going to need their own transport, or will they at least be allowed to hop on with another unit granted there's room? Since a lot of this seems to be AoS inspired I was wondering if there's a similar rule there. I mean, if ICs need their own transports, that's pretty wasteful, so a lot might end up footslogging.
Lucky for you, we just got a glimpse at what might be the case for AoS with the new Dwarfs.
Models within the faction that have a specific rule(in this case "Skyfarer") can embark upon a transport.
"Skyfarer" is only present on the infantry types.
My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.
I'm going to direct you towards my answer again.
As long as the character has the same faction and the special rule "Skyfarer" they were allowed to embark upon the transport.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
My point in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders is not that "I don't like people having fun with things they own" but rather I would have gotten a newly designed unit that actually addressed some of the issues in play.
The continued existence of Ratlings and Rough Riders hasn't stopped them from creating new units.
Ratlings, to me, have felt shoehorned into being the Guard equivalent of the "Scout-y unit with Sniper Rifles" when it really could/should have actually been an option for Veteran Squads. Or an Elite option ala the Detachment 99 Sniper Teams(a spotter with a NV scope that had special rules and a sniper working in tandem) rather than snipers for Guard being limited to Special Weapon Teams(where it's effectively the D99 setup just without the special rules that actually make the D99 Sniper Teams something you might consider taking) or models in squads tacked in there.
Ratlings could have been a far more interesting unit than they are currently, given that a big part of their lore is that they are the cooks and effectively quartermasters of the Regiment. Think Jokaero in terms of things that the Ratlings could have been given.
I agree. I think there should be dedicated Guardsmen sniper teams as well as Ratlings, and Ratlings should be given some unique traits of their own. Shoot Sharp and Scarper is an attempt at that, but I think they could go further.
And Rough Riders? They're just a mess. I posted an idea in another thread as to how I would redesign the unit, but they currently suffer from a mixture of issues.
a) Fluff. They're either described as being part of a regiment(Death Korps and Tallarn) or as a separate regiment in and of themselves(The Attilan Rough Riders). Removing the "Rough Riders" label and instead doing "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" would solve some of those issues.
b) Competitive slot. They're part of Fast Attack meaning they compete with the Hellhound variants, Sentinel variants, and Valkyrie variants.
c) Role. They're a counter-charge unit(supposedly) that isn't really built for counter-charging, and what's more isn't really built for close combat in general.
That's why, personally, I would rather see Rough Riders removed.
a) I disagree; I think Rough Riders is a good generic name that covers multiple origins, while your suggestion pidgeonholes them a bit. Either way, it's pretty inconsequential to their role.
b) and c) Are both fixable issues, given that we're rebooting the whole rule set. Maybe give them a platoon option like stormtroopers, or more wargear options to suit their role.
All of that is pretty small beer issues compared to the idea of removing a classic unit and invalidating armies.
En Excelsis wrote: I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.
Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.
Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.
Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good
Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.
If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings.
Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.
And the other models in the unit can split fire a other targets instead of solely being ablative wounds.
Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).
Snipers killing characters makes me happy. On the other hand, the math is probably terrible. Assuming S4, BS 3 you need what, 200+ shots to kill Rowboat? Maybe they will be better than that against characters. Not thrilled to see characters jacked up with more wounds and such myself.
Daedalus81 wrote: It doesn't limit anything as long as their effectiveness is commensurate with cost.
Yes it does. Or how you suggests they create smallish sized model(ie something that you can't snipe) with say 15 wounds? You don't.
With keyword you apply keyword(or don't put depending does keyword allow you to hide or be targeted) and put 15 wounds.
Seriously why you even try to defend that? Guess you just defend everything GW does even when it's obvious it's not defendable. There is ZERO drawback to having this on keyword. None whatsoever. But there's drawbacks in having it on wounds.
Name a "smallish" model that you think would get 15 wounds and the reason why it would.
The literal point of the wound cliff is so that units with tons of wounds can't hide and wreck havoc when they get to combat, but here you are trying to break that, because reasons.
Magnus can be shot at. Should I lament that he isn't hide-able or look forward to what rules he has that will keep him on the table?
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
when your doing game design, its easy to assign points values to things you design when they have numeric values.
example
A unit with t3 is worth 5 points, bump to t4 and its worth 10, t5 and it becomes worth 25. Add a wound for 15 points, 4+save, 5 points, 3+ 8 points, 2+ save 15 points.
Make a model have MV 4, 1 point. mv 5, 2 points, mv 6 4 points.....
You can have a chart in the design studio that says how much a model is worth when it has 10 wounds, x save, x toughness etc etc... You cant really assign a value to keywords.
This is why design is so balanced in games like X wing and STAW, the costs are married to the stats and gear. Models that have keywords make it harder to keep a balanced design.
You asked for ONE REASON why this way might be preferable, well there it is. I could probably come up with more, but I dont want too and won't because I dont think that the cant target models with less than 10 wounds is good, nor do I think its bad.... but Im excited to see it work in a game.
He has a point. Ratlings, rough riders and plenty of things that still exist in the model range are really only there because they made sense when Rogue Trader/ 2nd ed was much more overtly "WFB but in space." Ratlings made a lot more sense back then. Right now, they are more of a random throwback to the 90s.
Right. I personally don't like Ratlings. But I don't want them to be removed; I understand that some people like them and have models for them. Having more options is better than having less options. No one is forcing you to include stuff you don't like.
Veterans with Sniper Rifles are a fair option if you don't want to run Ratlings too. Plus some of them look pretty good
Unfortunately, it isn't the same thing.
If you're wanting to field a full unit of snipers, the only Guard option currently is Ratlings.
Veterans and Special Weapon Squads can only take 3 models with Sniper Rifles.
And the other models in the unit can split fire a other targets instead of solely being ablative wounds.
Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).
Never said they were the same exact thing, just a valid and feasible alternative.
Vitali Advenil wrote: My wonder is if ICs can embark on transports that already have another unit on it. Otherwise, they'd need to bring their own transport. For orks, I guess this is fine since we have 35 point transports, but it still seems a bit tough on armies with more expensive transports.
I asked the same question -- I was told that in AoS multiple units can occupy one transport.
I don't know if this means you can bring burna boys and tank busters in a single battlewagon, or if you can just stick and IC into a transport as well.
My guess is that you will be able to stick and IC into a transport with a squad, they just come out as their own squad when they disembark.
Yes they will likely have but you notice how again this ties up their hands with what kind of characters they CAN design? Forget creating 11W character unless you also give him tons of survivability in other words. Something like T8 2+ save is practically paper if he's worth any decent amount of points and has 11W.
I don't understand why you think that.
Okay, to elaborate, I don't understand two thing:
The above, for one.
Where the "wounds determine if you can 'hide'" thing came from, for another.
I didn't notice that in the reading.
If he has 11 wounds he can be targeted at will. If he's decent amount of points and not say 50 pts(using scale of 7th ed. Of course if average game size is say 500 pts with points changing appropriately adjust example) he'll be easy target for lascannons etc that pretty much ignore his protection.
And where the wounds determine if you can hide came from? Howabout from GAMES WORKSHOP? Did you not read their character article? You cannot target character unless he's closest model. HOWEVER this only applies if you have 10 or less wounds. If you have 11 wounds you are fair play. Fire away. As long as gun is in range and you have LOS you can shoot him whether he's closest or furthest model.
That protection comes from wounds. Nothing else. Do you have 11 wounds or more? You can be shot at will. 10 or less? Nope. Only if you are closest.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue
Imperial Guard overview up. Written by Reecius, too.
Commissars reducing casualties from morale and snipers being allowed to pick out characters confirmed.
LRBT are now T8 with a 3+ save and 12 wounds.
Warhammer 40,000 Faction Focus: Astra Militarum
Who is Reece, and why should I care?
Reece helps runs some of the biggest independent Warhammer 40,000 events in the world, including the Las Vegas Open and the recently announced Southern California Open. Like Frankie, he’s also been part of the playtest team for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000, putting in hundreds of hours to make sure this new edition will be great for all you gamers out there (Thanks Reece!).
He knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Warhammer 40,000, so let’s see what he has so say…
Listen up, Guardsmen! Reecius here to talk to you about the Astra Militarum in the new version of Warhammer 40,000. If your heart beats to the rhythm of boots marching and you love the smell of promethium in the morning, then this article is for you.
The Astra Militarum have a long and storied history. They’re comprised of the nameless, faceless billions of brave souls that take up arms in defence of the Imperium. You have to love the idea of a human having the guts to go toe-to-toe with the myriad horrors the 41st Millennium has to offer, armed only with a trusty lasgun and faith in the Emperor.
Currently, Astra Militarum forces often take to the field with big, sprawling infantry platoons sporting numerous attached Characters to give them bonuses or, at the other end of the scale, as largely mobilised tank armies firing massive guns and obliterating the enemy. This combination of hordes of men and powerful machines is a distinctive aspect of the Astra Militarum playstyle.
However, at the moment, they don’t always play on the tabletop the way they’re represented in the background. Wouldn’t it be awesome if some of those units you so rarely see like Scout Sentinels were suddenly not only good, but great? What if Bullgryns and Rough Riders were actually scary in combat? How about Heavy Weapon Squads that actually provide covering fire to the rest of your men instead of just acting as distractions for enemy units? I am here to tell you that all of these things are true in the new edition!
And the hype train just rolls on! Veterans now are truly seasoned warriors that–while no Adeptus Astartes–are soldiers to be respected. Your squads will no longer pop out of their Chimera, shoot one thing, and then die or run away immediately after the enemy returns fire. Nope, now, with the added “encouraging” presence of a nearby Commissar – which limits the losses of a bad Morale test – Astra Militarum are downright stalwart. 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!
But it’s not all about the ground pounders. The tanks of the Imperium have had a rough go of it in the current version of the Warhammer 40,000 ruleset, prone to getting destroyed in one shot or ingloriously throwing a tread going over a bush. But no longer. The tanks are back and better than ever. Leman Russes, for example, have Toughness 8 and a 3+ save, so they won’t be slowing down until they’ve lost half of their 12 Wounds. The tanks of the Imperial Guard will definitely be making their mark on battlefields across the Imperium.
There’s so much more to say! Those of you who are long time Astra Militarum players, like me, are going to be thrilled with what is coming. Models you haven’t used in ages, or perhaps those you’ve had your eye on for years, will now be shining stars in your collection.
But here’s one last little tidbit for you, as no conversation about the Guard would be complete without mentioning Orders. One of the Astra Militarum’s most well-known rules mechanics, Orders work automatically now and provide a variety of bonuses. You have 7 to choose from, but the one I want to discuss is ‘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! Combined with the fact that every weapon has a chance to hit any target, the much-derided lasgun can now be the deadly laser weapon the Emperor’s armies need.
jamopower wrote: How many characters with 10 or more wounds you really think there is, if Guilliman has 9? And how many of those wouldn't be so big that not being able to shoot them would be ridicilous?
Not many especially now but whatabout in future?
Thing is they would have lost NOTHING by putting it into keyword. There's no drawback whatsoever and this one has illogical side effects like wounds being actually detrimental. Assuming Magnus has say 16 wounds he would be better off by giving up 6 of those...That's pretty odd result. You get hurt by getting more wounds. Don't remember many games where you are worse off by having more wounds.
If there was drawback in having protection/deprotection by keyword sure but there isn't. So they made illogicality and hamstrung their choices for future for no benefit. That's not good game design.
This is supposed to be a living ruleset, by my understanding. If they want it to change, they can change it just as easily as they put it in. I wouldn't worry about it.
Gamgee wrote: Well unless the Tau have received a huge overhall the meta against them will be to take as much melee characters as you can possibly cram into an army and make sure to keep as much of them just behind the front wave and then have them go in and destroy it.
If we can't even shoot at them they are basically mini deathstars. They didn't get rid of deathstars they just spread it out over a huge area and made them even more strong and annoying.
I think this is the single worst rule they've previewed from a balance perspective. A simple penalty to shooting at them would have sufficed, but nope. Has to be invincibility. Stronger than any other factions previewed stuff.
This is false. The deathstars were rerollable 2+ for every puppy/screamer in the unit, or a tanking unit like Ghazghkull absorbing everything you throw at it. That is all gone.
Now you can just shoot the meatshields, which Tau is really good at, and pick off some of the characters with your big stuff. I'm surprised you're not thrilled at this, as this is a huge buff for Tau.
Unless they balance our STR 5 Ap5 weapons differently the str 5 actually puts us at a disadvantage to wounding human targets now compared to before. It's harder for them to wound now. So it will take longer to kill off blobs. Let alone the big dudes themselves.
Edit
There is no benefit for our pulse rifle to be str 5 anymore if it has the same effect as Str 4 gun on humans. I really hope they realize this. They are ever so slightly better at wounding vehicles than bolters and lasguns, but who cares? I want dedicated any-tank for that anyways. Against their intended targets they are nerfed.
ClockworkZion wrote: I have a feeling much of this may follow the same logic that they already are. I mean Magnus is 3x taller than RG and has at least four more wounds to match. The models who are likely going to have more han ten wounds are likely to be biiger than RG. I mean R G oukd at least take a knee to gain some over, what can Magnus do amongst most armies?
Yes it doesn't create huge issues with current characters. Well there might be some characters that are otherwise fairly similar but one has say 8 wounds and other 12 wounds where 12 wounds actually is cheaper(assuming appropriately costed) as 8 wounds is almost certain to be better. That's unintuitive and it restricts kind of models they CAN do.
And the thing is current effect without above limitations could have been done _with_ keywords. That's the thing. There's no drawback for using keywords to do effect. But by using wounds they removed flexibility of the core rules for no benefit.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
when your doing game design, its easy to assign points values to things you design when they have numeric values.
example
A unit with t3 is worth 5 points, bump to t4 and its worth 10, t5 and it becomes worth 25. Add a wound for 15 points, 4+save, 5 points, 3+ 8 points, 2+ save 15 points.
Make a model have MV 4, 1 point. mv 5, 2 points, mv 6 4 points.....
You can have a chart in the design studio that says how much a model is worth when it has 10 wounds, x save, x toughness etc etc... You cant really assign a value to keywords.
This is why design is so balanced in games like X wing and STAW, the costs are married to the stats and gear. Models that have keywords make it harder to keep a balanced design.
You asked for ONE REASON why this way might be preferable, well there it is. I could probably come up with more, but I dont want too and won't because I dont think that the cant target models with less than 10 wounds is good, nor do I think its bad.... but Im excited to see it work in a game.
Heh??? That's simply not true. You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
Beside that, the fact that passing the 10 wounds threshold make the characger targetable has to be taken into account when pricing the character, so it would result in exactly the same thing as giving a certain point cost to the keyword
lessthanjeff wrote: If they give a new character 11 wounds it seems like they'd still be better off to me than the numerous monstrous creatures and walkers that we've been playing with.
But worse than W6-W10 characters...Don't you think that's just a wee bit illogical? Being punished for getting extra wound...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lessthanjeff wrote: He has 9 and gets to hide and I can't think of another character that would have more wounds but should still be allowed to hide.
I can think potential characters that could have been created that match those criteria. Too bad with these rules they won't work. For no benefit over keywords.
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?
Lurve the snark!
I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.
Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I suspect they're trying to reduce the number of keywords that they have to type up rules in other places for. As it is now, think how many pages are tied up with flipping through the pages of bikes, jetbikes, infantry, jetpacks, jump packs, monstrous creatures, independent character, transports, skimmers, etc. I've been under the impression they're trying to do away with references to external rules to reduce that kind of thing. All rules on the data sheet and what not.
So they could have simply use a bespoken rule instead. After all, isn't this 40k the bespoken edition
Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
You have a point. But before, "good customer service" was basically saying that the customer is always right. We live in the age of internet, in the age of people over exagerating things and making campaings for whatever reason they feel like. The internet has given people a platform to give away their opinions, and in general that as caused people to be even more convinced that other people should pay attention to their opinions.
A little of snark to people that just don't know how to properly give away critizism don't hurt anybody. Obviously, if it degenerates in what are you saying, to be honest, it will be a problem? Bad PR cause companies loses of money. Companies don't want to lose money, so is in their interest to don't gain bad PR.
EDIT: This had better meaning in my head, I have failed to translate it to english in a clear way, sorry.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue
If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?
You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.
Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.
Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.
Gamgee wrote: Unless they balance our STR 5 Ap5 weapons differently the str 5 actually puts us at a disadvantage to wounding human targets now compared to before. It's harder for them to wound now. So it will take longer to kill off blobs. Let alone the big dudes themselves.
Edit
There is no benefit for our pulse rifle to be str 5 anymore if it has the same effect as Str 4 gun on humans. I really hope they realize this. They are ever so slightly better at wounding vehicles than bolters and lasguns, but who cares? I want dedicated any-tank for that anyways. Against their intended targets they are nerfed.
Those same STR 5 guns are still much better at hurting MEQ than GEQ.
Yes, the new S/T chart means that higher STR weapons have gotten worse. Necron players are now only wounding MEQ on a 3+ as well.
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?
Lurve the snark!
I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.
Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
Agreed with you. That was a ridiculous rebuttal, even thought I liked most of the rest of the Q&A
ClockworkZion wrote: I have a feeling much of this may follow the same logic that they already are. I mean Magnus is 3x taller than RG and has at least four more wounds to match. The models who are likely going to have more han ten wounds are likely to be biiger than RG. I mean R G oukd at least take a knee to gain some over, what can Magnus do amongst most armies?
Yes it doesn't create huge issues with current characters. Well there might be some characters that are otherwise fairly similar but one has say 8 wounds and other 12 wounds where 12 wounds actually is cheaper(assuming appropriately costed) as 8 wounds is almost certain to be better. That's unintuitive and it restricts kind of models they CAN do.
And the thing is current effect without above limitations could have been done _with_ keywords. That's the thing. There's no drawback for using keywords to do effect. But by using wounds they removed flexibility of the core rules for no benefit.
Railing on and on about how they COULD screw everything up without evidence is merely baseless conjecture that lends nothingnto e discussion of the information we actually have.
kestral wrote: Snipers killing characters makes me happy. On the other hand, the math is probably terrible. Assuming S4, BS 3 you need what, 200+ shots to kill Rowboat? Maybe they will be better than that against characters. Not thrilled to see characters jacked up with more wounds and such myself.
I suspect sniper rifles and the like will be more useful for offing smaller, generic characters that give force multiplier buffs, rather than plinking wounds off a big nasty. (which is all that they're good for now, incidentally)
Galas wrote: Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's
These rules most likely kill off shooting army viability as well. Also have you seen me complain about every other rule prevfiew? No I've been on board with almost all of them. Stop acting like I hate everything they've done. I hate this rule because it is undercutting a lot of the work they've done to this point to make the game more balanced. All they needed to do was make it a penalty to hit special characters who were not the closest target. Instead they make them invincible and this will be abused.
So stop trying to form the anti-Gamgee mob again please.
En Excelsis wrote: I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.
Spoiler:
Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.
Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.
Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.
Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.
Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.
If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.
I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.
Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...
After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.
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?
Lurve the snark!
I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.
Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
Because it's fething funny. It's a game company. I play games to have fun. These are the designers answering questions about a game. Some of us are kids at heart.
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?
Lurve the snark!
I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.
Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
Agreed with you. That was a ridiculous rebuttal, even thought I liked most of the rest of the Q&A
We also don't know the exact wording of the rule, nor of the split fire rules. Maybe you can fire enough of it into the one guardsman to drop him, and then fire the rest into RG?
It's not like you could target an Avatar "hiding" in a unit of Guardians or Abaddon running with some Cultists or a Thunderwolf Wolflord in a unit of puppies under current rules.
Not sure what changed, conceptually, not how its handled mechanically, from 7th (6th, 5th) to 8th that makes people so upset about this.
Galas wrote: Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's
These rules most likely kill off shooting army viability as well. Also have you seen me complain about every other rule prevfiew? No I've been on board with almost all of them. Stop acting like I hate everything they've done. I hate this rule because it is undercutting a lot of the work they've done to this point to make the game more balanced. All they needed to do was make it a penalty to hit special characters who were not the closest target. Instead they make them invincible and this will be abused.
So stop trying to form the anti-Gamgee mob again please.
Sorry, It wasn't my intention. Maybe I have miss-read your comments in this and other threads. We live in agitated times and errors are made.
So, I apologize!
Anyone who is making assertations on the game's design based on what little we do have are barking up trees that don't have any squirrels.
It's valid to have concerns, but let's not pretend the concerns are based on facts or evidence until we actually have facts and evidence to base them on,
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
when your doing game design, its easy to assign points values to things you design when they have numeric values.
example
A unit with t3 is worth 5 points, bump to t4 and its worth 10, t5 and it becomes worth 25. Add a wound for 15 points, 4+save, 5 points, 3+ 8 points, 2+ save 15 points.
Make a model have MV 4, 1 point. mv 5, 2 points, mv 6 4 points.....
You can have a chart in the design studio that says how much a model is worth when it has 10 wounds, x save, x toughness etc etc... You cant really assign a value to keywords.
This is why design is so balanced in games like X wing and STAW, the costs are married to the stats and gear. Models that have keywords make it harder to keep a balanced design.
You asked for ONE REASON why this way might be preferable, well there it is. I could probably come up with more, but I dont want too and won't because I dont think that the cant target models with less than 10 wounds is good, nor do I think its bad.... but Im excited to see it work in a game.
Heh??? That's simply not true. You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
Beside that, the fact that passing the 10 wounds threshold make the characger targetable has to be taken into account when pricing the character, so it would result in exactly the same thing as giving a certain point cost to the keyword
not in a balanced game you can't (you can't really for specific stat values either), being able to hide say Magnus is worth a hell of a lot more than hiding a primaris psyker
streetsamurai wrote: You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.
Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?
Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?
Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?
Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.
Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.
It's cool. We're all a little heated at this point. I'll try remain optimistic about this and hope they rebalanced Kroot stat line so we can get our guys up on the frontline again.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue
If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?
You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.
Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.
Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
My point in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders is not that "I don't like people having fun with things they own" but rather I would have gotten a newly designed unit that actually addressed some of the issues in play.
The continued existence of Ratlings and Rough Riders hasn't stopped them from creating new units.
The only "new" units for the Guard of late have been the two Taurox variants as far as I recall. Most of the rest has been split offs(Bullgryn from Ogryn, Armored Sentinels from the general Sentinel profile, etc), dredging stuff up from Epic(Deathstrikes), or renames(Scions).
Ratlings, to me, have felt shoehorned into being the Guard equivalent of the "Scout-y unit with Sniper Rifles" when it really could/should have actually been an option for Veteran Squads. Or an Elite option ala the Detachment 99 Sniper Teams(a spotter with a NV scope that had special rules and a sniper working in tandem) rather than snipers for Guard being limited to Special Weapon Teams(where it's effectively the D99 setup just without the special rules that actually make the D99 Sniper Teams something you might consider taking) or models in squads tacked in there.
Ratlings could have been a far more interesting unit than they are currently, given that a big part of their lore is that they are the cooks and effectively quartermasters of the Regiment. Think Jokaero in terms of things that the Ratlings could have been given.
I agree. I think there should be dedicated Guardsmen sniper teams as well as Ratlings, and Ratlings should be given some unique traits of their own. Shoot Sharp and Scarper is an attempt at that, but I think they could go further.
Like I said; think of Jokaero and the randomized buffs they give out.
Ratlings aren't "just" snipers. They effectively become a kind of regimental mascot/"alternative procurement specialists".
And Rough Riders? They're just a mess. I posted an idea in another thread as to how I would redesign the unit, but they currently suffer from a mixture of issues.
a) Fluff. They're either described as being part of a regiment(Death Korps and Tallarn) or as a separate regiment in and of themselves(The Attilan Rough Riders). Removing the "Rough Riders" label and instead doing "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" would solve some of those issues.
b) Competitive slot. They're part of Fast Attack meaning they compete with the Hellhound variants, Sentinel variants, and Valkyrie variants.
c) Role. They're a counter-charge unit(supposedly) that isn't really built for counter-charging, and what's more isn't really built for close combat in general.
That's why, personally, I would rather see Rough Riders removed.
a) I disagree; I think Rough Riders is a good generic name that covers multiple origins, while your suggestion pidgeonholes them a bit. Either way, it's pretty inconsequential to their role.
Which is, to an extent, why I think it needs to go as a name. Elysia isn't raising Rough Rider Squads for their armies. Cadia isn't doing that. Vitria isn't doing that. Harakoni, Catachan, Valhalla, etc etc.
It's always been that specific kinds of world were generally talked about raising Rough Riders(feudal worlds, feral/death worlds, or for whatever reason...Krieg?). By doing a "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" that opens the door for expanding it a bit more later on.
Start with Feral World Cavalry ala Attilla's horse troops then build up to things like the ornithids that got mentioned in "Straight Silver"(a kind of velociraptor chicken mount native to a basically World War One tech level planet) or even stuff like the xenos mounts we saw in WD back in the day.
b) and c) Are both fixable issues, given that we're rebooting the whole rule set. Maybe give them a platoon option like stormtroopers, or more wargear options to suit their role.
Platoon option for Scions was a huge mistake in my opinion that, hopefully, they're correcting. At least when we're talking about the Guard book proper.
There really isn't much more wargear that you can give them to "suit their role" though. They have Hunting Lances, Pistols/CCWs, and all the Grenades. There's not a whole heck of a lot more I can think of that would fit wargear wise.
Special rules are where you can really help them out, and I even went into that elsewhere today.
All of that is pretty small beer issues compared to the idea of removing a classic unit and invalidating armies.
I kind of feel that calling Rough Riders a "classic unit" is a bit overselling it. It's a unit that's been around for awhile.
Same with "invalidating armies". Have we ever been able to take a purely Cavalry mounted army? HWTs, SWS, Ratlings, Stormtroopers, yadda yadda yadda?
Gamgee wrote: It's cool. We're all a little heated at this point. I'll try remain optimistic about this and hope they rebalanced Kroot stat line so we can get our guys up on the frontline again.
To our Kroots, personally, I think the vision of squads of Kroots snipers in the terrain, killing enemy characters is ultra cool. And if they use this "Bespoken" mindset to give Kroots some kind of canibalizing rules? Like: "If your kroot unit kills a unit with the Ork keyword, they can spend a movement pase eating them and they gain +1 to T" for example.
So fluffy and cool!
streetsamurai wrote: You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.
Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?
Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?
Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?
Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.
Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.
Heh,??? By using binary variable you can easily put a keyword into a regression. In fact, the jump from 10 to 11 would be as 'complicated' to implement into a regression formula used to determinate the point of a model. and this is coming from someone who has a master in BI and has done more than his share of regression analysis
streetsamurai wrote: You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.
Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?
Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?
Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?
Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.
Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.
Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.
Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).
Never said they were the same exact thing, just a valid and feasible alternative.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, because personally? I don't think they're anywhere in the same ballpark.
It's like saying that being able to take a Combi Weapon/Heavy Weapon in a unit of Tactical Marines is a valid and feasible alternative to Sternguard or Devastators.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).
Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.
Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.
What he's saying is that it's impossible to just glance at a rule and assign a static cost value to it in a vacuum. At least, if you want to make it balanced.
I feel like I'm getting 5th ed Grey Knight levels of painful deja vu reading the last couple pages.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).
Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.
Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue
If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?
You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.
Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.
Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
Your attitude about this has not spoke towards it being treated as a "minor issue".
And you know, maybe it's intentional that models that were designed with ten wounds or less won't be targetable. You assume that they'd intentionally design something that should be targetable at 10 wounds or less but hide it with the rule.
Guess what: the same thing could apply with keywords only instead we could have some untargetable 15 wound monster.
En Excelsis wrote: Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.
The survey was ran in spring of 2016. The biggest problem at that time was the in-balance of 7th edition. That is the focus of GW's 8th edition, which is great. It means they are listening to the player base.
En Excelsis wrote: If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.
That would be so awesome.
En Excelsis wrote: After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.
I could not agree more. I was looking at the Catachan Jungle Fighters kit earlier today, and could not bring myself to buy it because the models just don't look good when compared to the newer sculpts.
En Excelsis wrote: Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.
I didn't say that their point cost mattered, or matter anymore... Samurai asked for ONE reason why doing it with wounds rather than keywords is preferable, so I provided it. Seems like he didn't want "just one" reason though, looks like he wanted to argue for its own sake and puff his chest
Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).
Never said they were the same exact thing, just a valid and feasible alternative.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, because personally? I don't think they're anywhere in the same ballpark.
It's like saying that being able to take a Combi Weapon/Heavy Weapon in a unit of Tactical Marines is a valid and feasible alternative to Sternguard or Devastators.
I don't play IG (sorry, Astra-whateverthehell) because I personally don't like the look of the models. I would probably invest in them in the future if they made a Vestroyan or Elysian version of all the models but... who are we kidding right?
Anyway, if I were to play them, and I needed a dedicated sniper unit like ratlings, I'd just sub the models out for something like veterans with sniper rifles... 'counts as' and looks much more fitting. Why take the long way around and try to use a different unit to perform the role of a unit that already exists.
En Excelsis wrote: I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.
Spoiler:
Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.
Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.
Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.
Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.
Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.
If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.
I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.
Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...
After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.
There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.
streetsamurai wrote: For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?
I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.
No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue
If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?
You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.
Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.
Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
Your attitude about this has not spoke towards it being treated as a "minor issue".
And you know, maybe it's intentional that models that were designed with ten wounds or less won't be targetable. You assume that they'd intentionally design something that should be targetable at 10 wounds or less but hide it with the rule.
Guess what: the same thing could apply with keywords only instead we could have some untargetable 15 wound monster.
The arguement can swing both ways.
Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
lessthanjeff wrote: If they give a new character 11 wounds it seems like they'd still be better off to me than the numerous monstrous creatures and walkers that we've been playing with.
But worse than W6-W10 characters...Don't you think that's just a wee bit illogical? Being punished for getting extra wound...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lessthanjeff wrote: He has 9 and gets to hide and I can't think of another character that would have more wounds but should still be allowed to hide.
I can think potential characters that could have been created that match those criteria. Too bad with these rules they won't work. For no benefit over keywords.
It's no more illogical to me than the current state of Monstrous Creatures has been that they can't join units when others can. Hell, daemon princes had the same number of wounds as wolf lord cavalry but the cav got to join and daemon princes didn't.
If they feel the need to make this hypothetical 11 wound character that should get to hide, what stops them from just putting the rule on that one data sheet? That way they aren't adding to the core rulebook for a situation that doesn't even exist in the game as of now. Keeps the main rules shorter and more simplified.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).
Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.
Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?
But Daemon Princes aren't ICs? They have never relied on hiding in units, why would they now?
En Excelsis wrote: Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.
I didn't say that their point cost mattered, or matter anymore... Samurai asked for ONE reason why doing it with wounds rather than keywords is preferable, so I provided it. Seems like he didn't want "just one" reason though, looks like he wanted to argue for its own sake and puff his chest
yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively 'complex' mathematical models
En Excelsis wrote: I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.
Spoiler:
Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.
Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.
Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.
Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.
Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.
If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.
I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.
Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...
After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.
There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.
I respectfully disagree.
Rules are rules and are only important in the context of competitive, regulated games. If I only ever played in those situations I would probably have a different point of view, but as it stands now I play 1 competitive game for every 20 beer and pretzels game I enjoy casually with friends. In the abstract sense I would still love for the rules to be more consistent, but not if presented with the choice of having better rules or better models.
Now, from the perspective of a small business owner, I can understand the concerns about shelf space and the premium there, but that is easily resolved by having establishing a store standard, and webstore alternatives. GW could easily work with gaming stores to provide them with the highest selling models to fill their shelves, and leaving the less popular models as webstore exclusives. I don't know that I'll be convinced that a world exists were more player choice is bad thing.
Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)
And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design
I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).
Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.
Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?
But Daemon Princes aren't ICs? They have never relied on hiding in units, why would they now?
They talk about things that are labeled characters as having the ability to be unable to be targeted if something else is closer...provided you have 10 or less Wounds.
So while now Daemon Princes might not be able to hide in units, they'd likely be protected under the new setup.
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?
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield.
That's a plus. But was only a thing to begin with because of 6th/7th's stupid casualty removal rules.
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.
That might happen in casual games. Sounds like a great way to get your characters sniped, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eyjio wrote: 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.
Not allowing characters to join units doesn't prevent deathstars if you replace the benefit of joining a unit with a ranged aura...
What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword. Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds. I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden,
I'm excited for Daemon Princes though. They are likely to stay under 10 wounds as well, which will be nice since I also don't think "hard to hit" will be a thing anymore.
streetsamurai wrote: Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models
It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.
Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.
Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).
Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.
FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins who hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.
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?
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
I can't think of an instance in AoS where I've had "just one" model survive a shooting phase and the Battleshock phase to follow.
Eyjio wrote: 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.
Not allowing characters to join units doesn't prevent deathstars if you replace the benefit of joining a unit with a ranged aura...
It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.
As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?
Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.
Moving on...
So here we have here is a mod breaking rule #1 to defend people breaking rule #1in their attacks on anyone saying anything negative about the new edition. Yep this definitely help make the quality of discussion increase.
streetsamurai wrote: Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.
That doesn't make any senses. There is already some kind of USR based on keywords (such as infantry benefiting more than vehicule from cover)
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue
You want to bloat the core rules tomprevent a one-off rule on a single theoretical model. Who is really the bloater here?
yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models
It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.
Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.
Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).
Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.
FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.
Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds makes a model targetable has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword
streetsamurai wrote: Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.
That doesn't make any senses. There is already some kind of USR based on keywords (such as infantry benefiting more than vehicule from cover)
A single bespoke rule on a single model is better than a USR to cover the "everything else".
Space marine characters are going to look stupid now going into battle without a helmet when their brothers see them fall to sniper rifles right in front of them (or I guess right behind them).
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue
You want to bloat the core rules tomprevent a one-off rule on a single theoretical model. Who is really the bloater here?
Saying a model is only targetable if he has the targetable keyword, doesnt introduce more bloat than saying only model with more than 11 wounds are targetable
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue
No one has yet to provide a reason why this arbitrary character should not be targetable at 11 wounds. Or why a 15 wound character should not be. All you say is they can't make one. Why should we care?
You do realize there are other ways to impart durability outside of wounds and far more ways to make varied characters, yes?
As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?
Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.
Moving on...
So here we have here is a mod breaking rule #1 to defend people breaking rule #1in their attacks on anyone saying anything negative about the new edition. Yep this definitely help make the quality of discussion increase.
I think that calling this breaking rule nb 1 is a bit of a stretch
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue
No one has yet to provide a reason why this arbitrary character should not be targetable at 11 wounds. Or why a 15 wound character should not be. All you say is they can't make one. Why should we care?
You do realize there are other ways to impart durability outside of wounds and far more ways to make varied characters, yes?
Tip tap tippity tap tap!
A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?
Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design
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?
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?
And for the record, the fact that you can move your units to a spot where Guilliman is closer is a large part of what I dislike about these rules. Based on the last time we had similar rules, the restriction on targeting doesn't save characters from being shot, it just forces players to game the system with unit placement in order to make the character the closest visible model.
When it's so easy to make the character a target anyway, the restriction just seems even more absurd in examples like the above.
It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.
That would have been the case if they had implemented the Keyword system while still allowing ICs to join.
In other words, it's not the inability to join units that kills off deathstars, it's (potentially) the fact that the rules on how ICs pass on their special rules has changed... although we won't know if that has actually killed off deathstars until we see more rules.
streetsamurai wrote: Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same as using a keyword
So quick question to those involved, Gulliman the freaking primarch of all people has 9 wounds, what independent character who isn't already a monstrous creature does anyone think is going to have more wounds? I'm not coming up with anyone off the top of my head and that is making this look like a lot of fuss over quite possibly nothing.
The only "new" units for the Guard of late have been the two Taurox variants as far as I recall. Most of the rest has been split offs(Bullgryn from Ogryn, Armored Sentinels from the general Sentinel profile, etc), dredging stuff up from Epic(Deathstrikes), or renames(Scions).
I feel like your criteria for what counts as a "new" unit is a bit selective. Is the Wyvern a new unit, or just a Chimera chassis variant in your book?
In any case, a lot of that has come around with updating older units to plastic multibuild kits, and I don't see what Rough Riders have to do with them.
Like I said; think of Jokaero and the randomized buffs they give out.
Ratlings aren't "just" snipers. They effectively become a kind of regimental mascot/"alternative procurement specialists".
Big to that idea.
Which is, to an extent, why I think it needs to go as a name. Elysia isn't raising Rough Rider Squads for their armies. Cadia isn't doing that. Vitria isn't doing that. Harakoni, Catachan, Valhalla, etc etc.
It's always been that specific kinds of world were generally talked about raising Rough Riders(feudal worlds, feral/death worlds, or for whatever reason...Krieg?). By doing a "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" that opens the door for expanding it a bit more later on.
Start with Feral World Cavalry ala Attilla's horse troops then build up to things like the ornithids that got mentioned in "Straight Silver"(a kind of velociraptor chicken mount native to a basically World War One tech level planet) or even stuff like the xenos mounts we saw in WD back in the day.
Again, I don't know why we have to drop the name Rough Riders for that, but agree to disagree, I suppose.
I kind of feel that calling Rough Riders a "classic unit" is a bit overselling it. It's a unit that's been around for awhile.
Same with "invalidating armies". Have we ever been able to take a purely Cavalry mounted army? HWTs, SWS, Ratlings, Stormtroopers, yadda yadda yadda?
I'd say if your army includes a particular unit, and they get rid of that unit, your army's been invalidated.
One of the reasons I like the idea of RR platoons is that it opens the door to all-cavalry armies, which is a pretty cool idea in my book.
yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models
It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.
Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.
Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).
Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.
FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.
Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword
Yes, and "agains" building a chart that the game designers can use that incorporates a significant value jump between 11 and 10 is easier than having to account for a binary element in a regression that can be affected by a whole boatload of other regression models too (the other USR's). Building values based on arithmetic means that at most they need to hire a mathmatician once to build good models... Keeping USR's as a design element means that they need to hire a math nerd full time to run models in R.
Further, it creates a conflict... They've obviously decided that direction for the design studio is less USR's... Taking one on here goes against their design philosophy. If everyone on the team did that whenever they thought some was better, the whole work would be a mess on the backend quickly; this is the reason programing studios tend to do all their work in a specific language, rather than cobbling things together from whatever bits and pieces they happen to think is best.
And again, I'm taking you less and less seriously every time you reply. I laid things out, provide reasons, followed up on criticism and all you can manage is "I have a diploma, and you're wrong by the way." followed up with "But you're still wrong, so there".
You're just fishing for a fight, and have decided that the "GW can do no wrong" people are worth your afternoon. GW can do plenty wrong, Try playing orks for nearly 6 years then tell me you've got a bigger complaint against the company than I do.
A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?
Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design
But you won't find an 11 wound character the same size as an 8 wound one. You'll find an 11 wound character that was reduced by 3 wounds and then given an additional save.
You're far to hung up on wounds as a measure of a model.
The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
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?
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?
And for the record, the fact that you can move your units to a spot where Guilliman is closer is a large part of what I dislike about these rules. Based on the last time we had similar rules, the restriction on targeting doesn't save characters from being shot, it just forces players to game the system with unit placement in order to make the character the closest visible model.
When it's so easy to make the character a target anyway, the restriction just seems even more absurd in examples like the above.
I mean, if you were so worried about Guilliman to begin with...why wouldn't you try to isolate him or set up the best shooting possible?
It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.
That would have been the case if they had implemented the Keyword system while still allowing ICs to join.
In other words, it's not the inability to join units that kills off deathstars, it's (potentially) the fact that the rules on how ICs pass on their special rules has changed... although we won't know if that has actually killed off deathstars until we see more rules.
That's assuming that ICs will have rules that could justifiably be passed on.
Galas wrote: Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's
These rules most likely kill off shooting army viability as well. Also have you seen me complain about every other rule prevfiew? No I've been on board with almost all of them. Stop acting like I hate everything they've done. I hate this rule because it is undercutting a lot of the work they've done to this point to make the game more balanced. All they needed to do was make it a penalty to hit special characters who were not the closest target. Instead they make them invincible and this will be abused.
Let's wait and see how much sniper power Tau have before we declare IC invincible.
Galas wrote: Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
You have a point. But before, "good customer service" was basically saying that the customer is always right. We live in the age of internet, in the age of people over exagerating things and making campaings for whatever reason they feel like. The internet has given people a platform to give away their opinions, and in general that as caused people to be even more convinced that other people should pay attention to their opinions.
A little of snark to people that just don't know how to properly give away critizism don't hurt anybody. Obviously, if it degenerates in what are you saying, to be honest, it will be a problem? Bad PR cause companies loses of money. Companies don't want to lose money, so is in their interest to don't gain bad PR.
EDIT: This had better meaning in my head, I have failed to translate it to english in a clear way, sorry.
But that was exactly my point - it's not bad PR if most of the responses are people blurting out "lurve the snark" and "ermahgerd queen slay". Lets be real, the vast majority of people, in relation to any given company or product, aren't going to need good customer service because they won't get a defective product or poor provision - the whole "customer is always right" thing, while sometimes garbage when dealing with TFG(and don't kid yourself on, the only thing that's changed with the internet is how many people can see the interactions between TFG and the company, I've worked a lot of "customer facing" jobs over the years and there weren't any fewer gits before social media) was a response by companies to the possibility that the unaffected majority would express solidarity with the small minority who could be affected by bad products and services, thus cut into their profits.
Corporations may not be people, but they're definitely animals - condition them to expect most people will respond well to witty put-downs of customers with issues, and that will become their default response whether the issues are valid, invented, or just a bit overblown. As I said, while sarcy in tone, the point raised by that guy was perfectly valid and deserved to be addressed, but evidently plenty of folk are fine with PR deflection if it lets them have a giggle at another's expense.
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?
Lurve the snark!
I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.
Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.
Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
Because it's fething funny. It's a game company. I play games to have fun. These are the designers answering questions about a game. Some of us are kids at heart.
And some of us are not.
Spoiler:
In that case, I sincerely look forward to the day when you have some kind of issue or or valid question and GW's response is a sarcastic put-down, so I can rise to your sparkling level of debate and post a Nelson-HAHA gif
yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models
It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.
Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.
Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).
Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.
FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.
Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword
Yes, and "agains" building a chart that the game designers can use that incorporates a significant value jump between 11 and 10 is easier than having to account for a binary element in a regression that can be affected by a whole boatload of other regression models too (the other USR's). Building values based on arithmetic means that at most they need to hire a mathmatician once to build good models... Keeping USR's as a design element means that they need to hire a math nerd full time to run models in R.
Further, it creates a conflict... They've obviously decided that direction for the design studio is less USR's... Taking one on here goes against their design philosophy. If everyone on the team did that whenever they thought some was better, the whole work would be a mess on the backend quickly; this is the reason programing studios tend to do all their work in a specific language, rather than cobbling things together from whatever bits and pieces they happen to think is best.
And again, I'm taking you less and less seriously every time you reply. I laid things out, provide reasons, followed up on criticism and all you can manage is "I have a diploma, and you're wrong by the way." followed up with "But you're still wrong, so there".
You're just fishing for a fight, and have decided that the "GW can do no wrong" people are worth your afternoon. GW can do plenty wrong, Try playing orks for nearly 6 years then tell me you've got a bigger complaint against the company than I do.
Either you are really confused or I'm misinterpreting your argument
Let's take a simplified regression that would be used to determinate the point of a model by only taking into account its wounds
Point Cost= B + XWounds
Such a regression would be seriously flawed, since it does not take into account the rule shift when you pass from 10 to 11 wounds. So to correct it, you would have either to create an interaction variable (which would be more complicated), or a binary variable (which would make it the same as the key word system).
Hence, to be usefull, both models would use a formula that look like this
Point cost = B + XWounds + Ytargetable
Where X is a continuous value, while Y is a binary one.
Wait, so did this new rule about using your Independent Characters thinking about how the units of your enemy are placed and how they can move and shoot the next turn, add tactical deept to the game?
Or is just game-y?
I have seen many people that want things that are totally contradictory, like wanting characters that aren't inmortal, can't be snipped, and can be targeted all the time without rules to protect them when near allies. All of that at the same time.
En Excelsis wrote: I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.
This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...
A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.
Spoiler:
Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.
Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.
Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.
Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.
Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.
If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.
I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.
Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...
After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.
There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.
I respectfully disagree.
Rules are rules and are only important in the context of competitive, regulated games. If I only ever played in those situations I would probably have a different point of view, but as it stands now I play 1 competitive game for every 20 beer and pretzels game I enjoy casually with friends. In the abstract sense I would still love for the rules to be more consistent, but not if presented with the choice of having better rules or better models.
Now, from the perspective of a small business owner, I can understand the concerns about shelf space and the premium there, but that is easily resolved by having establishing a store standard, and webstore alternatives. GW could easily work with gaming stores to provide them with the highest selling models to fill their shelves, and leaving the less popular models as webstore exclusives. I don't know that I'll be convinced that a world exists were more player choice is bad thing.
The issue with that is when those choices are close, or exclude certain armies etc. More models also means expensive molds that they need to recoup and investment on. I mostly play casually these days, and I'd still opt for better rules as most of my games are of the pick-up nature, and so having poorly balanced rules leads to a lot of so-so games. I would argue that rules are only unimportant when both players are familiar with one another and modify those rules to produce games they enjoy. Personally I have little issue with GW on the updating models front, for the most part they do a great job (like I said few horrid out of date models), and if they did produce say new space marine models I am not likely to replace the ones I currently own just because they look cool, I simply lack the funds for that. New units, sure. I think those are great, updates of old sculpts are also good, but for me would take a back seat to good rules for all models. I would put updating bad models ahead of creating new units etc. For things like expanded product lines, I think something like Forgeworld is fine for that purpose.
A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?
Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design
But you won't find an 11 wound character the same size as an 8 wound one. You'll find an 11 wound character that was reduced by 3 wounds and then given an additional save.
You're far to hung up on wounds as a measure of a model.
which is why it is a bad rule. Wounds shouldn't be perfectly correlated with size
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?
Seems to me like the whole 'characters cannot be the target of attacks' rule is just a method of removing a players ability to apply their own target priority. It's very heavy-handed.
GW has clearly stated that they want close combat to be play a larger role in the game and since they already dug a pretty deep hole for themselves by allowing for multiple overwatch attempts in a single turn, and for units to move and fire heavy weapons, there wasn't much chance that units would ever make it to close combat. I still don't think we'll see mobs of boyz using their choppaz anytime soon. But at least their favorite Ultramarine ICs will get to take a few swings right? They wouldn't want you shooting at them before they had a chance to earn their points back.
Everything can hurt everything... except ICs - you can't hurt those unless they've already hurt you in melee.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
Again this is another strawman. You've conjured something that likely does not exist to prove a point that isn't really a problem.
Oh man, the Vindicare and Deathmarks just became pretty scary. It's one thing if they can allocate hits on a 6; it's another being able to target characters which can't look out sir away wounds. It makes a bit more sense too. I do wonder if that means they lose the ability to snipe out special weapons though - I could understand the loss, and they don't do it very well currently anyway, but man was it fun when that happened. If they don't though, they'll be disgusting. I am sort of assuming you can just pick a target now and not have to roll a 6 just due to the wording, which might be a flawed assumption.
I won't argue with anyone this time on the character rules; they've been made simpler and less exploitable but yes, that also means you might not want them to lead from the front which is a shame. Personally, I think it's a good change, but if others disagree that's fine too. I'd wait to try it before getting too irate, but it's understandable why people liked the whole "here is my cool dude" thing, even if it was 90% used just to game away wounds with a superior save - it did look good.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
This returns to the issues of TLoS, model conversions, poses, ect. If the game wasn't built around the concept of conversions and reposing models to make them look cooler, I'd agree that the only metric should be model height. But force it is way and we'll see RG crawlingnon the ground like he was trying to be a Ripper.
Wounds, while just as abitrary as keywords, and likely even more so than model scale, at least provide a measure of consistancy that people can't try to take advantage of like they do their models.
The only "new" units for the Guard of late have been the two Taurox variants as far as I recall. Most of the rest has been split offs(Bullgryn from Ogryn, Armored Sentinels from the general Sentinel profile, etc), dredging stuff up from Epic(Deathstrikes), or renames(Scions).
I feel like your criteria for what counts as a "new" unit is a bit selective. Is the Wyvern a new unit, or just a Chimera chassis variant in your book?
In any case, a lot of that has come around with updating older units to plastic multibuild kits, and I don't see what Rough Riders have to do with them.
There's a reason I said "as far as I recall" and "Most of the rest".
Also, it has a lot to do with Rough Riders. Very little actually new has been put forth for the Guard from GW proper. They've been coasting by with nostalgia and the general "meh, I have what I need" attitude for the most part from Guard players.
I mean cripes, I mention removing Rough Riders or not liking them and we get people blasting me when probably a quarter of them didn't even realize the models haven't been on sale for almost four years?!
Which is, to an extent, why I think it needs to go as a name. Elysia isn't raising Rough Rider Squads for their armies. Cadia isn't doing that. Vitria isn't doing that. Harakoni, Catachan, Valhalla, etc etc.
It's always been that specific kinds of world were generally talked about raising Rough Riders(feudal worlds, feral/death worlds, or for whatever reason...Krieg?). By doing a "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" that opens the door for expanding it a bit more later on.
Start with Feral World Cavalry ala Attilla's horse troops then build up to things like the ornithids that got mentioned in "Straight Silver"(a kind of velociraptor chicken mount native to a basically World War One tech level planet) or even stuff like the xenos mounts we saw in WD back in the day.
Again, I don't know why we have to drop the name Rough Riders for that, but agree to disagree, I suppose.
Because it's a generic name that doesn't actually reflect the unit?
I mean, you're talking to a guy who is all for "Deathworld Veterans" becoming an actual unit type with specialized scenery rules.
I kind of feel that calling Rough Riders a "classic unit" is a bit overselling it. It's a unit that's been around for awhile.
Same with "invalidating armies". Have we ever been able to take a purely Cavalry mounted army? HWTs, SWS, Ratlings, Stormtroopers, yadda yadda yadda?
I'd say if your army includes a particular unit, and they get rid of that unit, your army's been invalidated.
One of the reasons I like the idea of RR platoons is that it opens the door to all-cavalry armies, which is a pretty cool idea in my book.
That's a bit of a leap there.
Rough Rider Platoons would just mean you could take more Rough Rider Squads. Scion Platoons didn't give us Scion Heavy Weapon or Scion Special Weapon teams.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
Again this is another strawman. You've conjured something that likely does not exist to prove a point that isn't really a problem.
And again, this is not a strawman, since it shows a possible limitation of the rule
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?
Why do you care? It doesn't really affect you if I mount my little men on horses. It's not like people are forcing you to play rough riders.
The issue with that is when those choices are close, or exclude certain armies etc. More models also means expensive molds that they need to recoup and investment on. I mostly play casually these days, and I'd still opt for better rules as most of my games are of the pick-up nature, and so having poorly balanced rules leads to a lot of so-so games. I would argue that rules are only unimportant when both players are familiar with one another and modify those rules to produce games they enjoy. Personally I have little issue with GW on the updating models front, for the most part they do a great job (like I said few horrid out of date models), and if they did produce say new space marine models I am not likely to replace the ones I currently own just because they look cool, I simply lack the funds for that. New units, sure. I think those are great, updates of old sculpts are also good, but for me would take a back seat to good rules for all models. I would put updating bad models ahead of creating new units etc. For things like expanded product lines, I think something like Forgeworld is fine for that purpose.
If I only played one army and I had already 'completed' that collection, I would probably agree. I'm not going to go out and replace my existing ASM just because they released a new kit with a bigger, fancier sword somewhere on the sprue.
My worry is that game has already been pretty much relegated to SM (really just Ultramarines), Tau, and the occasional black sheep in the community who wants to play something like Orkz or Tyranids. It may sell more units if they release new molds for existing models like ASM, but that's a trifle amount compared to the potential profits in reviving an entire product line such as SoB.
Look at what happened when they released the last run of Dark Eldar... the old models had long fallen out of interest among players and had almost no shelf space at local stores. They improved that and sales picked up instantly. Interest in DE as a faction picked up quite a lot and for a short while they were turning all the heads at tournaments and other events. I'm certain GW recovered more than just the cost of developing those molds.
Now look at the cost of recreating the entire ruleset and how likely GW is to lose as many or more players than it attracts. Seems like a pretty safe bet to me
As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice
Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?
What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?
I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue
No one has yet to provide a reason why this arbitrary character should not be targetable at 11 wounds. Or why a 15 wound character should not be. All you say is they can't make one. Why should we care?
You do realize there are other ways to impart durability outside of wounds and far more ways to make varied characters, yes?
Tip tap tippity tap tap!
So, think about it the other way. What if they want to create a big unit that isn't as durable as a tank? Like a giant. It should probably have 10 wounds or fewer, if a Leman Russ has 12. But should also be large enough to target over intervening infantry. So why not have a "Large" keyword, which only really large non-vehicle units would have. Then instead of the rules saying "Character models with 10 or fewer wounds can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest", it says "Character models can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest target or have the Large keyword".
That seems like a better solution. But honestly, does it make much difference? For everything that currently exists it probably works out the same either way, so why get upset about it?
The AM focus article, I think, is vastly superior to the CSM article. CSM gave little hints, but no usable information. From AM, we know the new exact T, W, and Sv of the Leman Russ, and that sniper weapons will have some way to target otherwise safely hidden characters. Commissars limiting Morale losse, automatic orders, and potentially *4* shots per FRFSRF guardsman are all nice, too.
I just hope I can have characters with morale buffs that don't blast the heads off of my Psykers.
There's a reason I said "as far as I recall" and "Most of the rest".
Also, it has a lot to do with Rough Riders. Very little actually new has been put forth for the Guard from GW proper. They've been coasting by with nostalgia and the general "meh, I have what I need" attitude for the most part from Guard players.
I mean cripes, I mention removing Rough Riders or not liking them and we get people blasting me when probably a quarter of them didn't even realize the models haven't been on sale for almost four years?!
I don't follow your logic, nor your emotional response or bizarre ad hominem, so I'm just going to leave this where it lies since it's not new or rumors anyway.
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?
Seems to me like the whole 'characters cannot be the target of attacks' rule is just a method of removing a players ability to apply their own target priority. It's very heavy-handed.
GW has clearly stated that they want close combat to be play a larger role in the game and since they already dug a pretty deep hole for themselves by allowing for multiple overwatch attempts in a single turn, and for units to move and fire heavy weapons, there wasn't much chance that units would ever make it to close combat. I still don't think we'll see mobs of boyz using their choppaz anytime soon. But at least their favorite Ultramarine ICs will get to take a few swings right? They wouldn't want you shooting at them before they had a chance to earn their points back.
Everything can hurt everything... except ICs - you can't hurt those unless they've already hurt you in melee.
:\ I am bad with forums.
How is that any different to Robo joining the guardsman squad like he can in 7th? In fact, it's easier to hurt them in 8th then it is in 7th because if you position your units in a way they can directly shoot at the IC.
What about St Celestine? She probably doesn't have 11 wounds, but it should be pretty easy to distinguish her from the rest of the army, with her flying about and all.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Then instead of the rules saying "Character models with 10 or fewer wounds can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest", it says "Character models can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest target or have the Large keyword".
Because it's much cleaner to just give that model a rule saying "this model ignores the usual rules for targeting characters," rather than incorporate a keyword into the core rules- where it effectively becomes a USR.
Either you are really confused or I'm misinterpreting your argument
I think you are very much misinterpreting my argument....
What I'm saying is that if we have models with numerical values for rules as much as possible then their points costs can be pretty effectively mapped against the value of those rules and if some stat ends up being a bit more important than their spreadsheet or design manual first assumed, they can just go bump the cell that contains its value up by a tick or two. This can be done with a notebook and a pocket calculator, or very efficiently with an excel file that all the designers can have access to.
What you seem to be suggesting is that a small team of war-gamers from Nottingham should build operate and maintain an array of multivariate regression analysis models that they consult when designing new rules...
I bought up regressions because if they REALLY wanted to invest in balance, they could employ some interesting methods to try and figure it out.... But ideally they would have a system that can spit out ballanced models whether the person sitting at the design table is a high school drop out, or William Gosset.
which is why it is a bad rule. Wounds shouldn't be perfectly correlated with size
They aren't. We expect a GUO to have more wounds than a LoC even though the new LoC will likely be taller than the new GUO (whenever it gets here).
Bigger model, less wounds - representative of it's overall durability.
Stop being pedantic. You know full well that I meant that the rule for being targetable makes it so that the size of a model is directly correlated to its number of wounds.
So, think about it the other way. What if they want to create a big unit that isn't as durable as a tank? Like a giant. It should probably have 10 wounds or fewer, if a Leman Russ has 12. But should also be large enough to target over intervening infantry. So why not have a "Large" keyword, which only really large non-vehicle units would have. Then instead of the rules saying "Character models with 10 or fewer wounds can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest", it says "Character models can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest target or have the Large keyword".
That seems like a better solution. But honestly, does it make much difference? For everything that currently exists it probably works out the same either way, so why get upset about it?
You've stepped outside the realm of characters and into normal units, which are targeted under standard rules.
I'm not upset about it. I'm belaboring the point, because this is the battle of "those who think GW can do no wrong" vs "those who have to nitpick every single rule to feel good about their game design skills".
Either you are really confused or I'm misinterpreting your argument
I think you are very much misinterpreting my argument....
What I'm saying is that if we have models with numerical values for rules as much as possible then their points costs can be pretty effectively mapped against the value of those rules and if some stat ends up being a bit more important than their spreadsheet or design manual first assumed, they can just go bump the cell that contains its value up by a tick or two.
What you seem to be suggesting is that a small team of war-gamers from Nottingham should build operate and maintain an array of multivariate regression analysis models that they consult when designing new rules...
I bought up regressions because if they REALLY wanted to invest in balance, they could employ some interesting methods to try and figure it out.... But ideally they would have a system that can spit out ballanced models whether the person sitting at the design table is a high school drop out, or William Gosset.
I think that yes, a multi national like GW, should use such models to determinate the point cost of their models. Probably would insure that we don't get such abomination like scatter bike.
And again, I don't really see how putting a 1 besides a targetable cell make it more complicated than putting an 11 rather than a 10 (and I hope that the game designers would consider that putting 11 rather than 10 make it now targetable)
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
Again this is another strawman. You've conjured something that likely does not exist to prove a point that isn't really a problem.
It proves the point perfectly. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean the problem goes away. Wounds do not correlate size and therefore should not make the defining point in hiding or not. Not unless it's something very specific that GW is going to stick to like certain size bases mean guarantee'd X amount of wounds.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
Again this is another strawman. You've conjured something that likely does not exist to prove a point that isn't really a problem.
And again, this is not a strawman, since it shows a possible limitation of the rule
If there are no models like that in the game and they have no intention to release one (primarchs are the strongest "human sized" beings), then adding a keyword is bad design.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
This returns to the issues of TLoS, model conversions, poses, ect. If the game wasn't built around the concept of conversions and reposing models to make them look cooler, I'd agree that the only metric should be model height. But force it is way and we'll see RG crawlingnon the ground like he was trying to be a Ripper.
Wounds, while just as abitrary as keywords, and likely even more so than model scale, at least provide a measure of consistancy that people can't try to take advantage of like they do their models.
Yeah. We have a word for people like that. Cheaters. They get thrown out of tournaments. Or you treat their conversions as the models they are intended to be. "Oh this is my C'tan. Because he can shapeshift, he's a scarab now. But monstrously powerful." Oh really? Cool. He's still getting shot like he's 6" tall.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
Again this is another strawman. You've conjured something that likely does not exist to prove a point that isn't really a problem.
And again, this is not a strawman, since it shows a possible limitation of the rule
If there are no models like that in the game and they have no intention to release one (primarchs are the strongest "human sized" beings), then adding a keyword is bad design.
And what if they want to make a big but frail model? And what if they decde in a few years that they want such a model. Again this rule is introducing some needless limitation on game design
I'm liking everything I see about these new Character rules.
Having played quite a bit of Age of Sigmar, it's pretty funny to read all of the 'sky is falling' type comments. 40k 8th Edition will just be using a modified version of the AoS 'Hero' rules.
Will Characters be able to join units? No.
Will Characters be able to provide benefits/special rules to units like they used to when joining a unit? Yes. We know that some Characters will have "auras" where they give X benefit to certain units within Y".
Will Characters be able to provide benefits/special rules to ANY unit? Nope. Generally speaking, keywords will be used to let you know which units can benefit. Kroot Shapers might only give a benefit to units with the Kroot keyword. This will vary heavily from Character to Character. Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplains probably won't be able to make Space Wolves fight harder. An Inquisitor might be able to inspire or command any unit with the Imperium of Man keyword.
But how will we deal with these newly nigh-immortal Characters? We can't shoot at one if he's standing slightly farther away than another eligible unit, unless...
1. ...you maneuver for a better shot.
2. ...you fire a "sniper" type weapon.
3. ...you use some other rule or effect that we just haven't seen yet.
4. ...you wipe out the unit providing cover.
5. ...you say feth it and assault like Khorne wants you to.
The 10/11 wound threshold seems arbitrary for designating which Characters can "hide" behind another unit, but I'm sure will make sense in practice. Guilliman is taller than a regular Marine, but it's not like he's a clear target. An average dude with a Lasgun is shooting the unit... not him. Magnus is about, what... five times taller than a Rubric Marine? That same Lasgun Dude is shooting Magnus specifically. Using a wound threshold obviates the endless bickering about cover percentages. "He's totally only 49% covered by that unit. I have a clear shot."
Um. Most people were just abusing invisible deathstars anyway. So now you can save a few steps in the psychic phase. I think the "invisi-HQs is just fine.
I bet they changed Sniper weapons to something like Str 4, Rend 0, Damage 1 (on a 6+ To Hit use the following profile: Str 8, Rend -2, Damage 2). In other words, it won't be the end of Characters when snipers are on the table. All but garanteed.
How is that any different to Robo joining the guardsman squad like he can in 7th? In fact, it's easier to hurt them in 8th then it is in 7th because if you position your units in a way so they can directly shoot at IC.
Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?
The current IC rules making no exception for ICs the size of houses is no less absurd than not being able to target the IC because there's a guy the size of his boot standing just in front of him.
If a unit can ignore intervening infantry in order to shoot at a dreadnought, there is no logical reason for them to not be able to shoot at another similarly sized model just because it's listed as a character on its profile.
Ultimately, Robert is entirely a separate issue to the silliness of the character rule as a whole, because of his size.
It proves the point perfectly. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean the problem goes away. Wounds do not correlate size and therefore should not make the defining point in hiding or not. Not unless it's something very specific that GW is going to stick to like certain size bases mean guarantee'd X amount of wounds.
It's merely the inverse of the problem.
If you have a "skinny" tyranid that should be 10 wounds that is targetable then certainly no one would take it unless it was sufficiently durable by some means, right? So you otherwise make it 16 wounds and remove some other protection.
I don't get where you guys think that something bigger shouldn't have more wounds. Certainly bigger things will have variance between them, but if you have something as tall as a knight why in the world wound it have 10 wounds?
I feel like if they designed the system as you guys describe it the complaint would then be "it's so stupid that GW designed such a big model with so few wounds".
nintura wrote: Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean the problem goes away.
I can feel myself getting dumber the longer this argument goes on. Please for the love of god take it somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with the system they are putting into place as long as they stay true to that system. If they deviant from it for a handful of models I don't think it will break the game, however if an entire army starts changing the rules then we have an issue. Until any of that happens there is literally no problem.
I'm hoping the appearance of Tzaangors in 40k means more beastmen (or other mutated Chaos lackeys) are on the way. Always wanted to build a unit of Bloodgors after reading Vraks volume 2...
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?
That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?
Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?
Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?
You can split your shooting the way you want, and boltguns can have a radius that covers to thirds of the board. Send 4-5 boltguns and call it a day.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Then instead of the rules saying "Character models with 10 or fewer wounds can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest", it says "Character models can't be picked out as target of shooting unless they are the closest target or have the Large keyword".
Because it's much cleaner to just give that model a rule saying "this model ignores the usual rules for targeting characters," rather than incorporate a keyword into the core rules- where it effectively becomes a USR.
Well, yes. That's probably an even better solution, depending on how common a situation it is. But I thought the discussion was about whether or not the ability to target characters should be based on number of wounds or something else.
andysonic1 wrote: I can feel myself getting dumber the longer this argument goes on. Please for the love of god take it somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with the system they are putting into place as long as they stay true to that system. If they deviant from it for a handful of models I don't think it will break the game, however if an entire army starts changing the rules then we have an issue. Until any of that happens there is literally no problem.
But we need something to talk about until tomorrow!
At this rate, I feel like it won't take long for Games Workshop to go back to not revealing things in advance and not communicating with their customers.
I find it depressing that people will complain about models that we don't even have the rules for. I find it even more baffling that people are complaining about the rules for hypothetical models that don't even exist in the game.
I guess there are optimists and pessimists in the world and then there are some people who just want to watch the world burn.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
But under this system, the wounds are probably roughly based on the size of the model. Things you describe wouldn't have the stats you assume. The tall bug would have 11+ wounds, but not so awesome toughness or save, while the smaller superbug would have ten or less wounds but good toughness and save.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
Yodhrin wrote: Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.
I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.
lessthanjeff wrote: At this rate, I feel like it won't take long for Games Workshop to go back to not revealing things in advance and not communicating with their customers.
I find it depressing that people will complain about models that we don't even have the rules for. I find it even more baffling that people are complaining about the rules for hypothetical models that don't even exist in the game.
I guess there are optimists and pessimists in the world and then there are some people who just want to watch the world burn.
But it MIGHT exist in the game at some point. After all, Games Workshop can't really control what Games Workshop does, so what if Games Workshop puts something into the game that Games Workshop didn't see coming? Particularly since they're only developing one codex after another and totally not working on everything at once. Why, and since they'd never be able to publish errata or change the game in any way, they'd be doomed! Doomed I say!
No, they better fix this now. They should also let wounds be non-numerical values, including but not limited to colors and the ampersand symbol. Terrible system otherwise.
I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.
It's more "real". You feel like you're talking to an actual person with feelings instead of a corporate robot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them
Sure that's it. We're just stupid drones. Anyway - moving on.
streetsamurai wrote: Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them
This is you right now:
Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is an idiot, nor is everyone praising this change a yes man. Take the chip off your shoulder and try not to insult people next time.
streetsamurai wrote: Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them
Please, this "Is totally okay if people just don't like stuff. They are totally free to say that the game is completely worthless", but "If people just like something, is because they lack critical thinking and are like sheeps, inmature and just stupid" need to end.
I understand, the haters vs fanboys is a very heated debate. But we'll come to a better end if we stop putting on high horses, be it to call others "sheeps" or say that they just hate everything all the time.
Please, this "Is totally okay if people just don't like stuff. They are totally free to say that the game is completely worthless", but "If people just like something, is because they lack critical thinking and are like sheeps, inmature and just stupid" need to end.
I understand, the haters vs fanboys is a very heated debate. But we'll come to a better end if we stop putting on high horses, be it to call others "sheeps" or say that they just hate everything all the time.
I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!
I wonder why those that make the " hater always gonna hate"accusation get so offended when the reverse accusation is made toward them. You should be willing to take what you dish.
Btw, lacking critical thinking skills doesnt make someone an idiot.
nintura wrote: The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.
But under this system, the wounds are probably roughly based on the size of the model. Things you describe wouldn't have the stats you assume. The tall bug would have 11+ wounds, but not so awesome toughness or save, while the smaller superbug would have ten or less wounds but good toughness and save.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
I've been optimistic about 8ed so far and still am. But that may be a little much to say before we have all of the rules. There are a bunch of red flags that will only be apparent when the full rules are released that will indicate how well GW understands the implications of more nuanced rules like this theoretical paradigm where having 11+ wounds is actually a downside. I'm hopeful. I may actually be quite naive. We won't know until we have more information, but GW has proved in the past that they are able to make it look like they've changed and then not really changed. They have also surprised us with actually changing for the better. Time will tell, but I think its early to definitively say they know what they are doing, or even weather or not they have good intentions.
Rippy wrote: I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!
I am curious to see if it will be worthwhile to stick RG in a guard blob to keep him safe (supported by a commissar so they don't melt) instead of having him with marines. I would imagine his buffs to marines will be too hard to ignore and guard too flimsy a frontline unit.
Rippy wrote: I can't be bothered reading another 15 pages of potentially off topic rambling, so apologies if this has already been said, but I just wanted to say I am loving the changes to ICs only buffing certain units etc.
Also in the Imperial Guard faction focus, they said snipers can target characters, snipers just got a whole lot more useful/cool!
I am curious to see if it will be worthwhile to stick RG in a guard blob to keep him safe (supported by a commissar so they don't melt) instead of having him with marines. I would imagine his buffs to marines will be too hard to ignore and guard too flimsy a frontline unit.
Maybe he'll buff guardsmen too. He's is kinda the big man on campus for the Imperium, after all, not just SM.
I think it is a result of a broader and longer in the making trend where a number of factors have caused the general public to become cynical and disillusioned when dealing with any establishment wanting to advertise something. A company willing to be snarky and a little rude shows that they are at least broadly aware of the (arguably healthy) cynicism present in the minds of their customers and accepting partially that the model of ernest (and perceptibly naive) positive and sterile professionalism established by 1950s salesmen comes off less as reputable and more as those companies, and by extension, the people working for them not being in touch with the culture of the people they sell to. This works the other way up and in the opposite direction, though too. The Wendys twitter handle being so smug all the time says, on the surface that Wendys is comfortable just letting any 20 year old intern have complete control of the corporate twitter handle. I would find it hard to believe at least initially that the middle aged executives working for Wendys corporate could have come up with this themselves, mostly on account of not being 20 year old interns anymore themselves. But they clearly were pleased with the results of such behavior, or they wouldn't have let it keep going as long as it has. This is actually a really interesting topic to discuss academically in the context of branding and company image. In the same way that no social media platform ever has, or ever will experience the same success as Facebook, I would not be surprised if other companies try this and only see mediocre results compared to Wendys.
It's more "real". You feel like you're talking to an actual person with feelings instead of a corporate robot.
That's the word I was looking for! thanks for summarizing my paragraph of ranting in one line.
About the "10 wounds threshold:" if there's a model with 10 or less wounds that shouldn't be able to hide, then couldn't they just not make that guy a character in their rules? Which models fall into all of the following: 1) must be a character, 2) can't have more than 10 wounds, and 3) despite that shouldn't be able to cower behind infantry?
gnome_idea_what wrote: About the "10 wounds threshold:" if there's a model with 10 or less wounds that shouldn't be able to hide, then couldn't they just not make that guy a character in their rules? Which models fall into all of the following: 1) must be a character, 2) can't have more than 10 wounds, and 3) despite that shouldn't be able to cower behind infantry?
But some of them are characters, and imagine the screeching on the forums if someone's favorite character no longer had the word "character" in their profile!
I would like to see a little more clarity on the character rules. Specifically I would love to know more about the distinctions between Characters and Independent Characters.
I understand that it's possible (or was historically possible) to take troop/elite selections without including a character, but as an Eldar player the very notion of taking a group of Striking Scorpions and not including an Exarch baffles me.
This leaves so much in the air for me. is the Exarch going to be treated differently because it's a Character? This compounds with all the other changes that will so heavily affect that unit.
Eldar are the high initiative faction - with initiative being completely gone that leaves me feeling pretty vulnerable, and also detracts from the value of things like the Scorpions Claw, which was only really ever used because it was a PF that wasn't unwieldy and therefore didn't drop your initiative. Now, that Exarch was insanely pricey - he was almost the cost of a whole squad of his peers, but his synergy with the ruleset made him worthwhile (on the odd days when he actually made it into CC).
Not knowing what they are replacing those critical game elements with is torture because it's so crucial to my entire lineup.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
En Excelsis wrote: I would like to see a little more clarity on the character rules. Specifically I would love to know more about the distinctions between Characters and Independent Characters.
I understand that it's possible (or was historically possible) to take troop/elite selections without including a character, but as an Eldar player the very notion of taking a group of Striking Scorpions and not including an Exarch baffles me.
This leaves so much in the air for me. is the Exarch going to be treated differently because it's a Character? This compounds with all the other changes that will so heavily affect that unit.
Eldar are the high initiative faction - with initiative being completely gone that leaves me feeling pretty vulnerable, and also detracts from the value of things like the Scorpions Claw, which was only really ever used because it was a PF that wasn't unwieldy and therefore didn't drop your initiative. Now, that Exarch was insanely pricey - he was almost the cost of a whole squad of his peers, but his synergy with the ruleset made him worthwhile (on the odd days when he actually made it into CC).
Not knowing what they are replacing those critical game elements with is torture because it's so crucial to my entire lineup.
The tension... I don't like it!
Take a peek at some AoS Slaanesh models. There are many ways for them to bring speed to a unit without using initiative.
streetsamurai wrote: Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them
This is you right now:
Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is an idiot, nor is everyone praising this change a yes man. Take the chip off your shoulder and try not to insult people next time.
+1
I'm tired of these incessant arguments, ruins the thread.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
True. True. That was also 3 years ago now and that quite a bit has changed wouldn't you say?
If I had told you back then that GW would have a community page, free core and unit rules, and a twitch channel...would you have laughed at how preposterous it sounded?
Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.
Example of that is in the white lions:
Spoiler:
GUARDIAN The leader of this unit is a Guardian. A Guardian makes 3 attacks rather than 2.
That pretty much says one guy is the leader of the squad. I would assume the complex dataslate allows the exarch to take special equipment.
Youn wrote: Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.
Example of that is in the white lions:
Spoiler:
GUARDIAN
The leader of this unit is a Guardian. A
Guardian makes 3 attacks rather than 2.
That pretty much says one guy is the leader of the squad. I would assume the complex dataslate allows the exarch to take special equipment.
Maybe. The wording for the Kroot Shaper example makes it seem like he effects units outside his own.
streetsamurai wrote: Guess a lot of people simply lack some critical thinking skills, and prefer to only praise whatever is given to them
Wow, since literally nothing you've ever said has ever even approached being correct then we must be the most intelligent bunch of people on the planet!
So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:
Galef wrote: What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword.
Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds. I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden. -
Although if WLs kept the character keyword, it would make them potentially usable again. And fluffy to have them walk near some Wraithguard/blades
Galef wrote: So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:
Galef wrote: What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword.
Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden.
-
I expect to see a lot of the "character for everyone" dialed back. I think it was over-generously handed out for challenges.
We're talking about a game of toy soldiers here. If you can't do that in a civil fashion, I would recommend finding somewhere else to spend your time. This thread is clunky enough without clogging it up with that nonsense.
Galef wrote: So getting back on track, I think my comment got lost a few pages back:
Galef wrote: What I think will be interesting to see which retain the "character" keyword.
Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden.
-
I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.
I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.
They're not Independent Characters, but they gained Character in the latest iterations of their respective codexes, IIRC, so that they could join in the 'fun' of Challenges.
Most likely scenario will be as suggested just up aways - Anyone with 'Character' will lose it, and 'Independent Characters' will just become 'Characters'...
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
I will agree that this a something that creates a bit of a red flag for GW, not being able to headshot characters until you've killed everything in front of them means that designing characters is always going to be on a bit of a knifes edge as far as balance is concerned. It is mitigated somewhat by melee characters not getting as much protection out of it unless in a totally melee centric army and the higher overall speed of many armies, but it is a level of nuance that GW has not handled well in the past.
This is a wait and see for me that I think will ultimately come down to whether or not reece, frankie, and the other playtesters had enough time to properly abuse this rule and whether GW took appropriate feedback.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them
+1
Further they seem to be open to the idea of admitting mistakes so that they can be fixed this time. So the stuff that does get past the playtesting (and stuff will) can at least be raged against constructively instead of just using the yelling wall like we've had to in the past.
I will agree that this a something that creates a bit of a red flag for GW, not being able to headshot characters until you've killed everything in front of them means that designing characters is always going to be on a bit of a knifes edge as far as balance is concerned. It is mitigated somewhat by melee characters not getting as much protection out of it unless in a totally melee centric army and the higher overall speed of many armies, but it is a level of nuance that GW has not handled well in the past..
I'm actually more concerned that it will go the other way - they'll be designing characters around the idea that they're effectively invulnerable to enemy shooting, when in practice people very quickly just get used to setting up screens or using terrain to snipe characters at will. So the end result is characters being much more fragile than they should be.
I'm pretty sure wraithlords nor dreadknights are NOT characters.
They're not Independent Characters, but they gained Character in the latest iterations of their respective codexes, IIRC, so that they could join in the 'fun' of Challenges.
Most likely scenario will be as suggested just up aways - Anyone with 'Character' will lose it, and 'Independent Characters' will just become 'Characters'...
Actually, both had "Character" prior to challenges being introduced to 40K, so it had nothing to do with challenges then. But I agree that DKs will likely lose it. Wraithlords, being LORDS afterall, might actually keep 'character'. The model isn't as big as it used to appear, being no bigger than a Tau Broadside or Canoptek Wraith.
I would like it if Wraithlords stayed characters with say a 9" Move. At their current price point (or equivalent for 8th) they might be decent finally.
GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them
Yup... and they've done that before, too. What happens in practice is that they listen to the feedback for exactly as long as it fits what they want to hear, and just ignore it the rest of the time.
It's certainly possible that they're doing it differently this time (and feedback from AoS players does seem to indicate that this is in evidence) but right now it feels a little bit like Lucy holding that football.
So long as everyone doesn't have a screaming fit and engages NuGW politely about any broken elements, they're showing willingness to respond to player feedback these days. Enough people write in, stuff could get changed.
Some of the stuff in this thread typifies why they haven't listened in the past, tbh.
The fact I have an entire squad of Deathwatch with Stalker Patter Boltguns just got juicier. Also, I can't wait to stick a Vindicare Assassin on the field. Sniper weapons are going to be fun.
I still worry about the transport issue. Hopefully I will still be able to run Pedro Kantor inside a Land Raider with a squad of Terminators or Centurions. I hope his +1 Attack to his Squad becomes +1 Attack in a 12" bubble.
I have three Squads of Sniper Scouts. I guess two will go to my Crimson Fists and one will go to my Blood Angels. And here I was hoping I would have a reason to run Tactical Squads instead of Scouts. That's unfortunate.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them
+1
Further they seem to be open to the idea of admitting mistakes so that they can be fixed this time. So the stuff that does get past the playtesting (and stuff will) can at least be raged against constructively instead of just using the yelling wall like we've had to in the past.
These are very reasonable fears and very reasonable hopes. Honestly, the new 40k and the soon to follow codecies will show us whether GW has actually turned a new leaf, or if it is all PR.
Personally, I find Blood Bowl to be their best balanced game- and the Blood Bowl rules set was achieved through some very strong player feedback (in the end, they got a group of fans outside of GW to update their rulebook).
Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
I sincerely hope they allow characters to ride in transports with units. I don't think multiple units should be able to ride in one transport though.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.
I would think so considering iirc one of the answers to a tanky character question was to put them in a tank.
Tyel wrote: While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?
It's a points-for-effect issue.
A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.
If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.
Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.
Tyel wrote: While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?
It's a points-for-effect issue.
A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.
If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.
Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.
Then, they should made the vehicle exploding more deadly to the units inside, to made it a more risk-management decission.
Put all your eggs in one basket, style of thing.
And, having less transports just makes to your opponent more easy to stop your army. They only need to kill one transport to make two of your units lose it, for example.
Actually, both had "Character" prior to challenges being introduced to 40K, so it had nothing to do with challenges then.
But I agree that DKs will likely lose it. Wraithlords, being LORDS afterall, might actually keep 'character'. The model isn't as big as it used to appear, being no bigger than a Tau Broadside or Canoptek Wraith.
Technically true for GK, but remember that the 5th ed GK codex was the last one before the release of 6th. They HAD to know what was coming, and I'd suspect that they designed it with that advance knowledge, especially since Ward was on the design team for both (from what I recall).
I don't remember "character" actually meaning anything in 5th ed, but that was many, many beers ago, so who knows..
I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Trygon but with better saves...
EDIT: Although the Carnifex may end up getting over 12 wounds, I think they were referring to the Trygons and Mawlocs when they said "Biggest Tyranid Monsters" so I changed it to Trygon
Quarterdime wrote: I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...
Where have they said the Wounds of a daemon primarch or of a Carnifex?
And personally, I think that a Daemon Primarch totally should have more wounds and a better save than a Carnifex. They are like the... the most OP thing in all of the 40k game besides Warlords Titans and C'than shards, maybe.
isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?
No, it's a tick on the box for making the game about micromanaging unit placement to screen the unit from sight so that you can snipe the character. The whole point of joining characters to units was to stop them being picked out. Remove that, and bodyguards are essentially useless, unless they have a protective 'bubble' effect.
I totally expect the typical "If this units is at 3" or lower than the Hyve Tyrant, in a roll of 2+ every wound or mortal wound is passed to this unit", to the Tyrant Guard, for example. In AoS you have some units with that rules, like the little abomination that goes with Sayl the Idontremember.
isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?
No, it's a tick on the box for making the game about micromanaging unit placement to screen the unit from sight so that you can snipe the character. The whole point of joining characters to units was to stop them being picked out. Remove that, and bodyguards are essentially useless, unless they have a protective 'bubble' effect.
Tyel wrote: While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?
It's a points-for-effect issue.
A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.
If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.
Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.
Then, they should made the vehicle exploding more deadly to the units inside, to made it a more risk-management decission.
Put all your eggs in one basket, style of thing.
And, having less transports just makes to your opponent more easy to stop your army. They only need to kill one transport to make two of your units lose it, for example.
Quarterdime wrote: I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...
Where have they said the Wounds of a daemon primarch or of a Carnifex?
And personally, I think that a Daemon Primarch totally should have more wounds and a better save than a Carnifex. They are like the... the most OP thing in all of the 40k game besides Warlords Titans and C'than shards, maybe.
on the Large Models update: "The largest Tyranid monsters now have over a dozen wounds"
Come to think of it, that probably refers to the Trygon instead of the Carnifex. I'll edit that comment.
On the 10 wound effectiveness cliff, which is a real problem, perhaps the solution is to have very few characters in the 9 - 12 wound range. Of course, this depends upon GW not abusing the digital change in survivability at 10 wounds, but a disciplined game designer could keep the number of 9 - 12 wound characters to a minimum.
As for the choice of 10 wounds, it may have been the case in playtesting that 10 wounds is really the point at which a unit needs to be vulnerable to weapons fire, less it dominate too much in the close combat phase. In that case, if the independently targetable characteristic was a keyword, it would still be applied to all characters with > 10 wounds, as they would be overpowered otherwise.
Somebody with experience would have to mathhammer it out, but it could be that a unit with > 10 wounds is vastly more survivable in reasonable Close Combat phases.
Robin5t wrote: Vindicares are going to be true-to-fluff and seriously nasty with those sniper rules. Illic Nightspear might get a boost, too.
Good. Otherwise they need to cost about half as many points as they do now. Hopefully their ammo lays down multiple wounds on a target. There is no reason someone should be able to walk away from a Vindicare's sniper hit unless they are an absolute beast.
My guess is that units like Command Squads, Honour Guard, Tyrant Guard, etc just make it so that if they are within a certain distance of a character that you can't target the character with shooting attacks, even if they are closer.
RoninXiC wrote: But they can still do all the stuff they did in 7th... shoot, fight and protect the IC.
So?
They can do all the stuff they did in 7th edition... unless the enemy walks around them. At which point they become irrelevant.
isnt that a positive tick on the box for making the game more tactical?
No, is bad desing and unrealistic
I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.
Tyel wrote: While it feels alien is there any reason why transports carrying two small squads would break the game?
It's a points-for-effect issue.
A transport vehicle is effectively some extra protection and an enhanced movement for a given points investment. So when you pay, say, 50 points for a transport, you're paying 50 points to give a unit the ability to move faster and gain some protection from enemy shooting.
If you can put two units in that one transport, all of a sudden you're paying the same points cost, but two separate units are benefiting from it at the same time... something that in the current system you would need to pay twice for.
Of course, in the current game where armies potentially have access to an entire free motorpool, that seems somewhat of an irrelevant point... but it's something that should be considered in the game design.
Then, they should made the vehicle exploding more deadly to the units inside, to made it a more risk-management decission.
Put all your eggs in one basket, style of thing.
And, having less transports just makes to your opponent more easy to stop your army. They only need to kill one transport to make two of your units lose it, for example.
Will vehicule still explode in 8th edition ?
Personally I'll like to all the mechanical things to explode when they die, yes. And even maybe biological ones. A Carnifex exploding in a ball of acid-like blood. What not to love.
Quarterdime wrote: I don't know how I feel about a daemon primarch having the same number of wounds as a Carnifex but with better saves...
I agree, no way a bog standard Carnifex should be even with an eternal being of slaughter and malice.
What about a Trygon?
Not even close too. I know it sucks but for now, I think that Daemon Primarchs are, at least in the fluff level, the most OP things in the entire game we can play now.
I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.
It's bad design and unrealistic because it hinges the ability to target a unit or not on a purely arbitrary keyword, rather than on any physical attribute of the target.
I can target a Guardsman standing out in the middle of a paddock... but I can't target the Commander standing 3 inches to his left, for no reason other than to save needing to have rules covering mixed units.
A better option straight off the top of my head would have been for them to just prohibit characters from being targeted if they are within 'x' distance of a unit (2 or 3", preferably), rather than worrying about who is closer. That would allow characters to lead from the front again, and would give the semblance of them being joined to the unit without needing a page of rules covering joining and leaving.,
I don't think it's bad design and definitely not unrealistic, I walk towards a group of people in pretty sure I can choose which one I put a bullet in and for everyone else of the group to dive in front of the bullet would need hobbit movie dwarfs cleaning and stacking plates levels of precision to stop, yeah bodyguards are trained to dive in front of bullets but it might be a bit hard when the shooter is closer to the target than the guy taking the dive. Just my thoughts on it anyway.
It's bad design and unrealistic because it hinges the ability to target a unit or not on a purely arbitrary keyword, rather than on any physical attribute of the target.
I can target a Guardsman standing out in the middle of a paddock... but I can't target the Commander standing 3 inches to his left, for no reason other than to save needing to have rules covering mixed units.
A better option straight off the top of my head would have been for them to just prohibit characters from being targeted if they are within 'x' distance of a unit (2 or 3", preferably), rather than worrying about who is closer. That would allow characters to lead from the front again, and would give the semblance of them being joined to the unit without needing a page of rules covering joining and leaving.,
Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?
Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?
"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"
"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"
"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"
Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh
andysonic1 wrote: Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?
Yes...?
I play Orks. Characters need to be out in front where they can be assured of getting into combat. It's also more fluffy than having them lurking around at the back.
40K is essentially a fantasy game in space. Generals tend to be loud and ostentatious... For most races, characters are more likely to be found either right at the forefront of the charge, or standing up somewhere prominent waving and shouting in an inspiring fashion. The introduction of 6th ed's 'casualties from the front' casualty removal killed that stone cold dead.
Well, unless your character was the guy with the invulnerable save...
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.
Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.
Strange when I accompany the misses to town or out for dinner we tend to just be near each other? If I want to lead people around at work we kind just stand near each other and move about no one gets inside any ones skin or anything there's no need for formal attachments. It's really just the same. It's all in your mind who's leading who what and how. The only thing you can not do that you could before is extend the coherency of a unit by being in the middle if its stretched out in a line, which is no big loss. You can still have a group of any infantry bubbled around and just as close as before to what ever characters you want. And units like hive guards, command squads, honour guard etc are likely to get unique rules to interact with the correct characters.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh
Yeah... it's almost like different people have different opinions...
nice to see they are still listening
