lindsay40k wrote: Can someone tell me what HYMP/MP means? Glossary links aren't working on iOS -.-
Not taking a Land Raider or Riptide because it can be damaged by anything is like not building a statue because any wind-blown particle can erode it. If you're worried about getting sandblasted to death, just bite the bullet and GIVE ME RAMMING SPEED
(I hope I can still run things over/T-bone them...)
High Yield Missile Pod and Missile Pod, respectively. They're Tau Empire weapons. I used them as examples because I'm a Tau player at heart, but if need be, pretend I'm talking about Autocannons instead.
Edit: and yes, I do hope they retain some method of crushing infantry beneath wheels/treads. I believe the current rumors are that everything has the same profile, so its possible Vehicles may just end up having "Attacks". They could also end up "stuck" in melee, albeit with the new general capability of retreating.
That's one aspect of the rules that I don't think has been directly addressed, and has barely been addressed indirectly. Depending on how they do that, I suspect there might be a fluff/realism rebellion.
My guess (and that's all it is, but I've been batting a decent average so far) is that vehicles (other than walkers) will get attacks "on the charge" but if they don't wipe out their target, will have to sit there and endure free strikes without being able to retaliate in later rounds, and nobody will be pinned in combat with a vehicle, so they'll be free to walk away, or the vehicle has to drive away suffering further free strikes.
I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
Yea they aren't supposed to be a replacement for other chapters marines, at this point anyway.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
Based on what? They have all the same heraldry and color scheme of Ultramarines. I sincerely doubt that these are anything different than just a new armor mark for Space Marines. We will likely get a wider release kit that is for all Space Marines.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
Based on what? They have all the same heraldry and color scheme of Ultramarines. I sincerely doubt that these are anything different than just a new armor mark for Space Marines. We will likely get a wider release kit that is for all Space Marines.
Yeah baseless speculation there. Rumours are actually saying opposite, it's UM vs. Death Guard, unless they are splitting off Ultramarines as a new faction from SM.
75hastings69 wrote:, there will of course be new Chaos Marines models, but I am referring to a totally new kind of Marine, those created on Mars by Cawl & RG along with the other new machineries of war.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
Based on what? They have all the same heraldry and color scheme of Ultramarines. I sincerely doubt that these are anything different than just a new armor mark for Space Marines. We will likely get a wider release kit that is for all Space Marines.
Yeah baseless speculation there. Rumours are actually saying opposite, it's UM vs. Death Guard, unless they are splitting off Ultramarines as a new faction from SM.
Baseless speculation on my part or from the people saying they are a new faction?
Another thing that I see no one talk about:
Remember how useless all those hull and side sponsons were and are on Leman Russ tanks with a big tank gun (ordinance), including the iconic standard pattern Leman Russ, after the 5th edition because they weren't allowed to effectively fire all of their weapons in a turn, completely contrary to the fluff? How buying any side sponsons was completely pointless on them? Or how buying another stormbolter on a Vindicator is basically wasting points?
If shooting rules for vehicles will work how they currently do with Monstrous Creatures, which absolutely makes sense with how the changes for vehicles look like... this will no longer be an issue.
That would be a massive buff to any classic main battle tank right there.
Also going over the psychic powers preview again, if you take the information word for word they seem even more reigned in than has been assumed so far in this thread:
...and there’s a simpler, two-dice mechanic for casting, you just need to beat the warp charge value.
Depending on the reading, 'beating' the warp charge value could imply having to roll above it. That would mean that casting e.g. Smite would fail on a 2-5 2D6 roll.
This is even more the case for an 'overcast' for Smite. It literally requires a roll 'above 10', which means the D6 mortal wounds only happen if you roll a 11 or 12 on 2D6. That's equivalent to failing a morale check with a Ld10 character in 7th Edition. And we know how often that happens. Even if the power goes activates on a 5, chances to completely fail the spell are higher than to get the overcast/overcharge benefit.
lindsay40k wrote: Can someone tell me what HYMP/MP means? Glossary links aren't working on iOS -.-
Not taking a Land Raider or Riptide because it can be damaged by anything is like not building a statue because any wind-blown particle can erode it. If you're worried about getting sandblasted to death, just bite the bullet and GIVE ME RAMMING SPEED
(I hope I can still run things over/T-bone them...)
Dreadnoughts being slightly more fragile to Lascannons and significantly less fragile to Scatter Lasers is AMAZING for game balance. How many meltas/lascannons/bright lances/railguns/etc do you see in the current meta? The answer is barely any because high rate of fire guns with medium Strength outclass low rate of fire guns with high Strength all the time now which makes no damned sense against vehicles. Assuming the weapons are priced correctly, this means players will have to start incorporating both Scatter Lasers and Bright Lances (or Grav Guns and Lascannons) into their armies rather than just all or nothing on the one type. I also don't see armies exclusively adopting those railguns and lascannons because then they would get screwed over against high model count armies. So basically....yes, the 8 Wound Toughness 7 3+ save Dreadnought is more durable than it was before overall if we use the current rules as a guideline. And, as someone else pointed out, it's currently more durable than the old Riptide in a lot of cases (obviously in the context of the old rules again) Good.
Yeah. Dreadnoughts should be totally obliterated by anti-tank weaponry. Thats why you bring anti-tank weaponry.
And low basic weapons like bolter and flasguns yeah, they can kill one but with a luck so high or a masive amount of shoots that is totally unoptimal to do so. If they have done Dreadnought more resistent to the spam of medium-strenght shoots thats how you fix them.
Obviously, give them more dakka too! But I'll wait until the "Warscrol" for the Dreadnought comes. Because in AoS you have many many units with a statline that isn't impresive but it is worth it because of his habilities.
An example (Ok, is an unfair example because this unit is considered pretty OP, but to exemplify how a "normal" statline can totally change with habilities)
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
I understand both perspectives. Marines sell. But some players don't like the oversaturated aesthetic.
The combined codices is really nice, yeah. It may help me decide on which 2 factions I choose, whether I decide to save money and have them all in one (Xenos) or throw down the extra $20-40 and get 2 (Xenos and Chaos).
Galas wrote: Yeah. Dreadnoughts should be totally obliterated by anti-tank weaponry. Thats why you bring anti-tank weaponry.
And low basic weapons like bolter and flasguns yeah, they can kill one but with a luck so high or a masive amount of shoots that is totally unoptimal to do so. If they have done Dreadnought more resistent to the spam of medium-strenght shoots thats how you fix them.
Obviously, give them more dakka too! But I'll wait until the "Warscrol" for the Dreadnought comes. Because in AoS you have many many units with a statline that isn't impresive but it is worth it because of his habilities.
An example (Ok, is an unfair example because this unit is considered pretty OP, but to exemplify how a "normal" statline can totally change with habilities)
The other thing to consider is if the dread's stats are going to degrade with damage.
Well, degraded stats are nothing to instantly having your weapons (half to almost all your firepower depending on the situation even with the first result) destroyed or being immobilized in your deployment zone, with a very high probability of any of these happen if you eat a penetrating hit on the first turn. And if you add up the chance of the destroyed weapon, immobilized and the chance of outright being killed together, well...
That's IMO the biggest reason why AV12 Dreads are dead in the water right now and AV13 Dreads being slightly better because they can ignore the S6 spam out of the S6/S7 spam AT meta. Besides being able to literally glance them to death being way to easy, even the first penetrating hit is highly likely to make your Dread mostly useless. Ranged Dread? Poof, there goes your stronger ranged weapon or half your firepower or the ability to reposition or turn. Balanced Dread? Poof, either your change to shoot or to ever get into melee (or your DCCW) is gone. Close Combat Dread? Let's not even bother. No one wants to field something that is so unreliable and easily disabled. Even what has been made public now does completely away with that as well as their greatest nemesis by far, S6 and S7 spam, being less than half as effective against them, assuming the profiles of Autocannons etc. stay largely the same or what we expect them to be (which are quite reasonable guesses when we infer it from the Lascannon and Bolter stats we know).
Galas wrote: Yeah. Dreadnoughts should be totally obliterated by anti-tank weaponry. Thats why you bring anti-tank weaponry.
And low basic weapons like bolter and flasguns yeah, they can kill one but with a luck so high or a masive amount of shoots that is totally unoptimal to do so. If they have done Dreadnought more resistent to the spam of medium-strenght shoots thats how you fix them.
Obviously, give them more dakka too! But I'll wait until the "Warscrol" for the Dreadnought comes. Because in AoS you have many many units with a statline that isn't impresive but it is worth it because of his habilities.
An example (Ok, is an unfair example because this unit is considered pretty OP, but to exemplify how a "normal" statline can totally change with habilities)
Something like the Haunter of the dark improve his surbivability by millions. I'm sure Dreadnoughts are gonna have some defensive innate hability too.
[/spoiler]
Using one of the most op units/rules in AoS is probably not a.good idea.
The other thing to consider is if the dread's stats are going to degrade with damage.
Its a good example for "special rules can make or break what appears to be a relatively weak statline," though. That it is OP, rather than merely balanced, suggests (if it suggests anything) that Galas' point was that much stronger - stat lines are just the beginning of determining the potency of a unit.
And Galas was clearly talking about people's initial worry that the Dreadnought was underpowered. An implication that the Dreadnought might end up OP in this edition (after many, many editions where they were suboptimal) is probably the BEST idea if Galas wants to convince those currently moaning and groaning that dedicated anti-tank weapons are still dangerous to Dreadnoughts.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
I understand both perspectives. Marines sell. But some players don't like the oversaturated aesthetic.
The combined codices is really nice, yeah. It may help me decide on which 2 factions I choose, whether I decide to save money and have them all in one (Xenos) or throw down the extra $20-40 and get 2 (Xenos and Chaos).
I understand it too. Especially as a CSM player, I'm tired of seeing the Loyalists getting all the things. Considering the recent fluff in all the GS books, and the recent Shadow Wars: Armageddon they really could have done anything else. Eldar/Daemons, Orks/Tau, Necrons/Tyranids; anything would have been plausible. But I don't think we'll ever see a starter box without SM.
RG would prefer to standardize Space Marines, because they are too fragmented in their current state.
The original rumour/leak stated that these RG Marines will come from MARS. I thought they would be local to Ultra, but this makes sense if you want to supply the Imperium with weapons and equipment/Mk X etc, you would pick a location like Mars.
RG will actually try to standardize Marine recuitment and training, all Marines will meet the same standard now. Chapters like DA, BA, BT already have upgrade kits to look different, and I think that's what GW is slowly pushing towards, if you want a standard Marine look, go with the new marines, if you like old school with some flavour for your chapter of choice, grab the upgrade kit. Lore wise, these chapters will continue to recruit and create Marines the way they think is right, which leads to really different looking Marine forces, eventually.
I think they will make the original Marines larger, and I wouldn't be surprised if this scale creep went up for all forces eventually, leaving IG and others small because it makes sense for them to be smaller.
CRACKPOT TIME
LOOK at the previous Ultramarines artwork and colours what do we always see? 2nd Company, GOLD and BLUE.
NOW if you look at the colour wheel, what colour is opposite to yellow/gold? Blue and PURPLE, and who have Ultramarines been fighting a lot in the last few years? TYRANIDS! To be specific PURPLE Tyranids. Why is this important?
Because for the first time, we see the 3RD COMPANY in the painting booklet.. which is RED and BLUE, and what is the opposite colour to RED in the colour wheel? GREEN!
And what faction has green as a primary colour.... PLAGUE MARINES - yes.. you have just stepped through the looking glass.
The other thing to consider is if the dread's stats are going to degrade with damage.
Well, degraded stats are nothing to instantly having your weapons (half to almost all your firepower depending on the situation even with the first result) destroyed or being immobilized in your deployment zone, with a very high probability of any of these happen if you eat a penetrating hit on the first turn. And if you add up the chance of the destroyed weapon, immobilized and the chance of outright being killed together, well...
That's IMO the biggest reason why AV12 Dreads are dead in the water right now
and grav immobilizing vehicles, and it being everywhere, yeah. walkers and heavy vehicles in general are boned as it stands currently.
have to see what they do with grav (both in effect and in points/cost) before we all start getting excited about anything to do with vehicles.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am disappointed that it appears the SM have molded shoulder pauldrons like Dark Vengeance. I wish it was more like Black Reach with no icons molded on, but ample amount of decals to make just about of everything.
As far as we can tell they're a new faction, not a replacement for Tac's.
Based on what? They have all the same heraldry and color scheme of Ultramarines. I sincerely doubt that these are anything different than just a new armor mark for Space Marines. We will likely get a wider release kit that is for all Space Marines.
Yeah baseless speculation there. Rumours are actually saying opposite, it's UM vs. Death Guard, unless they are splitting off Ultramarines as a new faction from SM.
Baseless speculation on my part or from the people saying they are a new faction?
Frankenberry wrote: After finally getting through all of the rumors and the most recent Q & A, I've gotta say I was pretty excited. That is until the whole, 'we want all weapons to be relevant' bit.
Standard issue lasguns blowing up tanks is not something that makes any sort of sense. At all. From a game standpoint all it does is make vehicles worse (who knew THAT could happen)and make infantry better (again, who knew that could happen either).
From a fluff standpoint? Well, that's never mattered anyway so I'll just rage about that internally.
Since the whole idea behind this addition is 'everyone can do everything', then there'd better be a massive points drop in all vehicles. Otherwise who is going to bother taking a Leman Russ or Land Raider when thirty lasguns can just appear and erase them?
Didn't they say it would take like 500 lasguns to take down a landraider?
Bascially, yes. It's such a non-argument that it barely warrants mentioning, but we're likely to get it every 5 pages because people don't read back in threads any further than that.
Sorry to inconvenience you, Lord Azreal. How about you send me a list of things I can and cannot post - just so I don't offend you in the future. Us plebs who don't want to read 100+ pages of arguments and passive-aggressive nonsense would really appreciate it.
cuda1179 wrote: yeah, that's the thing, if a Dreadnought has 8 wounds I'd suspect that a Land Raider has about 11, probably with a 2+ save. (total speculation at this point)
If that's anywhere close, it means it would take the shooting of an entire IG army to take out a landraider. if that every does happen, just thank the other guy for not shooting at the rest of your army that is now about to destroy him.
I mean, really, how often do people think this will ever happen outside of a megabattle? I'm betting you can go 5 normal games between even seeing one wound being lost on a land raider from lasguns/boltguns.
yes people are looking at the situation with tunnel vision, omg las guns can kill my land raider, I'm quitting! what if the whole of the IG army does not have LOS or range?
now that everything is shooting at the land raider lets take a look at what they are not shooting at 2x rhinos with 10 death company in, those 5 newly improved terminators you have just deep struck in.
the games being thoroughly play tested every one needs to stop panicking and play with the new rules forget your math hammer preformed on fragments of information you need the whole game and rules before you can judge this new edition!
have faith guys my big concern is formations, how many of each unit can we take.
the ork heavy support is bloated there is far to many ork heavy support units we need special formations to take more heavy support than normal such as the dread mob, also how many dreads will be in 1 squad how many killakanz will we be aloud to take in 1 squad, right now its 6 kanz to 1 squad, but the current codex will be invalid which leaves me guessing at how many models I can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have suggested a poll in the polling section asking about peoples GW purchase patterns, basically I want to know who will be buying models before and after 8th is dropped.
there seems to be two types of people those who are building a army ready for 8th (despite not knowing what units they can include in there list) and those who refuse to purchase any GW models until they KNOW what they can take in a list.
1.yes I am still buying models
2.no I am not buying until I know what I can take in my list.
I also think that the lack of sales would put pressure on GW to release the new edition giving us a better time scale on when 8th is coming.
ps. if a mod reads this could they go make that pole a reality and not a suggestion.
cuda1179 wrote: yeah, that's the thing, if a Dreadnought has 8 wounds I'd suspect that a Land Raider has about 11, probably with a 2+ save. (total speculation at this point)
If that's anywhere close, it means it would take the shooting of an entire IG army to take out a landraider. if that every does happen, just thank the other guy for not shooting at the rest of your army that is now about to destroy him.
I mean, really, how often do people think this will ever happen outside of a megabattle? I'm betting you can go 5 normal games between even seeing one wound being lost on a land raider from lasguns/boltguns.
yes people are looking at the situation with tunnel vision, omg las guns can kill my land raider, I'm quitting! what if the whole of the IG army does not have LOS or range?
now that everything is shooting at the land raider lets take a look at what they are not shooting at 2x rhinos with 10 death company in, those 5 newly improved terminators you have just deep struck in.
the games being thoroughly play tested every one needs to stop panicking and play with the new rules forget your math hammer preformed on fragments of information you need the whole game and rules before you can judge this new edition!
have faith guys my big concern is formations, how many of each unit can we take.
the ork heavy support is bloated there is far to many ork heavy support units we need special formations to take more heavy support than normal such as the dread mob, also how many dreads will be in 1 squad how many killakanz will we be aloud to take in 1 squad, right now its 6 kanz to 1 squad, but the current codex will be invalid which leaves me guessing at how many models I can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have suggested a poll in the polling section asking about peoples GW purchase patterns, basically I want to know who will be buying models before and after 8th is dropped.
there seems to be two types of people those who are building a army ready for 8th (despite not knowing what units they can include in there list) and those who refuse to purchase any GW models until they KNOW what they can take in a list.
1.yes I am still buying models
2.no I am not buying until I know what I can take in my list.
I also think that the lack of sales would put pressure on GW to release the new edition giving us a better time scale on when 8th is coming.
ps. if a mod reads this could they go make that pole a reality and not a suggestion.
I think the one force org we know about was 1 HQ, 1 Troop and a fethload of Heavy Support slots with 14 force orgs to choose from I don't think you have to worry about what you can and can't take.
cuda1179 wrote: yeah, that's the thing, if a Dreadnought has 8 wounds I'd suspect that a Land Raider has about 11, probably with a 2+ save. (total speculation at this point)
If that's anywhere close, it means it would take the shooting of an entire IG army to take out a landraider. if that every does happen, just thank the other guy for not shooting at the rest of your army that is now about to destroy him.
I mean, really, how often do people think this will ever happen outside of a megabattle? I'm betting you can go 5 normal games between even seeing one wound being lost on a land raider from lasguns/boltguns.
yes people are looking at the situation with tunnel vision, omg las guns can kill my land raider, I'm quitting! what if the whole of the IG army does not have LOS or range?
now that everything is shooting at the land raider lets take a look at what they are not shooting at 2x rhinos with 10 death company in, those 5 newly improved terminators you have just deep struck in.
the games being thoroughly play tested every one needs to stop panicking and play with the new rules forget your math hammer preformed on fragments of information you need the whole game and rules before you can judge this new edition!
have faith guys my big concern is formations, how many of each unit can we take.
the ork heavy support is bloated there is far to many ork heavy support units we need special formations to take more heavy support than normal such as the dread mob, also how many dreads will be in 1 squad how many killakanz will we be aloud to take in 1 squad, right now its 6 kanz to 1 squad, but the current codex will be invalid which leaves me guessing at how many models I can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have suggested a poll in the polling section asking about peoples GW purchase patterns, basically I want to know who will be buying models before and after 8th is dropped.
there seems to be two types of people those who are building a army ready for 8th (despite not knowing what units they can include in there list) and those who refuse to purchase any GW models until they KNOW what they can take in a list.
1.yes I am still buying models
2.no I am not buying until I know what I can take in my list.
I also think that the lack of sales would put pressure on GW to release the new edition giving us a better time scale on when 8th is coming.
ps. if a mod reads this could they go make that pole a reality and not a suggestion.
I think the one force org we know about was 1 HQ, 1 Troop and a fethload of Heavy Support slots with 14 force orgs to choose from I don't think you have to worry about what you can and can't take.
what do we think a feth load is do you have it in black and white? this would be really helpful and would allow me to get a army ready for 8th dropping.
Azreal13 wrote: My guess (and that's all it is, but I've been batting a decent average so far) is that vehicles (other than walkers) will get attacks "on the charge" but if they don't wipe out their target, will have to sit there and endure free strikes without being able to retaliate in later rounds, and nobody will be pinned in combat with a vehicle, so they'll be free to walk away, or the vehicle has to drive away suffering further free strikes.
Vehicles in AOS have attacks on the normal line - eg Gyrocopters can use their rotor blades. Can't see why 40k would be different.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Space Marines have been GW's number 1 selling unit for years, so a 40K starter set was always going to have a marine of some kind in it.
I'm sure somebody will correct me, but if memory serves, these are the top GW selling products:
Space Marine Tactical squad
Skull White*
Chaos black*
Devlan mud*
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Space Marines have been GW's number 1 selling unit for years, so a 40K starter set was always going to have a marine of some kind in it.
I'm sure somebody will correct me, but if memory serves, these are the top GW selling products:
Space Marine Tactical squad
Skull White*
Chaos black*
Devlan mud*
* or its new name version
Any reason why GW can't release 2 starter sets? Why not a marine VS chaos marine one and also an Ork VS Nid one (or similar)? I always thought it odd that if someone wants to get into the game for the first time, they're kinda forced into one of the starter armies (I know there are other ways to start, but a kid going into the shop for the first time just wants the "Warhammer game box please")
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Space Marines have been GW's number 1 selling unit for years, so a 40K starter set was always going to have a marine of some kind in it.
I'm sure somebody will correct me, but if memory serves, these are the top GW selling products:
Space Marine Tactical squad
Skull White*
Chaos black*
Devlan mud*
* or its new name version
Any reason why GW can't release 2 starter sets? Why not a marine VS chaos marine one and also an Ork VS Nid one (or similar)? I always thought it odd that if someone wants to get into the game for the first time, they're kinda forced into one of the starter armies (I know there are other ways to start, but a kid going into the shop for the first time just wants the "Warhammer game box please")
Because it might sell as well or better. They are stuck in a Marine centric loop.
Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
NivlacSupreme wrote: They should make special weapons except from Flamer fairly pricey. The things are rare. Why the hell does your army have 40 grav guns?
This is my guess too. If one las canon is enough to take down a Dread it should be expensive to be taken.
They have plenty of leeway to do Warzone boxes down the line (Warzones seemingly being 40K's Realms analogue). They could be the 'new character a side plus regular kits' like Shield of Baal.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Space Marines have been GW's number 1 selling unit for years, so a 40K starter set was always going to have a marine of some kind in it.
I'm sure somebody will correct me, but if memory serves, these are the top GW selling products:
Space Marine Tactical squad
Skull White*
Chaos black*
Devlan mud*
* or its new name version
Any reason why GW can't release 2 starter sets? Why not a marine VS chaos marine one and also an Ork VS Nid one (or similar)? I always thought it odd that if someone wants to get into the game for the first time, they're kinda forced into one of the starter armies (I know there are other ways to start, but a kid going into the shop for the first time just wants the "Warhammer game box please")
Different faction starter sets would be a good idea in my book, but at the end of the day, GW will go where the money is, which is Space Marines.
In the past, I always used to go 50/50 on a starter set with somebody else, so there is money to be saved there with friends or gaming clubs.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
GeeDubs likes to put push fit models in to the starter boxed sets, I guess so 2 people who have never played before can buy it and get playing with unpainted models pretty much the same day.
This is also why I doubt we'll see multiple starter sets with different armies, it requires GW to cast up new versions of certain models specifically for the starter sets. That's not something they want to have to do frequently or for multiple armies.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
*dreams longingly of the alternate reality where "Imperium v Chaos starter" means Sisters of Battle fighting a Dark Mechanicus cult*
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
This. I can't understand why GW are still doing this one thing the same way when they've made so many other rational changes on the business side of late. Starters should be bundle deals - two SC boxes and the "starter pack" with the play aids and mini-rulebook. You could even have the chance to buy bigger bundles with some regular boxes and blisters added in at a discount. Then if they want to do the big boxes still, do them like the Stormclaw one, tied into an ongoing or historical campaign event.
Different faction starter sets would be a good idea in my book, but at the end of the day, GW will go where the money is, which is Space Marines.
In the past, I always used to go 50/50 on a starter set with somebody else, so there is money to be saved there with friends or gaming clubs.
But to an extent that's a self-fulfilling prophesy - Marines are popular so they get the most releases, the most marketing, and a guaranteed spot in every starter box, so they naturally become more popular since slightly less than half of the people who start the game with the box and stick with it will end up collecting at least one Marine army, so they get more attention, so they become more popular, etc etc etc. They're never not going to be popular, posthuman genetically-engineered giant walking man-tanks with chainsaw-swords and grenade machineguns are just plain cool, but GW could make it easier to get into the other factions if they wanted to.
Am I looking forward to 8ed? Absolutely. My first game of 7ed, I was up against an AM gunline with a Land Raider attack. Immobilised on turn one. If my Daemonic save hadn't discounted it and eneabled my Terminators to make their charge, it'd have been a hella disappointing introduction. Generally doing away with a lot of lucky instant killshots (and toning down some horrific guns that really don't need luck) will make it a lot more forgiving.
Am I buying anything before 8ed? Yep, a box of CSMs and Berzerkers (they're antique sets likely to soon get excellent replacements but combining their parts with MKIV looks awesome) to replenish my bits box and build some more infantry so I've got a big pool of loadouts to choose from. Already got a set of FW Lascannons lying around waiting to be built up. Never got round to them, because, you know. Autocannons FTW. Also just got some Deathwing to get the bits for making (un)holy Word Bearers then trade the rest with a friend - again, I want to have a wide range of Terminator loadouts to choose from.
On the subject of one shot, one kill, anti-tank guns
If you know your WW2 history, then you'll know that the German 88mm was the terror of Allied tanks, especially Sherman tanks.
The British 17 pounder and the 6 pounder with APDS, were also capable of knocking out tanks with one shot.
There is nothing wrong with 8th, if it goes down this road, of having land raiders taken out with one shot.
As always, game balance needs to be struck, so your powerful anti-tank weapons should come at a cost or be restricted in number as to who can take them.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
*dreams longingly of the alternate reality where "Imperium v Chaos starter" means Sisters of Battle fighting a Dark Mechanicus cult*
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
This. I can't understand why GW are still doing this one thing the same way when they've made so many other rational changes on the business side of late. Starters should be bundle deals - two SC boxes and the "starter pack" with the play aids and mini-rulebook. You could even have the chance to buy bigger bundles with some regular boxes and blisters added in at a discount. Then if they want to do the big boxes still, do them like the Stormclaw one, tied into an ongoing or historical campaign event.
Different faction starter sets would be a good idea in my book, but at the end of the day, GW will go where the money is, which is Space Marines.
In the past, I always used to go 50/50 on a starter set with somebody else, so there is money to be saved there with friends or gaming clubs.
But to an extent that's a self-fulfilling prophesy - Marines are popular so they get the most releases, the most marketing, and a guaranteed spot in every starter box, so they naturally become more popular since slightly less than half of the people who start the game with the box and stick with it will end up collecting at least one Marine army, so they get more attention, so they become more popular, etc etc etc. They're never not going to be popular, posthuman genetically-engineered giant walking man-tanks with chainsaw-swords and grenade machineguns are just plain cool, but GW could make it easier to get into the other factions if they wanted to.
I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but you're overlooking the fact that the main demographic of 40k is teenage boys.
No offence to Sisters of Battle players, but I can speak from experience on this one and say that the teenage boy will always go for the Space Marine or the tau mega battle suit of doom, every time.
Space Marines are popular and iconic in the game. That's no disrespect to Orks or Tyranids or whoever else, that's just the way it is and why the focus is on Space Marines.
At one time, I'd say that 90% of dakka members have probably bought a Space Marine tactical squad at one point.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
GeeDubs likes to put push fit models in to the starter boxed sets, I guess so 2 people who have never played before can buy it and get playing with unpainted models pretty much the same day.
The Age of Sigmar starter set isn't push-fit though, nor have any of the recent boxed games.
About one shot killing vehicles; how come it was acceptable for a tank to be taken out in one lucky hit whilst monsters required substained fire? If a lucky shot could hit the fuel tanks and blow the whole thing up, how come a lucky shot by the same weapon couldn't just blow the creatures head clean off? I'm just realising now how stupid it all used to be. Things are finally looking up.
I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons.
I think it's less durable because it can now be damaged from the front by S4 weapons, and because those three Hull Points being replaced by 8 wounds goes up against heavy weapons that now do three times as much damage as they used to.
The only thing that is a boost from the current rules is the addition of the save... but the save mods on most heavy weapons will remove that at worst or render it negligible at best.
Well, that and the removal of the one-shot-kill... which was never anywhere near as big an issue in the current game as having glancing hits strip your Hull Points.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and have Dreadnoughts actually be worth putting on the table again. But right now, I'm not seeing it.
I have no idea how anyone could think a Toughness 7 model with 8 Wounds and a 3+ save is less durable than an AV 12/12/10 vehicle with 3 Hull Points that is susceptible to the vehicle damage chart, especially when the Rend system means a Dreadnought will likely laugh off a lot of the old AP3 weapons.
I think it's less durable because it can now be damaged from the front by S4 weapons, and because those three Hull Points being replaced by 8 wounds goes up against heavy weapons that now do three times as much damage as they used to.
The only thing that is a boost from the current rules is the addition of the save... but the save mods on most heavy weapons will remove that at worst or render it negligible at best.
Well, that and the removal of the one-shot-kill... which was never anywhere near as big an issue in the current game as having glancing hits strip your Hull Points.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and have Dreadnoughts actually be worth putting on the table again. But right now, I'm not seeing it.
Negligible? Against -2 weapons (like krak missiles) you have a 5+ save, which is huge! 50% more hits needed for the same result!
Future War Cultist wrote: About one shot killing vehicles; how come it was acceptable for a tank to be taken out in one lucky hit whilst monsters required substained fire? If a lucky shot could hit the fuel tanks and blow the whole thing up, how come a lucky shot by the same weapon couldn't just blow the creatures head clean off? I'm just realising now how stupid it all used to be. Things are finally looking up.
S10 shots instant killed Daemon Princes. most monsters needed to have there toughness reduced.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
Pretty simple: The starter set exclusive, unique and heavily detailed models both make people that own a large chunks of the respective army and wouldn't be interested in getting more generic boxes interested in buying the starter box, while people picking up the starter box for the first time or because they are interested in the cool and unique models (the latter being people that already play 40k) and then bite the bait that a a cool looking bait that a 600 or so army is and buy more boxes to turn it into legal 1000/1500/2000 points sized army.
Future War Cultist wrote: About one shot killing vehicles; how come it was acceptable for a tank to be taken out in one lucky hit whilst monsters required substained fire? If a lucky shot could hit the fuel tanks and blow the whole thing up, how come a lucky shot by the same weapon couldn't just blow the creatures head clean off?
Every abstraction has its silly points, but back in the day the MC abstraction (where they did not suffer same disadvantages than Vehicles) was seen acceptable, as they were vulnerable to small arms fire, Poison etc. and generally did not have many wounds. 5 Wound MC's were rare and very few, if any, carried tank-like firepower. Also less armies had them.
Whole thing broke down when they began to add monsters to armies which didn't and shouldn't have them (Grey Knights, Tau) and MC's started to become increasingly more gross. In days of yore, most common MC was Carnifex, which had 3+ Save, 4 Wounds and no Inv Save - hardly very gamebreaking!
Negligible? Against -2 weapons (like krak missiles) you have a 5+ save, which is huge! 50% more hits needed for the same result!
Sure. Except that krak missile is also now wounding on a 3+ instead of glancing on a 4.
You also need 8 of them to inflict unsaved wounds. Assuming 3+ to hit and that each krak missile only inflicts 1 damage, you will need on average 27 shots to down a dred.
Its a bit trickier to calculate damage against vehicles using the current rules, but according to mathhammer, assuming 3+ to hit, you only need 9 shots to strip 3 hull points, which is what a dred currently has, iirc. Furthermore, whilst its a 4 to glance, its also a 5+ to pen, so you have a 33% chance of inflicting a debuff or even one hit killing the vehicle.
I wish they would get back to making Battleforce boxes for armies. Have it include the core rules and all the data sheets for the included units. There isn't a real need for a starter set anymore.
Since the game appears to be built around 1000 pts as a start, the Start Collecting boxes wouldn't work as starter sets. I wouldn't mind seeing individual starter set forces for some of the armies.
I really wish this starter was not SM v. CSM. I get why they have SM, it is the flagship army, but CSM doesn't need to be in there if SM are. They could have done IG v. CSM and still been Imperium vs. Chaos. Oh well.
Assuming 3+ to hit and that each krak missile only inflicts 1 damage,
It's unlikely that krak missiles would be 1 Damage.
Ok, Assuming that they deal 3 points of damage (assuming that kraks are D3. I doubt they will make them D6 like lascannons), it will take on average 10 shots to kill a dread. Still one more than currently.
Assuming 3+ to hit and that each krak missile only inflicts 1 damage,
It's unlikely that krak missiles would be 1 Damage.
Ok, Assuming that they deal 3 points of damage (assuming that kraks are D3. I doubt they will make them D6 like lascannons), it will take on average 10 shots to kill a dread. Still one more than currently.
And without random stuns, immobilize and weapons destroyed.
chiefbigredman wrote: I'm a little disappointed that the armies in the starter set is going to be space Marines and nurgly space Marines? Kind of wanted something else! Dark vengeance was space Marines (dark Angels) and space Marines (chaos) wish they would have chosen something else, space Marines vs Nids or dark eldar or something different!!
I am excited about having combined codecies tho! Makes it alot better for new players and even existing players to afford/keep up with updates
Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM makes sense.
I understand both perspectives. Marines sell. But some players don't like the oversaturated aesthetic.
The combined codices is really nice, yeah. It may help me decide on which 2 factions I choose, whether I decide to save money and have them all in one (Xenos) or throw down the extra $20-40 and get 2 (Xenos and Chaos).
I understand it too. Especially as a CSM player, I'm tired of seeing the Loyalists getting all the things. Considering the recent fluff in all the GS books, and the recent Shadow Wars: Armageddon they really could have done anything else. Eldar/Daemons, Orks/Tau, Necrons/Tyranids; anything would have been plausible. But I don't think we'll ever see a starter box without SM.
I am seeing lots of people saying space Marines sell which makes sense because they push it so much in their starter sets (maybe why?) But even if they had space Marines of some kind against something other than Marines it would be a nice change.
Any of the ones you suggested would make awesome starter sets tho! Multiple starters would be cool
Galas wrote: Yeah. Dreadnoughts should be totally obliterated by anti-tank weaponry. Thats why you bring anti-tank weaponry.
And low basic weapons like bolter and flasguns yeah, they can kill one but with a luck so high or a masive amount of shoots that is totally unoptimal to do so. If they have done Dreadnought more resistent to the spam of medium-strenght shoots thats how you fix them.
Obviously, give them more dakka too! But I'll wait until the "Warscrol" for the Dreadnought comes. Because in AoS you have many many units with a statline that isn't impresive but it is worth it because of his habilities.
An example (Ok, is an unfair example because this unit is considered pretty OP, but to exemplify how a "normal" statline can totally change with habilities)
Something like the Haunter of the dark improve his surbivability by millions. I'm sure Dreadnoughts are gonna have some defensive innate hability too.
[/spoiler]
Using one of the most op units/rules in AoS is probably not a.good idea.
The other thing to consider is if the dread's stats are going to degrade with damage.
Its a good example for "special rules can make or break what appears to be a relatively weak statline," though. That it is OP, rather than merely balanced, suggests (if it suggests anything) that Galas' point was that much stronger - stat lines are just the beginning of determining the potency of a unit.
And Galas was clearly talking about people's initial worry that the Dreadnought was underpowered. An implication that the Dreadnought might end up OP in this edition (after many, many editions where they were suboptimal) is probably the BEST idea if Galas wants to convince those currently moaning and groaning that dedicated anti-tank weapons are still dangerous to Dreadnoughts.
Thanks! That was exactly my intention!
I know mathhammer is fun, but what will make a unit OP or Useless will be the habilities they will have, so is useless to claim that something will be ultra-weak like Dreadnoughts or totally overpowered without seeing the complete package.
I think eventually a starter box will come out featuring xeno's races, particularly because we have avenues to ask them for it now. We just need to pepper their wall with friendly reminders on occasion
Well, we know that pistols will be able to be shot in combat and that the CC engagement range is probably 1" (as opposed to AoS). Also, moving gives a -1 modifier to heavy weapons. Ok changes IMO - playable and simple.
Assuming 3+ to hit and that each krak missile only inflicts 1 damage,
It's unlikely that krak missiles would be 1 Damage.
Ok, Assuming that they deal 3 points of damage (assuming that kraks are D3. I doubt they will make them D6 like lascannons), it will take on average 10 shots to kill a dread. Still one more than currently.
Anti-tank weapons being able to take out vehicles isn't the problem though. Those types of weapons are meant to do that, so it's hardly surprising. It's all the other stuff that can plink them to death that is.
You also can’t shoot if there is an enemy with 1″ of you. The exception to this rule is pistols. Models with these hand-held firearms can shoot at the closest enemy target in the Shooting phase, even if they themselves are locked in combat! This is going to make characters with pistols <cough-Cypher-cough> incredibly deadly up-close.
Heavy weapons are worth talking about too. These no longer snap fire if you move, and instead they have a flat -1 to hit modifier for moving units. This applies to all models with heavy weapons, vehicles included. There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit.
The last big change we’re going over today is cover. Currently, cover saves give a blanket save to all units, and one that only comes into effect if the shot would otherwise ignore their armour. In the new Warhammer 40,000, cover is a bonus to your armour save. Critically, this ability often only applies to certain types of unit. For example, only Infantry gain the bonus of cover from a crater.
Galas wrote: Pistols shooting into combat? That is cool.
And no cover save to vehicles. Poor dreadnought camping with TL lasscanons with 2+
Idk about that. They seemed awfully specific about their example of Infantry receiving cover from a crater.
There might be some types of cover that do benefit vehicles. Maybe something like Tank Bunkers a la Red Alert 2 or something.
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage. Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
It's the shooting phase. If you have something within 1" you can't shoot at all unless you've got pistols in which case you can shoot at the the unit in question only. We ain't got to the assault phase yet where overwatch supposedly happens if it even is in the rules. Sounds pretty obvious and straightforward to me. Again, 1" is probably just the engagement range for units to be considered in CC
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
It a tiny snippet. Very likely you can't come within 1" of enemy models without charging.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Did they even saw overwatch was in the game?
Nothing was said about it. However nothing was also said about removing it, so that's just my guess.
Personally iI think it would be fairly stupid to get rid of it but who knows.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Did they even saw overwatch was in the game?
At this point i fully expect overwatch to be out.
Also, they are putting a lot of emphasis on "nearest target" interactions. I'm calling it now, you can no longer put characters in units, but you can shoot them only if it's the target closest to you.
Oo! I like that pistol rule! Pistols are cool looking and I like equipping characters and squad leaders with them, but they have struggled to be worth having for several editions.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Did they even saw overwatch was in the game?
Nothing was said about it. However nothing was also said about removing it, so that's just my guess.
Personally iI think it would be fairly stupid to get rid of it but who knows.
Maybe they'll just wait to explain that when they talk about charging, ya know when overwatch triggers.
H.B.M.C. wrote:[Hmm... this makes me suspicious. Why isn't cover universal?
My guess is Infantry are smaller compared to Monstrous Creatures or vehicles/Dreadnaughts so they wouldn't be able to take cover like Infantry can. I am taking it as a crater can be about 1 meter/3 feet deep or so, and a Monstrous Creature, vehicles wouldn't be able to cower down and hide so easily. Also skimmers and flyers would be over them so why would a universal rule apply to them?
Remember it only mentioned craters as an example, not all types of cover.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?
So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.
If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40kaos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .
This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again. Having your guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasn't amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.
Removing initiative is also really bad, but that's a whole other story.
nintura wrote: Welp, new heavy weapon rules makes my Salamanders army happy. Multi-melta in every tac squad now. Who cares about -1 when you get re-rolls.
I second that. Salamanders hopefully keeping re-rolls to wound with flamers and Vulkan twin-linking meltas makes a Salamanders 10 man Tac squad perfect with a flamer and multi-melta.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?
So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.
If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?
A Space Marine can crouch, crawl and articulate in other manners that the model cannot. Tanks generally can't do that.
"Heavy weapons are worth talking about too. These no longer snap fire if you move, and instead they have a flat -1 to hit modifier for moving units. This applies to all models with heavy weapons, vehicles included. There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit."
Interesting, so to hit modifiers ARE in the game. Lets say an ork has a +5 to hit and then moves with heavy weapon and targets a vehicle with a smoke launcher effect giving him a -2 to hit, is he not able to hit the vehicle at all now? That is the case in other war games with to hit modifiers such as Flames of War.
This also is I guess a buff to vehicles now that they can move at any speed and fire all their weapons just at -1 to hit, instead of snapfiring? Predators just got better. This is a nerf to current monstrous creatures who have no such penalties. Riptide that moved firing his burst cannon on a 5+ lol.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40kaos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .
This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again. Having youe guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasnt amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.
Removing initiative is also really bad, bu that's a whole other story.
I agree with you on the disengagement mechanic and had hoped that it won't be the way it is in 40k, but ultimately it could be balanced with the scrolls themselves so while it doesn't feel right at all it might still work in the new rules.
Initiative removal shifts the focus on the game from being a commander trying to direct his troops and hope they can pull it (targeting mechanic in 4th, initiative etc) to taking the active role of frontline field commander who can directly influence the fight he's in and nearby brawls. Probably not the best explanation, but it looks like this to me. It is a quirk of the new game, not neccessary worse or better as it a fundamental shift in the design.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a fully simulated ballistic trajectory calculation would take a decent supercomputer a couple of days per shot.
Some level of abstraction is required for the game to function as a game. The question is, or should be, "is this level of abstraction fun and sensible?"
And I think that, yeah, big, non-squishy vehicles should not be able to get a benefit that would normally only apply to beings with the ability to go prone.
On the other hand, before you say it, if your crater is big and deep enough to hide a vehicle sensibly and the default crater rules don't reflect this, don't use them for it.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?
So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.
If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?
A Space Marine can crouch, crawl and articulate in other manners that the model cannot. Tanks generally can't do that.
And now I have an image of a land raider, all hunched over, trying to army craw through a crater. "You know we can still see you right? Right?"
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40kaos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .
This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having your guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasn't amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.
Removing initiative is also really bad, but that's a whole other story.
That rule has been played in AoS for 2 years now, and no one had problems with it. Actually to shoot a unit to bits in AoS you don't even need to disengage.
Also, since they are taking so many pages from AoS, i except charge rules to be imported as well. If those are in, then when you charge you engage multiple enemy units, not a single one.
If they want to shoot at your guys they will have to forfeit a whole turn with 3 or more units easily.
8th edition is shaping up to be so melee dominated, that this rule is needed for those who want to play gunlines, so that they can design the list accordingly with multiple waves.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?
So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.
If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?
Sarigar wrote: Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.
I sincerely doubt it'll work that way, fliers are *supposed* to be zipping around the battlefield.
I can't imagine they'll take penalties for simply moving the way they're supposed to.
Or the flyer versions of weapons will be classed differently.
Though I can see a Valkyrie or similar hover-mode types having weapons that work best when hovering and less so while jetting around at top speed.
Oh man, this is great. My Pathfinders and Broadsides can reposition now without making them useless for a turn; heavy weapon squads no longer have to be static to fire. Assault squads loaded up with Plasma pistols could be a strong unit. Hand flamers could be interesting too. Color me impressed.
Sarigar wrote: Flyers with a -1 to hit with heavy weapons is a bit unexpected. Assuming they have to move.
I sincerely doubt it'll work that way, fliers are *supposed* to be zipping around the battlefield.
I can't imagine they'll take penalties for simply moving the way they're supposed to.
Or the flyer versions of weapons will be classed differently.
Though I can see a Valkyrie or similar hover-mode types having weapons that work best when hovering and less so while jetting around at top speed.
No way to be sure yet, but GC will also have the same penalty. Just speculating based off of information provided.
I agree with you on the disengagement mechanic and had hoped that it won't be the way it is in 40k, but ultimately it could be balanced with the scrolls themselves so while it doesn't feel right at all it might still work in the new rules.
Honestly, unless consolidation into melee is going to be a thing I have a hard time seeing how anything can mitigate that.
Initiative removal shifts the focus on the game from being a commander trying to direct his troops and hope they can pull it (targeting mechanic in 4th, initiative etc) to taking the active role of frontline field commander who can directly influence the fight he's in and nearby brawls. Probably not the best explanation, but it seems like this to me. It is a quirk of the new game.
It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.
Alternating activations though is really bad. I mean yeah initiative wasn't perfect but along with WS it did a decent job of explaining the unit's abilities and role in melee combat. Of course not everybody is supposed to have a chance in CQC. Some units rely on their superior speed, some rely on armor, some are straight up really hard to hit or just extremely tough, some are good all-around and some are just punching bags that were not expected to live anyway. There is no inherent problem in such state of things, only particularly broken units like, say, wulfen. The new system is going to take a huge chunk of this diversity and tactics away and just throw in out the window all replaced with "feth off is't my turn to hit your guys". It has no benefits other than sparing you some time. And I'm not even going to go into how immersion-breaking it is.
This also is I guess a buff to vehicles now that they can move at any speed and fire all their weapons just at -1 to hit, instead of snapfiring? Predators just got better. This is a nerf to current monstrous creatures who have no such penalties. Riptide that moved firing his burst cannon on a 5+ lol.
Except to Tyranids, which all their weapons are Assault.
I expect vehicles and MC's will ignore the -1 on Heavy weapons in the same way that they currently all have Relentless. I just hope they've removed the idiotic restrictions on vehicles moving and shooting altogether.
"But, you'll probably be able to more more than 6" with most vehicles as movement isn't standardised any more. And you can shoot your turret weapon AND hull weapon at only -1. Your transports are going to be fine, trust us."
Q: "now I can finally move my long fangs around, and my blood claws will me amazing in close combat. are negative modifiers to BS cumulative? say for example a heavy weapon unit moved and the enemy triggered their smoke launcher."
A: "Yes, they will be.
Hitting a vehicle in a cloud, while moving, with a sniper rifle is pretty tricky."
It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.
It is just my interpretation - a metaphor to ease the transition. I'm 100% that the decision was purely for the sake of gamey mechanics.
( I'm sliding in before Lord Kragan or someone else smugly interjects to say "Have you ever play AoS?" )
The majority of people playing AoS on the forums and IRL that I know point that the alternating combat mechanic is their favourite one from the AoS rules. You still get to choose which unit to engage with which one, but now the choice is based on one less unit statistic and instead you get to play with some combos and light to mediocre dilemmas (both for you and your opponent). For me it works better.
"But, you'll probably be able to more more than 6" with most vehicles as movement isn't standardised any more. And you can shoot your turret weapon AND hull weapon at only -1. Your transports are going to be fine, trust us."
So like in AoS. Vehicles will be platforms of destruction as they should be! I suppose that they will bring the fact that a unit/squad can fire different weapon they carry to different objetives simultanously? That will be cool.
It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.
It is just my interpretation - a metaphor to ease the transition. I'm 100% that the decision was purely for the sake of gamey mechanics.
I'm sure it is. It's just that GW has shown time and time again that whlile they are capable of making horrible balance decisions and not understand the mechanics of their own game just as often as making really good ones.
( I'm sliding in before Lord Kragan or someone else smugly interjects to say "Have you ever play AoS?" )
The majority of people playing AoS on the forums and IRL that I know point that the alternating combat mechanic is their favourite one from the AoS rules. You still get to choose which unit to engage with which one, but now the choice is based on one less unit statistic and instead you get to play with some combos and light to mediocre dilemmas (both for you and your opponent). For me it works better.
40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good. There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.
There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.
IMO it needed a complete rewrite. I has become boring, repetitive and completely inadequate to play the size of battles it tried to advertise. A completely new system was needed, but we got copy pasted AoS (which was proto 40k anyway). It's something...
Whatever, no need to spin the "was it called for" wheel again".
In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
davou wrote: holy crap..... Devastators can march and shoot now? Im so happy I just built 7 heavy bolters
With the way blast weapons will be working, going to call it now, missile dev's will be very common against certain (a lot) armies. Reposition to blast their hordes or reposition to krak their vehicles.
Pistols shooting into assault is fine by me. And moving and firing with heavies is wonderful. I like that cover is a save bonus but I'm slightly concerned by this different cover types thing. I'm sure it'll be fine though.
A previous edition had shooting at the nearest unit being a requirement. Are they bringing that back? I think it would work. It would make lone characters safer, and maybe snipers can ignore it, making them useful.
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault from the front.
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault with another from the front.
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.
Shooting rules were a little surprising for me. I was sure that cover was going to convey a negative hit modifer which would dovetail nicely with the flamers auto-hitting rule. Instead we get a positive armour modifer, which is really interesting for armies with an already decent armour save
Multiple staggered gun lines, if they are used will surely not be allowed to fall back if enemies are behind them as well. Deep strike units behind the unit and assault with another from the front.
Lol, I'm thinking we're basically going to be completely rethinking ALL tactics.
Future War Cultist wrote: A previous edition had shooting at the nearest unit being a requirement. Are they bringing that back? I think it would work. It would make lone characters safer, and maybe snipers can ignore it, making them useful.
I see no mention of it, which is good because it would mean your well trained units and commanders arent smart enough to figure out that the heavy weapons over there are more dangerous than the guys with the rags and knives.
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: Shooting rules were a little surprising for me. I was sure that cover was going to convey a negative hit modifer which would dovetail nicely with the flamers auto-hitting rule. Instead we get a positive armour modifer, which is really interesting for armies with an already decent armour save
I was thinking the same thing.
Will definitely help marines, who a lot of people were expecting to be multi-wound.
Certainly will make your average Marine more survivable.
40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good. There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.
Thing is, that system was flawed, irrespective of balance issues. There simply wasn't all that much to do in a game of 40K. There was little interaction between players, there was little in the way of unit interaction either, opposing or friendly, and little on-table strategy outside of target priority and the occasional bit of movement shenanigans.
In the 30 years since the fundamentals were established, we've seen the rise of systems that are both more elegant and more complex, games where each turn involves both players and that present a range of equally valid, but wildly diverse, options each turn, options which feel like they mean something in the context of the game. Games where you feel like you're competing with your opponents strategic thinking, not with their ability to google the latest net list and mentally press autoplay.
WMH, Infinity, X Wing, Guild Ball etc etc just offer more engaging gameplay right now than 40K, even if 40K were fairly balanced.
There's no guarantees that 8th will solve this issue, but if they can at least shift it into a space where it's spectacle is still there (something admittedly few other games match) but it doesn't need a degree's worth of reading to learn the rules, an amount of negotiation in excess of what's needed to sort out North Korea, the following day booked off from work and the inescapable sense that you got dicked because you took models you like rather than number crunching the most efficient choice (or worse, that you could have number crunched the most efficient choice and it still wouldn't have helped) then it will have made huge progress, and will find space in a lot of people's play sessions that wouldn't have considered it currently. Myself included.
With talk about summing changing, it's DEFINITELY too strong as it is, but I liked one of the personal setups people had prior to general's handbook: you had to actually have the unit in your army on the table to gain access to be able to summon more. Want to gain the spell "summon demon prince"? Better have it in your list. Don't plan on having 6 units of horrors, plus greater daemons only, then summon up an army of fiends and bloodcrushers. Doesn't work, cuz they weren't in the list to begin with. I realize GW didn't take that route, but I do feel the current summoning is too limited (cuz in addition to points, most summoning of good units also requires a high roll, and good luck if you aren't a LoC). Personally, I think there was a better balanced choice for summoning. I play daemons, and even I thought the Daemon factory was nuts. I refused to play it. Yeah, I had some summoning in my list, but it was minor. A unit popped in here or there. Nothing crazy.
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.
Except in that scenario your army will have a whole turn to reposition, shoot at, launch counter assaults, etc...
timetowaste85 wrote: With talk about summing changing, it's DEFINITELY too strong as it is, but I liked one of the personal setups people had prior to general's handbook: you had to actually have the unit in your army on the table to gain access to be able to summon more. Want to gain the spell "summon demon prince"? Better have it in your list. Don't plan on having 6 units of horrors, plus greater daemons only, then summon up an army of fiends and bloodcrushers. Doesn't work, cuz they weren't in the list to begin with. I realize GW didn't take that route, but I do feel the current summoning is too limited (cuz in addition to points, most summoning of good units also requires a high roll, and good luck if you aren't a LoC). Personally, I think there was a better balanced choice for summoning. I play daemons, and even I thought the Daemon factory was nuts. I refused to play it. Yeah, I had some summoning in my list, but it was minor. A unit popped in here or there. Nothing crazy.
I like summoning from a fluff and thematic perspective, but really I can't see it balanced in a gameplay way in a game where you have a limited amount of resources to bring units to the table. If other people receive more units for free then it begins to break.
A balanced summoning system in this context will probably need Summoning-Specific units (So, units that can only be in battlefield by summoning them) and Summoner casters with the cost of the fact that they can summon those units included into their cost. I'm not talking about converting 1:1 point cost, but a slightly more expensive summoner compared to a equivalent non-summoner caster, for example.
I use very un-restricted summoning in my narrative games because it is cool, but in a balance game is very hard to make it right to all players involved.
Vryce wrote: Well, in the Q&A earlier this week, the dev's talked about the conflict between the IoM & Chaos taking more of a center stage on the galactic scale, so a starter set with SM/CSM
IS TERRIBLE AND SHOULD NOT BE!!! Make it imperial guards against cultist, or Sisters of battle versus daemon, or even sisters + guards + mechanicus against CSM + cultists + daemons.
You also can’t shoot if there is an enemy with 1″ of you. The exception to this rule is pistols.
Suck on that flamers and meltas!
*Use my pairs of inferno pistols and hand flamers to kill H.B.M.C.'s models*
nintura wrote: And now I have an image of a land raider, all hunched over, trying to army craw through a crater. "You know we can still see you right? Right?"
Sorry, but the mental image is even funnier with a dreadnought. Imagine it trying to use its silly, super short legs to crawl !
v0iddrgn wrote: In regards to the assault disengagement mechanic, I don't think it will be that game changing and here's why... MOST assaults that actually occur in this edition are done by dedicated assault units and they are designed to shred the enemy on contact which means they won't be locked in combat for very long at all. This means they are just as exposed to enemy fire now as they will be in 8th, barring if they can consolidate into combat (heaven make it so).
This.
Plus, any capable player is going to prepare for this on both ends. The assaulting player should ideally be prepared for that eventuality (tying up other units, threat saturation etc)
On the other hand it encourages the player being charged to wisely space his units, make sure they're supported by overlapping fire lanes etc.
I think it adds a lot of tactical depth rather than remove it.
Everyone is also looking at 'The Guard Squad' was Assaulted and then the remaining 2-3 run away leaving the Assault Squad to face all of the incoming fire. I am looking at 'There are three Guards left, why should we finish them off, lets disengage behind that cover over there and next turn we can Assault another Fresh Squad'.
Except in that scenario your army will have a whole turn to reposition, shoot at, launch counter assaults, etc...
True, but you never know what the situation will be at the time you make the choice, it is just another option.
In 6th (never got to play 7th) I do not know the times I had an Assault Squad Devastate a Unit and then was Stuck In while still in great shape for another Assault. This also come to the 'Guard Player' being able to mess up an Assault by not running away, Forcing the Assault Unit to kill off the last three or Disengaging. I know there were times I did not want to kill off the Remaining Models only to be facing a gun line waiting for me to do such. It also comes down to, what kind of movement do Bikes, Calvary and Jump Pack give you. If it is far enough during a Disengage, the cover might be worth the turn of doing nothing as 100 Shots come your way.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?
Well considering your forbidden from being within 1" of enemies now unless engaged in HTH, this seems like a rule to allow certain weapons to shoot in assault like the example of pistols given. If you had a melta gun within 1" of an enemy and not in assault before then you were cheating or made a mistake.
I wonder if that means pistols won't count as CC weapons for purposes of additional weapons now. If so that means you get to shoot + fight in CC with that bonus attack as well, pretty crazy.
nintura wrote: Welp, new heavy weapon rules makes my Salamanders army happy. Multi-melta in every tac squad now. Who cares about -1 when you get re-rolls.
Oh you mean that reroll that existed in a scrapped edition? Good luck with that one
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tbh with the Start Collecting boxes I find it odd that GW doesn't just make starter sets that are 2 different SC! boxes, some dice, 2 of the whippy range rulers and a A5 paperback rule book along with cardboard sheets with limited rules for the miniatures.
GeeDubs likes to put push fit models in to the starter boxed sets, I guess so 2 people who have never played before can buy it and get playing with unpainted models pretty much the same day.
The Age of Sigmar starter set isn't push-fit though, nor have any of the recent boxed games.
The Age of Sigmar starter set isn't push-fit though, nor have any of the recent boxed games.
It's not push to fit, but they're not proper multiparts, they're easy-to-assemble models specifically made from the starter.
Hmmm, I thought they were push fit, I guess they're just easy-to-assemble instead.
And yeah, "recent boxed games" aren't push fit because they aren't starter sets, they're just tangential games that GW aren't heavily invested in thus aren't willing to put in the money to cast dedicated models for them.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because a tank can't hide in a shallow shell crater. Applies some logic to the abstractions.
But why is cover abstracted?
Because a space marine doesn't get LOS cover from a crater?
So... a tank doesn't get cover from a shallow crater, and a Marine doesn't get cover from a shallow crater... so we'll abstract it and say that one does and one doesn't.
If they both don't, then why give it to one and not another?
Unless I missed some Matt Ward fluff, I have read of infantry ducking for better cover but I have yet to read of a Leman Russ squatting down lower then normal.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.
It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40kaos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .
This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having your guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasn't amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.
Removing initiative is also really bad, but that's a whole other story.
Scenario 1: Tac marines are sitting in cover, your tac marines can shoot 2 shots with your bolters, hitting on 3s, wounding on 4s, 2+ save.
Scenario 2: Tac marines are sitting in cover, your assault marine s fire bolt pistols, one shot hitting on 3s, wounding on 4s, 2+ save, then assault with chainswords, 3 attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 4s, 4+ save, hitting first.
I dunno, that seems pretty deadly to me by comparison. Cover adding to armour save makes shooting worse, that's for sure. And if your delivery methods are as durable and reliable as GW is promising, getting 2-3 assault units into assault might not be so hard. In which case let them fall back, there's nobody left to take advantage of the freed up squad.
Kirasu wrote: I wonder if that means pistols won't count as CC weapons for purposes of additional weapons now. If so that means you get to shoot + fight in CC with that bonus attack as well, pretty crazy.
Hopefully that'll be gone as well, and good riddance. Figuring out how many attacks certain models were supposed to have sometimes made me feel like Ms. Scarlet.
Cover giving a bonus to armor saves makes sense. Doesn't overly punish low BS armies, and reflects the idea that having a thick wall between you and enemy fire can help vs. small arms but not so much vs. a lascannon.
The flat -1 to moving and firing seems fine to me, especially since dataslates can probably adjust that to suit edge cases. It also suggests to me that "Snap Fire" as a thing is gone, and along with it blanket Overwatch. I'd still expect to see it, just maybe as a Command Point ability.
They're speaking of the rebirth of wiped out chapters so the case may be that they're using old and stored geneseed from the chapters tithes and are enhancing it.
My planned tri-Plasma Pistol Assault Squad just got a boost. And now I want to make a Gunslinger Inferno Pistol Sergeant for the other one. My Blood Angels Tactical Squads will now have Hand Flamers on the Sergeants instead of Combi-Flamers.
Most of my Crimson Fists Tactical Squads will be getting a Missile Launcher or Heavy Bolter added to the squad. My Devastators are going to be so much fun!
I see they didn't really mention if Rapid Fire or Heavy will prevent charging. Hopefully that will be covered tomorrow, but I hope my BA Tactical Squads are going to be able to charge after laying down Boltgun fire.
IIRC that was also the case in fantasy, my guess is it will be different? I mean if 8th really is totally AoS I don't think cC armies have anything to worry about. I've never played AoS but there seem to be a looot of dudes with axes and swords when I look at the tables.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: So will big units with models more than 1" away from enemy models be able to fire non-pistol weapons into their own combat?
It's already being said, no firing inot or out of combats. Pistols now appear to be an exception to that, doesn't mean anything else can do that though.
to both shooting phase and video. I wonder what else Mars is making, plus those pesky Xenos and chaos rascals. These guys are crushing it! I doubt they're getting the overtime for all the work there, but I'm impressed.
edit: something about watching a news story on Trump, seeing this video then shooting phase, then posting this on a desktop layout is hilarious as next to the US flag is an excited ork. Gotta love Dakka
matphat wrote: Suddenly, my Lootas seem a little more jolly. Looking forward to seeing if this is true.
yeah man, I'm having my Orks shipped to me from storage next month but I have like 20 Lootas and burnas. Plus the Mork&Gorkanauts. Gonna be so much fun rocking this stuff in the new edition. It's like, I don't even want to play another game until 8th. Heresy and AoS will do nicely in the meantime.
Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
Too early to confirm yet, tbh. It's going to depend heavily on the price point of other options.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
Depends a lot on their strength, AP modifier and points cost - which are all unknown. We also don't know if there's a Gets Hot rule in 8th, or how it would work if there is one.
VeteranNoob wrote: edit: something about watching a news story on Trump, seeing this video then shooting phase, then posting this on a desktop layout is hilarious as next to the US flag is an excited ork. Gotta love Dakka
Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
Depends a lot on their strength, AP modifier and points cost - which are all unknown. We also don't know if there's a Gets Hot rule in 8th, or how it would work if there is one.
If gets hot remains in 8th, Grav Pistols will probably be better than Plasma. But my BA are going to take Inferno Pistols a lot more. Commander Dante should be able to wreck face in CC.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
I did not expect the change to let you shoot while in cc. I've wanted pistols to be able to be used in cc for a while but this is a lot cleaner than what I had planned. I do hope that with this change pistols no longer give bonus cc attacks though. Makes no sense for holding a pistol to give you an extra swing with a power sword.
I do think that this makes a lot of pistols much better for their points. Plasma, grav, blast pistols, ect.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Now that pistols can be fired in close combat are plasma pistols finally priced appropriately? Especially if they can still be used as a close combat weapon?
I did not expect the change to let you shoot while in cc. I've wanted pistols to be able to be used in cc for a while but this is a lot cleaner than what I had planned. I do hope that with this change pistols no longer give bonus cc attacks though. Makes no sense for holding a pistol to give you an extra swing with a power sword.
I do think that this makes a lot of pistols much better for their points. Plasma, grav, blast pistols, ect.
I agree that they shouldn't add an additional attack. It was described as characters holstering a pistol and drawing a knife in the fluff rather than a character pistol-whipping someone. Even then, having a pistol just became a big boon.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
I guess he means that by increasing 3+ to 2+ you take half of the casualties you'd otherwise taken (1/6 dead vs. 1/3 dead) whereas in 6+ -> 5+ it's 5/6 dead vs. 4/6 dead.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
I guess he means that by increasing 3+ to 2+ you take half of the casualties you'd otherwise taken (1/6 dead vs. 1/3 dead) whereas in 6+ -> 5+ it's 5/6 dead vs. 4/6 dead.
It still mitigates wounds by the same amount though. If your save is 6+ improved to 5+ you take exactly half as many wounds as you would have, just like if your save is increased from 3+ to 2+. Your baseline number of wounds expected is just lower in the first instance.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
A space marine in cover goes from 33% chance of failing to a 16% chance of failing. His resilience effectively doubles while in cover. A 6+ save model goes from 83% chance of failing to a 66.7% chance of failing. Still the same increment (both are different by about 16%) but I do see where he's getting at. However, marines are more expensive than 6+ save models and will probably have smaller squad sizes, so it balances out.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
What if a Terminator is in cover but suffers a wound from a bolter? There's no negative save modifier, only a positive one. Suppose there's a rule that says armor saves can never be better than 2+?
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
If you instead of faiing on 1 and 2 on a D6 fail on only 1, that is twice as good right?
If you fail your save on 1,2,3,4 and 5 but now "only" fail on 1,2,3and 4 that is only an increase of 20% or am doing something wrong? (its been a long labourus day)
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
But none of the basic infantry weapons have save mods!
You will need some pretty heavy stuff to shift those marines.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
What if a Terminator is in cover but suffers a wound from a bolter? There's no negative save modifier, only a positive one. Suppose there's a rule that says armor saves can never be better than 2+?
Well yeah, that's how its always been. I have not yet played a GW game where a save roll of a 1 always fails, regardless of modifiers.
That's how it was in WHFB; you can stack armor all you want, but if you roll a natural 1 its still a fail.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
If you instead of faiing on 1 and 2 on a D6 fail on only 1, that is twice as good right?
If you fail your save on 1,2,3,4 and 5 but now "only" fail on 1,2,3and 4 that is only an increase of 20% or am doing something wrong? (its been a long labourus day)
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
But none of the basic infantry weapons have save mods!
You will need some pretty heavy stuff to shift those marines.
Now you have a reason to take plasma Heavy Infantry is now heavy.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
This kind of thing is exactly why I've always been against the story moving forward, because seriously, what else did you expect them to do? When 40K was still a setting, sitting at a minute to midnight was no problem, but if they want to turn it into an ongoing storyline it's painted them directly into a corner, so their choice was always going to be a binary one between respecting the fluff's status quo by paying off everything it had foreshadowed, or jumping the shark while riding on the back of another rocket-powered shark. The respect path would have required them to take a massive, reeking dump on their most popular line of product, while Warhammer 40K: The Sharknado Crusade lets them make even more varieties of Space Marines which will doubtless sell like heroin, so I have no idea how anyone could ever believe they would do anything other than the latter.
Rowboat Girlyman and the Kevin Spaciest Marines are the only real reason they are advancing the fluff, and the only reason they ever would.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
Same...This was the moment that I realized I am not the market group they are going after.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
This kind of thing is exactly why I've always been against the story moving forward, because seriously, what else did you expect them to do? When 40K was still a setting, sitting at a minute to midnight was no problem, but if they want to turn it into an ongoing storyline it's painted them directly into a corner, so their choice was always going to be a binary one between respecting the fluff's status quo by paying off everything it had foreshadowed, or jumping the shark while riding on the back of another rocket-powered shark. The respect path would have required them to take a massive, reeking dump on their most popular line of product, while Warhammer 40K: The Sharknado Crusade lets them make even more varieties of Space Marines which will doubtless sell like heroin, so I have no idea how anyone could ever believe they would do anything other than the latter.
Rowboat Girlyman and the Kevin Spaciest Marines are the only real reason they are advancing the fluff, and the only reason they ever would.
I don't agree with you.
Advancing the plotline is great, but it depends on which directions they choose to take it.
Super Marines aren't the best choice imo.
But as it's been said, this discussion is best suited for another thread.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
What if a Terminator is in cover but suffers a wound from a bolter? There's no negative save modifier, only a positive one. Suppose there's a rule that says armor saves can never be better than 2+?
Well yeah, that's how its always been. I have not yet played a GW game where a save roll of a 1 always fails, regardless of modifiers.
That's how it was in WHFB; you can stack armor all you want, but if you roll a natural 1 its still a fail.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
If you instead of faiing on 1 and 2 on a D6 fail on only 1, that is twice as good right?
If you fail your save on 1,2,3,4 and 5 but now "only" fail on 1,2,3and 4 that is only an increase of 20% or am doing something wrong? (its been a long labourus day)
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
That's why you have save modifiers.
But none of the basic infantry weapons have save mods!
You will need some pretty heavy stuff to shift those marines.
Now you have a reason to take plasma Heavy Infantry is now heavy.
The big problem is that orks have VERY few weapons with good AP (or save mod).
There must be something more to shooting as every space marine in cover now has become almost unkillable (fluffy i grant). I strongly doubt that they will adjust point values in a way that decreases the amount of miniatures needed to play.
Well, cover will probably not work in CC, so you can assault them. You're hitting first on the charge now, so this time marines get to die before orks.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
Same...This was the moment that I realized I am not the market group they are going after.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
If your current lot of super amazing space marines aren't enough to turn the tide, then why would you make an even smaller number of even more super amazing space marines? All that time and resources would be much better spent developing better weaponry for your existing forces. Say, plasma guns which don't blow up their users, made en-masse and given to everybody you can get them to. That would be much more effective.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
If you instead of faiing on 1 and 2 on a D6 fail on only 1, that is twice as good right?
If you fail your save on 1,2,3,4 and 5 but now "only" fail on 1,2,3and 4 that is only an increase of 20% or am doing something wrong? (its been a long labourus day)
Another way of looking at it would be that Space Marines went from passing their save on a 3, 4, 5, or 6 to passing it on a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. While orks went from passing it on a 6 to passing it on a 5 or 6. Space Marines halve their chance of failure, while orks double their chance of success. Space Marines will mostly pass their save either way and orks will mostly fail their save either way, but each sees a minor benefit for being in cover.
The bigger difference is that when it comes to shooting models are now getting a -1 instead of snap firing. For orks snap firing was not that big of a deal, because it was just a -1, while for Space Marines it was -3. Without knowing what else is changing I think it's too early to say that orks are getting the short end of the stick. I think it's a good change that will make certain things more viable, I just hope that orks get rules changes that make certain things better for them as well.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
Use heavy weapons. Weapons with good armour save modifiers will punch right through cover, since it's not a separate save.
I honestly really like this. Cover becomes excellent against small arms and helpful against medium support weapons, but generally insufficient when faced with the big guns.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, cover will probably not work in CC, so you can assault them. You're hitting first on the charge now, so this time marines get to die before orks.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
Same...This was the moment that I realized I am not the market group they are going after.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
If your current lot of super amazing space marines aren't enough to turn the tide, then why would you make an even smaller number of even more super amazing space marines? All that time and resources would be much better spent developing better weaponry for your existing forces. Say, plasma guns which don't blow up their users, made en-masse and given to everybody you can get them to. That would be much more effective.
Perhaps these Marines are vat grown in legions and have been in stasis for millennia?
Quote: "The big problem is that orks have VERY few weapons with good AP (or save mod).
There must be something more to shooting as every space marine in cover now has become almost unkillable (fluffy i grant). I strongly doubt that they will adjust point values in a way that decreases the amount of miniatures needed to play."
^ who is to say what kind of armor modifiers the ranged Ork weaponry will have now? No one knows yet so keep a cool head.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
Two issues. First, it's not something that fits the universe's narrative. Creating new, better, Space Marines, originally crafted at the hand of the Emperor himself, a veritable god given flesh, with vast resources and technology not available in the 41st millenium, shouldn't really be possible, and goes against the setting's theme that no, things won't get better, that technology and science no longer offer hope (all the " Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war" stuff).
Second, Space Marines are already supposed to be the "best of the best". We've had "super marines" before, and while they worked in narrow applications, such as the Grey Knights and Custodes, ideas on how to do this have become increasingly stupid or just unnecessary, with the Centurion concept and now "BigMarines". It's just a really bad hamfisting of the concept to sell a new line instead of just revamping it without comment the way they did stuff like the Dark Eldar line.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: True but will that cover save help them when a squad of 20 boyz jumps onto them in CC? Striking first?
Probably not.
But we'll see.
What will help is that all of those 20 boyz probably won't be hitting in the combat.
In my head it started as a 30 boy squad
What I'm saying is that I would not be surprised to see weapon ranges for CC, which would preclude many of those 20 Boyz from hitting.
Hmmmm I hope not, but you could be right.
It doesn't really replace the current system as a time saver, you're still measuring each model to figure out if they're in the fight.
I'm hoping they think of something a little more intuitive, but won't be mad if they don't, as I said it won't be much different from the current system.
v0iddrgn wrote: Using a pistol in CC should make the owning model forego all of their attacks.
Then what's the sword for?
They'll likely just lose their extra attack.
So, a model with a pistol and CC weapon will be able to make ALL of their normal attacks PLUS a pistol attack? Eh... I doubt it. I think the pistol attack will probably be in lieu of normal attacks.
v0iddrgn wrote: Using a pistol in CC should make the owning model forego all of their attacks.
Then what's the sword for?
They'll likely just lose their extra attack.
So, a model with a pistol and CC weapon will be able to make ALL of their normal attacks PLUS a pistol attack? Eh... I doubt it. I think the pistol attack will probably be in lieu of normal attacks.
I don't see why a model making its normal attack plus a pistol attack would be bad if they lose the +1 attack for having a pistol.
v0iddrgn wrote: Using a pistol in CC should make the owning model forego all of their attacks.
Then what's the sword for?
They'll likely just lose their extra attack.
So, a model with a pistol and CC weapon will be able to make ALL of their normal attacks PLUS a pistol attack? Eh... I doubt it. I think the pistol attack will probably be in lieu of normal attacks.
If they don't get an additional attack for having a pistol, it is a net decrease in effectiveness for the majority of CC units out there. They are trading an armor piercing or higher strength attack for a single pistol shot. Only units toting a special pistol are really getting anything good out of this.
v0iddrgn wrote: Using a pistol in CC should make the owning model forego all of their attacks.
Then what's the sword for?
They'll likely just lose their extra attack.
So, a model with a pistol and CC weapon will be able to make ALL of their normal attacks PLUS a pistol attack? Eh... I doubt it. I think the pistol attack will probably be in lieu of normal attacks.
I don't see why a model making its normal attack plus a pistol attack would be bad if they lose the +1 attack for having a pistol.
This is what I meant.
Having a pistol lets you shoot it in the Shooting phase, and then make your normal number of attacks in the Assault phase. The two don't have a weird, abstract overlap, like now.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If they don't get an additional attack for having a pistol, it is a net decrease in effectiveness for the majority of CC units out there. They are trading an armor piercing or higher strength attack for a single pistol shot. Only units toting a special pistol are really getting anything good out of this.
It will be a buff for current "specialist" weapons like power fists, though, since those don't currently get that bonus attack.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
So a new Crusade and a new variant of Marine.
Sounds like fun.
I'm actually pretty cranky about his.
I'm all for the story moving forward, but this seems a little..... Unnecessary.
Yo dawg, I heard you like Space Marines, so I've put more Space Marines into your Marines, and they'll be the Spaciest Space Marines ever.
I'll try to keep an open mind, but that's my initial reaction.
Same...This was the moment that I realized I am not the market group they are going after.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
In the friendliest way possible, If I need to explain this specific incident, then you wouldn't understand where I'm coming from even if you disagree.
And there is nothing wrong with being the market they are going after. No right or wrong.
I am loving 8th!!!!
Shooting sounds pretty perfect, have 0 complaints at the concepts there!
And that video, wew lad that is awesome.
I like it. The Emperor gene-forged the Astartes at an appropriate level for their time. The cost of these new marines is probably higher than our current Astartes, so the Emperor made to a level that was more than capable for their time.
What is the best way to combat one of the biggest threats at the time? With more powerful soldiers.
Now Gulliman is taking a risk, if these new marines fall to chaos, it will cause bigger issues, but now that Gulliman is back, and able to focus resources etc, why wouldn't he make a new generation of Astartes that are bigger and better to combat the Imperium's enemy's?
Did anyone else notice as well that they said Chapters which have been destroyed would be brought back with these new Marines? That is awesome.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
Two issues. First, it's not something that fits the universe's narrative. Creating new, better, Space Marines, originally crafted at the hand of the Emperor himself, a veritable god given flesh, with vast resources and technology not available in the 41st millenium, shouldn't really be possible, and goes against the setting's theme that no, things won't get better, that technology and science no longer offer hope (all the " Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war" stuff).
Second, Space Marines are already supposed to be the "best of the best". We've had "super marines" before, and while they worked in narrow applications, such as the Grey Knights and Custodes, ideas on how to do this have become increasingly stupid or just unnecessary, with the Centurion concept and now "BigMarines". It's just a really bad hamfisting of the concept to sell a new line instead of just revamping it without comment the way they did stuff like the Dark Eldar line.
First, the Emperor was SEEN as a god, and he was hilariously OP sure, but he was also a deeply flawed individual who was capable of making horrifyingly stupid mistakes. And Space Marines aren't even the best of the best in the current setting, custodes and primarchs are both superior.
Also, the emperor developed the tools for making marines before/ during the crusades when his resources were fewer.
Finally, i don't get this obsession with utter bleak nothing could possibly make anything good ever forever grrrr thing people have going. It seems like something you slap on a tagline and then skirt around in your stories.
And how long is the 'well they found it in the bottom of the closet under their old shoes' explanation for new stuff going to be the better option? Or are we all cool with just never getting anything new for any army but nids ever again?
"Also, the emperor developed the tools for making marines before/ during the crusades when his resources were fewer. "
Ehm, no. The golden age of the Imperium was during the Great Crusade. The astartes of today are inferior to the Legionary Astartes. They have a worse geneseed and worse equipement.
Not saying this to add to the discussion about the Nu-marines, just correcting your point. The Imperium of 41k is in every way worse that the one in 30k. Thats the most basic narrative.
Galas wrote: "Also, the emperor developed the tools for making marines before/ during the crusades when his resources were fewer. "
Ehm, no. The golden age of the Imperium was during the Great Crusade. The astartes of today are inferior to the Legionary Astartes. They have a worse geneseed and worse equipement.
Not saying this to add to the discussion about the Nu-marines, just correcting your point. The Imperium of 41k is in every way worse that the one in 30k. Thats the most basic narrative.
It's not about resources, it was about making super soldiers appropriate for their time. Which he did.
Right, I'd normally use the little yellow triangle of friendship, but weekends often mean Mods are off having lives, so in an effort to save some poor soul the effort of steering this Titanic around the iceberg when they next log on, I'm going to post it publicly in an effort to see if people can put their big boy pants on and self moderate to save the voluntary team a bunch of work.
1)Discussion of nuMarines already has its own thread, so keeping it out of the 8th Ed thread is probably a good idea for the sake of clarity.
2) While not against forum rules per sé, requoting big blocks of text, long quote chains or videos for one sentence comments is appalling forum etiquette.
Not trying to mini mod, just trying to keep things square.
Yes because developing new, superior weapons technology(space marines are weapons, they are not and have never been people), is just soooooooooo dumb right? I mean why would you ever make any new materiel in war?
Two issues. First, it's not something that fits the universe's narrative. Creating new, better, Space Marines, originally crafted at the hand of the Emperor himself, a veritable god given flesh, with vast resources and technology not available in the 41st millenium, shouldn't really be possible, and goes against the setting's theme that no, things won't get better, that technology and science no longer offer hope (all the " Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war" stuff).
Second, Space Marines are already supposed to be the "best of the best". We've had "super marines" before, and while they worked in narrow applications, such as the Grey Knights and Custodes, ideas on how to do this have become increasingly stupid or just unnecessary, with the Centurion concept and now "BigMarines". It's just a really bad hamfisting of the concept to sell a new line instead of just revamping it without comment the way they did stuff like the Dark Eldar line.
First, the Emperor was SEEN as a god, and he was hilariously OP sure, but he was also a deeply flawed individual who was capable of making horrifyingly stupid mistakes.
Gods need not be perfect, one can look to the Norse and Greek pantheons for that. But, while it hasn't been touched on a recently, the Emperor has a Warp presence not dissimilar to the likes of the Chaos Gods or Gork&Mork (there's a great fluff piece from one of the first stories about Ork Gargants about how the Emperor's warp-self bellows a warning to Gork and Mork to knock it off and sends omens through the Tarot to psykers of impending disaster), part of the irony of the Golden Throne was always that it prevented the Emperor from moving on to that next state, and for the setting's purposes he's always been a figure of unparalleled power and knowledge.
And Space Marines aren't even the best of the best in the current setting, custodes and primarchs are both superior.
Right, but they were really background elements. in the 41st millenium the Primarch's were all dead, missing, or Daemons, while the Custodes were left on Earth and didn't really leave except to sometimes roam on the Black Ships bringing the Emperor his food, and there were almost none of them even next to Space Marines, so for the purposes of the greater storyline and practical gameplay, they were irrelevant remnants of a mythical past many thousands of years gone.
Also, the emperor developed the tools for making marines before/ during the crusades when his resources were fewer.
When he could himself, as a being of far greater power and knowledge than any other, put his will towards their creation, and had stuff from the Dark Age of Technology at ready hand.
Finally, i don't get this obsession with utter bleak nothing could possibly make anything good ever forever grrrr thing people have going. It seems like something you slap on a tagline and then skirt around in your stories.
You mean...the underlying thematic premise of the Warhammer 40,000 universe since it's inception? That there's only a universe of war and that hope, technology, understanding and peace are but fevered dreams of madmen?
If you don't get why people don't like mucking with a fundamental core premise of a thematic fictional setting, I don't think I'll be able to explain it.
And how long is the 'well they found it in the bottom of the closet under their old shoes' explanation for new stuff going to be the better option? Or are we all cool with just never getting anything new for any army but nids ever again?
In this case they needn't have used it, they could have just said "hey we're making the models cooler looking" and nobody would need a fluff explanation. Just like they didn't need one with Dark Eldar when they got their entire model line overhauled from the ground up. The whole fluff thing here was unnecessary.
jhnbrg wrote: Hold on a little! If space marines in cover will be like terminators (2+ sv), how on earth are we going to take them out now? Going from 3+ to 2+ is a 100% increase in effectivness when going from 6+ to 5+ is only 20% (?) increase. Seems like 8th will be more about space marines than 30k is.
I err.. don't think your numbers are quite right? Or you're not expressing yourself clearly, one or the other.
If you instead of faiing on 1 and 2 on a D6 fail on only 1, that is twice as good right?
If you fail your save on 1,2,3,4 and 5 but now "only" fail on 1,2,3and 4 that is only an increase of 20% or am doing something wrong? (its been a long labourus day)
Another way of looking at it would be that Space Marines went from passing their save on a 3, 4, 5, or 6 to passing it on a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. While orks went from passing it on a 6 to passing it on a 5 or 6. Space Marines halve their chance of failure, while orks double their chance of success. Space Marines will mostly pass their save either way and orks will mostly fail their save either way, but each sees a minor benefit for being in cover.
The bigger difference is that when it comes to shooting models are now getting a -1 instead of snap firing. For orks snap firing was not that big of a deal, because it was just a -1, while for Space Marines it was -3. Without knowing what else is changing I think it's too early to say that orks are getting the short end of the stick. I think it's a good change that will make certain things more viable, I just hope that orks get rules changes that make certain things better for them as well.
I have played since 40k 1989 and i like every change shown so far and i truly belive that 40k need a real shake up or "reset" so i am not against 8th at all. The problem is that everything so far seems to invalidiate every ork army except slugga boys in trucks. I am sure we can manage in close combat but i am afraid that is the only build they have used whan balancing the armies.
It just seems like we again will be left with a crap load of unusable models.
Future War Cultist wrote: But without knowing what their stats and rules are, how do you know orks will be bad?
Also, what are they demonstrating tomorrow?
I am not saying that orks will be bad, i am saying that orks will be limited!
I doubt that orks will get an increase in BS and i doubt that shootas will get a save mod.
in 7th an ork shoota mob shooting at marines in cover will kill 3,33 marines
in 8th an ork shoota mob shooting at marines in cover will kill 1,66 marines
So either space marines will increase in points (highly unlikely) or orks will decrease in points (not very likely either). As you see orks with shootas suddenly has no place in 8th and that makes me sad.
What i mean is that in order to balance all the different factions we will see a lot of army builds go away and be replaced with just a few for each faction.
Don't necessarily like that you can shoot in combat with pistols. I suppose that they are only pistols makes it less annoying, and it makes pistols a potentially worthwhile choice. It is also clear that they will probably drop the +1 attack for pistol + CC weapon, if you can always shoot your pistol even in close combat. Eager to see how it works in practice.
Orthon wrote: "Heavy weapons are worth talking about too. These no longer snap fire if you move, and instead they have a flat -1 to hit modifier for moving units. This applies to all models with heavy weapons, vehicles included. There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit."
Interesting, so to hit modifiers ARE in the game. Lets say an ork has a +5 to hit and then moves with heavy weapon and targets a vehicle with a smoke launcher effect giving him a -2 to hit, is he not able to hit the vehicle at all now? That is the case in other war games with to hit modifiers such as Flames of War.
This also is I guess a buff to vehicles now that they can move at any speed and fire all their weapons just at -1 to hit, instead of snapfiring? Predators just got better. This is a nerf to current monstrous creatures who have no such penalties. Riptide that moved firing his burst cannon on a 5+ lol.
It's relative. Under old system, advantage of Vehicles was that whilst they did have restrictions to moving and shooting (depending on specific Vehicle), even most primitive tank was still better off than infantry who were severely punished from moving & shooting. This made AFV's work like they work in real life - mobile firepower.
However, going by what they have stated, Vehicles and Infantry both suffer same penalty regarding moving & shooting. Dreadnought and Infantry squad both have movement of 6". Seems to me Vehicles are not going to be very special?
Note that above only applies to Heavy weapons - presumably, if Vehicle has Assault or Rapid Fire weapons, they can fire at full BS.
Gotta remember too that they are re-writing the rules from the ground up. Nothing stops them from just changing old Heavy weapons and saying - this particular tank weapon is no longer "heavy".
Or customizing weapons on the specific profiles of specific units. An assault cannon might be "heavy" on a Terminator, but not on a tank.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
This is really stupid.
“Uuuuur duuuur I am the administrative primarch I am good at logistics and organizing stuff but since I slept for a very long time I can now do biological modification! ”
The idea of super marines is in itself dumb and bad, but they could have least done it in a cool way with Inquisitors doing risky stuff and very secretive stuff and mago biologis doing forbidden stuff and it taking a very long time and all. But no, let's go for a stupid deus ex machina.
Yeah, we'll see how it develops, but I am not necessarily on board for the ham-handed nu-marine fluff. They've sculpted themselves into a corner. I'm sure the company wants to update the marine to be more true-scale, but how they roll that change out is very delicate. Not sure how they could have done it easier.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
This is really stupid.
“Uuuuur duuuur I am the administrative primarch I am good at logistics and organizing stuff but since I slept for a very long time I can now do biological modification! ”
The idea of super marines is in itself dumb and bad, but they could have least done it in a cool way with Inquisitors doing risky stuff and very secretive stuff and mago biologis doing forbidden stuff and it taking a very long time and all. But no, let's go for a stupid deus ex machina.
So an adeptus mechanicus magus working for 10000 years is too short of a time span?
Your given 2 potential pathways for a change like this is actually happening. And you still complain?
Sluggas might actually be worse than before in some ways, if they hit on 5+ because they are a shooting attack. On the other hand being able to make the attack in the shooting phase will probably have its own advantages, and if orks remain S3 (I hope they'll be S4) that might also be an advantage.
I also don't want orks to end up being a mono-build army. Shootas probably won't get an AP modifier, but there are all sorts of potential ways they could be buffed or that they might work with other ork rules to make them viable. Maybe orks will be able to run and shoot at -1 to hit. Maybe orks that stand and shoot will get a bonus against battleshock tests (they're too distracted by all the wonderful dakka to be aware of what's going on around them). Maybe Bad Moons will be able to spend command points to do crazy things with shooting.
We can't really say yet, but I'm pretty optimistic, especially since they've singled out orks a couple of times when talking about things getting better.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
This is really stupid.
“Uuuuur duuuur I am the administrative primarch I am good at logistics and organizing stuff but since I slept for a very long time I can now do biological modification! ”
The idea of super marines is in itself dumb and bad, but they could have least done it in a cool way with Inquisitors doing risky stuff and very secretive stuff and mago biologis doing forbidden stuff and it taking a very long time and all. But no, let's go for a stupid deus ex machina.
What, like Bellisarius Carl working on this for over 10,000 years and going on a bunch of secret missions around the galaxy to achieve it? That kind of thing? ;-)
Azreal13 wrote: Right, I'd normally use the little yellow triangle of friendship, but weekends often mean Mods are off having lives, so in an effort to save some poor soul the effort of steering this Titanic around the iceberg when they next log on, I'm going to post it publicly in an effort to see if people can put their big boy pants on and self moderate to save the voluntary team a bunch of work.
1)Discussion of nuMarines already has its own thread, so keeping it out of the 8th Ed thread is probably a good idea for the sake of clarity.
2) While not against forum rules per sé, requoting big blocks of text, long quote chains or videos for one sentence comments is appalling forum etiquette.
Not trying to mini mod, just trying to keep things square.
JohnnyHell wrote: What, like Bellisarius Carl working on this for over 10,000 years and going on a bunch of secret missions around the galaxy to achieve it? That kind of thing? ;-)
The guy that was introduced in the settings like two weeks ago, and who isn't mentioned for a second in the video?
I personally expect some units that previously relied on having an extra attack due to pistol + CC to just have that extra attack inbuilt on their profile in many cases.
rollawaythestone wrote: I personally expect some units that previously relied on having an extra attack due to pistol + CC to just have that extra attack inbuilt on their profile in many cases.
It's little touches like that that shave minutes off a game.
Pure speculation on my part, but if vehicles move much faster than infantry then it still means they have an advantage when it comes to heavy weapons. I'm just happy snap firing because you moved is no longer a thing.
rollawaythestone wrote: Yeah, we'll see how it develops, but I am not necessarily on board for the ham-handed nu-marine fluff. They've sculpted themselves into a corner. I'm sure the company wants to update the marine to be more true-scale, but how they roll that change out is very delicate. Not sure how they could have done it easier.
I would agree with this. Nu-marines are a product of GW trying to figure out how to upscale marines without pissing off half their base. The delivery feels wonky, but this process was always going to feel odd.
JohnnyHell wrote: What, like Bellisarius Carl working on this for over 10,000 years and going on a bunch of secret missions around the galaxy to achieve it? That kind of thing? ;-)
The guy that was introduced in the settings like two weeks ago, and who isn't mentioned for a second in the video?
I've been out all day and have only had a chance to glance at this thread. Let's see if I'm reading the Warhammer Community post correctly:
Models with these hand-held firearms can shoot at the closest enemy target in the Shooting phase, even if they themselves are locked in combat!
Clear enough. Pistols can be fired by a unit locked in combat, but only at the closest enemy target.
When picking a target, you won’t be able to shoot enemies that are in combat with other units, much like the current edition.
It's the "other units" that I'm wondering about. Am I reading it correctly that in a one-on-one combat you'll be able to fire your pistols at the enemy unit as A) they're the closest enemy target and B) they're not in combat with "other units". Correct? Or has this been clarified on twitter or elsewhere?
rollawaythestone wrote: Don't necessarily like that you can shoot in combat with pistols. I suppose that they are only pistols makes it less annoying, and it makes pistols a potentially worthwhile choice. It is also clear that they will probably drop the +1 attack for pistol + CC weapon, if you can always shoot your pistol even in close combat. Eager to see how it works in practice.
You mean you don't like one of the most asked-for rules to be implemented and in turn make the special pistols worth a damn?
Can you honestly say that the Plasma Pistol, Grav Pistol, Inferno Pistol, and Hand Flamer were in any way worth their points? The answer you're looking for is no.
They either needed to do this or make them 5 points.
Finally, i don't get this obsession with utter bleak nothing could possibly make anything good ever forever grrrr thing people have going. It seems like something you slap on a tagline and then skirt around in your stories.
You don't get the "obsession" with the entire underpinning theme of the whole setting? Seriously? What's next, incredulously demanding Star Trek fans justify their obsession with all that silly optimistic utopian exploration nonsense? 40K is dystopian. Relentlessly, sometimes even to the point of intentional or unintentional self-parody, unendingly, hideously dystopian. It's a setting where children are subjected to invasive surgery, genetic engineering, and brainwashing to turn them into super soldiers; where trillions live short brutal lives in crushing poverty to fuel the Imperium's war machine while their noble rulers live for centuries in utter luxury, and even sometimes hunt their subjects for sport; where ignorance, superstition, and fear have turned even normally utopian concepts like transhumanism into an order of inhuman monstrosities who spend lives like pennies and actively suppress knowledge and progress.
Now you can leaven that perpetual grimness with some self-aware, cynical humour, or some situational heroism, but without all of those things 40K is just a bargain-basement Dune ripoff. It's the pastiche combined with the crushing dystopianism that define 40K.
Since cover is now an armor save modifier, could we now see negative (bad) cover? For instance, getting caught while you are wading across a thigh-deep river would be pretty bad. It could mean marines go from a 3+ save to a 4+ save.
Also, I hope if you have two pistols you can still fire both of them, and count as two close combat weapons. If true, a unit of deathwatch marines each with two plasma pistols would be rather interesting.
cuda1179 wrote: Since cover is now an armor save modifier, could we now see negative (bad) cover? For instance, getting caught while you are wading across a thigh-deep river would be pretty bad. It could mean marines go from a 3+ save to a 4+ save.
Also, I hope if you have two pistols you can still fire both of them, and count as two close combat weapons. If true, a unit of deathwatch marines each with two plasma pistols would be rather interesting.
That sounds like fun, actually. You can make some pretty nasty tables with negative cover.
Lord Kragan wrote: Haven't seen this posted (so forgive if it's been posted prior to page 124):
This is really stupid.
“Uuuuur duuuur I am the administrative primarch I am good at logistics and organizing stuff but since I slept for a very long time I can now do biological modification! ”
The idea of super marines is in itself dumb and bad, but they could have least done it in a cool way with Inquisitors doing risky stuff and very secretive stuff and mago biologis doing forbidden stuff and it taking a very long time and all. But no, let's go for a stupid deus ex machina.
What, like Bellisarius Carl working on this for over 10,000 years and going on a bunch of secret missions around the galaxy to achieve it? That kind of thing? ;-)
But he hasn't though, has he? His words from the trailer were "10 Millennia ago, i was set a task. One abandoned when the galaxy burned. Resumed once more, for the sake of us all" which tells us he stopped when the Horus Heresy began/during it, and recently started it again after the Fall of Cadia.
rollawaythestone wrote: Gotta remember too that they are re-writing the rules from the ground up. Nothing stops them from just changing old Heavy weapons and saying - this particular tank weapon is no longer "heavy".
Or customizing weapons on the specific profiles of specific units. An assault cannon might be "heavy" on a Terminator, but not on a tank.
Or have certain rules like PotMS, or specific keywords like Tank ignore it.
Leman Russes are going to be mobile again, but I will miss that large blast. That was pretty iconic.
Yeah, this is the perfect chance for those bespoke rules they spoke off. Lumbering Behemoth for a leman russ (always counts as stationary when shooting). Stuff like that.
Another Off-Topic Post has been dinged. Last straw.
This thread has gotten out of control, and is ridiculously huge. I'm going to lock it. If you all want to keep discussing it, I'd start a new thread with a summary of all known changes in the first post.
with 14 force orgs to choose from I don't think you have to worry about what you can and can't take.
