Nightlord1987 wrote: Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh
The obvious answer to this is...they aren't the same people?
Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?
"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"
"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"
"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"
Yup, totally more realistic.
Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...
Nightlord1987 wrote: Man, first people were mad that Roboute was a MC and could be shot up on his way over, and now people are mad that they gave him (and everyone else) survivability... smh
The obvious answer to this is...they aren't the same people?
By people I think he meant the Internet. I believe you are right also.
Which is more realistic, thought you were all for that?
"Ok, men, we're here to protect the Lord Solar. Everyone in a line over here!"
"But, sarge, that unit of Havocs over there is circling around us... they'll have a clear shot at the Lord Solar from there!"
"Damnit... and we just moved over here. Can't change our formation until after they've taken their shot. Cross your fingers and hope they're bad shots, lads! We'll run over there in front of him when they're done!"
Yup, totally more realistic.
Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...
That is hilarious. Though the dialogue could be changed to "Dang were too late!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forge the narrative!!
Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...
Of course it isn't. But it's one that is avoided when the IC can't be singled out.
It's not really any less game-y than "you can't shoot the guy as all these other guys keep jumping in the way of bullets conveniently". They're both different types of "keep heroes alive" rule that are just there so heroes aren't point sinks that get sniped out, and we get to see them do cool stuff. It's all quite silly whichever way it's ruled! If reality was in play, of course you'd all shoot the guy with a back banner, cape and glowing sword instead of a dude with a rifle. But it's a game of heroes, so enabling them to get to do their cool stuff requires *some* form of artificial "keep em alive" rule.
andysonic1 wrote: Wait, you actually WANT your characters to lead from the front?
Yes...?
I play Orks. Characters need to be out in front where they can be assured of getting into combat. It's also more fluffy than having them lurking around at the back.
40K is essentially a fantasy game in space. Generals tend to be loud and ostentatious... For most races, characters are more likely to be found either right at the forefront of the charge, or standing up somewhere prominent waving and shouting in an inspiring fashion. The introduction of 6th ed's 'casualties from the front' casualty removal killed that stone cold dead.
Well, unless your character was the guy with the invulnerable save...
They already said characters can join nearby combats by walking into their own units, so there goes the mechanics issue. The fluffy issue is more personal preference. You could say you have an Ork leader who wants to lead the charge, and I could say I have an Ork leader who would rather soften up the target with some bodies first. For most races, from a fluff standpoint, characters are going to want to be in different areas of the battlefield given different circumstances. The fluff argument is an endless one.
I can totally understand the "Can't be targeted if they are near 3" of a friendly unit", to have the characters runing in front of the units. Thats much more cinematic.
But also, has 0 counterplay. You can try to encounter the manner and do tactics to allow you to snip the enemy hero, with fast moving units, etc...
If they only need to be near 3" of a friendly unit all comes down to... shoot ALL the units near the character down before being able to kill it.
If they only need to be near 3" of a friendly unit all comes down to... shoot ALL the units near the character down before being able to kill it.
That would be preferable to 'I can shoot that character because I blocked my unit's LOS to his 'bodyguard' with this rhino...'
To counter the fact that these Characters cannot join units and “hide” from enemy fire, there is a rule in the Shooting phase that means you can’t target a Character unless they are the closest enemy model.
This is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.
It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.
This is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.
The article is a summary. I would be pretty confident that the actual rule will only count units in LOS, as it worked previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.
That's fine if you're just playing at home with friends. Less of a viable option if you play pick-up games or organised play.
Yeah this is totally the only instance where the 'I go you go' turn sequence breaks the realism...
That is hilarious. Though the dialogue could be changed to "Dang were too late!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forge the narrative!!
Yeah I mean there are of corse super soldiers in this setting but being 100% aware of every enemy in every direction that might point their gun at your commander and step in the way of the bullet while being in the middle of a war zone is still a godly ability.
I don't think it's that likely that enemy models a unit can't see would prevent that unit from firing on units they can see. GW does do some crazy stuff sometimes, but I don't see that one making it through play
testing.
@Insaniak - I guess we've both done that. Rhino on one side, building on the other, with just enough of a gap to shoot my Tactical Lascannon at the IC, who's now the only thing I can see. Yup, it's a little silly, I'll give you that, but it's also hard to do with whole units in front of that IC. Way easier when it's that lone Guardsman standing in front of Big Boss Smurf example that's come up a lot in this thread. Mind you, that actually improves what is otherwise an equally silly result IMO in the second case. Personally, I'm in favour, generally speaking, of maintaining the overall integrity of the rules preventing characters being sniped, even at the cost of occasional precision placement silliness. One or two hypothetical examples that seem goofy doesn't make the rule poor, IMO anyway.
Back to general thoughts...
Something to keep in mind overall with this character discussion - there's no reason, with templates gone, to avoid base-to-base deployment for infantry in order to block line of site.
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
This is from the article. They don't say "The closest enemy model with LOS". It just says the closest enemy model.
The article is a summary. I would be pretty confident that the actual rule will only count units in LOS, as it worked previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: It's an easy house rule to get around if people prefer just like the base to base rule everyone(almost) uses in AOS. Rule that characters in coherency cant be targeted unless the attacker is within 12'' or what ever works for your friends groups play style. Personnly we use a few house rules for 40k/AoS for all the more funzeez < that's the point after all it's your game.
That's fine if you're just playing at home with friends. Less of a viable option if you play pick-up games or organised play.
Yeah it's likely to be LOS as long as they don't mess up by condensing the rules down in those 12 pages to much As for not liking the rules.
Well really there's a few obvious answers:
You can put up shut up.
House rule when with friends then ask to play that way in pick up or just don't as it's not the end of the world.
Ask GW on Facebook a few times over the next year to change it to a rule you've tried that works better.
They stated it's a living rule set and have been actively looking and asking for feedback for a while(see previous FAQ)
People complained about the lack of meat in the chaos preview I said take it to fb/gw - plenty of people did just that and we got more in the guard one and apparently they are going to put in a chaos tidbit soon to make up for it.
I really think we just need to give it a chance and new gw one too.
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
They normally keep it consistent in the Wounds-Size relation, just like the Lord of Change, at least in AoS, receive a new warscroll with much more wounds when he receive the new giant model. Obviously, this can be tricky with things like Characters that normally have more wounds that units of the same size. To be honest, I think the only guy that will be weird with this, is Roboute Guilliman, because he has no reason to be so big, really.
But I think too that some kind of keyword, USR, etc... to say what characters are targeteable in a one by one basis, will be better than the 10-wounds mark. That way they are more free to make models and rules. But lets see how it plays. Maybe the next year they'll change it if it doesn't work well enough.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but we both know that there's sometimes a gap between the principle and the reality, which is why I brought up the instance of arguments over LOS at tourneys. If we presuppose friendly games between reasonable people then lots of stuff isn't an issue. For competitive play I'm ok with a little black and whiteness if it will help trim down the number off arguments. So there's that, and I was just generally pointing out that while model size is 'real' on the tabletop it's equally abstract as a representation of some real (if imaginary) battle field. Honestly, I think arguments form realism aren't going anywhere given the nature of the game and it's extreme level of abstraction. For example, we can certainly compare the size of two models for LOS purposes, but at the same time the ranges for every single gun in the game are ridiculous compared to the scale of the models. So what's 'real' at that point? Are the ranges artificially foreshortened to make the game playable on a 4 x6 table? Pretty obviously IMO. However, the actual size of the models relative to targetting wouldn't seem so odd if the ranges were scaled to the figures (because we'd be playing games in a gymnasium).
I know I've jumped way past what you were implying, I just wanted to troublesome the idea of 'realism' actually is depending on what level we start looking at. Anyway, I'm not arguing, just expanding on an idea.
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
You can't use model size as a distinction in a game that doesn't assign sizes to models and especially in a game that uses true line of sight, because then you just get modeling for advantage. No one would ever use the fancy new celestine model when the other one is about a third the height and the old epic magnus model or old lord of change would be like 800$ on ebay and that's not even counting the people who convert a great unclean one out of some nurglings or w/e.
The wound thing works more or less the same as going based on size, at least where characters in 40k are concerned while eliminating exploits before they happen.
And for the record, outmanuevring a squad to headshot it's leader is a time honored tactic, the fact that it looks funny on a 40k board is down to igougo not the idea of it.
And for the record, outmanuevring a squad to headshot it's leader is a time honored tactic, the fact that it looks funny on a 40k board is down to igougo not the idea of it.
Just play the "Sniper Elite" videogame to know that!. I'm pretty sure that way we'll know how many testicles Roubote Guilliman has
You can't use model size as a distinction in a game that doesn't assign sizes to models and especially in a game that uses true line of sight, because then you just get modeling for advantage.
Sure you can. You can use base size as a size definition, ala Warmahordes. Or you can do what GW have been doing for 30 years with TLOS and just assume that people won't get too carried away with crazy modelling.
Granted having defined sizes would work better. If only GW were re-writing 40K from the ground up, that could have been included...
insaniak wrote: It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
*shrug* Plenty of real-world historical precedent for "snipe the officers".
I'm fine with them deciding model-by-model which units are targetable and which aren't based on whether it makes sense for that model. Something that won't be hiding behind or amidst it's lackeys vs. something embedded in a unit. As long as it's balanced with other advantages it sounds fine. I like this change to characters - and can't wait to see the unit profiles!
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
They normally keep it consistent in the Wounds-Size relation, just like the Lord of Change, at least in AoS, receive a new warscroll with much more wounds when he receive the new giant model. Obviously, this can be tricky with things like Characters that normally have more wounds that units of the same size. To be honest, I think the only guy that will be weird with this, is Roboute Guilliman, because he has no reason to be so big, really.
But I think too that some kind of keyword, USR, etc... to say what characters are targeteable in a one by one basis, will be better than the 10-wounds mark. That way they are more free to make models and rules. But lets see how it plays. Maybe the next year they'll change it if it doesn't work well enough.
Actually let's think about this, what characters would be likely to have 10+ wounds and be very small and what models would have <=9 and be very large?
You'd have Girlyman being very large for his wounds, daemon princes being in that weird size bracket where irrc he feels like he'd be weird in either, the old keeper of secrets, the metal great unclean one, and...MAYBE the tervigon? I think it's big enough to be shootable but I could see arguements either way.
I haven't seen the yncarne in person but that could be an issue and MAYBE bellisarius Cawl if he has 10+ wounds.
Astra Militarum only really has tanks for big leaders, Nids only have a handful of monstrous characters and most of them are large enough to not break immersion too bad, genestealers already basically have this rule, the only space marine characters I can see creating problems in this way are Girlyman and Santa Claws, sisters only have 5 hqs, Karamazof for Inq might be an issue but...meh, harlequins are fine, the avatar of khaine might be weird if you use specific versions of him but nothing else in eldar, dark eldar:nope, Admech only Cawl, Skiitari have no hqs, ynari the yncarne, Knights are knights, Magnus and the greater daemons have already been addressed, orks don't really have giant hqs and the one's they do have are ENORMOUS, Necrons...Command barge could be an issue, triarch shouldn't be it's pretty darn big, Tau are fine.
So out of all the factions you have 9 hqs in the entire game that could create issues of immersion and 3 of those is just because they still have old models that haven't caught up to the scale creep.
insaniak wrote: I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
It's only relevant in the sense of what you said a few pages back:
"Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?"
As long as people keep trying to counter your or my arguments with "But 7th Ed is worse so this is perfect!", comments such as Jonny's will remain "relevant".
7th Ed is a car. A car we used to love but it has been modded too much and driven into the ground. It's in need of a complete refurbishment and even our mechanic was like "Damn, that needs some fixin'!". So we took 7th Ed to our mechanic to get it fixed. A few days later he brought us a cubed car and a brand new motorbike. The motorbike is fine - it might even work wonderfully - but it's not our car. Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.
insaniak wrote: I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
It's only relevant in the sense of what you said a few pages back:
"Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?"
As long as people keep trying to counter your or my arguments with "But 7th Ed is worse so this is perfect!", comments such as Jonny's will remain "relevant".
7th Ed is a car. A car we used to love but it has been modded too much and driven into the ground. It's in need of a complete refurbishment and even our mechanic was like "Damn, that needs some fixin'!". So we took 7th Ed to our mechanic to get it fixed. A few days later he brought us a cubed car and a brand new motorbike. The motorbike is fine - it might even work wonderfully - but it's not our car. Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.
You can't generalice it as some universal truth. Many of this things comes down to personal preference above all. Others really, can be better, like the 2d6 charge, where I prefer the one sugested by a poster, maybe you remember, of charging 2d6 but if the distance is less than your movement distance is a secured charge. But I'm liking many of the other rules changes, and to me it will look that it will feel 40k still.
But even then, it comes down to personal preference, again. If we stoped coming to this thread with the mentality that our way, or our solutions are always better and the best ones, and the only way possible for the game to fuction, maybe more constructive things can come of all this hundreds of pages of discussion.
And I'm saying this in general, even aplying it to me, not specific to you H.B.M.C
I find it a bit jarring to see GW mocking their previous edition with jokes about bullet catching characters and such. Yes, they're right that the closest dies first rule combined with ICs was awful. Most people saw that about 30 seconds after reading it... But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone? A little more humility and nuance, acknowledgement that there are trade offs in every design decision, and explaining the reason for the choices made would be nice. The smarmy faction focus things really stick in my craw - "Gee, these guys are going to be awesome again!" repeated over and over isn't that interesting. It wasn't usually the core rules that made them lousy last time, it was codex and data sheet add ons. And having theoretically hard nosed tournament playtesters write them is a bit odd. It hardly inspires confidence in the rigor of playtesting.
Still, I keep telling myself - free rules, faster play makes up for a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it can't be worse. : )
Quarterdime wrote: What do you think "over a dozen wounds" for Magnus means? 13? 14? 15?
If it's 13 then they've short changed him.
Archaon, the thing more close to Magnus the Red in AoS, has 20 wounds. Ok, Archaon The Everchosen is the most powerfull model (Or intented to be) in all the game.
WD. Sure. But pretty sure there is a qualitative difference between the level of engagement regarding the new edition - having outsiders tell us their opinions like Frank and Reece, sharing rules at Adepticon and over Facebook - and what they've done in the past.
kestral wrote: I find it a bit jarring to see GW mocking their previous edition with jokes about bullet catching characters and such. Yes, they're right that the closest dies first rule combined with ICs was awful. Most people saw that about 30 seconds after reading it... But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone? A little more humility and nuance, acknowledgement that there are trade offs in every design decision, and explaining the reason for the choices made would be nice. The smarmy faction focus things really stick in my craw - "Gee, these guys are going to be awesome again!" repeated over and over isn't that interesting. It wasn't usually the core rules that made them lousy last time, it was codex and data sheet add ons. And having theoretically hard nosed tournament playtesters write them is a bit odd. It hardly inspires confidence in the rigor of playtesting.
Still, I keep telling myself - free rules, faster play makes up for a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it can't be worse. : )
Huh. I don't remember a live Q&A and daily posts on their community page last time. I must have missed that.
Dribbling it out is good marketing, but presenting it over time doesn't make the quantity or quality much different than what you got when you picked up the WD announcing a new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although they have some reasonably witty people doing social media this time!
It's not really any less game-y than "you can't shoot the guy as all these other guys keep jumping in the way of bullets conveniently". .
I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Actually, as far back as I can remember at least, you haven't suggested one single alternative. You have just been critical, and on the defensive when that behavior is pointed out. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if your going to derail the thread for the 10th time the least you can do is suggest an alternative.
insaniak wrote: It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
*shrug* Plenty of real-world historical precedent for "snipe the officers".
Actually, as far back as I can remember at least, you haven't suggested one single alternative. You have just been snarky and critical, and on the defensive when that behavior is pointed out. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if your going to derail the thread for the 10th time the least you can do is suggest an alternative.
I have no idea whose posts you've been looking at... I've offered several alternatives to rules I haven't liked over the course of the discussion.
And discussing the rules that have been teased so far is not 'derailing the thread'... It's what the thread is for. This little sidetrack, by contrast, is off-topic. Please stick to discussing the game. If you have an issue with the way people are carrying on that discussion, there are more appropriate places to air that grievance.
kestral wrote: But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone?
Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!
kestral wrote: The smarmy faction focus things really stick in my craw - "Gee, these guys are going to be awesome again!" repeated over and over isn't that interesting. It wasn't usually the core rules that made them lousy last time, it was codex and data sheet add ons. And having theoretically hard nosed tournament playtesters write them is a bit odd. It hardly inspires confidence in the rigor of playtesting.
To be fair, GW's own looks at their armies always amounted to "Everything is equally valid and useful! Buy all our playsets and toys!". It was like that in 3rd Ed FFS, so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same now. Still, the articles are pretty useless as far as 'focus' articles go. Hell, they would be more useful if they just picked a troubled unit from each army (Havocs, Rough Riders, the God-damned Pyrovore!) and focused on that, looking at its history and how the new rules give it a new lease on life.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Still, I keep telling myself - free rules, faster play makes up for a lot.
kestral wrote: I find it a bit jarring to see GW mocking their previous edition with jokes about bullet catching characters and such. Yes, they're right that the closest dies first rule combined with ICs was awful. Most people saw that about 30 seconds after reading it... But NOW everything is going to be wonderful? Didn't we hear that last time around? In EXACTLY the same breathless tone? A little more humility and nuance, acknowledgement that there are trade offs in every design decision, and explaining the reason for the choices made would be nice. The smarmy faction focus things really stick in my craw - "Gee, these guys are going to be awesome again!" repeated over and over isn't that interesting. It wasn't usually the core rules that made them lousy last time, it was codex and data sheet add ons. And having theoretically hard nosed tournament playtesters write them is a bit odd. It hardly inspires confidence in the rigor of playtesting.
Still, I keep telling myself - free rules, faster play makes up for a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it can't be worse. : )
The gist of this comment is also what I can't help thinking...the irony of all the snarky scoffing at the last edition's rules when in fact it's the same batch of chuckle-heads overseeing this rule set! Weren't these guys the main problem in the first place, whether it was in marketing or game design? We all hope this next go around will be an improvement and so far much is promising, but their track record says otherwise.
Overall my guess is the new rule set will be an improvement in many ways over the previous edition but some things will be found wanting right off the bat and after people get in some games new problems will arise. That's why I hope most of all they stay true to their statement of revising the game where necessary after a reasonable time.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Also, I feel like some people here have an oddly split personality when it comes to what 'realism' means There's no getting around that in some cases in the actual model on the table top needs to be the basis of targeting rules, but at the same time the rules are also trying to mimic or represent an actual battlefield, which wouldn't be perfectly flat and would have all manner of fog of war going on. Basing targeting on model size in what is actually a very abstracted environment isn't any more (or less) 'realistic' than basing the same decision on wounds. In some ways I like wounds a lot better than model size because there's no argument about how many wounds a model started with, but there are constant and maddening arguments about LOS based on model size at every tourney I've ever been to. The issue is really that people think that the word realism has a stable and agreed upon meaning, but in this instance is definitionally far closer to opinion than agreed upon fact.
It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
The logical reason is plain as day.
1 - GW makes statements about how they are making close combat more effective in this edition. They talk about how deadly and visceral it is.
2 - GW then allows for multiple overwatches in a single turn, gives all units split fire, and dramatically increases the appeal of lower S higher ROF weapons.
3 - GW now has no way to ensure combat ever happens at all unless you create an obtuse rule that prevents players from shooting at you as you approach.
This all seems very heavy-handed to me. They are delivering close combat - as the metaphor goes - 'at gunpoint'.
The simpler way to describe this change is that they are removing a possible choice from players. You may no longer target these units so that they can make it into close combat. Target priority be damned. Don't think tactically, just let the wookie Ultramarine win.
But now we influence the new edition with feedback! If you dont like it but can think of something that will, then bring it up a bit after launch. Playtest the free fricken rules already. Then, experiment with house rules. When you think you have something, THEN be VOCAL about your ground breaking achievement. Moaning and groaning about what is going to be overpowered and what rules won't work or have their intended effect when you haven't even read the actual black and white, the actual wording of the rules, is not doing anyone any good. You already have the models. The rules will be free and will change according to what we come up with!
Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!
You can pretend that your "side" doesn't make insults or strawmen. That doesn't make it true.
Q: What happens to command squads now?
A: Hey Robert,
Command Squads work as they always have - a great unit to accompany your commander to battle.
Well... no. They can stand near one another. The IC isn't really leading the squad though.
But he is, it is just perspective
What I mean by this is, a squad currently is just a bunch of dudes standing near each other, if he is still standing near those dudes providing benefits than there really is no difference. Yes I know that when they are a squad they can't walk different directions, but a general should be free to break off and do what he wants/needs to do.
Yep, and daring to criticise the awesomeness of 8th Ed now gets you insulted (or strawmanned) on every single page of this thread. As I said a few pages back, even insaniak - the calmest person in the whole thread - is getting treated like, well, like me!
You can pretend that your "side" doesn't make insults or strawmen. That doesn't make it true.
"Your side", come on dude, people have different opinions
If "I like this" has "I don't like this" back, it's not an argument. The response should be "fair enough", because who cares if you love the changes, and Insaniak doesn't like them. Your opinions won't affect either of you when it comes out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Insaniak, H.B.M.C and other have said they don't like the changes, stop trying to change their mind. They can say they don't like something, that should be the end of the conversation. They are currently defending themselves, and providing their opinions when being attacked on their opinions.
insaniak wrote: I never suggested that as an alternative, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
It's only relevant in the sense of what you said a few pages back:
"Can we please stop holding up the current rules as if they're the only possible alternative to what GW have gone with for 8th edition?"
As long as people keep trying to counter your or my arguments with "But 7th Ed is worse so this is perfect!", comments such as Jonny's will remain "relevant".
7th Ed is a car. A car we used to love but it has been modded too much and driven into the ground. It's in need of a complete refurbishment and even our mechanic was like "Damn, that needs some fixin'!". So we took 7th Ed to our mechanic to get it fixed. A few days later he brought us a cubed car and a brand new motorbike. The motorbike is fine - it might even work wonderfully - but it's not our car. Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.
Problem is the car was full of rust and holes, the engine stalled all the time, it couldn't reach soeeds of over thirty amd everyime you got in it someone hopped in to tell you how you're driving it wrong or how it cold be a better car.
The car was a lemon and frankly the dealer should be ashamed for selling it.
To fix 40k the rulls needed to be culled. Hard. If that means we now ride around on a Vespa but it works great, gets up to speed right and the weird issues are gone, I'm all for it.
The car was dead before the mechanic touched it. I'm just glad we didn't get it back with a new paint scheme and missing the doors.
1 - GW makes statements about how they are making close combat more effective in this edition. They talk about how deadly and visceral it is.
2 - GW then allows for multiple overwatches in a single turn, gives all units split fire, and dramatically increases the appeal of lower S higher ROF weapons.
3 - GW now has no way to ensure combat ever happens at all unless you create an obtuse rule that prevents players from shooting at you as you approach.
This all seems very heavy-handed to me. They are delivering close combat - as the metaphor goes - 'at gunpoint'.
The simpler way to describe this change is that they are removing a possible choice from players. You may no longer target these units so that they can make it into close combat. Target priority be damned. Don't think tactically, just let the wookie Ultramarine win.
Two things. One, you may be 100% correct. It's possible that the game will work exactly as you describe above. We don't know all the rules, so there's no arguing about how correct you are, or aren't, as the case may be. Second, I think it's unlikely that you're correct. CompletelyIMO of course, as we've both seen exactly the same minimal reveals.
Why do I think that? Because of the play testing. Hypotheses about the full nature of the rules, including the balance of combat and shooting you describe is exactly that right now - hypothetical. What is a fact is that hard-core 40k tourney players are absolute masters at corn-holing a rules set and building WAC lists that will chew up and spit out fluff lists like nobody's business. I'm not even talking about the exact group of guys who did the play testing, there's a much larger body of guys who can do the same job. Those guys have had every new codex rated, ranked, and WAC'd out within weeks of release, and that has been true for years and many editions of the game. So if a bunch of those kind of guys (my kind of guys to be honest) playtested the rules and are going to go on record as saying "this works well, you'll like it" I'm not really tempted to disbelieve them based on supposition. Not because I like them, or they're my buddies, or because I'm a GW fan boy, but because if anyone can break this new rules set it's the tournament maniacs, and they said they liked it and it works. Call it Occam's razor if you like.
Based on what I've seen so far, my opinion is that we're going to get a game that is better balanced across the full range of units, and between close combat and shooting. I sincerely hope that's the case too, because more balance will make for better competitive play and better casual play, and that's what I would really like to see.
Personally, I love the idea of alternating combat activations rather than initiative. I love the fact that you can't put multiple IC's into single units. I love even the faintest whiff of better close-ranged balance. I'm not even upset about the removal of armour and facings. The limited reveals we've seen look, to me anyway, like a very fresh take on the game, and I think fresh is something 40K can really use after the last couple of editions.
As I mentioned before, none of the above is in the way of persuasive writing. Just my opinion.
insaniak wrote: It's not just about 'realism' but also about internal consistency and making sense.
There is no logical reason for a model with 11 wounds to be targetable, while an identically-sized model right beside it is not, purely because it has 1 less wound. It's a purely arbitrary distinction that exists for no reason other than to make the slightly weaker model more likely to not die as quickly. That's fine in a more abstract rule system, but 40Kgenerally tries for rules that have sensible in-universe interpretations. (And yes, I said 'generally', so there's no need to point out examples where this isn't the case... I'm well aware they sometimes miss the mark). Basing targeting on actual model size is somewhat affected by conversion or posing, but does at least make logical sense... A larger model is easier to pick out on the battlefield than a smaller one.
*shrug* Plenty of real-world historical precedent for "snipe the officers".
Yea, by snipers.
Guess we're going to have an actual use for that unit class now? because most armies have SOME snipers. they were just never really relevant because everything "sniping" did was an alternate damage mechanic, rather than a tactical edge.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.
Wow, the AM faction focus was SO much better than the csm one. I guess the "they can't mention rules because GW/editors/legal action" argument is dead.
Leman Russ has 12 wounds and degrades movement after 6
Ratlings can snipe characters
Commissars reduce wounds from failed morale tests (seems a little weird but I guess it represents him killing off a few to keep the rest in line)
FRF! SRF! makes lasguns rapid fire 2
Thats a lot of crunch for a preview article and really highlights how bad the CSM one was
ClockworkZion wrote: Rules wise he isn't but there is nothing keeping you from Forging the Narrative.
Thank you. Saves me from having to make that joke again.
ClockworkZion wrote: Problem is the car was full of rust and holes, the engine stalled all the time, it couldn't reach soeeds of over thirty amd everyime you got in it someone hopped in to tell you how you're driving it wrong or how it cold be a better car.
One could say that it lost all its hull points.
ClockworkZion wrote: The car was a lemon and frankly the dealer should be ashamed for selling it.
I think that's the fundamental disagreement that so many of us are having here.
I don't think that (switching metaphors here) taking 40K 3rd Ed-through-7th Ed out the back of the woodshed and putting a bullet in its brain is a solution to fixing the problems that built up over time (and especially in 7th Ed). A wholesale replacement of 40K doesn't sit well with me because I think that at it's core 3rd Ed 40K (which is what 7th Ed was based on) worked fine.
I always prefer refinement over replacement, and that's how my mindset works. I was part of the playtest group for the second edition of Dark Heresy. What was eventually the Beta was quite different to what we go originally, and the final product was quite different to the Beta as well. I was unhappy with the original playtest version because it seemed to try 'fixing' problems with Dark Heresy 1.0 by simply throwing out the rules and trying something different. To me at least, and this is just my opinion (and that of my group), was that the problems weren't being fixed, they were being ignored, and a massive patch was being placed over the top.
That doesn't mean you never try something new - damage degradation sounds like a great idea to me - but I'd much rather fix the problem than throw it away and start again.
Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.
As insaniak said, 7th Ed isn't necessarily the only alternative to these new rules. Saying "Well it sucked in 7th Ed!" is not a counter argument to an 8th Ed rule being bad.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think that (switching metaphors here) taking 40K 3rd Ed-through-7th Ed out the back of the woodshed and putting a bullet in its brain is a solution to fixing the problems that built up over time (and especially in 7th Ed). A wholesale replacement of 40K doesn't sit well with me because I think that at it's core 3rd Ed 40K (which is what 7th Ed was based on) worked fine.
7th ed was rooted in 3rd ed? I'll give you it shared slightly more DNA with 3e than 2e, but just barely. The allies & formation systems had gotten so complicated that I gave up on the game - it was essentially impossible to really know the rules of the game anymore, much less easily tell if your opponent's army (or hell, if your OWN) was valid or not. The proliferation of model-specific special rules was a LONG way from the Black Book simplicity of early 3e. I'll give you that late 3e had you carrying around quite a collection of books, though. (Trial Assault Rules, anyone?)
One thing that is historically true: GW will proliferate more rules and more complexity, and it won't take them long to start (have to get people buying new codexes). So if we can begin with 12 pages of rules and get the base mechanics resolved before that happens, that's great.
What I really want is a TERRAIN rules preview. I've been playing so many non-GW games of late, and ALL of the them make better use of terrain (and encourage more tactical thinking) than 40k has in the last 2 editions. Of course, when 6e Tau launched, terrain stopped mattering anyway, given that everything could shoot over/ignore it....
One note as a (retired) Guard & Tyranid player: the new shooting rules look great to me. I've always loved the rank-and-file, and for just about my entire playing history, that meant that while my models HAD an armor stat, it was essentially irrelevant - bolters went right through it. The idea that people will stock up on countless small arms and rely on 6's to kill characters/monsters/vehicles with 10+ wounds seems a bit reactionary (much like the old "just shoot paladin-stars to death with bolters" advice that didn't work in 5e). But again - tell me what amount of terrain the game is intended to use, and everything may change.
Janthkin wrote: The idea that people will stock up on countless small arms and rely on 6's to kill characters/monsters/vehicles with 10+ wounds seems a bit reactionary
I don't think people were suggesting that so much as simply thinking it was a little ridiculous that it is possible.
Outside of that, and with the caveat that I'm holding off judgement until at least one of my Dreadnoughts manage to still be on the table at the end of a game, I have to agree that what we've seen of the shooting rules looks pretty good. The AP system worked, but was a little pointless when so many models just never got to actually use their armour. And the return of the Damage stat on heavy weapons is cool.
Charax wrote: Wow, the AM faction focus was SO much better than the csm one. I guess the "they can't mention rules because GW/editors/legal action" argument is dead.
Leman Russ has 12 wounds and degrades movement after 6
Ratlings can snipe characters
Commissars reduce wounds from failed morale tests (seems a little weird but I guess it represents him killing off a few to keep the rest in line)
FRF! SRF! makes lasguns rapid fire 2
Thats a lot of crunch for a preview article and really highlights how bad the CSM one was
ALL /Snipers/ can target Characters.
Commissars and Characters provide bubble effects, not just to the unit they join.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Youn wrote: Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.
Lol people should really learn about ALL the editions before making sweeping statmeents that "in all previous editions...".
In 2nd ed exarch were independent characters who could be given different wargear and exarch powers. Powers weren't limited to certain aspects like they are now(so you could have in theory tank hunting exarch howling banshee gear).
One common combination was for example swooping hawk wings(mobility) combined with firepike(or fusion gun). Mobile tank busting exarch.
I trust GW understands the implications of the system they've created and assigns stats accordingly.
For 6th/7th ed, they created a system that allowed people to create insane deathstars and were surprised when people used it to create insane deathstars... So I wouldn't count on that.
GW isnt going it alone this time though, they're getting input/testing from top tournament organizers and players. If anyone would find something to weasle using the rules, it would be them
They have had input and testing from top tournament organizers and players before as well. Didn't prevent them from going "huh somebody would do that?" before either.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
I sincerely hope they allow characters to ride in transports with units. I don't think multiple units should be able to ride in one transport though.
Very unlikely you WON'T see multiple units in one unit. They are porting pretty much everything from AOS so why stop here. Especially as they need to figure out some way to give characters chance to join units. Some specific restriction it's only for 1 unit + character(s) takes more space which then gets duplicated over every transport.
Cosmic Schwung wrote: Do we think transports will allow on multiple units now? I can't imagine that a character would need to have a whole transport to themselves. I'm now imagining a marine commander in a land raider telling a termi squad to push off as he likes his leg room.
At the very least I would expect transports to allow a unit and a character. Probably won't go as far as multiple units beyond that.
I would think so considering iirc one of the answers to a tanky character question was to put them in a tank.
No the answer was for character making UNIT tanky. Ie make unit tanky by putting them into a tank rather than having character with 2+ rerollable at the front tanking all the wounds like in 7th ed.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I always prefer refinement over replacement, and that's how my mindset works.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That doesn't mean you never try something new - damage degradation sounds like a great idea to me - but I'd much rather fix the problem than throw it away and start again.
I think most people do, that's why in most things you see new versions come out that are improvements over time. GW has never really done the refinement thing though, it's always been replacement.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.
The other consistent thing about gw games - the fans tend to decry anyone that isn't in love with the game as a hater. I think a lot of gw's success through the years has been due to the factionalization of it's fan/customer base. Rather than 'hate' gw for the problems it creates in its games, they 'hate' other players for various symptoms of these problems. Sadly its to be expected at this point.
Also, as far as 3rd through 7th are concerned they were heavily constrained by 3 things that 8th is getting rid of(arguably 4)
The AP system, full disclaimer I'm not entirely sure when this came in but the ap system as it existed in 6th-7th created a terrible design space. The totally binary nature of the system made giving offensive or defensive power incredibly swingy and was ultimately responsible for the rise of the 2+fnp, 2++ rerollable vs 189 million S6 arms race we found ourselves in with 7th. It also made cover largely redundant for some armies but utterly essential for others which contributed to the ignores cover problems we had.
2. Rerolls. Using rerolls almost exclusively meant that power scaled quadratically with buffs rather than linearly which is how Ultrasmurf Centurion star was born.
3. The old to wound chart. With the old to wound chart you created incredibly powerful break points both offensively and defensively that led to a very jagged power curve based on what was in vogue. Going from S4 to S5 was nowhere near as strong as going from S5 to S6, wounding MEQ on 2s and doubling out T3 characters was huge. Then you go to S7 and no one cares, you basically gain nothing, then you hit 8 and now you double out T4 characters and wound T6 on 2+ which is huge, then 9 didn't matter and 10 was again a huge advantage.
Same defensively 2->3 was irrelevant 3->4 was pretty powerful 4->5 was the single biggest jump in effectiveness for infantry models, 5->6 was nice but ultimately meh, 6->7 irrelevant 7->8 made you immune to most infantry weapons and anything that went beyond 8 was pretty much unusable in friendly games against non-SM or Eldar.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Either way, it doesn't look too good on the whole 'things will be balanced this time around' concern. It's just looking like more of the same. I'd love to be wrong here, time will tell i guess.
The other consistent thing about gw games - the fans tend to decry anyone that isn't in love with the game as a hater. I think a lot of gw's success through the years has been due to the factionalization of it's fan/customer base. Rather than 'hate' gw for the problems it creates in its games, they 'hate' other players for various symptoms of these problems. Sadly its to be expected at this point.
You can't talk to someone that refuses to listen. Neither side is blameless in this.
rollawaythestone wrote: I'm fine with them deciding model-by-model which units are targetable and which aren't based on whether it makes sense for that model. Something that won't be hiding behind or amidst it's lackeys vs. something embedded in a unit. As long as it's balanced with other advantages it sounds fine. I like this change to characters - and can't wait to see the unit profiles!
Too bad they don't decide on whether or not it makes sense for that model but by wound counter. Which might or might not make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quarterdime wrote: What do you think "over a dozen wounds" for Magnus means? 13? 14? 15?
If it's 13 then they've short changed him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: He's getting way less wounds than an Imperial Knight, that's for sure.
If he got any of what you listed he would sure prefer to be rather with 10 wounds and same price.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Either way, it doesn't look too good on the whole 'things will be balanced this time around' concern. It's just looking like more of the same. I'd love to be wrong here, time will tell i guess.
I would argue that at least this individual comment is not an indicator at all and that the intent was to emphasize just how much work building 8th actually was.
I will agree that it's impossible to know for sure if things are actually going to be good and if balance is going to be solid. (It'll be better but that means literally nothing, the only way the balance could be worse is if they came to your house and beat you up for playing the wrong army)
In response to your comment to H.B.M.C.; it's not that I love GW so much that I just love everything they put out and forget all the haters, it's that I HATE 7th so much that anyone who tries to stop me from killing it and peeing on it's grave is getting an earful. I want to keep playing 40k, I want to keep liking 40k but I know for a fact I can't do that with 7th and feeling good about what 8th has presented so far.
I am looking forward to balanced list building in 8th now, having to properly balance weapon options out IE anti tank, but not too much anti tank or hordes will dominate etc.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Disingenuous--how ironic.
I didn't mean 'simply gw not taking their feedback' or 'them not giving much feedback.' Here it is for you once again; 'that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all.'
My comment has nothing to do with how large a project 8th has been to develop, or because it was such a large project that the amount that Frontline put in was a minute part, but rather that the impact of Reece and Frankie as play-testers has been overblown.
I don't like 7th either that's why my group uses a significantly different ruleset. But by all means, continue to misinterpret comments while you're peeing.
Rippy wrote: I am looking forward to balanced list building in 8th now, having to properly balance weapon options out IE anti tank, but not too much anti tank or hordes will dominate etc.
Agreed, I hope the new rules encourage a variety of builds for each army rather than the current rules that mean that usually for each army list there is one prevalent build type with only a few unit types being viable if you want to be competitive. Only time will tell.
Youn wrote: Exarchs would be treated the same way champions are in AoS. Since, exarchs in all previous editions couldn't leave their unit that makes them nothing more then sergeants.
Lol people should really learn about ALL the editions before making sweeping statmeents that "in all previous editions...".
In 2nd ed exarch were independent characters who could be given different wargear and exarch powers. Powers weren't limited to certain aspects like they are now(so you could have in theory tank hunting exarch howling banshee gear).
One common combination was for example swooping hawk wings(mobility) combined with firepike(or fusion gun). Mobile tank busting exarch.
Yup, pure mix-and-match in 2E. I was considering to build a bunch of Power Fielded Exarchs with Shuricannon Jetbikes - a very inexpensive build, given how cheap the Jetbike models were (plastic!) and the one-off availability of vehicle Shuricannon bitz.
I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Disingenuous--how ironic.
I didn't mean 'simply gw not taking their feedback' or 'them not giving much feedback.' Here it is for you once again; 'that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all.'
My comment has nothing to do with how large a project 8th has been to develop, or because it was such a large project that the amount that Frontline put in was a minute part, but rather that the impact of Reece and Frankie as play-testers has been overblown.
I don't like 7th either that's why my group uses a significantly different ruleset. But by all means, continue to misinterpret comments while you're peeing.
You misquoted Reece and completely ignored the context of the comment, you were being disengenuous, if you can't deal with that maybe you should try being correct in the future.
As for your gaming group using a heavily modified rule set, that's great for you, I'm glad it's working for you and I'm glad you're having fun but some of us occasionally like to play people outside of an insular circle-jerk but hey, if it works for you keep on pumpin.
So far I like what i hear and still have confidence in the new edition. But then again I do have preferred tastes wich are not the same as everyone else's.
I like the idea of increased lethality, return of M as a stat and no difference between MC/ vehicles. There should perhaps be a line there , but where do you draw it?
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Automatically Appended Next Post: The multiple overwatch and the new SvT table are changes that i will need time to evaluate, but for the rest i like what i see.
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
Yeah AOS is full of tactical decision. Last time i played, i had to choose between dancing the electric boogalo or the maccarena in order to get my reroll. Deep tactics .
Not sure if this has been mentioned, I skipped a few pages.
Regarding characters, for those that want the targetable/untargetable thing to be governed by a keyword instead of by wounds: it's already governed by a keyword, it's just in addition to the wound count rather than instead of it. That keyword is "character". This doesn't lock out any design options, and makes for cleaner rules IMHO where rare outliers can get an exception rather than the rules for everything having to accommodate them.
Relatively small leader guy that should be able to hide? Character with 10 or less wounds.
Relatively weak thing that is still too big to hide? 10 or less wounds and not a character. Note that this appears to already be in place for things like a dreadnought. The only potential issue I could see with this approach is a fluff mismatch, where something would fluffwise be character, but doesn't have the keyword, in exchange for how he played in practice better matching fluff.
Leader guy who's tough and too huge to hide? Character with 11+ wounds.
Really tough thing that's dense enough to hide behind a squad? Get's its own rule. I imagine these would be rare enough that having a special rule on a few things letting them hide is a more elegant option than putting a hide/can't hide keyword on a significant chunk of the characters in the game.
That's not to say it will be implemented perfectly across the board. Some things might get classed in a way that doesn't make sense, like a hypothetical guy the size of a building getting just enough wounds to hide behind grots. Some things might not be designed to work correctly for the class they're in, like a hypothetical 11 wound 3 story monster that's so easy to wound that extra wound is a curse. But those would be specific implementation problems, not a problem with the rules framework for characters. Aside from RG, we have no evidence of how the rule's being specifically implemented. Whether or not he should be able to hide behind a unit is debatable, but be careful extrapolating out to other characters, since we currently have a data set of 1.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
Well lot depends on how much rolling spells will have. As number of castings will go up so will succesfull ones.
Buffs will obviously be quick. But there will be lots of 'em.
But no. We get "Oh these guys are going to be great. So are these guys! And these guys! Oh wow boy a y'all gonna love it!".
Coming from Reece and Frankie I don't think this is merely marketing speak, it does really sound like they were heavily involved in balancing the new edition, and wanted every unit to be a viable choice (though of course this would also be an optimum situation from a model sales perspective).
Reece also stated (in one of the Frontline podcasts) that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all. So, I think many are over-emphasizing their actual involvement in helping with the play testing and any subsequent rules development that was accrued from those outside play-testers.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Either way, it doesn't look too good on the whole 'things will be balanced this time around' concern. It's just looking like more of the same. I'd love to be wrong here, time will tell i guess.
this is obvious in certain things such as missions which gw stated in one article as being the same two d6 charts with minor tweaks. Given the fact the current BRB misssions largely favor small elite mobile armies and the fact NO tournaments use missions directly from the book I'm quite certain FLG suggested a more complex multi element mission and gw ignored it for the basic missions they have. However this doesn't mean that version 8 is at a losss since tournaments will continue to use thier own multi tiered missions they created.
Medicinal Carrots wrote: Regarding characters, for those that want the targetable/untargetable thing to be governed by a keyword instead of by wounds: it's already governed by a keyword, it's just in addition to the wound count rather than instead of it. That keyword is "character". This doesn't lock out any design options, and makes for cleaner rules IMHO where rare outliers can get an exception rather than the rules for everything having to accommodate them.
Yes it does. It prevents 11+ wound untargetable character.
You know wounds does not have to be in direct correlation with physical size...
And there's literally zero drawback in having simple keyword to do it without relation to wound count...
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.
The core movement, shooting and HTH rules are the same. The basic tenants of the vehicle rules are the same, infantry types, a number of the general special rules, the way weapons work (range, AP, etc.), still exist in 7th. The basic FOC hasn't changed, and even mission structure is similar. Overall specific details changed (like the HTH rules, or general cover saves going to 4+ then back to 5+, the exact way Rapid Fire weapons work, how you use blast markers, the way mission objectives work, or who scores, etc.) but at its core 3rd Ed and 7th Ed are the same game. With little conversion work you could take a 3rd Ed codex (or even a BBB army list) and use it in 7th. It wouldn't be very good (balance would be way out), and would lack most of the options, but the unit profiles and weapon profiles and basic building blocks of the game would survive into 7th Ed.
Everything that's been added on since is just that - stuff that's been added on. Decurions, formations, allies, fortifications, flyers and so on are all rules bolted onto the original frame. The more they added, the more unwieldy it got, and it went beyond the level of carrying books in 3rd (as you noted) and became the misshapen beast we have today.
I don't deny that the game has become unplayable with all that crap they've stuck to it, and it's why we need a big overhaul. I just don't think that scrapping the framework is the best idea. I believe that 7th Ed can be fixed, as opposed to replaced.
Janthkin wrote: What I really want is a TERRAIN rules preview. I've been playing so many non-GW games of late, and ALL of the them make better use of terrain (and encourage more tactical thinking) than 40k has in the last 2 editions. Of course, when 6e Tau launched, terrain stopped mattering anyway, given that everything could shoot over/ignore it....
The last time GW took a crack at terrain we got terrain with rules that were randomly rolled. Want to take that leap again?
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Automatically Appended Next Post: The multiple overwatch and the new SvT table are changes that i will need time to evaluate, but for the rest i like what i see.
yea from the rules we see I don't see how 40k is less tactical as it opens up a whole new realm of tactics. The only tactical loss I see is the fact vehicles don't have side or rear armor and outside of a imperial knight with its 1 sided shield it doesn't matter what side you hit most vehicles. However 8th edition opens up more options through the fixing of many poor mechanics in 7th. I don't think 8th is perfect because even with as little as we know I already see tiers of effectiveness making certain units more competitive then others. For example an 11 wound character is already objectively worse then a 10 wound character. Str 6 rend 2 weapons Will likely be he sweet spot for best weapons in game (can't wait to see the stats on hotshot volley guns). I'm sure many more things will pop up as he rules are released.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
Yes it does. It prevents 11+ wound untargetable character.
You know wounds does not have to be in direct correlation with physical size...
They probably now do, at least somewhat. And considering that Guilliman has nine wounds, I really cannot see a 11+ wound character that was not some hulking giant monstrosity. Smaller characters that are supposed to be resilient can have good toughness and save.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
there is nothing shallow about it. The psychic phase is what it always should have been and was until the hot donkey turd that was 6/7th created. None of the psychic dice pools and warp pool nonesense ever existed until they convoluted it up in the current edition.
I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious nor resources allocations decisions , and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th
streetsamurai wrote: I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th
You mean we don't have to keep rolling loads of or indeed no dice to have respectively total or zero influence - oh no.... Rolling loads of dice is not "deep"
IMO the 6th ed system worked fine - with the exception of a few broken powers - which of course they screwed up and then gave us a whole new tedious dice game and of course Invisibility.
The new system looks like you make informed choices as part of a streamlined system that is part of the main game framework - not a entire sub game that only some of the players can take part in.
Medicinal Carrots wrote: Regarding characters, for those that want the targetable/untargetable thing to be governed by a keyword instead of by wounds: it's already governed by a keyword, it's just in addition to the wound count rather than instead of it. That keyword is "character". This doesn't lock out any design options, and makes for cleaner rules IMHO where rare outliers can get an exception rather than the rules for everything having to accommodate them.
Yes it does. It prevents 11+ wound untargetable character.
You know wounds does not have to be in direct correlation with physical size...
Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.
And there's literally zero drawback in having simple keyword to do it without relation to wound count...
And there's literally zero drawback with the method they've chosen without adding an additional keyword.
Honestly either method is perfectly viable, and anything that could be accomplished with one could easily be accomplished with the other. Any flaws that can crop up with implementation of one could crop up with implementation of the other as well. 11+ wound guy that should be untargetable but isn't? Wound system didn't add an extra rule, keyword system added the wrong keyword. Bad implementation is bad implementation in either system, and either system implemented well will work identically in practice.
The difference between them is semantics and aesthetics, where each has its strong and weak points, but there is no end result difference between the two.
streetsamurai wrote: I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th
the 7th ed convoluted psychic phase is roundly considered crap. You might think it's the best thing ever and that's fine however just becuase someone likes a piece of crap doesn't mean it is good and many people have complained on the time wasting, I'll concieved, over convoluted hot mess of 7th ed psychic phase nonsense that produced an all or nothing approach to it. If you didn't go all into 7th ed psychic you might as well ignore it. Because your one psycher did jack shat in a game vs a psycher army and certain armies drowned you in warp dice. The 7th ed psychic phase was time consuming useles and the worst edition of psychics ever and you can google the amount of articles complaining about it.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.
Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.
streetsamurai wrote: I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th
the 7th ed convoluted psychic phase is roundly considered crap. You might think it's the best thing ever and that's fine however just becuase someone likes a piece of crap doesn't mean it is good and many people have complained on the time wasting, I'll concieved, over convoluted hot mess of 7th ed psychic phase nonsense that produced an all or nothing approach to it. If you didn't go all into 7th ed psychic you might as well ignore it. Because your one psycher did jack shat in a game vs a psycher army and certain armies drowned you in warp dice. The 7th ed psychic phase was time consuming useles and the worst edition of psychics ever and you can google the amount of articles complaining about it.
You can find many people complaining about pretty mcuh anything, so it is not much of a point. Was 7th edition psychic phase perfect? No, it could have used a few tweaks. But it is a much more interesting system than the extremely shallow and boring one 8th has. If you like simpler mechanism, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but I tend to prefer more complex rules
Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.
Ah yes more bespoken rules...
That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.
but there is no end result difference between the two.
Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.
Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.
As previously mentioned - risk analysis and resource management.
Right now with this psychic phase there's... not really a lot of choice involved apart from deciding which spell you're going to try and cast first. That's it. There's no real resource management involved since they will all use the same resources - 2d6 that magically pop out of the Warp to be used by the psyker. Hell right now with this system they could have merged it back into the Shooting phase and call it a day. Say "Oh yeah and you can only cast spells during the Shooting Phase unless otherwise noted. Whatever dude". Done.
And there will still be players "not allowed" to take part of it - Tau, for instance. Unless they suddenly decide that Ethereals were psykers all along *cue dramatic music*.
This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.
Disingenuous--how ironic.
I didn't mean 'simply gw not taking their feedback' or 'them not giving much feedback.' Here it is for you once again; 'that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all.'
My comment has nothing to do with how large a project 8th has been to develop, or because it was such a large project that the amount that Frontline put in was a minute part, but rather that the impact of Reece and Frankie as play-testers has been overblown.
I don't like 7th either that's why my group uses a significantly different ruleset. But by all means, continue to misinterpret comments while you're peeing.
You misquoted Reece and completely ignored the context of the comment, you were being disengenuous, if you can't deal with that maybe you should try being correct in the future.
May I ask you one question oh great one? Now please give this a honest think over and a honest answer. In this new edition of 40k that is coming out, do you think that the armies are going to be more or less equal and that the playing ability of the general (ie You and your opponent) is going to be the determining factor in who wins or looses? Or do you think that this is going to be like EVERY other edition of Warhammer 40k that we have gotten and that there will be one book ( ie codex) that is head and shoulders better then most of the other books out there and that the most optimized list will be made from that Codex and that is what 90% of the people will play?
I love the way GW is going. I love the fact that they gutted 40k and started from AOS. I am glad that GW is more open with its customers now. I love the snide and snark in their previews. I love this level of communication. I am not a huge fan of the newish models and ascetics that GW is going down ( I don't like the huge plastic model with more stuff on it like Gulliman and Magnus). I love the FW look tho. I love the Heresy look of models. I love the FW Gulliman model. I don't like the plastic monstrosity we got in 40k.
But can you sit back objectively and say that this edition of 40k will be Perfect and that everything will be viable? That within a week or two of the 'dex's dropping that they wont be listhammered into the optimized army list and if you basically are not playing that list/those few viable list's that you are handicapping yourself ?
I am so glad that they took 7th edition out back and put a bullet in its brain, it's been a mercy killing that has been needed for a long while, I agree with you there. Believe me I agree there. But maybe you are letting your enthusiasm cloud your judgement there a little? You like Aos, I dislike Aos...cool story bro. I am willing to give 8th a chance based on the game itself not with what rules/mechanics it shares with AoS.
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.
Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.
You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.
In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Automatically Appended Next Post: The multiple overwatch and the new SvT table are changes that i will need time to evaluate, but for the rest i like what i see.
yea from the rules we see I don't see how 40k is less tactical as it opens up a whole new realm of tactics. The only tactical loss I see is the fact vehicles don't have side or rear armor and outside of a imperial knight with its 1 sided shield it doesn't matter what side you hit most vehicles. However 8th edition opens up more options through the fixing of many poor mechanics in 7th. I don't think 8th is perfect because even with as little as we know I already see tiers of effectiveness making certain units more competitive then others. For example an 11 wound character is already objectively worse then a 10 wound character. Str 6 rend 2 weapons Will likely be he sweet spot for best weapons in game (can't wait to see the stats on hotshot volley guns). I'm sure many more things will pop up as he rules are released.
You have the same old people complaining. They would have complained whatever happened. Don't lose sleep about it.
I'm quite dissappointed with the new character rules. Although the "closest unit only" rule for protecting them is nice, it's quite jarring considering my entire 40k experience has been about having my awesome leader heading up a Terminator or Assault Squad.
Apart from the personal reasons, I find it dissappointing that their solutions for Deathstar spam was not to balance armies and units so that Deathstars aren't ungodly unbeatable, but rather, simply to blanket ban characters joining units and punish those who played within the spirit of the game and didn't have a rolfstomping Grav-Bike-Shield-Eternal-Librarian Conclave or whatever the flavour of the month-star is.
Summary: I don't like for personal reasons, also that they decided to ban deathstars instead of fixing it properly.
Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.
Ah yes more bespoken rules...
That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.
but there is no end result difference between the two.
Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.
"This one is better because it's better"
You're arguing for one form of bloat over another.
Bloat to add a special core rule for a keyword that works in addition to and in conjunction with a second keyword (character) that has it own special rule, and to add that keyword to a large number of units that already have the "character" keyword
VS
Bloat to add a line to a special core rule for a keyword that already has special core rules so it interacts with a characteristic already inherent in the system, and to add a bespoke rule to a small number of exceptions.
You're arguing aesthetics and personal preference, not objective benefits/flaws of the rules.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, what character models do you believe should have 11+ wounds and still be small enough to hide behind other units?
Deadshot wrote: I'm quite dissappointed with the new character rules. Although the "closest unit only" rule for protecting them is nice, it's quite jarring considering my entire 40k experience has been about having my awesome leader heading up a Terminator or Assault Squad.
Apart from the personal reasons, I find it dissappointing that their solutions for Deathstar spam was not to balance armies and units so that Deathstars aren't ungodly unbeatable, but rather, simply to blanket ban characters joining units and punish those who played within the spirit of the game and didn't have a rolfstomping Grav-Bike-Shield-Eternal-Librarian Conclave or whatever the flavour of the month-star is.
Summary: I don't like for personal reasons, also that they decided to ban deathstars instead of fixing it properly.
If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.
Rippy wrote: If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.
Except there will be more cases of the character and unit fighting separately so that rather than character leading his loyal retinue into combat you have only one of them being involved.
Not to mention visuality(yes some people care about that). Rather than leading up front they are now back rear. Fits for some(though they would be leading from back in 7th ed as well), less so for others.
Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.
Ah yes more bespoken rules...
That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.
but there is no end result difference between the two.
Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.
"This one is better because it's better" You're arguing for one form of bloat over another.
Bloat to add a special core rule for a keyword that works in addition to and in conjunction with a second keyword (character) that has it own special rule, and to add that keyword to a large number of units that already have the "character" keyword VS Bloat to add a line to a special core rule for a keyword that already has special core rules, and to add a bespoke rule to a small number of exceptions.
You're arguing aesthetics and personal preference, not objective benefits/flaws of the rules.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, what character models do you believe should have 11+ wounds and still be small enough to hide behind other units?
No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.
Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.
You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.
In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)
no your only decision In 7th was list building an army with total control of the psychic phase or ignoring it completely. If I wanted to play an army with Cortez in it I'd pray to the dice gods to get the power I want if not I had a crap power, if I was lucky to get a power I wanted I had to to pray I didn't face an army like Magnus because I might as well have thrown any psychers i bought into the garbage because I was never going to get a power off. And that is the end of 7th ed psychic phase. There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.
Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?
Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.
While i dont think what you ve said is a good reflection of the reality, even if it was, these problems could be solved by tweaking 7th edition psychic system, rather than completely replace it by a much more shallow one
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.
Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?
Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.
It only speak of your ignorance of other game system if you think aos is not shallow
Lobukia wrote: I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.
It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately
It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.
different viewpoints.
They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.
No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.
Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.
You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.
In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)
no your only decision In 7th was list building an army with total control of the psychic phase or ignoring it completely. If I wanted to play an army with Cortez in it I'd pray to the dice gods to get the power I want if not I had a crap power, if I was lucky to get a power I wanted I had to to pray I didn't face an army like Magnus because I might as well have thrown any psycher s in bought into the garbage because I was never going to get a power off. And that is the end of 7th ed psychic phase. There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice in the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
You're going to the extremes and completely ignoring the point of what he was saying. But hey the other side can do extremes too! Right now if you're bringing a heavy psychic phase army (say GK or Tzeentch) then you will either: dominate the phase if GW decides the Dispel rolls must roll much higher than your cast rolls or risk it being a waste of points and time if the dispel rolls just need to match yours - which effectively makes you dependent on luck since your strategy has just been reduced to a game of "win the 2d6 roll off"... while still chucking about huge amounts of dice.
List building abuse WILL exist in 8th as it has existed in every single edition before it. We're talking about the mechanics of the psychic phase itself. You're trying to divert the conversation to list building to suit your viewpoint. That ain't happening.
gungo wrote: There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.
streetsamurai wrote: While i dont think what you ve said is a good reflection of the reality, even if it was, these problems could be solved by tweaking 7th edition psychic system, rather than completely replace it by a much more shallow one
streetsamurai wrote: I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.
But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.
As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off
Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".
Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.
Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?
Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.
It only speak of your ignorance of other game system if you think aos is not shallow
except that was the reality and all 7th ed psychic phase added was bloat and excessive time consuming. You might as well be arguing how death from the skies is the best system ever because it adds more complexity because that's about how useful the 7th ed psychic phase was. More complexity does not make it better. There was no fixing 7th ed psychic phase as the entire concept of warp dice pools was not designrd well.
gungo wrote: There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.
Biggest difference in 8th is selecting powers and planning a tactic regarding specific powers and being able to cast more powers thus allowing you to even form a tactical psychic phase.
7th was always about luck and list building to mitigate ther luck.
Right now 8th ed doesn't seem to require you to invest heavily into list building a psyker army to get off the powers you want or to simply ignore the psychic phase.
And I agree just like in every edition I hope none of the psychic powers are overpowered.
streetsamurai wrote: No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though
Both solutions force the adding of or to a core rule, and both solutions force adding an exception to a general rule.
Keyword solution adds the general rule for the keyword, which is an exception to the untargetable general rule. It then adds a keyword indicating the exception to a moderate number of units.
Wounds solution does not add a separate general rule, but adds counting wounds as a requirement of the untargetable general rule. It then adds a bespoke rule exception to a small number of units.
The bloat is just in different places. One has the exception in the main rules, and then an indicator of the exception on units, the other has a more restricted main rule, then a fully spelled out exception on the units.
Time to take the comparative philosophy of pyschic phases elsewhere; it's derailing the general thread. If you must continue it, go have a 40k Discussions thread.
Rippy wrote: If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.
Except there will be more cases of the character and unit fighting separately so that rather than character leading his loyal retinue into combat you have only one of them being involved.
Not to mention visuality(yes some people care about that). Rather than leading up front they are now back rear. Fits for some(though they would be leading from back in 7th ed as well), less so for others.
For one, it suits the fluff more where the leader breaks off and takes on another powerful dude, or even lots of dudes every so often.
And for two, if you had your IC leading from the front before, nothing will stop you now; it was stupid in 7th, and now stupid in 8th.
streetsamurai wrote: No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though
Both solutions force the adding of or to a core rule, and both solutions force adding an exception to a general rule.
Keyword solution adds the general rule for the keyword, which is an exception to the untargetable general rule. It then adds a keyword indicating the exception to a moderate number of units.
Wounds solution does not add a separate general rule, but adds counting wounds as a requirement of the untargetable general rule. It then adds a bespoke rule exception to a small number of units.
The bloat is just in different places. One has the exception in the main rules, and then an indicator of the exception on units, the other has a more restricted main rule, then a fully spelled out exception on the units.
That is if you add a bespoken rule to a model, IE you implement a human sized model stronger than a primarch! Probably they have no intention to create exceptions to that rule.
Rippy wrote: For one, it suits the fluff more where the leader breaks off and takes on another powerful dude, or even lots of dudes every so often.
And for two, if you had your IC leading from the front before, nothing will stop you now; it was stupid in 7th, and now stupid in 8th.
It suits fluff that bodyguard rather than charging along hangs back? Or character decides that "nah I ain't going there" while his bodyguard charges up.
And it was btw hardly stupid in 7th ed as it was used pretty often. Helps ensure character has range to combat always while LOS kept them safe enough. And indeed made unit often tougher.
Rippy wrote: For one, it suits the fluff more where the leader breaks off and takes on another powerful dude, or even lots of dudes every so often.
And for two, if you had your IC leading from the front before, nothing will stop you now; it was stupid in 7th, and now stupid in 8th.
It suits fluff that bodyguard rather than charging along hangs back? Or character decides that "nah I ain't going there" while his bodyguard charges up.
And it was btw hardly stupid in 7th ed as it was used pretty often. Helps ensure character has range to combat always while LOS kept them safe enough. And indeed made unit often tougher.
As far as we know there is a rule called heroic intervention that avoids exactly the case you specified, so i would wait to know how that works before passing judgement on this character system.
Spoletta wrote: As far as we know there is a rule called heroic intervention that avoids exactly the case you specified, so i would wait to know how that works before passing judgement on this character system.
Quoting the article:
"This allows Characters near a combat to pile in and attack if the enemy comes close enough, even if they themselves aren’t charged"
Sooo...For starters it seems to have a range. For second at least majority of cases it will be when ENEMY charges YOU. Not reverse(presumably because of range. Unlike hero drags himself 10" after failed charge. Nevermind his bodyguard that got left behind when they botched that 6" charge!)
Spoletta wrote: As far as we know there is a rule called heroic intervention that avoids exactly the case you specified, so i would wait to know how that works before passing judgement on this character system.
Quoting the article:
"This allows Characters near a combat to pile in and attack if the enemy comes close enough, even if they themselves aren’t charged"
Sooo...For starters it seems to have a range. For second at least majority of cases it will be when ENEMY charges YOU. Not reverse(presumably because of range. Unlike hero drags himself 10" after failed charge. Nevermind his bodyguard that got left behind when they botched that 6" charge!)
Yep. All the wording used in that preview points to this being used during the opponent's turn as a charge reaction, not to make up for failed IC charges.
streetsamurai wrote: No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though
Both solutions force the adding of or to a core rule, and both solutions force adding an exception to a general rule.
Keyword solution adds the general rule for the keyword, which is an exception to the untargetable general rule. It then adds a keyword indicating the exception to a moderate number of units.
Wounds solution does not add a separate general rule, but adds counting wounds as a requirement of the untargetable general rule. It then adds a bespoke rule exception to a small number of units.
The bloat is just in different places. One has the exception in the main rules, and then an indicator of the exception on units, the other has a more restricted main rule, then a fully spelled out exception on the units.
That is if you add a bespoken rule to a model, IE you implement a human sized model stronger than a primarch! Probably they have no intention to create exceptions to that rule.
Good point. Bloat only exists in the wounds solution if a 11+W model that can hide exists. Bloat exists in the keyword solution when 11+W characters that can't hide exist, which we know will happen from the article. So while both solutions allow for the same design space, one solution will definitely introduce bloat, while one may not.
Which models should have 11+W and be able to hide behind units like smaller characters?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Yep. All the wording used in that preview points to this being used during the opponent's turn as a charge reaction, not to make up for failed IC charges.
Which results in more cases of either character or bodyguard watching while other charges all alone(well alone might not be appropriate term for bodyguard of multiple guys but you get the point).
Whether it's for good or bad is another thing but claiming there's no difference isnt' being honest.
Spoletta wrote: As far as we know there is a rule called heroic intervention that avoids exactly the case you specified, so i would wait to know how that works before passing judgement on this character system.
Quoting the article:
"This allows Characters near a combat to pile in and attack if the enemy comes close enough, even if they themselves aren’t charged"
Sooo...For starters it seems to have a range. For second at least majority of cases it will be when ENEMY charges YOU. Not reverse(presumably because of range. Unlike hero drags himself 10" after failed charge. Nevermind his bodyguard that got left behind when they botched that 6" charge!)
Yep. All the wording used in that preview points to this being used during the opponent's turn as a charge reaction, not to make up for failed IC charges.
Did we ever get confirmation whether or not you still moved after a failed charge? That could make the IC pile in useful on offense too
Spoletta wrote: As far as we know there is a rule called heroic intervention that avoids exactly the case you specified, so i would wait to know how that works before passing judgement on this character system.
Quoting the article:
"This allows Characters near a combat to pile in and attack if the enemy comes close enough, even if they themselves aren’t charged"
Sooo...For starters it seems to have a range. For second at least majority of cases it will be when ENEMY charges YOU. Not reverse(presumably because of range. Unlike hero drags himself 10" after failed charge. Nevermind his bodyguard that got left behind when they botched that 6" charge!)
Yep. All the wording used in that preview points to this being used during the opponent's turn as a charge reaction, not to make up for failed IC charges.
Did we ever get confirmation whether or not you still moved after a failed charge? That could make the IC pile in useful on offense too
Yes in the assault phase preview, they stated that you still move even if the charge failed, the amount you rolled.
Rippy wrote: Yes in the assault phase preview, they stated that you still move even if the charge failed, the amount you rolled.
Where? If you mean this phrase "The basic mechanics of this phase are very similar to how they work now. You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″." note it speaks noting about failed charges. Indeed neither this nor fight phase article has word "fail" anywhere.
You misquoted Reece and completely ignored the context of the comment, you were being disengenuous, if you can't deal with that maybe you should try being correct in the future.
I've misquoted no one.
Here's the point I've gone over several times, but is flying over your head every single time; 'that the impact of Reece and Frankie as play-testers has been overblown.' How exactly am I ignoring that context? You are being disingenuous.
And again you miss my point about home-brew rules, which instead you attack. I believe some of these rules as presented so far have shown merit and some of them haven't. I'm not blind to the failings of 7th, and I certainly won't be blind to them in 8th.
gungo wrote: There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.
In fact 8thAoS can be summed up by "chucking dice on the table" as that is all they have. No morale, No pinning, No flanking/facing's, No tactics they basically took out anything that was not a straight dice roll to decide even "Special Rules are likely to be reduced to just +/- modifiers if they follow AoS.
In return we get a basic level of target prioritization in hand to hand and that is hailed as a revolution and characters that will be red mist by turn 2 unless there designed to loophole the system(9 wound Rowboat on his hands and knees hiding behind his gullimarines"
I watched a couple of battle reports and read more about AoS as I keep seeing people saying it is better now, however it still seems to have a lot of the issues people say are wrong with 40k. It appears to me that a lot of games are won in the list building stage before a dice is thrown. Most tactics and I use the term loosely seem to involve exploiting loopholes and the unit/coherency rules. Oh and rolling buckets of dice.
SeanDrake wrote: It appears to me that a lot of games are won in the list building stage before a dice is thrown. Most tactics and I use the term loosely seem to involve exploiting loopholes and the unit/coherency rules. Oh and rolling buckets of dice.
Spoiler:
Like that one? Big chaos warrior that is cast in T shape forward so that stragglers ensure buffs on backfield(harder to snipe). Then due to formation buff anybody attacking them can get wounds bounced back if they roll 6 to wound. And the "funniest" part is that casualties he took out from the stragglers _leaving just the one next to buffers_.
Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.
In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)
There is still going to be decision making for the psychic phase. Granted, we don't know how many powers psykers will have or if they'll be chosen or randomly drawn, but you'll still have to prioritize which powers are more important for you to get off and balance that with whether it's better to go for the easier to cast spells.
The 7th edition psychic phase wasn't bad if you and your opponent each just had 1 or 2 psykers, but it fell apart for the armies like grey knights and thousand sons where the bookkeeping was a headache. I found myself avoiding my War Cabal mostly because of how tedious and monotonous the psychic phase was becoming and not because I didn't like the units. . The psychic phase alone was doubling my turn lengths and my opponents hated it because they basically just had to sit there and nod while I went through 25 dice. I also hated how often you had just one or two psykers casting the spells and everyone else just acting like a battery. Now you'll actually have all the psykers casting their own spells rather than just channeling.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
If the Rhino is behind him the Sorceror can get shot, as the Sorceror would be the closer target.
Its almost like you are just using hyperbole and complaining before we have the actual rules. Or are complaining without reading the article.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
If the Rhino is behind him the Sorceror can get shot, as the Sorceror would be the closer target.
Its almost like you are just using hyperbole and complaining before we have the actual rules. Or are complaining without reading the article.
Why would i mean that the rhino is behind the sorcerer? Hyperbole much?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Our car is gone, crushed and swept away, without anything we wanted fixed, just replaced with something we didn't ask for.
And I'm saying this in general, even aplying it to me, not specific to you H.B.M.C
Total agreement with Galas. In all the "What would you like to see in 8th edition threads", I've been pretty consistent.
Nuke the fething BS we have now and start over from ground up. 7th wasn't a mess. It was a fething joke. 6th was worse. If you liked 7th, great. Go back to playing it. You're welcome to your opinion.
I'm moving on to 8th, and I like most of what I've seen so far. I'm cautiously optimistic as I still want to see the rules written out and not these teasers. In a vacuum, Characters walking behind a wall of swinging bolters sounds silly. However, compared to a system that allowed Bark-Bark Star, I'd rather give the new hotness a spin. Her sisters, 6th and 7th, were bat-gak crazy.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
If there is a lone guy in the middle of a field, why cant anything shoot on him? The fricken primarch, easily identifiable even without future eye gear, standing right there in front of you and you cant do anything about it since theres an imperial guard with a pea shooter behind you. "Better swing this baneblade around guys, that primarch has a character tag!"
It does look like there will be some weirdness in getting your characters into combat with their squads. If the squad charges and fails, you have to move them forward the rolled distance, right? Now your IC has do decide between lagging behind and making their own assault (sucking overwatch?) alone.
Charges striking first initially seemed good to me, but now I'm remembering some of the weirdness you got with fantasy battle back in the day. "Well, can't move up because then they can charge me." Random charge distance helps to mitigate that, so that is good. It might be interesting in game play - maybe you will see some of the same use of bait units and that kind of thing. That is encouraging.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
If there is a lone guy in the middle of a field, why cant anything shoot on him? The fricken primarch, easily identifiable even without future eye gear, standing right there in front of you and you cant do anything about it since theres an imperial guard with a pea shooter behind you. "Better swing this baneblade around guys, that primarch has a character tag!"
Why can't the little horsie go in straight lines?!
Why can't the pawn kill the guy right in front of him?!
The king can only move one square? WTF, he's the most important piece on the board!!
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
If there is a lone guy in the middle of a field, why cant anything shoot on him? The fricken primarch, easily identifiable even without future eye gear, standing right there in front of you and you cant do anything about it since theres an imperial guard with a pea shooter behind you. "Better swing this baneblade around guys, that primarch has a character tag!"
Not sure if proposing alternatives is really on topic, but one solution would be to give each independent model an "Detection" number. If you want to shoot them they either have to all on their lonesome, or you have to beat the score. Primarchs, not too hard to roll. Cadre Fireblade? Aught to be almost indistinguishable from fire warriors. I'd worry that snipers will simply murder any squishy but interesting ICs like commissars or Meks.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
If the Rhino is behind him the Sorceror can get shot, as the Sorceror would be the closer target.
Its almost like you are just using hyperbole and complaining before we have the actual rules. Or are complaining without reading the article.
Why would i mean that the rhino is behind the sorcerer? Hyperbole much?
Because that is exactly what you wrote?
Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
The major issues in these topics so far (which I can remember off the top of my head):
-NuMarines
-Random charges
-Weapons can wound everything
-Psychic phase changes
-Morale changes
-Large models don't degrade identically
-Characters can't be shot unless they're the closest models
Join us at 3PM BST to find out what new contention we can explode into 50 more pages of repeating the same things over and over!
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
Totally unrealistic, agreed, but why not them just have characters be part of the unit. Its much harder to target one specific guy out of a group of 6, 11, 21 or 51, than the one guy over there, on his lonesome with a fancy weapon, fancy gun, fancy armour, fancy banners, wading through everyone that comes near him. I think this is a bad move as it mitigates the need to actually balance the characters and deathstars.
I only really play 40k, however, 1 game I will equate it to is the Yugioh Ban List, introduced in part due to the "Yata lock" and similar effects. For reference, this particular card, when it damages your opponent, prevents him from draw a card next turn and then returns to the hand, thereby locking your opponent in a cycle of having no cards to deal with Yata-Garasu, continually being damaged, being prevented from getting cards to deal with Yata, then getting damaged again. It effectively wins the game. So instead of doing an emergency errata to balance the card and make this not an issue, they just blanket ban the card. It normally requires other equally overpowered cards (original, Chaos Emperor Dragon, which is also banned for being completely broken in general).
This is a similar situation with characters. There is a small number of units that when combined in a particular way, make an extremely difficult to kill unit that deals a lot of damage. But instead of toning down the units, making them balanced or implementing a rule such as "A unit may only benefit from the special rules of one character" or "Only 1 IC may join a unit" or something to balance them, they just put a blanket ban in place.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
If the Rhino is behind him the Sorceror can get shot, as the Sorceror would be the closer target.
Its almost like you are just using hyperbole and complaining before we have the actual rules. Or are complaining without reading the article.
Why would i mean that the rhino is behind the sorcerer? Hyperbole much?
Yonasu wrote: If there is a lone guy in the middle of a field, why cant anything shoot on him? The fricken primarch, easily identifiable even without future eye gear, standing right there in front of you and you cant do anything about it since theres an imperial guard with a pea shooter behind you. "Better swing this baneblade around guys, that primarch has a character tag!"
We aren't talking about guy in the middle of field. Obviously he should be targetable. I'm talking about guy walking among other guys and how you NEED some sort of shooter protection for IC's as otherwise they would be unrealistically easy to snipe. And frankly being tad closer making targetable isn't all that realistic either.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kestral wrote: It does look like there will be some weirdness in getting your characters into combat with their squads. If the squad charges and fails, you have to move them forward the rolled distance, right? Now your IC has do decide between lagging behind and making their own assault (sucking overwatch?) alone.
Where it is stated they move even with failed charge?
I always prefer refinement over replacement, and that's how my mindset works.
I can respect that opinion and still disagree with it in this case. I've always been the advocate/driver for change at work. I have 20 years of that as my background. Sometimes you can get by with small changes, and sometimes you need to sweep the table clear and start fresh.
I believe that 7th edition was a bloated mess in terms of rules, formations, war-zone splat books with new rules for X, codecies, supplements for codecies, and weirdo rules in limited edition box sets.
To play a game as a Chaos player with a handful of Daemons, you could need 2 codecies and 3 suppliments, in addition to your Stronghold Assault book for the Void Shield Generator and the War-Zone Dumb-feth-Istavaan. Wait, that formation was updated in Dumb-feth-Istavaan II. Nuh-uh! Yeah-Huh! and so forth.
Give 7th edition a clean death and let's being in the new edition. Start fresh. Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced. Let's roll.
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
If the Rhino is behind him the Sorceror can get shot, as the Sorceror would be the closer target.
Its almost like you are just using hyperbole and complaining before we have the actual rules. Or are complaining without reading the article.
Why would i mean that the rhino is behind the sorcerer? Hyperbole much?
Because that is exactly what you wrote?
Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Wow, this is worse out of context than main stream media...
Yonasu wrote: If there is a lone guy in the middle of a field, why cant anything shoot on him? The fricken primarch, easily identifiable even without future eye gear, standing right there in front of you and you cant do anything about it since theres an imperial guard with a pea shooter behind you. "Better swing this baneblade around guys, that primarch has a character tag!"
We aren't talking about guy in the middle of field. Obviously he should be targetable. I'm talking about guy walking among other guys and how you NEED some sort of shooter protection for IC's as otherwise they would be unrealistically easy to snipe. And frankly being tad closer making targetable isn't all that realistic either.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Yes sadly that is what the current state is. You know there will be drop pods plopping down just so guilliman can advance uncontested. They even mock people posting on facebook asking this question...
Yonasu wrote: Exalted sorcerers on disc, standing in the open shooting left and right, completely invulnerable since theres some rhinos and cultists scattered in other places of the board.
"So i'll shoot my riptide on your sorcerer", "Nuhuu that rhino behind him must be killed first".
Because deep tactics? I like playing games with some semblance of immersion with the same universe im in, the one where you can make decisions on what general direction to shoot.
IC can't join rhino so your point is moot.
It's totally unrealistic that units can freely pin point characters. That's only possible because players have god view and units do what you are told without random. In real life unit shoots at charging terminators he wouldn't be able to pinpoint captain among them.
How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
nintura wrote: How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
Last time I checked terminator captain isn't 4 meters taller than the terminators. Ability to pinpoint him from long distances in all the smoke and cloud is...well optimistic.
Spoiler:
That grey knight librarian isn't exactly towering hulk among terminators...And can you tell are there any characters among squad they are facing off?
kronk wrote: Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced.
And this is the part that I can't agree with.
I don't trust GW to get this bit right. insaniak gave the example of Lucy holding the football, and that's how I see it with GW and 8th Ed. It's all smiles and promises and buoyant but ultimately useless "focus" articles right now, but let's be real here: This is their 8th attempt at 40K. After what happened before why should we trust them to get it right this time? Because they're more savvy at Internet PR this time around?
Or perhaps Lucy and the football isn't a good metaphor. Maybe the scorpion and the turtle is better.
To be fair to GW, there is NO realistic way for a lone 4 m tall dude in gold armor who rules a galaxy (and thus is target #1) to survive what amounts to a massive close range fire fight in the open. "Realistically" unless he moves really, really fast, he'd just get a lascannon to the head. I like realism, but you have to balance it against cool (to some) models.
nintura wrote: How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
Last time I checked terminator captain isn't 4 meters taller than the terminators. Ability to pinpoint him from long distances in all the smoke and cloud is...well optimistic.
Spoiler:
That grey knight librarian isn't exactly towering hulk among terminators...And can you tell are there any characters among squad they are facing off?
At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
*EDIT> Sorry, not 4 meters. The average marine is 7-8' tall. Robut is twice as tall as they are. That puts RG at 4 meters.
Crazyterran wrote: If you meant a Rhino that somehow got behind a Riptide, than your grammar sucks, and what you said is still wrong.
Yes, my grammar sucks. If my subject in that sentence wasnt clear then to you i am sorry, but there was a pretty obvious way to read that.
Tell me how i am wrong please, i would love it if you can target characters even if you have other units closer.
ABout the whole argument " 7th ed Psy phase Vs 8th Psy phase" my opinion is to completly get rid of Psy powers, psy phase and Psykers, but thats just the opinion of a Khorne worshipper...
More seriously, 7th Psy phase was nothing enjoyable, fun or even remotly tactical.
it was a hot mess, who tried to look like some kind of "ressources management" and " deep and complex game mechanic", no, definatly not.
WHile its true that if your opponent only had like one or 2 Psykers it was not a real issue, even though it was boring ASF to watch, Vs armies that had a HEAVY Psy factory, it was just a pure nightmare.
Not only did it take ages even for the guy doing it, it was just freakin torture for the guy standing there waiting...
I know its a wargame, but its not an RTS, your ressources management, is called List building an points calculating, if i don't go mine tiberium in the midst of the game, you don't start to micro manage your mental bullets dudes...
The way Psy power worked before that was simple, fast and effective, there was no need for all that "Dices management" i really don't get how they could have play tested it and be like " well okay that works perfectly as intended" and left it like this for 2 Whole freakin editions.
nintura wrote: At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
And I'm talking about IC's like chaplains, librarians etc. Why bring 4 meter taller guys into the mix then?
Because your post that I quoted had nothing about those in it.
Ok correction, you did say captain. But RG is also a character, and that lumps them all together.
RG is separate issue. RG isn't you know only character out there...If he doesnt' deserve protection due to the size then he shouldn't be.
But fact is most characters aren't noticably bigger than units they tag along. So if units can target them at will that's rather unrealistic. Models don't have such a god view as player has and soldiers wouldn't be doing exactly what commander wants all the time.
kronk wrote: Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced.
And this is the part that I can't agree with.
I don't trust GW to get this bit right. insaniak gave the example of Lucy holding the football, and that's how I see it with GW and 8th Ed. It's all smiles and promises and buoyant but ultimately useless "focus" articles right now, but let's be real here: This is their 8th attempt at 40K. After what happened before why should we trust them to get it right this time? Because they're more savvy at Internet PR this time around?
Or perhaps Lucy and the football isn't a good metaphor. Maybe the scorpion and the turtle is better.
Yup. The same guys, designing to the same brief, in an unchanging world.
nintura wrote: At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
And I'm talking about IC's like chaplains, librarians etc. Why bring 4 meter taller guys into the mix then?
Because your post that I quoted had nothing about those in it.
Ok correction, you did say captain. But RG is also a character, and that lumps them all together.
RG is separate issue. RG isn't you know only character out there...If he doesnt' deserve protection due to the size then he shouldn't be.
But fact is most characters aren't noticably bigger than units they tag along. So if units can target them at will that's rather unrealistic. Models don't have such a god view as player has and soldiers wouldn't be doing exactly what commander wants all the time.
That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.
Unless you play Ultramarines, Blood Angels or Iron Hands (or something similarly colored) then Librarians, Techmarines and Chaplains stick out quite a bit.
That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.
Warhammer Community wrote:applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.
Ten or less. It isn't some magic thing that when you hit ten Wounds you suddenly cease getting that protection. 11 is the magic number of when you cease getting protected.
We've been over the whole "Guilliman got 9 Wounds so he can get under the ten wounds for protection!" thing.
Crazyterran wrote: If you meant a Rhino that somehow got behind a Riptide, than your grammar sucks, and what you said is still wrong.
Yes, my grammar sucks. If my subject in that sentence wasnt clear then to you i am sorry, but there was a pretty obvious way to read that.
Tell me how i am wrong please, i would love it if you can target characters even if you have other units closer.
Either you're badly explaining this or you don't understand the article. The article made it very clear that a character can't be targeted if there's a closer enemy target, clearly infering that if the character is the closest target he is free game. In your example you very clearly stated that the Rhino was behind the Sorcerer, which would make the Sorcerer the closest target and a valid option for the Riptide.
If that is not what you meant no one was ever remotely going to understand that since you actually wrote out your post pretty clearly, leaving no room for interpretation. If that was what you meant, then clearly you didn't understand the rule as presented in the article.
nintura wrote: How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
Last time I checked terminator captain isn't 4 meters taller than the terminators. Ability to pinpoint him from long distances in all the smoke and cloud is...well optimistic.
Spoiler:
That grey knight librarian isn't exactly towering hulk among terminators...And can you tell are there any characters among squad they are facing off?
At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
*EDIT> Sorry, not 4 meters. The average marine is 7-8' tall. Robut is twice as tall as they are. That puts RG at 4 meters.
I think you have a different perception of a primarch's height than other people do. This is what I see when I google the height of primarchs. I think you're being misled by the base Guilliman is standing on.
Rippy wrote: Just remember as well, that if any of these changes suck, and are seen to not work, we only have to potentially put up with them for a year, Huzzah!
I hope not. I'd rather put up with a mediocre edition for 3+ years than to have to keep relearning the rule set every 12 months. I have a hard enough time purging all the junk in my head from the last 3 editions. I am excited that 8th will be quite different from the last few editions as it will be easier for me to forget the stuff that came before and really immerse myself in the rules. If GW constantly changes the rules (or Emprah forbid creates a "living ruleset") than I won't be able to keep up and enjoy playing.
The last year was bad enough with a new book coming out every month with tons of new stuff I had to at least be aware of. It is not fun to play when you have almost no knowledge of what to expect. At one point I owned 90% of every codex GW made. I knew my enemy. It was the best time I've had in 40k. Changing the rules so frequently or adding loads of new stuff every week is just not fun for me and I don't think I am alone in that view point.
WHile its true that if your opponent only had like one or 2 Psykers it was not a real issue, even though it was boring ASF to watch, Vs armies that had a HEAVY Psy factory, it was just a pure nightmare.
Not only did it take ages even for the guy doing it, it was just freakin torture for the guy standing there waiting...
To tackle this specific point - just wait until you fight an army of GK or Tzeentch without any psykers to counter them, and let them roll absurd amount of dice anyway... but just rolling two at a time. and if you don't have a psyker of your own within 24" (Poor Tau) you can't even fight back because, as read on the article itself, "Enemy psykers will then have a chance to block these powers if they are within 24″"... what if you don't have psykers? You just bend over and take it like a good chum? I'm thinking Khorne might have something against it (giftss that make your champion count as a psyker for the purpose of dispelling powers and what not) but... what if you don't have a psyker?
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
Give 7th edition a clean death and let's being in the new edition. Start fresh. Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced. Let's roll.
Agreed.
It's odd, though, because the common complaint for years has been that each edition has just been another revision to third (making 7th edition more like 3.4 edition). Now that we're getting a genuinely new edition, the common complaint is that it isn't just another revision to third.
I'm not saying the people making the first complaint are the same people making the second complaint, just that the most vocal complaint regarding editions has shifted.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
There was an entire edition of 40K in which units had to shoot the nearest unit of a given type. Somehow I think the game will survive some screening mechanics for characters.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
Good thing we are getting bigger marines to offset this issue then.
nintura wrote: At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
And I'm talking about IC's like chaplains, librarians etc. Why bring 4 meter taller guys into the mix then?
Because your post that I quoted had nothing about those in it.
Ok correction, you did say captain. But RG is also a character, and that lumps them all together.
RG is separate issue. RG isn't you know only character out there...If he doesnt' deserve protection due to the size then he shouldn't be.
But fact is most characters aren't noticably bigger than units they tag along. So if units can target them at will that's rather unrealistic. Models don't have such a god view as player has and soldiers wouldn't be doing exactly what commander wants all the time.
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
nintura wrote: How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
Last time I checked terminator captain isn't 4 meters taller than the terminators. Ability to pinpoint him from long distances in all the smoke and cloud is...well optimistic.
Spoiler:
That grey knight librarian isn't exactly towering hulk among terminators...And can you tell are there any characters among squad they are facing off?
At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
*EDIT> Sorry, not 4 meters. The average marine is 7-8' tall. Robut is twice as tall as they are. That puts RG at 4 meters.
I think you have a different perception of a primarch's height than other people do. This is what I see when I google the height of primarchs. I think you're being misled by the base Guilliman is standing on.
That would be the FW Guilliman model. The plastic one is much, much bigger. Even off the base, he's almost twice the size. I didnt have much luck however doing a quick google search.
gungo wrote: There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.
In fact 8thAoS can be summed up by "chucking dice on the table" as that is all they have. No morale, No pinning, No flanking/facing's, No tactics they basically took out anything that was not a straight dice roll to decide even "Special Rules are likely to be reduced to just +/- modifiers if they follow AoS.
In return we get a basic level of target prioritization in hand to hand and that is hailed as a revolution and characters that will be red mist by turn 2 unless there designed to loophole the system(9 wound Rowboat on his hands and knees hiding behind his gullimarines"
I watched a couple of battle reports and read more about AoS as I keep seeing people saying it is better now, however it still seems to have a lot of the issues people say are wrong with 40k. It appears to me that a lot of games are won in the list building stage before a dice is thrown. Most tactics and I use the term loosely seem to involve exploiting loopholes and the unit/coherency rules. Oh and rolling buckets of dice.
Warning: Text wall
Spoiler:
I regard it as a blessing that I have been trained by my environment to notice and define patterns in the behavior of others. By others I don't always been a single human being other than myself. Sometimes groups of people or entire organizations fall either knowingly or unknowingly into unfortunate habits. GW here is no different and the patterns I see are trouble to say the least.
But before I get into that I want to establish a common understanding here.
For as long as I can remember, game makers have been chasing the 'balance' leprechaun to the pot of gold at the end of their imaginary rainbow. Everyone wants a game that balanced. And this is true of table top board games, war games, and especially so in videogames. I can't think of any that actually are. What I do know is that the harder people try the less balanced the games actually end up being.
I'll provide a few recent examples:
A few years back I was sold on this huge new upcoming IP called Destiny. It was gonna be big. I mean like... indoor plumbing big. It was a FPS, it was an MMO, hell it would brush your teeth for you and give you BJ in the morning before cooking you breakfast. Pretty much everyone was in. And I'll be the first to admit that game as pretty awesome at first. I played for almost an entire year having fun despite a whole boatload of major mechanic flaws and design choices that stood in the way. But, like all competitive games there were balance issues. So much telemetry data was being collected by the servers that the masterminds behind the game became overwhelmed. Instead of simply noticing that more players used one type of weapon than other (In this case, Assault Rifles were more commonly used than Marksman's Rifles) and thinking - interesting. Players are human beings with diverse interests and preferences - they decided that 'God Balance Wills it' and all things must be equal! Their solution was not to create a more compelling reason to use the other options, but to completely hamstring the most common option and make it so undesirable that the other choices were, by default, better.
This calls into play several important factors.
Firstly, what is balance? What was their end game - why are they making changes at all? And frankly no company has ever defined what they want - just that they want something different. If Bungie (the game developer) had stated from the offset that - to us, balance means that all weapon types are used in equal measure across the game demographic - than their action (while still completely stupid) is at least understandable.
And here I think we have the crux of that - most people don't honestly know what they want from 'balance'. Just ... something better than they have now. In some abstract way. I would wager that somewhere in the back of their minds they had a picture of what it would look like. They would pull up a dashboard for all their collected telemetry and it would show them that 20% of their players used weapon type A, 20% used type B, 20% used type C, and so on until each part of the game has equal share. They would sit back and think "what a balanced game we have made - all the choices you can make are equally compelling and great". But that never happened.
This is the fundamental flaw of that group. What they want is referred to as 'equality of outcome' which is both impossible and useless. They don't want 5 compelling choices that are all worth making - they want an even spreadsheet. In reality, humanity will never allow for true equality of outcome. Even if it were hypothetically possible to create 5 equally compelling options for players, one would always attract more than another. Perhaps players liked the sound of one gun more than other, or the graphical model. Or perhaps they have an internal mechanism that makes them choose the 'road less traveled' and intentionally make choices that others don't. Whatever the reason - and there are many - equality of outcome cannot be achieved. every attempt to do so, undermines the value of the choice.
A better developer would effort towards creating 5 compelling choices, and respecting the fact that human preference is fickle and therefore when once choice is made more frequently than others, it is beyond their control.
But why does all this matter?
Well, because it wasn't just one time. Bungie went on to make several changes in rapid succession that ultimately changed the game. if you played this game when it was first released and then stopped - you'd load the game up now and find it unrecognizable. They have 'balanced' it so much that it no longer resembles the game you were told was so amazing! You purchased A, and now only have the option to play Q.
This pattern repeats itself over and over again as industries all attempt to gain greater mass appeal. The people it hurts are the consumer, who end up being offered 'balance' at gunpoint and having no alterative but to surrender their hobby completely, or play it as it is given to them.
I see this happening here in WH40k with GW.
AoS appeals to a few folks and that's great. I'm glad GW was able to turn the money-sink that was WHFB into something profitable again by reworking it into AoS. However that does not make it a panacea to all their woes. WH40k players had historically enjoyed WH40k - it's IP is not in danger. It's IP is still profitable. It does not need a grand rework and nothing is to be gained by applying medicine that a patient does not need. If I had wanted to play AoS, I would already be playing it - converting WH40k to AoS-Space Edition is not compelling for me.
And that same thing is happening on a smaller scale within the rules themselves.
My ability to make choices is being sacrificed at the alter of balance. Instead of relying on tactical decisions and becoming a better gamer - putting models in logical places and being careful in my unit selection - I am not reduced to 'put the choppy guys in front, but the HQ right behind them, and build your gunline a few inches back, advance, roll dice, hooray you're so 'tactical'.
In previous editions the tactics I employed made those games! I'd deploy my Striking Scorpions behind my enemy's units and move in from my DZ intelligently with select units (sometimes it was War Walkers, sometimes it was WL - sometimes it was Falcons with DAs etc). I put pressure on my opponent and forced them to choose - do you fire at the big line of people approaching from the front, or do you prioritize the smaller, more local but closer threat right behind you.
In most cases I forced a 3rd choice my outflanking with Jetbikes or Vypers, but the Jetbikes were a more recent addition. In any case - sometimes players made poor choices - they'd panic and I'd capitalize. If they chose poorly, they lost, and if they made intelligent, tactic choices they often stood a chance of victory. But the thing that mattered was their choice. It wasn't made for them.
If GW starts dictating what models you can or cannot target than it reduces player freedom. Player choice. The 'equality of outcome' becomes apparent as their end-game. We want 'all options to be compelling' is not much different than 'all options are equally bland and unappealing'. Since they clearly cannot make compelling melee units, they have to 'force' them into CC by removing your ability to stop them.
I concern is that GW, with this new edition, is actually releasing WH40k: Destiny. they constant attempts to 'balance' the game will ultimately come at the cost of making the game insufferable. And at the end, what is the point of a balanced game if no one wants to play it?
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
I'm not saying he isn't taller, you'll notice my reply though is to someone saying he's twice as tall as marines and that's why it's unreasonable for him to hide behind others. I'm sure there is some variation in height amongst the primarchs too, but I don't believe Guilliman is modeled as 16 feet tall as is being claimed.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
My fear? Because of the past, I have a feeling they'll be sent to the wrong side. They'll get 11 wounds and won't be able to hide, because they are not Ultramarines. Again, it's just past paranoia playing on me because of favoritism, but I'm hoping New GW will set this right.
Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.
And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
If they were showing Ultramarine favoritism just to make him as good as possible then why didn't they make him 10 wounds so he could just barely hide? Making him a wound lower than that seems to indicate they weren't designing the cutoff around him.
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Well, I do agree that he may have been in mind when the wrote the 10-11 wound targeting rule. I would expect all similar size models (namely: Avatar of Khaine, Yncairne, and probably Ctan as well) to all be in that 9-10 Wound range. I know (at least for myself) that having the Avatar of Khaine not instantly die to heavy weapons would be a welcome sign.
When it comes to his size, yes he is several heads taller than most other marines... But on the battlefield, it would be very hard to pick him out of a moving force, especially so if you were on the same level as he is. Unless he was at the spearhead.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
What an arbitrary cutoff point. So what happens when it's a model that's "50% bigger" by being a wider bodied model, like Bellisarius Cawl?
Who, by the way, was Infantry. Unlike Guilliman.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
My fear? Because of the past, I have a feeling they'll be sent to the wrong side. They'll get 11 wounds and won't be able to hide, because they are not Ultramarines. Again, it's just past paranoia playing on me because of favoritism, but I'm hoping New GW will set this right.
"Because of the past"? You mean how when he got rules in "Rise of the Primarch" he was a Monstrous Creature? So he couldn't hide, barring a specific formation(Victrix Guard)?
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Well, I do agree that he may have been in mind when the wrote the 10-11 wound targeting rule. I would expect all similar size models (namely: Avatar of Khaine, Yncairne, and probably Ctan as well) to all be in that 9-10 Wound range. I know (at least for myself) that having the Avatar of Khaine not instantly die to heavy weapons would be a welcome sign.
When it comes to his size, yes he is several heads taller than most other marines... But on the battlefield, it would be very hard to pick him out of a moving force, especially so if you were on the same level as he is. Unless he was at the spearhead.
I'm very interested to see how many wounds models like daemon princes will have now. I'd probably laugh pretty hard if they came in at 10 wounds though because obviously that would mean GW is showing favoritism to chaos again.
Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
I don't have such a picture, but look at this:
That's 60mm base, and the base is quite a bit wider than the model is tall (not counting the sword or the halo), meaning the model is about 5cm tall. Normal marines vary quite a bit in size, but they're about 32 -35mm. So Guilliman is no more than about 50% taller. (I estimate that the numarines are about 38mm tall, so that will alleviate the issue even more.)
People seem obsessed with the whole the rules are being made to fit RG - seriously WTF?
If so why has he 9 and not 10 wounds - as has repeatedly been asked. If anyone is going to be pandered to its the Wolves... we simply don't know comparatives at this point.
C'mon GW post those weapon rules so we can scream at each other about something new.
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Mr Morden wrote: People seem obsessed with the whole the rules are being made to fit RG - seriously WTF?
If so why has he 9 and not 10 wounds - as has repeatedly been asked. If anyone is going to be pandered to its the Wolves... we simply don't know comparatives at this point.
C'mon GW post those weapon rules so we can scream at each other about something new.
My personal distaste for the 'hiding' rules has nothing to do with RG himself.
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
But how many snipers will it take to take RG out, though?
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
I'd expect psychic snipers rather than a new unit for chaos.
Snip. Conversation is about 8e, NOT other posters. --Janthkin
That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.
Warhammer Community wrote:applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.
Ten or less. It isn't some magic thing that when you hit ten Wounds you suddenly cease getting that protection. 11 is the magic number of when you cease getting protected.
We've been over the whole "Guilliman got 9 Wounds so he can get under the ten wounds for protection!" thing.
Then replace 10 with 11. If they wanted him picked out, they give him 11 wounds.
It's the mechanism they have chosen to decide if a model is able to be picked out.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?
Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.
Warhammer Community wrote:applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.
Ten or less. It isn't some magic thing that when you hit ten Wounds you suddenly cease getting that protection. 11 is the magic number of when you cease getting protected.
We've been over the whole "Guilliman got 9 Wounds so he can get under the ten wounds for protection!" thing.
Then replace 10 with 11. If they wanted him picked out, they give him 11 wounds.
It's the mechanism they have chosen to decide if a model if able yo be picked out.
Yes, and they made it kinda clear that it is going to be a very hearty character that will be required to hoof it.
What with the example of a character that has to do that being flipping Magnus.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?
Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.
Unfortunately I think that will be a possibility otherwise you have to set a bunch of the conditions to the rule and in the mindset of keeping things slim I don't think they would.
I can see people taking advantage of this using fast units.
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
Umm... The normal Daemon Princes, not the Primarch ones...
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
Daemon Princes aren't that big. Greater Daemons are, but not really Deamon Princes.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?
Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.
It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
Those are Daemon Primarchs, not Daemon Princes. Huge difference (hehe)
It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(
Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.
Is that really what people are saying, or are they simply saying that they like the approach that GW is taking here? Those are different things.
I think what would be nice is if all sides could stop the "paint-the-opposing-opinion-as-extreme-so-as-to-make-me-look-like-the-reasonable-one" tactics. Notice how you did that to others in the first sentence above, then complained about others doing it to you in the last sentence. But I also realize that it's the Internet and that request asks far, far too much.
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?
Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.
Unfortunately I think that will be a possibility otherwise you have to set a bunch of the conditions to the rule and in the mindset of keeping things slim I don't think they would.
I can see people taking advantage of this using fast units.
I'd be surprised if the "cover" doesn't require the character to be within so many inches of a friendly unit to activate it. They also stated that characters have an "aura" effect and standing a character on its own would be both risky and limiting the characters benefits. Can't see it being a big issues myself.
It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(
Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.
Could easily be limited to units within X" of the character.
I'd be surprised if the "cover" doesn't require the character to be within so many inches of a friendly unit to activate it. They also stated that characters have an "aura" effect and standing a character on its own would be both risky and limiting the characters benefits. Can't see it being a big issues myself.
I'm not overly stressed by it currently. I'll play a few scenarios with my buddy when we see the rules and judge it from there.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
If you look at Belakor, he's probably smaller than Guilliman actually.
I'm conflicted on where daemon princes will fall because I feel like they should have had a lot more wounds than they did in 7th so I wouldn't be surprised if they went above 10 but the fact remains that in 7th they were definitely set to have less than Guilliman so they could come out at 7ish like a dreadnought or something.
Give 7th edition a clean death and let's being in the new edition. Start fresh. Release a yearly General's Handbook to fix the feth ups that WILL happen to keep it balanced. Let's roll.
Agreed.
It's odd, though, because the common complaint for years has been that each edition has just been another revision to third (making 7th edition more like 3.4 edition). Now that we're getting a genuinely new edition, the common complaint is that it isn't just another revision to third.
I'm not saying the people making the first complaint are the same people making the second complaint, just that the most vocal complaint regarding editions has shifted.
This is just a matter of people complaining being louder than people approving.
When 2nd moved to 3rd, the big complaint was that it wasn't a new version of 2nd (Warhammer Fantasy was already doing new editions where you could continue to use your old army books, and this is what was expected- instead we got changes on every level).
I'm not saying either side is right- but it isn't a contradiction- it is a matter of some fans seeing the current system as too broken to keep while others would rather that their codecies be current for another year or two.
At least they aren't axing the minor factions like they did going into 3rd (2nd had Squats, Genestealer Cults, Daemon World armies, Chaos Cults, Legion of the Damned, Necrons and Harlequins who all got axed).
It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(
Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.
Could easily be limited to units within X" of the character.
That's awfully close to being joined to a unit.. The only thing missing would be look out sir and sharing toughness. Guess wound pools as well but hell that was a deterrant rather.
Daedalus81 wrote: And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.
Seeing as though you seem to think it's ok to quote me in your sig in some weird passive aggressive way of insulting me, let me not stoop to your level and instead give you a very simple task which you should be able to readily complete:
Today, we’re taking a look at a few of the simple rules changes in the new rules for weapons, but ones that have some pretty cool in-game effects.
Twin-linked Weapons
If you play Warhammer 40,000 today, you’ll know that there are a lot of twin-linked weapons about. These let you re-roll to hit dice, making them generally quite reliable, but potentially no more deadly than a single weapon. In the new Warhammer 40,000, twin-linked weapons instead get double the number of shots at half range.
This is a massive boost to a lot of units. Many vehicles, in particular, are going to be kicking out ruinous amounts of firepower – your Land Raider, for example, almost doubles in effectiveness. With its twin heavy bolters and now utterly lethal godhammer pattern lascannons, it becomes, quite rightly, one of the most powerful models in the game.
Orks as well, renowned for their habit of twin-linking for “more dakka”, gain a lot of bullets from this change. Just think about the number of shots those Waaagh!-planes will be firing now!
Combi-weapons
Another type of weapon that is changing is the combi-weapon. While in the current edition you can only shoot the “specialist” portion of the gun once, in the new Warhammer 40,000 you can either shoot both all the time, but at a -1 to hit modifier, or choose to just shoot one with no modifier. This is a pretty awesome boost in power for a lot of elite units like Chaos Terminators, Sternguard and Meganobz – no longer just one-hit-wonders with those shooting attacks.
Explosives
Warhammer 40,000 has no shortage of things that go ‘boom’. Whereas once these weapons would have used a template, in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots. This represents either how many warriors are caught in the explosion, or how direct the hit is on a larger single-model target. Otherwise, these work exactly as any other shooting.
Explosives tend to work pretty well now against both numerous infantry and large individual models, but not as well against either as dedicated anti-infantry or anti-tank weapons.
We’ll be back tomorrow, with some news on how Datasheets work.
Twin-linked Weapons If you play Warhammer 40,000 today, you’ll know that there are a lot of twin-linked weapons about. These let you re-roll to hit dice, making them generally quite reliable, but potentially no more deadly than a single weapon. In the new Warhammer 40,000, twin-linked weapons get double the number of shots.
Combi-weapons While in the current edition you can only shoot the “specialist” portion of the gun once, in the new Warhammer 40,000 you can either shoot both all the time, but at a -1 to hit modifier, or choose to just shoot one with no modifier.
Explosives Warhammer 40,000 has no shortage of things that go ‘boom’. Whereas once these weapons would have used a template, in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots.
Daedalus81 wrote: And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.
Seeing as though you seem to think it's ok to quote me in your sig in some weird passive aggressive way of insulting me, let me not stoop to your level and instead give you a very simple task which you should be able to readily complete:
Summarise these counter-reasons.
Go. Ball's in your court. Make your case.
We're past that, but you're free to go read what others wrote. What i'd like to see is the cessation of misrepresenting "this side" as uncritical and thoughtless.
I'm confused by this. Twin Linked weapons shoot double at half range, but that Twin Heavy bolter was Heavy 6. So it shoots 6 shots at long range and 12 at short?!?
I think they messed up and put part of the Rapid Fire rules in there for Twin Linked as that profile definitely looks like Twin-Linked is just x2 shots.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
If you look at Belakor, he's probably smaller than Guilliman actually.
I'm conflicted on where daemon princes will fall because I feel like they should have had a lot more wounds than they did in 7th so I wouldn't be surprised if they went above 10 but the fact remains that in 7th they were definitely set to have less than Guilliman so they could come out at 7ish like a dreadnought or something.
Way smaller. Be'lakor is tiny but then he's an old, old model.
docdoom77 wrote: I'm confused by this. Twin Linked weapons shoot double at half range, but that Twin Heavy bolter was Heavy 6. So it shoots 6 shots at long range and 12 at short?!?
Seems to run counter to the article.
Very confusing...I would not think HBs would be 6 shots given that battle cannon profile
I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick). Also it has no special rules, which it would need.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
Agreed. They probably messed up the writing. The profile points to twice the firepower, which would be logical.
Yes terminators are back! Especially chaos terms. And yes two linked heavy bolters will be able to shoot 12 at 18 inches. Landraiders just became threats again. And crusaders will mulch hordes
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
Maybe, but I assumed it just doubled rapid fire as well. So a TL bolter would shoot once at long range and 4 times at half range.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
Or rapid fire weapons now work differently.
I don't think we've seen the new rules for rapid fire and assault.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
That would make sense. Going to check facebook for clarification...
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
That would make sense. Going to check facebook for clarification...
My plan as well. When it finally goes up on facebook.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
Or rapid fire weapons now work differently.
I don't think we've seen the new rules for rapid fire and assault.
Rapid fire weapons double the shots at half range, we know this from the AM focus.
They clearly messed this up, twin linked weapon ALWAYS double shots going by that profile.
Everything can hurt everything (in this case, all weapons received a slight buff)
Units can fire overwatch multiple times in a single game turn
All units gain an enhanced version of split-fire (fewer wasted shots)
Twin-Linked adds additional shots instead of re-rolls (condenses more damage into a single shoot phase).
Combi weapons can fire both weapon profiles at once.
But yeah, Close combat it totally gonna rock guys!
nintura wrote: So theoretically, a TL-Lasgun from an ordered IG person would be 8 shots at half range?
Indeed.
Also, I dislike the changes to the Battlecannon. It's WAY too random and not reliable at all. Random shots and wounds? Not convinced
The fact that on average that thing is not going to kill a tyranid warrior out of cover makes by bugs really happy, it used to be ID at 2+ with no save.
nintura wrote: So theoretically, a TL-Lasgun from an ordered IG person would be 8 shots at half range?
Indeed.
Also, I dislike the changes to the Battlecannon. It's WAY too random and not reliable at all. Random shots and wounds? Not convinced
It works for Bolt Action though.
Never had the chance to play it, unfortunately. I guess time will tell but if I was an IG player I'd be... dismayed. I am guessing the Demolisher Cannon is going the same way.
Perhaps Rapid Fire weapons only double shots at half range only if you didn't move in the movement phase, while Twin-Linked weapons double shots at half range regardless of whether you moved.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick).
Or rapid fire weapons now work differently.
I don't think we've seen the new rules for rapid fire and assault.
Rapid fire weapons double the shots at half range, we know this from the AM focus.
They clearly messed this up, twin linked weapon ALWAYS double shots going by that profile.
Or...they could stack.
In the Imperial Guard example it says
This now makes a unit of Astra Militarum infantry treat their lasguns and hot-shot lasguns as Rapid Fire 2; that’s 4 shots per Guardsman at half range!
Rapid Fire could be a weapon type (like heavy 6), and Twin could be a modifier to weapon type (ie, a Twin Heavy Bolter is a heavy type weapon with the twin modifer.)
This means that a Twin Rapid Fire weapon would have quadruple the number of shots at close range (so rapid fire 2 gives 8 shots)
demontalons wrote: And yes two linked heavy bolters will be able to shoot 12 at 18 inches.
This is very likely a typo or copy/paste error. From what we've seen so far, if a weapon has an ability, it is described in the weapon entry itself, or in the weapon "Type". Even if it's not x2 at half range, think of all the T-Linked weapon systems that are going to be putting more shots down range! Killy.
I, uh, don't get the twin linked thing. I think they mean it's just 2x shots, so that's pretty logical. That is assuming that the "intstead" means the reroll is gone (seems to be the only reasonable interpretation) and that the half range is an error (assuming that normal heavy bolters aren't 72" range, and that heavy 6 won't become heavy 12). It makes sense, but it kinda makes "twin linked" as a term seem a bit superfluous.
EDIT: looks like the half range thing is gone, typo confirmed - definitely just 2x shots now.
Combi weapons just got a MASSIVE buff. I don't think it'll actually affect that much (suicide meltas still suicide, no other type was really seen that much) but it definitely makes things like combi-flamers more attractive.
Explosives - kinda hate it, to be honest. Rolling for random shots, then to hit is worse IMO than rolling once to hit then doing random hits from that. This just "feels" less like an explosive to me I guess. It's not a huge deal breaker, but it's a little saddening. That said, battle cannons now have a quite insane potential 18 wound output, though the average is 3.5 total wounds, over 2 models assuming 4+ to hit. It's actually kinda bad against infantry which is weird.
Also, from the meltagun (AP1) being -4, lascannons (AP2) being -3, battle cannons (AP3) being -2 and heavy bolters (AP4) being -1, I think we can safely assume all other weapons will follow this pattern.
All in all, good to see that meltaguns aren't just auto-death for vehicles, but everything else is meh.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick). Also it has no special rules, which it would need.
I was unsure about this. I kind of got the impression that Twin and Twin linked, might be different things. So a twin linked heavy bolter would be 3 shots at full range and 6 at half, and a twin heavy bolter is 6 shots.
Mymearan wrote: I assume they added the "at half range" bit in error, or twin-linked weapons would be exactly the same as rapid fire weapons (and also those Twin Heavy Bolters would be way too sick). Also it has no special rules, which it would need.
I was unsure about this. I kind of got the impression that Twin and Twin linked, might be different things. So a twin linked heavy bolter would be 3 shots at full range and 6 at half, and a twin heavy bolter is 6 shots.
No they've updated the article, it was as I said. Straight up double number of shots for Twin-linked weapons like the Twin Heavy Bolter in the article.
nintura wrote: So theoretically, a TL-Lasgun from an ordered IG person would be 8 shots at half range?
Indeed.
Also, I dislike the changes to the Battlecannon. It's WAY too random and not reliable at all. Random shots and wounds? Not convinced
I expected it but I assumed that large blasts like the battle cannon would be 2D6 shots and then D3 wounds or something.
I also expected more of roll to hit, roll number of hits, then roll to wound and number of wounds. Number of shots means rolling separately to hit for each shot which to me does not read like an explosion.
docdoom77 wrote: Article was updated. It's just double shots all the time.
So, as an example, a regular rapid-fire bolter is 1 shot at up to 24", and 2 shots within 12". A twin-linked bolter would be 2 shots out to 24".
And 4 shots at half range.
I'm not entirely sure it works like that. My impression is that the twin-linking "overrides" the "double-shots at half range" aspect of rapid-fire weapons.
docdoom77 wrote: Article was updated. It's just double shots all the time.
So, as an example, a regular rapid-fire bolter is 1 shot at up to 24", and 2 shots within 12". A twin-linked bolter would be 2 shots out to 24".
And 4 shots at half range.
I'm not entirely sure it works like that. My impression is that the twin-linking "overrides" the "double-shots at half range" aspect of rapid-fire weapons.
No, twin-linking isn't a rule, it just gives you more shots. So if you have a rapid fire twin-linked weapon it'll shoot a lot at half range.
nintura wrote: So Hurricane Bolters get 12 shots at 12" or less? Land Raider Crusaders are going to be terrifying.
No... they get 12 shots at 24" Very cool indeed.
No. Hurricane bolters are 3 twinlinked bolters which would mean (assuming a straight conversion) that they would be effectively rapid fire 6. Six shots out to 24" and 12 up to 12."
I think the design team has already included the bonuses from being TL on the profiles... So the twin heavy bolters do no double up, the're already included in the profile.
I expect that 8th is going to reinvigorate 
50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
