Oh, GW, it really wouldn't be you if your rules organization made any sense :
Rule 1: Defense. Also, shooting.
Rule 2: Other defense.
That totally follows any coherent pattern of organization. Oh, wait, no, the other one.
Also, interesting to see how they mixed up the force (and I assume power) weapon varieties' AP
This is a great example on how someone's perspective warps how they process information.
Why do you think they got it wrong instead of they simply changed it so that they work differently?
To clarify, I meant the less-common usage of (re)arranged in a manner I wasn't used to, regarding AP, unless you're referring to how I think their rules order is stupid- I stand by that being stupid.
That's true, and I agree fully. That is also why I feel despite all the flack Frankie took for his article, it caused much less hysteria then either of Reece's articles. He should have specified how mandiblasters work, or been extremely vague, dripping in the out put of the rule without telling us the input was stupid.
Should have just stuck to the Avatars weapon for a specific detail.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
There are only two immutable rules of 40k fluff: there are no female space Marines, and Mandiblasters are for tickling only.
I thought it was no female Space Marines and Lasguns double as flashlights.
Three! The three immutable rules of 40k are.... etc
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
You can think it as similar to rending currently. It allows for attacks that are normally quite weak, but thag can find a weak spot and thus be mortal. Whereas plasma gun is consistently lethal and thus has a high rend and strength. I bet harlequin's kisses are capable of dealing mortal wounds in the New system as well.
macluvin wrote: But its just a way to put the models you want to represent your army that is what you envision your army as and not supposed to be asystem for WAAC players to abuse. Besides, suppose that the power points cost might be adjusted according to how much the upgrades can boost them as well as naked? I think this will be a great edition to be honest. Maybe not at launch but I bet if people interact with Games Workshop CONSTRUCTIONALLY then we will one day have a near perfect system. Quit saying stuff sucks and they should feel bad its not helping anyone.
The power system is general guidelines so I'm guessing that once we see points values and compare, they'll come in somewhere in the middle.
Furthermore, they'll be useful for making non equal scenarios. Doing an attacker defender scenario where the attacker has brought a proper concentration of force to bear? Give the attacker 50% (or even 100%) more power and don't worry about weapon load outs. The scenario will work as intended and can be built quickly. People have been doing Open and Narrative play in Age of SIgmar since the General's Handbook came out and for many a simple guideline points system lets them get to the game they want faster than just feeling things out without one. It'll be a useful tool to make the type of games people want to play.
A point system that pretends to be some sort of basis for competition as an equal footing with as much of the options compensated for as possible? That's for matched play. I don't really expect GW to get it any closer to working than the AoS system with it's things like Skyfire spam.
As for people interacting with GW constructively, their current social media guy seems to be really good at dealing with negativity and responding with humour. Hopefully people get the hint that while GW is now willing to listen, they also have a gate keeper that will turn non constructive feedback into a joke like it deserves.
But its just a way to put the models you want to represent your army that is what you envision your army as and not supposed to be asystem for WAAC players to abuse. Besides, suppose that the power points cost might be adjusted according to how much the upgrades can boost them as well as naked? I think this will be a great edition to be honest. Maybe not at launch but I bet if people interact with Games Workshop CONSTRUCTIONALLY then we will one day have a near perfect system. Quit saying stuff sucks and they should feel bad its not helping anyone.
I have no problems with having both systems. I play AoS, which is power level. I just don't think people should be taking stabs at matched points unnecessarily.
The keystone of the lore of the Striking Scorpions, the very thing their legitimacy in the setting hinged on, was whether or not their little flavorful backup weapon could penetrate varying levels of armour?
Good grief.
Yeah, NOW they're completely unbelievable, these space elves in psychic bone armour with chainsaw swords and ninja star pistols. "But muh loar!!11" Get a grip. God forbid if they actually changed something meaningful?
This is some crazy minutiae to drill down into right here.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
Our plasma technology is thousands of years ahead of your mon'keigh
Most people try improving their technology instead of fielding antiques.
Have you read anything regarding your empire? You worship old weapons as if they were religious artifacts, and your tech has only been going down for the last 10k years. Happens when you fear science and technological advancement. No wonder your plasma sucks.
And Ork technology works because they believe it will. Again, using the fluff to justify or invalidate every design element in any scenario is ridiculous.
Jesus. Only you could take a friendly banter with some jesting included and turn it into a cryfest. Seriously. Lighten up before you have a stroke.
How is what I said not friendly banter?
Maybe I am not the one in need of lightening up.
Because you took it out of friendly banter territory by going "Again, using the fluff to justify or invalidate every design element in any scenario is ridiculous.
" Because it had zero to do with what we were talking about. You killed it Jim.
It had everything to do with what you were talking about lol.
I think your just making up rules for the rest of us to follow as you choose to be offended.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have no problems with having both systems. I play AoS, which is power level. I just don't think people should be taking stabs at matched points unnecessarily.
33 years of GW points systems, but this time. This time it will be different.
Well, to be fair we haven't even seen the result of Age of Sigmar's annual review, so it could be that it will turn out differently and that as things are exposed in the Points system they'll be adjusted and people won't have to wait years for a new codex or a supplement to "fix" things.
All in all I'm positive about the Power vs Points split.
frozenwastes wrote: Furthermore, they'll be useful for making non equal scenarios. Doing an attacker defender scenario where the attacker has brought a proper concentration of force to bear? Give the attacker 50% (or even 100%) more power and don't worry about weapon load outs. The scenario will work as intended and can be built quickly. People have been doing Open and Narrative play in Age of SIgmar since the General's Handbook came out and for many a simple guideline points system lets them get to the game they want faster than just feeling things out without one. It'll be a useful tool to make the type of games people want to play.
Umm that\s not exactly what you need power levels...Can be done just as well with normal points as well. Been doing that for like decade at least.
jamopower wrote: "Mandiblasters are neurally activated weapons which fire a hail of deadly metallic shards. These shards, while capable of cutting and lacerating flesh, are not particularly powerful alone; they act as a conductor to a follow-up intense laser burst. The laser flashes the slivers of metal into plasma, which can cause significant injury or death."
Sounds suitable for mortal wounds for me.
@can inflict@ That\s not @I punch through whatever protection you have@ level of weapon.
Plasma gun fires pure...well plasma. Same as mandiblaster. Expecting plasma guns to be causing mortal wounds any time soon_
So? Probably it will be an Attack that causes mortal wounds on sixes to hit or something along those lines.
So expecting to see plasma gun cause mortal wounds on 6\s to hit_
In 30 years mandiblaster has never been described as capable of hurting everything. It\s biggest advantage has been ability to hit enemy at close range before enemy gets to attack.
This new ability comes out of blue with no basis on existing background. Furthermore it isnt even really needed. There would be lots of ways to make scorpions threatening and worth their points without forgetting decades of background material.
If we want to redesign everything from scratch I say make assault marines jumpping shooty units.
You can think it as similar to rending currently. It allows for attacks that are normally quite weak, but thag can find a weak spot and thus be mortal. Whereas plasma gun is consistently lethal and thus has a high rend and strength. I bet harlequin's kisses are capable of dealing mortal wounds in the New system as well.
Precisely this.
The Scorpion, at point blank range, focuses on the opponents eye piece, the soft articulation in a join, an exposed mechanism, pre existing damage, the inexplicably helmetless head, etc etc, and, with a thought, launches a metal spike into it, which instantly turns into a superheated bolt of gas. The odds of a Plasma Gun doing similar (or perhaps more accurately, the odds of it not doing this) are represented by its rend value.
In 30 years, there's never been a compelling reason to take Scorpions outside of fluff or personal preference, this may well change that. That it could have been done differently is a total non-argument that applies to literally every other rule in the game, and trying to cite fluff as a reason for crunch is equally shaky.
Azreal13 wrote: The Scorpion, at point blank range, focuses on the opponents eye piece, the soft articulation in a join, an exposed mechanism, pre existing damage, the inexplicably helmetless head, etc etc, and, with a thought, launches a metal spike into it, which instantly turns into a superheated bolt of gas. The odds of a Plasma Gun doing similar (or perhaps more accurately, the odds of it not doing this) are represented by its rend value.
In 30 years, there's never been a compelling reason to take Scorpions outside of fluff or personal preference, this may well change that. That it could have been done differently is a total non-argument that applies to literally every other rule in the game, and trying to cite fluff as a reason for crunch is equally shaky.
That explains nicely how that works for terminators(capable of surviving being stomped by titan), land raider and titan...NOT!
And that it can be done in ways that's appropriate for fluff is appropriate. You can have scorpions that are good for existing fluff! You don't need to redesign units. On that logic why not make assault marines into shooty unit that fires beams that make lascannon pale in comparison out of their pistols? Assault marines have sucked and it can be done while being balanced so no different from redesinging mandiblaster.
What is there to be gained by throwing existing fluff randomly out of window? Balance? Moot point since you can make scorpions balanced within existing fluff. You could even make them BROKENLY GOOD without varying from existing fluff...
I dunno. In one of my Elder lists I took them (two 7 man squads) as a counter to Genestealer Cults and objective campers that would not die to Scatterbikes for whatever reason.
That said I want to see more about what they do now.
I guess I could buy the mandiblaster being an attack that, if you roll say a 6 to wound, becomes a mortal wound (thus bypassing armor/invulnerable saves), to represent the chance of the mandiblaster shooting someone right in the eye at point-blank range. Like others have said, similar to how you might represent a sniper getting a perfect kill shot. Still, that would probably be better represented by saying it wounds automatically if you roll a 6 to hit (so better armor or being in a tank would still make it less likely).
Since discussing how the rules represent (or don't) the background apparently causes people to lose their minds... I also think the heavy bolter should have been Damage 2 instead of -1 save. And the battle cannon should roll to hit then do D6 hits, instead of getting D6 shots.
That explains nicely how that works for terminators(capable of surviving being stomped by titan), land raider and titan...NOT!
And that it can be done in ways that's appropriate for fluff is appropriate. You can have scorpions that are good for existing fluff! You don't need to redesign units. On that logic why not make assault marines into shooty unit that fires beams that make lascannon pale in comparison out of their pistols? Assault marines have sucked and it can be done while being balanced so no different from redesinging mandiblaster.
What is there to be gained by throwing existing fluff randomly out of window? Balance? Moot point since you can make scorpions balanced within existing fluff. You could even make them BROKENLY GOOD without varying from existing fluff...
tneva82 wrote: Umm that\s not exactly what you need power levels...Can be done just as well with normal points as well. Been doing that for like decade at least.
And now people can simply add things up using relatively small numbers and not worry about any implication that they should be compensating for every little option.
Power is just a points system that's honest about what it is accomplishing-- being a general guideline. I happen to think the regular points system for matched play will be pretending to give more balance than it does, but that's just based on how GW points systems have turned out for the last three decades, and what kind of indicator is that?
Azreal13 wrote: The Scorpion, at point blank range, focuses on the opponents eye piece, the soft articulation in a join, an exposed mechanism, pre existing damage, the inexplicably helmetless head, etc etc, and, with a thought, launches a metal spike into it, which instantly turns into a superheated bolt of gas. The odds of a Plasma Gun doing similar (or perhaps more accurately, the odds of it not doing this) are represented by its rend value.
In 30 years, there's never been a compelling reason to take Scorpions outside of fluff or personal preference, this may well change that. That it could have been done differently is a total non-argument that applies to literally every other rule in the game, and trying to cite fluff as a reason for crunch is equally shaky.
That explains nicely how that works for terminators(capable of surviving being stomped by titan), land raider and titan...NOT!
And that it can be done in ways that's appropriate for fluff is appropriate. You can have scorpions that are good for existing fluff! You don't need to redesign units. On that logic why not make assault marines into shooty unit that fires beams that make lascannon pale in comparison out of their pistols? Assault marines have sucked and it can be done while being balanced so no different from redesinging mandiblaster.
What is there to be gained by throwing existing fluff randomly out of window? Balance? Moot point since you can make scorpions balanced within existing fluff. You could even make them BROKENLY GOOD without varying from existing fluff...
You forgot to wave around your credentials first before that long rant.
Why shouldn't the Mandibles be unable to harm vehicles? Why are you ranting when you don't even know if they're even able to target said vehicles?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On a much needed but OT tangent...hope we get a slew of new Start Collecting sets with the launch.
Thousand Sons - hopefully Rubricae, Tzaangor and perhaps a Rhino or Predator?
I would love that. Some of them can stay the same, but the Tzeentch one like that would be amazing. Don't they usually come with some sort of HQ/Hero though? So maybe a Rhino and a Sorcerer instead of a Predator?
Azreal13 wrote: The Scorpion, at point blank range, focuses on the opponents eye piece, the soft articulation in a join, an exposed mechanism, pre existing damage, the inexplicably helmetless head, etc etc, and, with a thought, launches a metal spike into it, which instantly turns into a superheated bolt of gas. The odds of a Plasma Gun doing similar (or perhaps more accurately, the odds of it not doing this) are represented by its rend value.
In 30 years, there's never been a compelling reason to take Scorpions outside of fluff or personal preference, this may well change that. That it could have been done differently is a total non-argument that applies to literally every other rule in the game, and trying to cite fluff as a reason for crunch is equally shaky.
That explains nicely how that works for terminators(capable of surviving being stomped by titan), land raider and titan...NOT!
I'm not sure where this 'capable of surviving a titan stomp' comes from. They were also designed as suits to wear in plasma reactors, but it doesn't mean they can reliably soak plasma shots.
Second, a precise high-damage weapon could certainly be used to deal some modicum of damage to an exposed joint on a titan's ankle or something similar. It just won't deal much damage, as it can only deal 1 wound out of a pool of 20+.
And that it can be done in ways that's appropriate for fluff is appropriate. You can have scorpions that are good for existing fluff! You don't need to redesign units. On that logic why not make assault marines into shooty unit that fires beams that make lascannon pale in comparison out of their pistols? Assault marines have sucked and it can be done while being balanced so no different from redesinging mandiblaster.
What is there to be gained by throwing existing fluff randomly out of window? Balance? Moot point since you can make scorpions balanced within existing fluff. You could even make them BROKENLY GOOD without varying from existing fluff...
The fluff argument is really not a very convincing one. Exactly how much damage a mandiblaster does is pretty firmly in my personal 'who cares' bucket.
Its perhaps pathetic but after two weeks of theorycraft I am getting a bit bored.
I just hope Dark Eldar get good rules and then preferably some good releases (Covens definitely seem signposted for a release based on the prominence in the art but that might be wishful thinking).
Azreal13 wrote: The Scorpion, at point blank range, focuses on the opponents eye piece, the soft articulation in a join, an exposed mechanism, pre existing damage, the inexplicably helmetless head, etc etc, and, with a thought, launches a metal spike into it, which instantly turns into a superheated bolt of gas. The odds of a Plasma Gun doing similar (or perhaps more accurately, the odds of it not doing this) are represented by its rend value.
In 30 years, there's never been a compelling reason to take Scorpions outside of fluff or personal preference, this may well change that. That it could have been done differently is a total non-argument that applies to literally every other rule in the game, and trying to cite fluff as a reason for crunch is equally shaky.
That explains nicely how that works for terminators(capable of surviving being stomped by titan), land raider and titan...NOT!
Oh, do Terminators not have eyepieces? Are they completely lacking any sort of articulation and in reality just stand stock still, unable to move, content in the knowledge that nothing's getting through their elbow join or the back of the knee? Has the justification for troops assaulting vehicles targeting the rear AV not been that they're able to target weak points because they're up close for years?
And that it can be done in ways that's appropriate for fluff is appropriate. You can have scorpions that are good for existing fluff! You don't need to redesign units. On that logic why not make assault marines into shooty unit that fires beams that make lascannon pale in comparison out of their pistols? Assault marines have sucked and it can be done while being balanced so no different from redesinging mandiblaster.
What is there to be gained by throwing existing fluff randomly out of window? Balance? Moot point since you can make scorpions balanced within existing fluff. You could even make them BROKENLY GOOD without varying from existing fluff...
I find it perfectly acceptable in the context of the fluff for reasons already explained, that you don't speaks as much to your determination to argue that every single change is bad as much as anything.
Elbows wrote: Hey now...Striking Scorpions were a decent alternative to Banshee's in 2nd ed.
Well, I guess I see scorpions as being good at tearing through a lot of weak or lightly armored infantry (with lots of shots from shuriken pistols and mandiblasters and chainswords to tear flesh). I see banshees as being good at taking out elite infantry, with power swords to go through better armor and banshee masks to reduce the effectiveness of a better opponent.
Scorpions had 1 better armour...Banshees had a better sword...Scorpions got a bonus attack at the start of a combat...Banshees (mostly) reduced opponents attacks...but Banshees were a point more expensive. It was a nice balance, and both felt just unique enough to be different. However, back then they were both great because the weapons had strength values - ignoring the model's strength, so an Eldar with a Strength 4 or Strength 5 close-combat weapon was good stuff.
Provided their hth prowess remains much as it is, those Mandiblasters should see them excel in butchering light and medium infantry, as they all add up the Battleshock score. So a squad of 10 stand a good chance of Battleshocking units off the board in the second round - which is pretty ideal as it frees them up for their next player turn.
Assuming of course Mandiblasters aren't a charge bonus thing, instead activating every combat round
gnome_idea_what wrote: The "we can't show you everything, but we'll give you a taste of what's happening and hint at stuff coming later!" Attitude is really annoying, while I know it's designed to stir up hype it just ends up creating "technically not baseless but functionally baseless" speculation and gets annoying with all the waiting. It'll be really funny if when we have enough info and leaks and start piecing the codexes together a few weeks from launch, and they're still hyping like the new edition is a year away. The tiny amount of info every day feels like the community is on an I.V drip, and I wish that we'd get enough crunch to actually do something with in weekly dumps and the hyperbole and hype in avoidable daily posts. Or they could run an ARG or something, that way it would feel like we're actively participating in discovering the new rules.
The only thing I would hope for is they release stats and such a week or two ahead of the release so you know what to buy. That's what I hate. People now are not buying or very much slowing down any purchases because we don't know anything besides a few marines and part of an elder. Not even asking for rules, just stats to see weapons and such. I cant see how they think its a good business process to release no info really so people wont buy your product. Does only effect new players though or people looking to buy new armies. I have been buying admech and buying/painting them up for 8th but im purely guessing on weapon loadouts.
Yea I wanted to start a pole to find out who was buying still and so on but it was ignored unfortunately, I was in the I WONT BUY ANOTHER THING UNTIL I KNOW THE RULES! camp then they released the gorka/morka naut data sheet, that pretty much sealed the deal I'm massing deff dreads kanz nauts now, painting away reading this thread.
Ok I don't like this mandiblaster doing mortal damage stuff. I fear they are going to give mortal damage to way too many stuff. Also it doesn't seem supported in any way by the current fluff for the mandiblaster, though they could retcon it and that would be okay because they will also retcon female marines in and that's great.
But that Facebook recap makes me fear that Sisters will still only be in the “Agents of the Imperium” thingy rather than on their own.
Well, I guess I see scorpions as being good at tearing through a lot of weak or lightly armored infantry (with lots of shots from shuriken pistols and mandiblasters and chainswords to tear flesh). I see banshees as being good at taking out elite infantry, with power swords to go through better armor and banshee masks to reduce the effectiveness of a better opponent.
Yeah, this is how I always interpreted their roles. The mortal wound thing messes this up, as now Scorpions are good against heavily armoured opponents too.
Also, for all the rationalisations of mortal mandiblasters, let's not forget that MWs bypass invulnerable saves, meaning forcefields. How is that supposed to make sense?
And this is not only about mandiblasters, It makes me fear that MW abilities are dished out generously without rhyme or reason, instead of being super rare as I think they should.
Yeah, this is how I always interpreted their roles. The mortal wound thing messes this up, as now Scorpions are good against heavily armoured opponents too.
Also, for all the rationalisations of mortal mandiblasters, let's not forget that MWs bypass invulnerable saves, meaning forcefields. How is that supposed to make sense?
And this is not only about mandiblasters, It makes me fear that MW abilities are dished out generously without rhyme or reason, instead of being super rare as I think they should.
Can't think of a forcefield that works in CC at the moment.
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
Can't think of a forcefield that works in CC at the moment.
Umm... almost all of them?
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
If this unit had been Wraithguard with their distortion weapons, I would not be worried. But they gave it to a glorified taser... If they felt that warranted MWs, almost anything could. (I was not thrilled about the basic psychic power that everyone gets dishing out MWs either.)
Provided their hth prowess remains much as it is, those Mandiblasters should see them excel in butchering light and medium infantry, as they all add up the Battleshock score. So a squad of 10 stand a good chance of Battleshocking units off the board in the second round - which is pretty ideal as it frees them up for their next player turn.
Assuming of course Mandiblasters aren't a charge bonus thing, instead activating every combat round
Another thing that strikes (pun?) me as possible is that Chainswords may actually be AP -1. In the old system giving them AP6/5 just didn't do much, but armour modification could better represent what a Chainsword can do. Although I doubt they would keep the +1 str and be AP -1. Probably one or the other for balance sake.
Well, I guess I see scorpions as being good at tearing through a lot of weak or lightly armored infantry (with lots of shots from shuriken pistols and mandiblasters and chainswords to tear flesh). I see banshees as being good at taking out elite infantry, with power swords to go through better armor and banshee masks to reduce the effectiveness of a better opponent.
Yeah, this is how I always interpreted their roles. The mortal wound thing messes this up, as now Scorpions are good against heavily armoured opponents too.
This is a bit of conjecture.
We don't know that they deal an obscene number of mortal wounds or anything of that nature. For all we know, they deal a Mortal Wound to a single model within a certain distance of them.
Also, for all the rationalisations of mortal mandiblasters, let's not forget that MWs bypass invulnerable saves, meaning forcefields. How is that supposed to make sense?
And this is not only about mandiblasters, It makes me fear that MW abilities are dished out generously without rhyme or reason, instead of being super rare as I think they should.
Oh, you mean like how D/pseudo-D weapons were absurdly common in one army(Eldar) and every other army had to pay out the wazoo for one or two specific units with them?
We got mention of two sources of Mortal Wounds so far for Eldar. Asurmen's sword can potentially cause them and Scorpion Mandiblasters can cause them.
I'd be more concerned if they said that Shuriken Catapults caused Mortal Wounds.
So because save can fail it is same than ignoring the save completely? Brilliant logic there. I mean because terminators can fail saves against laspistols, it totally means laspistols should deal Mortal Wounds...
Can't think of a forcefield that works in CC at the moment.
Umm... almost all of them?
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
If this unit had been Wraithguard with their distortion weapons, I would not be worried. But they gave it to a glorified taser... If they felt that warranted MWs, almost anything could. (I was not thrilled about the basic psychic power that everyone gets dishing out MWs either.)
Sorry my brain was going to like literal bubble force fields for a moment there.
AoS has quite a lot of mortal wounds, and it's actually an important equalizer to prevent things like the infamous near-invulnerable 2+ re-roll deathstar. You can build a super powerful character/elite unit decked out with gear and buffed by psychic powers, but you can't just charge up the field taking everything the opponent has without flinching because you still have to worry about mortal wounds munching up your expensive guys. It can go wrong though, if it overly penalizes elite armies that don't have any chaff to soak up mortal wounds for example. It's a tough balance to strike but it does add an extra layer to the game and I quite like the mechanic in AoS. AoS actually has invulnerable saves as well, although not as a core mechanic. Some units have special rules that say, for example, "this unit ignores rend values below -2."
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Ok I don't like this mandiblaster doing mortal damage stuff. I fear they are going to give mortal damage to way too many stuff. Also it doesn't seem supported in any way by the current fluff for the mandiblaster, though they could retcon it and that would be okay because they will also retcon female marines in and that's great.
But that Facebook recap makes me fear that Sisters will still only be in the “Agents of the Imperium” thingy rather than on their own.
To be fair to your Sisters worries, given that there are only going to be a handful of codexes on launch all Imperium non-space marine forces will likely get consolidated into one book, so IG and Knights will probably get the same treatment.
I think mortal wounds should really be restricted to things that mess with reality. Like if you pull a God Emperor and discharge so much psychic energy that it literally kills somebody's soul, that should be a mortal wound.
Singular because something like that should have the old instant death rule
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
If this unit had been Wraithguard with their distortion weapons, I would not be worried. But they gave it to a glorified taser... If they felt that warranted MWs, almost anything could. (I was not thrilled about the basic psychic power that everyone gets dishing out MWs either.)
I don't know what kind of tasers you're seeing used, but man. That is not a taser.
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
If this unit had been Wraithguard with their distortion weapons, I would not be worried. But they gave it to a glorified taser... If they felt that warranted MWs, almost anything could. (I was not thrilled about the basic psychic power that everyone gets dishing out MWs either.)
I don't know what kind of tasers you're seeing used, but man. That is not a taser.
The kind that "stun" you by ripping holes in reality?
If Mortal Wound SPam becomes meta... thats only good news for horde armies like Tyranids and Orks.
Nothing more beautiful that going to a tournament with my 100 bloodreavers Bloodbound and the face of my oponent when he sees that his mortal-wound Skyfires are practically useless
So because save can fail it is same than ignoring the save completely? Brilliant logic there. I mean because terminators can fail saves against laspistols, it totally means laspistols should deal Mortal Wounds...
No, it means there's are in universe reasons why that save fails, one of those reason may be the conventional melee attack gets inside the space protected by the field. I'd say a space elf who's been practicing for centuries with his chosen discipline's signature weapon should be quite adept at that.
Or it just gives the game piece a reason to exist and be utilised, and people are losing their minds over small details.
NivlacSupreme wrote: I think mortal wounds should really be restricted to things that mess with reality. Like if you pull a God Emperor and discharge so much psychic energy that it literally kills somebody's soul, that should be a mortal wound.
Singular because something like that should have the old instant death rule
I think there are quite a few things that could represent mortal wounds. For example:
- Crushing blows that would pulverize the person inside the armour
- Psychic attacks that attack the mind and not the body
- Precise attacks that target weak points
- Weapons that attack your senses, for example sonic attacks, blinding attacks etc
Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
Elbows wrote: Hey now...Striking Scorpions were a decent alternative to Banshee's in 2nd ed.
Well, I guess I see scorpions as being good at tearing through a lot of weak or lightly armored infantry (with lots of shots from shuriken pistols and mandiblasters and chainswords to tear flesh). I see banshees as being good at taking out elite infantry, with power swords to go through better armor and banshee masks to reduce the effectiveness of a better opponent.
I've always thought they would be better at reversed roles - scorpions being assassins sent in to (stealthily) hunt down and kill individual characters (like a Predator on a hunt - see the exarch model), whereas the Banshees were a bit like whirling dervishes who leap into a swarm of troops to cut them to ribbons.
Overall, I don't know if it was just the units they did pick, but it seems to be that the Eldar are going to be the ones who ignore the regular rules (go first when not charging, ignoring armor with their attacks, moving faster than any other army, etc.)
NivlacSupreme wrote: I think mortal wounds should really be restricted to things that mess with reality. Like if you pull a God Emperor and discharge so much psychic energy that it literally kills somebody's soul, that should be a mortal wound.
Singular because something like that should have the old instant death rule
I think there are quite a few things that could represent mortal wounds. For example:
- Crushing blows that would pulverize the person inside the armour
Well, the test of 8th edition's balance was always going to be Eldar. They were top tier in 5 of the past 6 editions of the game after all, and GW loves to make them broken; I mean, who DIDN'T love Wave Serpent spam in 6e, or the current mess in c7e. I'm sure that mandiblasters inexplicably doing mortal wounds despite the fluff not making sense for that at all is a great sign. And it's always been so fun to play against those "I hide my jetbikes all game and dash out at the last second to contest every objective" matches; nothing screams fun like not being able to play the game.
There aren't enough words in the English language to express my loathing. I know it's not the players' fault, but at this point if I never see Eldar again, I won't feel aggrieved. This latest article hasn't really filled me with hope that the things I hate about them (not being able to interact with enemy models, random overpowered nonsense) will be fixed in 8th. Who knows though, maybe we'll get the first edition ever where Eldar are actually appropriately costed.
Yeah, this is how I always interpreted their roles. The mortal wound thing messes this up, as now Scorpions are good against heavily armoured opponents too.
Also, for all the rationalisations of mortal mandiblasters, let's not forget that MWs bypass invulnerable saves, meaning forcefields. How is that supposed to make sense?
And this is not only about mandiblasters, It makes me fear that MW abilities are dished out generously without rhyme or reason, instead of being super rare as I think they should.
Can't think of a forcefield that works in CC at the moment.
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
Shadowfield, Refractor Field, Iron Halo, Rosarius..........what field does not work in CC?
I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound. Maybe something like something you use if the unit got to charge, and it gets the Mortal Wound profile on a to-hit roll of a 6.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound.
Honestly, without points values it's all utterly irrelevant, they could do an automatic mortal wound at the start of every round of combat and still be balanced if pointed appropriately and all factions have the tools to manage them
Eldar would be fine if they had a price increase, and considering the FB dude specifically has spoken about units getting rebalanced points wise, I am still holding on to hope they are still not the cheese lords of cheese mountain.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound.
Honestly, without points values it's all utterly irrelevant, they could do an automatic mortal wound at the start of every round of combat and still be balanced if pointed appropriately and all factions have the tools to manage them
Yeah exactly this.
It might only sound OP because we haven't seen all the stuff that other factions have to match and counter this sort of stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't like that in the Eldar preview we saw that some units hit first regardless of the charge :(
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound.
Honestly, without points values it's all utterly irrelevant, they could do an automatic mortal wound at the start of every round of combat and still be balanced if pointed appropriately and all factions have the tools to manage them
Can't think of a forcefield that works in CC at the moment.
So...one unit gets mortal wounds and now they're being handed out willy nilly. The aspiring sorcerer got a downgraded Smite - willy nilly indeed.
Shadowfield, Refractor Field, Iron Halo, Rosarius..........what field does not work in CC?
Ork Kustom power field i think?
Which if currently a cover save, so probably not changing in that respect. I wonder if it'll give -1 to hit instead of +1 to the armour save.
KFFs are currently invluns, not cover.
As for mandiiblasters, I think we should wait until we actually know how they work before screaming about how OP they are. Yes, they will do mortal wounds which ignore saves, but if that's enough to engage your rage, then buckle up, because there's going to be a lot of stuff that does.
stonehorse wrote: Looking forward to seeing Eldar rebalanced. Hopefully we'll see an end to Scatter Bike spam.
Reece seems to think so in his fluff piece for GW. I mean I know it's a promo piece written for a company and isn't 100% true, but at the same time I don't think he'd breech the subject if he didn't have some confidence in it being true.
gnome_idea_what wrote: To be fair to your Sisters worries, given that there are only going to be a handful of codexes on launch all Imperium non-space marine forces will likely get consolidated into one book, so IG and Knights will probably get the same treatment.
Well, IG/AM got their own faction focus already, so if Sisters share theirs with other Imperial Agent it means they will likely still be considered more of a nice/allied stuff than a real faction…
Galas wrote: Nothing more beautiful that going to a tournament with my 100 bloodreavers Bloodbound
Your bloodsomething bloodwhat? Do they have bloodweapon and bloodarmor?
I don't like that in the Eldar preview we saw that some units hit first regardless of the charge :(
They already said that in the Charge preview. Eldar and Daemonettes, units that before needed their Initiative to survive meele, will still hit first all the time. I have no problem with that.
Rippy wrote: I don't like that in the Eldar preview we saw that some units hit first regardless of the charge :(
It's how Banshee Masks work in the fluff, and it's an "almost every combat" which means there is stuff that will negate it. Plus we know Lash Whips and Slaaenshi models will have ways to trip up charging models into not striking first.
It's likely something we'll see a few armies get (maybe even Grav or Concussive making it a thing were you can't activate the unit first), and forces choices on how to deal with those units and negate their bonuses.
I don't like that in the Eldar preview we saw that some units hit first regardless of the charge :(
They already said that in the Charge preview. Eldar and Daemonettes, units that before needed their Initiative to survive meele, will still hit first all the time. I have no problem with that.
I am aware they said there were some cases where units hit first regardless, but this makes it sound like it might be commonplace for some armies. Yes I understand those armies will be doomed without it in some cases, but I feel like there is a better way of mitigating it than making them unchargable for some armies.
gnome_idea_what wrote: To be fair to your Sisters worries, given that there are only going to be a handful of codexes on launch all Imperium non-space marine forces will likely get consolidated into one book, so IG and Knights will probably get the same treatment.
Well, IG/AM got their own faction focus already, so if Sisters share theirs with other Imperial Agent it means they will likely still be considered more of a nice/allied stuff than a real faction…
Maybe. I mean, rolling the small Imperial armies into a single post might be done just to better cover things. And it's not like any small army can't see a proper release in the future with a bigger solo list.
It is not about mandiblasters being OP, that's not my complaint. It is about this not making any sense, and the fact that this hints that MWs would be more prevalent in the game than I'd prefer.
IMHO, Mortal Wounds should be reserved to the most powerful weapons in the setting, and no one in their right mind (at least before these news) would have placed mandiblaster on that list.
Crimson wrote: It is not about mandiblasters being OP, that's not my complaint. It is about this not making any sense, and the fact that this hints that MWs would be more prevalent in the game than I'd prefer.
IMHO, Mortal Wounds should be reserved to the most powerful weapons in the setting, and no one in their right mind (at least before these news) would have placed mandiblaster on that list.
Mortal Wounds could also be replacing Rending, which I would expect to be on Mandiblasters.
Crimson wrote: It is not about mandiblasters being OP, that's not my complaint. It is about this not making any sense, and the fact that this hints that MWs would be more prevalent in the game than I'd prefer.
IMHO, Mortal Wounds should be reserved to the most powerful weapons in the setting, and no one in their right mind (at least before these news) would have placed mandiblaster on that list.
Mortal Wounds could also be replacing Rending, which I would expect to be on Mandiblasters.
Good point, if this is the way that GW are taking old Rending, as a Tyranid player I am happy. Hopefully Genestealers will be playable again, along with Rending Claw armed Tyranid Warriors.
Crimson wrote: It is not about mandiblasters being OP, that's not my complaint. It is about this not making any sense, and the fact that this hints that MWs would be more prevalent in the game than I'd prefer.
IMHO, Mortal Wounds should be reserved to the most powerful weapons in the setting, and no one in their right mind (at least before these news) would have placed mandiblaster on that list.
Mortal Wounds could also be replacing Rending, which I would expect to be on Mandiblasters.
Good point, if this is the way that GW are taking old Rending, as a Tyranid player I am happy. Hopefully Genestealers will be playable again, along with Rending Claw armed Tyranid Warriors.
I felt my heart stop for a second when I thought of Genestealers being able to dish out mortal wounds (I'm hoping that if they do it's on a to-wound of a 6).
If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
You may be right, but can you really be sure that they're actually broken without seeing the full rules and points costs?
I know this is part of the daily panic attacks the board seems to have over every new article, but I just wish we could chill just a little about how broken something looks when we can't even see the rules that relate to said weapon that was mentioned basically in passing inside of a paragraph.
Can the pointy eared space ponces be broken? Sure. But basing that conclusion off of a marketing fluff piece is putting the cart before the horse.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP.
It's a shame, but after seeing that Eldar preview, it may well be one of those two options. Very hard to say though, as we have seen probably 1% of units so far.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
Lol, you don't even know how they work, they just mentioned. Maybe they have to roll 6's to would prefight to cause mortal wounds (This is something I've seen often on AoS models) It's far from OP and very fluffy. Just wait and see what the real rules are before ranting.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP.
It's a shame, but after seeing that Eldar preview, it may well be one of those two options. Very hard to say though, as we have seen probably 1% of units so far.
We've seen less than 1% of all the changes coming in the new game. Because other than what models are in an army and what they can carry everything else changed.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
Lol, you don't even know how they work, they just mentioned. Maybe they have to roll 6's to would prefight to cause mortal wounds (This is something I've seen often on AoS models) It's far from OP and very fluffy. Just wait and see what the real rules are before ranting.
The fact they do Mortal Wounds at all is the moronic part. Because if a Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, with a barrel as wide as a Striking Scorpion model, doesn't do a mortal wound, but a pair of nozzles the width of a paperclip does do a mortal wound, they have gone way too far into the weeds.
Crimson wrote: It is not about mandiblasters being OP, that's not my complaint. It is about this not making any sense, and the fact that this hints that MWs would be more prevalent in the game than I'd prefer.
IMHO, Mortal Wounds should be reserved to the most powerful weapons in the setting, and no one in their right mind (at least before these news) would have placed mandiblaster on that list.
Ok, that's fair enough. I can say that mortal wounds will be available to everyone. I doubt we'll see whole armies tossing nothing but though.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
Lol, you don't even know how they work, they just mentioned. Maybe they have to roll 6's to would prefight to cause mortal wounds (This is something I've seen often on AoS models) It's far from OP and very fluffy. Just wait and see what the real rules are before ranting.
The fact they do Mortal Wounds at all is the moronic part. Because if a Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, with a barrel as wide as a Striking Scorpion model, doesn't do a mortal wound, but a pair of nozzles the width of a paperclip does do a mortal wound, they have gone way too far into the weeds.
Rending ignored all armour saves even that which could stand inside of an active plasma engine (Terminator Armour). In my book this is the same kind of thing as that.
casvalremdeikun wrote: The fact they do Mortal Wounds at all is the moronic part. Because if a Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, with a barrel as wide as a Striking Scorpion model, doesn't do a mortal wound, but a pair of nozzles the width of a paperclip does do a mortal wound, they have gone way too far into the weeds.
Must we really go over the difference between something like a high explosive round and a sabot round?
Vespid are gonna do Mortal Wounds. You hear it here first! Believe me! They are gonna be OP, great OP!
Don't be tricked by the name guys. They call them Mortal Wounds, but they just put where they thing it will be good to balance (I assume ), it has 0 to do with "fluff" or the actual power of the weapon. For example, in AoS, basically every Chariot (Boars, Chaos, etc...) or heavy cavalry like Bloodcrushers, do 1d3 Mortal Wounds on the charge, but they do it as a unit, not per model. Bloodcrushers for example do 1d3 Mortal Wounds to every enemy unit at 1" or less at the end of their charge, or 1d6 if the unit has 6 bloodcrushers or more. I expect something similar to the Scorpions. Don't be surprise when a boar charging you causes mortal wounds but being bite by a Dragon don't.
casvalremdeikun wrote: The fact they do Mortal Wounds at all is the moronic part. Because if a Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, with a barrel as wide as a Striking Scorpion model, doesn't do a mortal wound, but a pair of nozzles the width of a paperclip does do a mortal wound, they have gone way too far into the weeds.
Must we really go over the difference between something like a high explosive round and a sabot round?
Depends, are we going to talk about how, when struck with a high explosive round, the Concussive force makes body armor a liability more than a boon? Turns out soft tissue striking a hard surface tends to not be good for the soft tissue. Or that a high explosive round should blow the survivors several feet in the air and long distances away from their original position? Besides, the force that would be required to eject a low caliber sabot round with enough force to penetrate thick armor instead of bouncing off would rip the head off the Eldar firing them. Most sabot rounds are tank weapons for a reason.
casvalremdeikun wrote: The fact they do Mortal Wounds at all is the moronic part. Because if a Leman Russ's Battle Cannon, with a barrel as wide as a Striking Scorpion model, doesn't do a mortal wound, but a pair of nozzles the width of a paperclip does do a mortal wound, they have gone way too far into the weeds.
Must we really go over the difference between something like a high explosive round and a sabot round?
Depends, are we going to talk about how, when struck with a high explosive round, the Concussive force makes body armor a liability more than a boon? Turns out soft tissue striking a hard surface tends to not be good for the soft tissue. Or that a high explosive round should blow the survivors several feet in the air and long distances away from their original position? Besides, the force that would be required to eject a low caliber sabot round with enough force to penetrate thick armor instead of bouncing off would rip the head off the Eldar firing them. Most sabot rounds are tank weapons for a reason.
Semantics aside, Mortal Wounds are likely replacing both the D mechanic as well as the Rending mechanic.
Eternal Warrior is likely turning into "can take saves against Mortal Wounds" or some kind of Mortal Wound soak ("half the number of mortal wounds dealt rounded up") as well.
We need to basically shelve our assumptions on why something should or should not do mortal wounds as they're just a classification of wounds you can't normally take saves against. The game is changing from the ground up, so let's try to not label things we haven't seen rules for as "broken".
Depends, are we going to talk about how, when struck with a high explosive round, the Concussive force makes body armor a liability more than a boon? Turns out soft tissue striking a hard surface tends to not be good for the soft tissue. Or that a high explosive round should blow the survivors several feet in the air and long distances away from their original position? Besides, the force that would be required to eject a low caliber sabot round with enough force to penetrate thick armor instead of bouncing off would rip the head off the Eldar firing them. Most sabot rounds are tank weapons for a reason.
Then why don't terminators liquefy in their suits from a powerful blast? We shouldn't even need to roll armor saves for that!
I don't find it odd that dudes who are supposed to be masters of stealth and close combat might be able to use a precision plasma weapon to bypass armor and field saves, especially on the charge.
That said, the argument from fluff is really a non-starter at this point. We have no idea what the actual mechanic is, what might be affected, or how often or how many mortal wounds might be involved. Not that arguments from fluff matter to me much, but it is nice when things make sense. That's why, for now, barring further details, I'm just fine with the above fluff answer. Sure, those who are losing their e-shizz over this aren't going to stop, but I guess we all need hobbies.
Depends, are we going to talk about how, when struck with a high explosive round, the Concussive force makes body armor a liability more than a boon? Turns out soft tissue striking a hard surface tends to not be good for the soft tissue. Or that a high explosive round should blow the survivors several feet in the air and long distances away from their original position? Besides, the force that would be required to eject a low caliber sabot round with enough force to penetrate thick armor instead of bouncing off would rip the head off the Eldar firing them. Most sabot rounds are tank weapons for a reason.
Then why don't terminators liquefy in their suits from a powerful blast? We shouldn't even need to roll armor saves for that!
It probably has a lot to do with the physique of the Space Marine than anything. Again, the force required to project a sabot round with any level of penetration power is quite large. The sabot rounds used by the M1 Abrams are fired from its 120 mm cannon and the sabot itself is only 20-30 mm in width. Let's say that the Mandiblaster is a 50 Cal width (so about 13 mm in width). If it had the same level of reduction in size, it would be about 2-3 mm in width. With that little of mass, it would need astronomically high amounts of force to get it to penetrate armor. That force will be applied directly to the Eldar's neck.
Also, the fact a Battle Cannon still can wound Terminators and bypass their armor half of the time kind helps my argument on the Concussive force anyway...
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Depends, are we going to talk about how, when struck with a high explosive round, the Concussive force makes body armor a liability more than a boon? Turns out soft tissue striking a hard surface tends to not be good for the soft tissue. Or that a high explosive round should blow the survivors several feet in the air and long distances away from their original position? Besides, the force that would be required to eject a low caliber sabot round with enough force to penetrate thick armor instead of bouncing off would rip the head off the Eldar firing them. Most sabot rounds are tank weapons for a reason.
Then why don't terminators liquefy in their suits from a powerful blast? We shouldn't even need to roll armor saves for that!
Because Terminators weigh a ton, the suit is hard and pressurized, and the marine physique can handle Drop Pod landings.
Have they even said what mortal wounds do? Or is this AOS assumptions. Like did gw say mortal wounds ignore all most invul saves and armour saves? Does it automatically hit and ignore all cover and to hit modifiers? Does it go through void shields or powerfields on Titans? Is it on every hit or just on a 6 to wound? Seems like a lot of crying for something people know very little about.
Well, see, I just spoke with a physics buddy of mine. He says he got to study a mandiblaster during his tenure as a professor. He stated that no known metal was able to stand up to the ingenious delivery device. Sadly terminator armor was not available for testing.
I guess we're at a stand still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Have they even said what mortal wounds do? Or is this AOS assumptions. Like did gw say mortal wounds ignore all most invul saves and armour saves? Does it automatically hit and ignore all cover and to hit modifiers? Does it go through void shields or powerfields on Titans? Is it on every hit or just on a 6 to wound? Seems like a lot of crying for something people know very little about.
It ignores armor and invuln. The mechanism for delivery is going to vary, but it isn't quite the same as the AoS brand of mortal wounds.
gungo wrote: Have they even said what mortal wounds do? Or is this AOS assumptions. Like did gw say mortal wounds ignore all most invul saves and armour saves? Does it automatically hit and ignore all cover and to hit modifiers? Does it go through void shields or powerfields on Titans? Is it on every hit or just on a 6 to wound? Seems like a lot of crying for something people know very little about.
They've strongly suggested it ignores armour and invul
Mortal Wounds are a new mechanic too – these cannot be saved by any means and punch straight through thick armour and even invulnerable saves! Ouch.
Whether certain unit types or items get some sort of dispensation, is still up for grabs.
gungo wrote: Have they even said what mortal wounds do? Or is this AOS assumptions. Like did gw say mortal wounds ignore all most invul saves and armour saves? Does it automatically hit and ignore all cover and to hit modifiers? Does it go through void shields or powerfields on Titans? Is it on every hit or just on a 6 to wound? Seems like a lot of crying for something people know very little about.
They've strongly suggested it ignores armour and invul
Mortal Wounds are a new mechanic too – these cannot be saved by any means and punch straight through thick armour and even invulnerable saves! Ouch.
Whether certain unit types or items get some sort of dispensation, is still up for grabs.
We already know based on khaine it's not every invul and armour. We have no idea if to hit modifiers like cover work which is a huge deterrent to mortal wounds. I doubt it works on power fields/void shields as they are a seperate entity in the last edition. And I have a feeling more things like imperial knight ion shield will deter most mortal wounds. And I'm fairly sure mortal wounds won't be on every hit for things like MB. In other words without knowing what it does we don't even know if it's that bad. It's already significantly weaker the stomp or str d and most mortal wounds weapons we have seen only do 1 wound and not the str8 ap-4 with 2d6 wounds and choose highest melta weapons which are significantly scarier and much more prevalent in 40k.
We don't need to see many more rules to know that Eldar are taking a turn for the OP. This is a terrible sign. Great, one more edition of Eldar dominance, while the rest of us get to watch the Eldar table everyone.
I don't like that in the Eldar preview we saw that some units hit first regardless of the charge :(
They already said that in the Charge preview. Eldar and Daemonettes, units that before needed their Initiative to survive meele, will still hit first all the time. I have no problem with that.
I am aware they said there were some cases where units hit first regardless, but this makes it sound like it might be commonplace for some armies. Yes I understand those armies will be doomed without it in some cases, but I feel like there is a better way of mitigating it than making them unchargable for some armies.
Not really, there are absolutely some units that should go first as it's a major part of their fluff and has always formed part of the units game design. Howling Banshees are one of them, but I'm pretty sure Striking Scorpions wont be.
Slave wrote: We don't need to see many more rules to know that Eldar are taking a turn for the OP. This is a terrible sign. Great, one more edition of Eldar dominance, while the rest of us get to watch the Eldar table everyone.
Really because to me the scariest army without changes right know is a Vulcan melta spam army? Twinlinked str8 ap-4 2d6 wounds choose highest and twinlinked flamer spam is considerable worst imho. Especially since it seems like invuls are no where near as prevalent as they use to be. Good luck charging them and good luck avoiding thier shooting range.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
casvalremdeikun wrote: If Eldar are priced appropriately for their power level, Eldar players will complain because they will have ten models on the field. If they are priced cheap for their power level, everyone else will complain because they are OP. Neither one of these scenarios will make people want to play Eldar (outside tournament players), so I really don't get why GW can't make an effort to balance them. A frickin' subsystem weapon that does Mortal Wounds. Not a big axe, or giant Cannon, but a fething pair of little nozzles on the side of their helmets that, up until recently, I didn't even know did anything.
You can't outshoot Eldar because their shooting is better than everyone else, you can't outfight them because of stupid gak like Mandiblasters and always attacking first, you can't outmaneuver them because they are the most mobile army in the game. Give them a frickin' drawback. One.
Lol, you don't even know how they work, they just mentioned. Maybe they have to roll 6's to would prefight to cause mortal wounds (This is something I've seen often on AoS models) It's far from OP and very fluffy. Just wait and see what the real rules are before ranting.
Really though, why is anyone even here then? Why not just shut down the whole N&R forum and replace it with a link to Atia and BOLS?
It's a discussion forum, for discussion, where we discuss things. The disclaimer that we're discussing incomplete information and so our discussions are by their very nature provisional is inherent to the place, it doesn't need to be stated constantly, and people don't need to be constantly reminded of it. This is by no means only directed at you, there's half a dozen posters on here who seem to come and contribute almost nothing bar accusations of negativity and demands that people stop engaging in the entire purpose of the forum; speculative discourse based on rumours as we understand them at any given time.
As to Mortal Wounds - I can see exactly where folk wary of them are coming from. They seem to be popping up everywhere, and that's going to cause issues, not least with smaller size games - if they include MWs, as I suspect they are, at levels designed to help streamline play with large armies by ramping up casualties, then smaller games will be pointlessly short if you come up against an enemy capable of spamming them. Now, a lot of stuff has been breaking smaller games in recent times thanks to the shoehorning of Apocalypse units into standard play, but it's a hell of a lot easier to prohibit whole classes of unit and be left with a game of similar functionality to before such things were added, than it is trying to excise or mitigate a fundamental game mechanic that it seems a lot of units are going to be balanced around.
But stuff like this is the inevitable result of trying to push game time down to under 90 minutes without meaningfully reducing the size of armies.
Really though, why is anyone even here then? Why not just shut down the whole N&R forum and replace it with a link to Atia and BOLS?
It's a discussion forum, for discussion, where we discuss things. The disclaimer that we're discussing incomplete information and so our discussions are by their very nature provisional is inherent to the place, it doesn't need to be stated constantly, and people don't need to be constantly reminded of it. This is by no means only directed at you, there's half a dozen posters on here who seem to come and contribute almost nothing bar accusations of negativity and demands that people stop engaging in the entire purpose of the forum; speculative discourse based on rumours as we understand them at any given time.
The reverse is also true, there's a good handful of posters whose sole argument is "this is change, and I don't like it" dressed up in any number of ad hoc justifications.
Nevertheless, the issue is not people discussing it, the issue is people discussing it using
a) paradigms that conclusively no longer apply or
b) ridiculous extrapolations based on small pieces of information.
If we could all get out of those habits, then actual discussion of the new stuff might break out and the mods would all have an easier time.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
Not really, I mean you have ONE guy responding to the same questions Ad Nauseum and to top it off most of the questions he can't actually answer. "What are the necron profiles?" Seriously? I think it is hilarious and appropriate for him to take it light heatedly and actually have fun engaging with the community. Otherwise all you would get are copy paste pre screened customer response messages like "Just wait and see!" or "I can't give you that info just yet, but hang tight!" over and over and over endlessly. At least this way he is giving the company some personality and taking some of the angst and doom and gloom away.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
No, I think they are funny. It is better than them being ignored, or "can't say yet" copied and pasted 1000 times.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
Not really, I mean you have ONE guy responding to the same questions Ad Nauseum and to top it off most of the questions he can't actually answer. "What are the necron profiles?" Seriously? I think it is hilarious and appropriate for him to take it light heatedly and actually have fun engaging with the community. Otherwise all you would get are copy paste pre screened customer response messages like "Just wait and see!" or "I can't give you that info just yet, but hang tight!" over and over and over endlessly. At least this way he is giving the company some personality and taking some of the angst and doom and gloom away.
Totally agree with Red Corsair here. It's plain to see that most of these questions the FB isn't at liberty to answer, he's given what he's allowed to release that day and that's it. All these people saying "Show us weapon profile X or Unit profile Y" are honestly asking a question they should know he can't answer. He may not even have the info they're asking for since he's just the FB guy and not part of the rules team. In my opinion his professionalism has been fine, he's the FB guy for a gaming company after all why should he have to respond like he works for a lawyers office? He's also been quite funny in many of his posts, that Necron profile one standing out as quite hilarious for me. I understand some people may not like his tone but that's just part and parcel now of the new GW online presence it seems, which in my books is still better than the non-existent communication they had. If you don't like his personality then I'm sorry it doesn't jive well with you, GW can't make everyone happy, that's an impossible task, but they seem to be trying things differently now and at least to me it's an improvement. I'm not saying they're the greatest company of all time now but at least they're on an uptrend in my opinion.
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
Not really, I mean you have ONE guy responding to the same questions Ad Nauseum and to top it off most of the questions he can't actually answer. "What are the necron profiles?" Seriously? I think it is hilarious and appropriate for him to take it light heatedly and actually have fun engaging with the community. Otherwise all you would get are copy paste pre screened customer response messages like "Just wait and see!" or "I can't give you that info just yet, but hang tight!" over and over and over endlessly. At least this way he is giving the company some personality and taking some of the angst and doom and gloom away.
Like I said, this wasn't the only one that I've seen, and honestly it's not the worst of the ones that I've seen. Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a company, especially one like GW that hasn't exactly had the best reputation for some time, to treat it a little more professionally. And while I do agree that seeing the same "Sorry, can't answer that" copied and pasted over and over isn't the best set up, it would be better to use both the time and space on the questions you can answer, rather than giving sarcastic and in some cases borderline insulting responses. I'll try to find the one that really irked me earlier on, but I can't promise I'll be able to find it again, but I've seen enough to know that I'm not a fan of their sense of humor.
Deadawake1347 wrote: but I've seen enough to know that I'm not a fan of their sense of humor.
*looks at country flag*
I mean, isn't that why you lot dumped their tea out and told 'em to sod off in the first place?
Brits (and a good chunk of the Commonwealth) communicate largely in ritualized forms of sarcasm. It's where we Canucks got our love of passive aggressive post-its from!
Deadawake1347 wrote: but I've seen enough to know that I'm not a fan of their sense of humor.
*looks at country flag*
I mean, isn't that why you lot dumped their tea out and told 'em to sod off in the first place?
Brits (and a good chunk of the Commonwealth) communicate largely in ritualized forms of sarcasm. It's where we Canucks got our love of passive aggressive post-its from!
The sarcasm is supposed to be endearing.
I find it amusing as all get out. Don't know what part of Freedomland everyone else is from.
But to be on topic, I'm really excited to get my hands on some GSC and Tyranid info. Mentions here and there of Tyranid units, and assumptions are all I have so far.
GW wrote:Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Why am I suddenly reminded of that South Park episode where they visited George R. R. Martin's house?
GW wrote:Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
But all the rules for a unit were meant to be on the sheet, right? You guys said that. You talked up your 'bespoke' credibility. Seems it changed.
GW wrote:Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
A: Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Deadawake1347 wrote: Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
I think some of them are pretty meh responses, I get that he's being cute and it's probably pretty tiring so, while it's not my thing, I can accept it. But, I don't really see why people are collecting them in these summaries: I don't really care for trawling through lame jokes for information... in the summary format.
Deadawake1347 wrote: Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
I think some of them are pretty meh responses, I get that he's being cute and it's probably pretty tiring so, while it's not my thing, I can accept it. But, I don't really see why people are collecting them in these summaries: I don't really care for trawling through lame jokes for information... in the summary format.
I don't mind it at all. It's still miles more polite than some of the questions he answers, let alone reads through. The sheer amount of butthurt thrown at him daily entitles a certain degree of humor I think.
While some of the humour does fall a little flat, it's at least more interesting to read than answer after answer of 'Sorry, can't tell you that yet...' - which would be the less jokey alternative.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound. Maybe something like something you use if the unit got to charge, and it gets the Mortal Wound profile on a to-hit roll of a 6.
Why people assume complains are always about balance? They could be useless and still bad change. Some people care about fluff and don't want it arbitarly changed without good reason. What good reason there is for this change?
GW wrote:Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
But all the rules for a unit were meant to be on the sheet, right? You guys said that. You talked up your 'bespoke' credibility. Seems it changed.
So you were upset that datasheets might have needless USRs on them and now that they don't have all the USRs on them you're upset?
All the bespoke rules are on the sheet. There's a distinguishable difference.
As for mandiiblasters, I think we should wait until we actually know how they work before screaming about how OP they are. Yes, they will do mortal wounds which ignore saves, but if that's enough to engage your rage, then buckle up, because there's going to be a lot of stuff that does.
Which is not good for the game. Just look at aos where mortal wound and horde spams are the thing. Stuff like banshees, tac marines, termies etc would suck at such a meta.
As for mandiiblasters, I think we should wait until we actually know how they work before screaming about how OP they are. Yes, they will do mortal wounds which ignore saves, but if that's enough to engage your rage, then buckle up, because there's going to be a lot of stuff that does.
Which is not good for the game. Just look at aos where mortal wound and horde spams are the thing. Stuff like banshees, tac marines, termies etc would suck at such a meta.
I dunno what you're talking about.
Horde Spam? Mortal Wound spam? Outside of Skyrefyre and Tzeentch Arcanites, MW are a balancing factor against things like Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth and Beastclaw Raiders. And even then, damage output isn't the be all end all of the game, because most games/tournies play around objective based games. Banshees, Tac marines, and termies will be fine because anyone who has mortal wounds to dish out, will likely send them the way of a character, or something actually scary, like a Wraithknight/Riptide/Guilliman/Magnus, not joe-shmoe-boot-on-ground.
MW's are scary, but all this boo-hooing about them completely ignoring saves (aside from special bespoke saves alla Bastiladon 4+ Eternal Save) is all over-reaction. It's likely not going to be that bad, and if it is, the community now has the ear of the company that makes the game.
I am more annoyed with the constant begging for rules than the sarcastic humor, but I can see why it's becoming a bit grating. I think people are just tired of the slow rules drip and are ready for the release. This is a pretty unprecedented level of engagement with the community but they will definitely soon be testing peoples patience if they don't release this soon or provide a release date or something.
Deadawake1347 wrote: Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
I think some of them are pretty meh responses, I get that he's being cute and it's probably pretty tiring so, while it's not my thing, I can accept it. But, I don't really see why people are collecting them in these summaries: I don't really care for trawling through lame jokes for information... in the summary format.
I don't mind it at all. It's still miles more polite than some of the questions he answers, let alone reads through. The sheer amount of butthurt thrown at him daily entitles a certain degree of humor I think.
Exactly. Half the questions on there aren't even questions but demands to see unit X and weapon Y.
I want to see the new Necrons as much as the next Necrons player but I'm patient enough to wait my turn in line.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound. Maybe something like something you use if the unit got to charge, and it gets the Mortal Wound profile on a to-hit roll of a 6.
Why people assume complains are always about balance? They could be useless and still bad change. Some people care about fluff and don't want it arbitarly changed without good reason. What good reason there is for this change?
Fluff says Mandiblasters are good vs Organic targets (and honestly I can see miniature plasma explosions being good against other targets) and nothing implies they can hit vehicles yet. If they can, who cares?
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
I know that some of my annoyance is that Eldar are seeming to get extremely strong weapon powers given to them excessively compared to all other factions. 7th had them getting destroyer weapons on infantry models and heavy weapons on every single troop bike. Now they seem to be getting the ability to ignore all normal and invulnerable saves on a secondary weapon of a unit never noted before as being specialized at anti armored targets.
Eldar have been given such favoritism that I and many other local players find facing an eldar army to be an unfun waste of time. We have been mostly excited about all the changes, but making eldar ridiculous yet another edition in a row puts a major shadow over that.
tneva82 wrote: And if you want more realistic whatabout terminator armour_ The armour that\s supposed to be super tough being able to survive being stomped by a titan. Mandiblaster has never been described as effortlessly punching through even that.
A block of steel flat on the earth could survive a semi being dropped on it without much damage, but a soda can full of thermite will melt through it easily. Just because something can withstand a lot of crushing force doesn't mean it can survive something very hot, like a stream of metal rapidly being ionized (turned to plasma).
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
I know that some of my annoyance is that Eldar are seeming to get extremely strong weapon powers given to them excessively compared to all other factions. 7th had them getting destroyer weapons on infantry models and heavy weapons on every single troop bike. Now they seem to be getting the ability to ignore all normal and invulnerable saves on a secondary weapon of a unit never noted before as being specialized at anti armored targets.
Eldar have been given such favoritism that I and many other local players find facing an eldar army to be an unfun waste of time. We have been mostly excited about all the changes, but making eldar ridiculous yet another edition in a row puts a major shadow over that.
The "Faction Focus" articles haven't given us a whole hell of a lot of actual crunch to look through. Just some vagueries.
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
I know that some of my annoyance is that Eldar are seeming to get extremely strong weapon powers given to them excessively compared to all other factions. 7th had them getting destroyer weapons on infantry models and heavy weapons on every single troop bike. Now they seem to be getting the ability to ignore all normal and invulnerable saves on a secondary weapon of a unit never noted before as being specialized at anti armored targets.
Eldar have been given such favoritism that I and many other local players find facing an eldar army to be an unfun waste of time. We have been mostly excited about all the changes, but making eldar ridiculous yet another edition in a row puts a major shadow over that.
I think people are going a bit too crazy on this "Eldar OP in 8th, the sky is falling" train. Note that in the current edition it's not the entire Eldar codex that's OP, it's a few select units (we all know who they are). We haven't seen the datatslates or points costs for those units yet so it's certainly premature to start panicking. What we've seen in the faction focus is that Banshees got some love and a movement boost as well as the ability to strike first in combat (probably under some prerequisite or with a tradeoff? we don't know yet) but I think we'd be hard pressed to say banshees were OP in any way this edition. Perhaps these changes will simply make them playable as opposed to a shelved unit. As for the Striking scorpions, while we can't say whether their mandiblasters will be OP or not I can at least agree with others that it does seem like a strange move to make them cause MW, it just doesn't fit the role of the scorpion well at all. In my experiences playing scorpions they were a great anti-horde unit with only the exarch with claw being the one you'd throw at characters or elite infantry. I'm fine with the current rules we have for mandiblasters and would have liked to see them simply port over into this edition or just give them a weapon profile and add them as a bonus attack that scorpions can make in CC.
What has me confused is what people saw in the article (barring the striking scorpions as they've been covered above) that has them so triggered. The article acknowledged that the WK, aspect hosted warp spiders and scatbikes were problem units this edition so I would take that as good news as they have said on numerous occasions they're seeking to close those power gaps with 8th. The WK may be getting a much needed price hike or even some nerfs (I'd imagine a combination of both) and since formations are gone the warp spiders got an indirect nerf but perhaps will see either a points hike or rules changes as well (they'd have to since initiative no longer exists). As for scatbikes I sadly don't see them taking away the ability to equip every bike with a heavy weapon since three of each weapon are in the box but hopefully they've found a way to tone down that ridiculous unit build. Even as an Eldar bike list player when they made the 7th ed. codex I looked at that unit and said "naww, this is BS, I'm sticking to one heavy weapon per three bikes".
The thing to remember is that these faction articles are first and foremost hype pieces written to make the faction sound awesome. They won't outwardly say they botched the balance and that certain units suck or are OP, we have to read between the lines here, they called out certain units as being OP, that to me says those units will be addressed appropriately and the others will be scaled to be competitive with the rest of 8th edition. We haven't seen enough at all yet to start calling any faction OP so I think the doom and gloom "Eldar are going to ruin 8th edition" posts need to stop. By all means mandiblaster mortal wounds from a fluff perspective is worth discussing, I don't think they need to cause MW either but for some reason now they do, but to start calling the scorpion OP is premature, we just don't know enough yet. I know hyper competitive Eldar lists have left a bad taste in a lot of players mouths but please don't let the 7th edition dex cause you to hate the 8th edition version before it's out. 7th edition Tau with spammed riptides and stacking formation/markerlight bonuses have completely soured me against them but I'm hopeful that 8th will bring a lot of factions in-line and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here to the playtesters that pitting my Dark Eldar against Tau won't be an exercise in how quickly I can re-pack my models like it is currently.
What has me confused is what people saw in the article (barring the striking scorpions as they've been covered above) that has them so triggered. The article acknowledged that the WK, aspect hosted warp spiders and scatbikes were problem units this edition so I would take that as good news as they have said on numerous occasions they're seeking to close those power gaps with 8th. The WK may be getting a much needed price hike or even some nerfs (I'd imagine a combination of both) and since formations are gone the warp spiders got an indirect nerf but perhaps will see either a points hike or rules changes as well (they'd have to since initiative no longer exists). As for scatbikes I sadly don't see them taking away the ability to equip every bike with a heavy weapon since three of each weapon are in the box but hopefully they've found a way to tone down that ridiculous unit build. Even as an Eldar bike list player when they made the 7th ed. codex I looked at that unit and said "naww, this is BS, I'm sticking to one heavy weapon per three bikes".
The thing to remember is that these faction articles are first and foremost hype pieces written to make the faction sound awesome.
...
Well said Inevitable_Faith.
CB
PS: My Eldar Jetbike unit only has one heavy weapon in the unit of 5.
The thing is, what is probably going to happen is that other units that aren't the problem children are going to be increased in power to the level of the broken stuff. It is exactly what happened between the 6E codex and the 7E codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fluff says Mandiblasters are good vs Organic targets (and honestly I can see miniature plasma explosions being good against other targets) and nothing implies they can hit vehicles yet. If they can, who cares?
You said it yourself. ORGANIC. How is terminator armour organic? Land raider? Warhound? Warlord?
And if you don't care about fluff you shouldn't have problem with say assault marines getting bolt pistols that shoot 2d6 wound lascannon equilavents or grots that will wreck even warlord titan in close combat in one round with killing power to spare. Both can be made to be anything from too weak to balanced just right to overpowerful. And by rewriting fluff they are even fluffy! So by your logic you should have no problem with either of those two changes?
casvalremdeikun wrote: The thing is, what is probably going to happen is that other units that aren't the problem children are going to be increased in power to the level of the broken stuff. It is exactly what happened between the 6E codex and the 7E codex.
I feel this is a very pessimistic way of predicting this. One big difference between the 6th/7th era and now is that GW seems to be trying very hard to put their company and their game in a new light. This is a major shakeup of the game and they're resetting all factions simultaneously. I have no evidence to support my stance here but I feel were going to get a much more balanced game than we currently have at the very least. And keep in mind when 7th released what were the initial codexes that came out? DE, orks and blood angels, all three are rated very poorly on the power curve right now, it wasn't till the necron dex came out that their design philosophy changed and we got some absolutely powerhouse units and formations. I don't think it's exactly fair to say that there was an initial big power jump going from 6th to 7th.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fluff says Mandiblasters are good vs Organic targets (and honestly I can see miniature plasma explosions being good against other targets) and nothing implies they can hit vehicles yet. If they can, who cares?
You said it yourself. ORGANIC. How is terminator armour organic? Land raider? Warhound? Warlord?
And if you don't care about fluff you shouldn't have problem with say assault marines getting bolt pistols that shoot 2d6 wound lascannon equilavents or grots that will wreck even warlord titan in close combat in one round with killing power to spare. Both can be made to be anything from too weak to balanced just right to overpowerful. And by rewriting fluff they are even fluffy! So by your logic you should have no problem with either of those two changes?
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.
you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.
you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.
I'm optimistic about transports (especially if they are anything like the new dwarven ones in AoS), greatly reducing the damage you suffer when a vehicle is destroyed is great. Harder to kill transports? Great! My Inquisition army in please. Suffer no Xenos to live. Cut them down, purge them with Flame.
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.
you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.
Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.
I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.
CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.
Lots of Eldar power is in their units and less so their formations where as the marines a lot of it was in formations. As Major said unit wise they are definitely in need of a nerf to bring them down to the average. Prior to the space marine formations of doom and deathstars the Eldar were the top race by far. I remember when it was a very common sight to see them just trouncing the boards.
Eldar have been my army since the beginning of 3rd edition and they have always been at least partly broken. It's mainly because they have so much choice in their units and they are so specialized. When you have to balance out the low survivability with heavy hitting it can topple over quite easily. Especially fi you have 30 this kind of units to cover.
I'm interested to see how the game will play out. As it feels now, there might be a race for big guns, with the vehicles being a lot harder to kill without them and maybe even with them. Big thing will be the dynamic between the shooting and close combat. If the close combat is not great enough threat, the game will stay as "dice rolling competition" who shoots/sustains shooting most. Big thing why I haven't been too into 40k in past years has been the lack of interaction. Sometimes with bit slower opponent it may take almost an hour in the first turns that you don't get to do anything but roll saves and remove models. AoS doesn't have this issue so much, as there isn't so much shooting and when you get to close combat, it's much more interactive, but if the close combat has a small role, the game can be quite boring to play. This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.
you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.
Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.
I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.
CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.
Nerf and Buff aren't really the right words here, they're basically all entirely new factions. Getting rid of skyhammer doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful marines are comparatively, same with scatt packs and riptide wing and 95% of chaos daemons.
MaxT wrote: Christ over reaction much. Peeps are acting like scorpions auto inflict 30 Mortal wounds if you deploy them on the table.
Manti blasters may be something like "each unit of scorpions rolls 3D6 at the start of the fight phase. Inflict a mortal wound for each 6 rolled". Useful certainly but not carving through units of Titans either.
if its not space marine and its getting some form of boost, the game is automatically broken.
you are also not allowed to be optimistic about CC in this thread, any optimism will be beaten out of you cyberly by a shooty army power gamer math hammer guy.
Orks and Dark Eldar need boosts badly. Eldar need a solid nerf bat to the knees. Marines are strong, but getting rid of Skyhammer Annihilation and Free transports will help a lot in that regard.
I am hopeful for better balance. But Eldar are the one faction where balance means nerfing the 1-2 most complained about units, then buffing everything else to compensate.
CC, I really like the balance of power/force weapons they gave us. A nice smooth progression of brute force vs precision. I wonder if GK Halberds are going to be basically the same as a force axe now.
Nerf and Buff aren't really the right words here, they're basically all entirely new factions. Getting rid of skyhammer doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful marines are comparatively, same with scatt packs and riptide wing and 95% of chaos daemons.
While I agree that getting rid of formations doesn't necessarily mean anything either way about how powerful a faction will be/remain, I don't think we'll see that radical a difference on the factions themselves. And GW knows this - I fully expect to be able to play my DA the way I was playing in 7th edition and before: Greenwing, DW, RW or mixes with the expected combinations.
GW will just find a different way to slap it into the gameplay, just like it was before Formations were birthed from whatever hellhole they came from.
I would love to see a buff to Dark Eldar and Orks. I don't play either faction but I would love to see them on the table more. As a newer mostly casual player, I can honestly say that I have only faced either faction one time.
Daedalus81 wrote: So you were upset that datasheets might have needless USRs on them and now that they don't have all the USRs on them you're upset?
Where did I say I was upset?
The constant sarcasm and criticism you've constantly put out since the beginning of this topic does make it seem like it.
'tis called having a different opinion.
Not saying I support any of these comments (complaining publicly about another poster is usually pointless), but having an opinion and the way you express that opinion are entirely different things.
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?
Fear the Wrathmongers, Bloodsecrator, Bloodstoker!
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Is it really that worse than wolfy marines and their wolf bolters and their murder dreadnought?
Okay maybe it's even worse, I haven't looked into it but the name really makes me not want to ^^. Beside, don't they all look like the same hulking, barechested pile of muscle and berserker-style helmet and axes?
Actually, while they are all muscle and waxed chestss, they do have some of the best models in the entire fantasy range, namely Slaughterpriest 1, Slaughterpriest 2and Lord on Juggernaut although that's quite enough off-topic...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Median Trace wrote: I would love to see a buff to Dark Eldar and Orks. I don't play either faction but I would love to see them on the table more. As a newer mostly casual player, I can honestly say that I have only faced either faction one time.
We have a guy who plays both and I'm expecting he'll be very happy with 8th...
It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
My understanding is that you roll a d6 to see how many to-hit dice you roll. And yeah, it does make the battle cannon seem pretty underwhelming. Oh well, maybe the variants will be more appealing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.
But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.
But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.
Is heavy 3 3 hits or 3 shots? Same system. You can also look at the flamer section which specifically says automatic hits.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
My understanding is that you roll a d6 to see how many to-hit dice you roll. And yeah, it does make the battle cannon seem pretty underwhelming. Oh well, maybe the variants will be more appealing.
Well it's slightly better against tanks than a single Lascannon and about as good as 2 heavy bolters against typical Infantry.
It also happens to be better against infantry than a single Lascannon and better against Tanks than 2 Heavy Bolters.
It also butchers decently tough, multi-wound infantry better than either.
Is it underwhelming? Probably a bit yeah, but I wouldn't say it's terrible until we see the points.
I do think people will go for the more specialised options though (Punisher/Eradicator for Infantry, Vanquisher/Exterminator for Tanks, Executioner for multi-wound Infantry). And no doubt the Demolisher will just be a better Battlecannon with a shorter range, which depending on the Mv value of a Leman Russ may not even matter too much.
Alcibiades wrote: It's a generalist weapon. Not doing as well against specific targets than tailored variants is sort of the point.
Too bad there are better generalists and generally you are better off with specialists anyway. Especially as best defence is good offence so you want to kill enemy first.
Alcibiades wrote: It's a generalist weapon. Not doing as well against specific targets than tailored variants is sort of the point.
The problem is that it doesn't do well against, well, a lot of things. And that's the point of a general weapon, isn't it? - it's not to be dedicated to one thing but doing well against most.... which it doesn't.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It might have already been covered, but how do the Battle Cannons work? Is it roll a D6 and that's how many hits you get, roll to hit and if you hit then roll a D6 or roll a D6 and then you roll that many "to hit" dice?
If it's either of the 2nd two, it makes Battle Cannons sound pretty bad now, that's, what, 1.75 hits on average?
I don't think there's been any clarification on that, actually. At least that I've seen.
But logic would say roll D6 shots and the roll to hit on those.
Is heavy 3 3 hits or 3 shots? Same system. You can also look at the flamer section which specifically says automatic hits.
I know that - that's why I said "logic would say".
Well it's not even needed to go to logic to know d6 is shots and not hits.
You have heavy d6 and heavy 3. Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way. Therefore for d6 to be hits the 3 are also automatic hits.
tneva82 wrote: Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.
Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.
I'm still curious if a Heavy D6 weapon like the battle cannon will have to apply those D6 hits to different targets. (I.E. no more then 1 hit per model) If not, the battle cannon is amazing against vehicles, potentially 6 shots, 6 hits each causing d3 wounds, this could one shot dreadnoughts.
I wonder how many of these changes will make it into GHB2 for AoS. I mean, damage not spilling over to enemies would change the power level of a lot of units.
By the looks of things people wont be happy with the Battle cannon until it's one shotting Titans. It's had a noticable boost to it's ability to hit and people are complaining that it's bad.
Imateria wrote: By the looks of things people wont be happy with the Battle cannon until it's one shotting Titans. It's had a noticable boost to it's ability to hit and people are complaining that it's bad.
Oh I'm fairly happy with the Battlecannon - never has it been less of a threat to my marines
tneva82 wrote: Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.
Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.
So what would separate heavy bolter and battlecannon to identify which causes automatic hits and which not? We have the stat lines so answer must be there.
thenewgozoku wrote: Battlecannon is like a better lasscanon now. Why is that a bad thing?
Because it's the turret weapon of the main battle tank of the Imperial Guard and has a calibre so large you could fit a dozen grots down the barrel?
If it was slightly better than a lascannon while being a sponson weapon or a hull weapon or something a heavy weapons team might use, sure, but it's the main cannon of the main tank of the Imperial Guard that's only slightly better than something 2 guardsmen or a single marine can wander around on foot with?
As someone who loves the Leman Russ, that's pretty underwhelming.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: I like how every leak brings with it it's own lasgun vs. land raider argument.
And if the rules allow conscripts and scorpions to be fielded together... Gork help us all.
Yeah, that's the dread fear that keeps me awake at night: mass ranks of conscripts blowing away Landraiders, and Striking Scorpions hacking everybody down with mortal wounds.
The game hasn't even been realised yet, and already, it's broken...
Nah Man Pichu wrote: I like how every leak brings with it it's own lasgun vs. land raider argument.
And if the rules allow conscripts and scorpions to be fielded together... Gork help us all.
Yeah, that's the dread fear that keeps me awake at night: mass ranks of conscripts blowing away Landraiders, and Striking Scorpions hacking everybody down with mortal wounds.
The game hasn't even been realised yet, and already, it's broken...
Or people are already making nonsense statements about balance.
tneva82 wrote: Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.
Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.
So what would separate heavy bolter and battlecannon to identify which causes automatic hits and which not? We have the stat lines so answer must be there.
As far as i read its just a GW fb comment that suggests its one roll to hit with the BC. It could be that with any weapon with random shots (HB is not random) you make one roll to hit.
Unless anyone has anything more concrete then its a bit up in the air
tneva82 wrote: Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.
Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.
So what would separate heavy bolter and battlecannon to identify which causes automatic hits and which not? We have the stat lines so answer must be there.
As far as i read its just a GW fb comment that suggests its one roll to hit with the BC. It could be that with any weapon with random shots (HB is not random) you make one roll to hit.
Unless anyone has anything more concrete then its a bit up in the air
They could have up their sleeve a rule that says that, unless otherwise noted, you only need to roll to hit once for weapons that have a random number of shots. If you hit, all shots rolled hit.
tneva82 wrote: Unless other rules say other(and note battlecannon has no special rules...) they work same way.
Which would no doubt be the logical way to go. However I have long learned not to always expect logic from GW. So I prefer clarifications right off the bat.
So what would separate heavy bolter and battlecannon to identify which causes automatic hits and which not? We have the stat lines so answer must be there.
As far as i read its just a GW fb comment that suggests its one roll to hit with the BC. It could be that with any weapon with random shots (HB is not random) you make one roll to hit.
Unless anyone has anything more concrete then its a bit up in the air
They could have up their sleeve a rule that says that, unless otherwise noted, you only need to roll to hit once for weapons that have a random number of shots. If you hit, all shots rolled hit.
Saves some dice rolling.
Yea, the flamer wording sort of suggests this in a way:
'This weapon automatically hits its target'
If it was random and you rolled to hit with each normally you'd maybe expect this to read more like:
'All shots from this weapon automatically hit its target'
but both sentences make sense either way i'm just specuating
Datasheets Q: Warhammer 40,000 How many of you man this page? Or is did some poor guardsmen just get locked up in a room to field the unending wave of questions?
A: Just one of us... One soul standing against the tide. Much like Sly Marbo, but somewhat less heroic and chiseled.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 hey can we have the slightest hint of necron stuff in the next teaser please? the red harvest must begin!
A: *This message has been formatted so only true Necrontyr can read it.
Q: Hey guys @Warhammer 40,000, would you consider doing deep strike rules preview ?
A: We can consider it...
Q: You guys are savage and have no chill when it comes to absolutely destroying people, how can I become a member of the community team?
A: You should have seen the quadra-savage reply we typed out... but then thought better of it...!
Q: will weapons have point value's?
also if an aspiring sorcerer can move 6" and the rest of hits unit can move 5" doesn't that mean the sorcerer can only move 5"?
A: It means he can move slightly faster, so long as he stays with his unit.
Q: Give me the new protocols for my Necron minions or you will be harvested.
A: Errrr.....sure thing! We'll get right on it!
Q: Hey GW, will you release a datasheet for khorne berzerkers anytime soon?? (Hopefully before 8th hits) Ever since the CSM faction focus, i am super hyped to see what you have in mind with those lobotomised nutjobs
A: We haven't released anything yet.... but by Jimminy.... they are just as good in combat as you hope them to be....
Q: Well.. definitely will take some getting used too. I do like the effort to balance out the game.
A: It's just not the same without your Marbo memes.
Q: Love all the articles! We would love you to throw us a little more Xenos examples. We have heard a ton about the factions of Man, and just a splash about Orks. Can we please have more splashs of Xenos? <3
A: We like splashing Xenos.... all over the wall with a boltgun.
More Xenos bits on the way REAL soon...
Q: I have only one burning question for 8th -
Will Shadow Captain Shrike's new datasheet reflect his ascension to Chapter Master of the Raven Guard?
A: If that's your only question, we're doing something right. Not sure on that specific detail right now - we will have wait for the rules to appear.
Q: So given that the Rubric Marines have no special ability that allows them to charge after using Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons in the shooting phase, am I correct to assume all units can do that now?
A: Assumptions are a dangerous thing, Oliver...!
Q: That is a seriously better format than how it was handled in the past, very well done.
BUT, are the point costs cropped out of the datasheet or are there going to be multiple versions? Might get bloaty..
A: No bloaty-ness here. Loads more on points coming tomorrow.
Q: I didn't get to post this in time yesterday to be relevant but here we go. First, I'd like to say the new rules are cool. But, I do have a concern. As a chaos player who favors his dinobots and dragons, I'm concerned that the weapon loadouts for the forgefiends (2 hadesautocannons and plasma cannon at +25pts) and heldrakes (with either a baleflamer, whos profile no longer works in 8th, or a single hadesautocannon) were somewhat wanting for the 175 point costs but now units that are cheaper with more weapon sets and/or twinlinked weapons will not only be better (as they kinda were with upgrade capabilities) but completely outshine them or render them useless?
A: Fair comment, James. Chances are that our exstensive group of playtesters will have looked at this and a new, appropriate points value assigned. We aren't just about to change how good a model is without changing it's points value.
Q: Hello new(tm) games workshop, i'd like to ask a badly worded question about whether you'll answer this question and if you do do so will this question be answered? Also if you're doing an article on points values could you tell us how many points my personal favourite, the haruspex, will cost. (How can you not love that face?)
A: Hello, Peter - we'd like to provide a suitably vague yet teasing response about being more than happy to answer your question.
The Haruspex definitely has a points value, but we haven't revealed it yet. As such,we can't mention it yet, despite your obviously adorable face.
Q: This all looks great!!! *Oliver Twist-style pleading request* Adeptus sororitas faction feature/teaser?? cough cough 'obligatory plastic sisters comment' cough cough
A: The Faction Focus article is on it's way for sure.
Q: Love the articles!
Can we expect to see some info on the inquisition? Really want to know how they will be in 8th, like are they a full force on their own, or are they more of an add-on to other armies?
A: Indeed - there will be a focus article on the Imperial Agents for sure.
Q: I assume that point costs is kept separate from unit profiles in order to facilitate easier updates in the future, without invalidating the entire book, or are points supposed to be kept completely outside the codices, in a dedicated book?
A: Assuming is a dangerous past time, Marcin! Check out tomorrow's article on points for more.
Q: On the data sheet it doesn't say what an icon of flame does (unless I missed it), will there be a section of banners and such that all armies have access to?
A: Maybe! It wouldn't be a teaser if we just flat our told you everything, now would it?!
Q: I feel like the page is very busy. And I'm curious about the power rating.... Are the matched play points cost going to be a big list like in AoS's General's Handbook?
A: You will find out loads more in tomorrow's points article.
Q: Nice. So much info on one sheet. Loving it.
First look at melee weapons too. No range - so who gets to fight in cc?
A: More on that real soon.
Q: Will there be a points version of these data sheets for more balanced games?
A: Sounds like you need to tune in to tomorrow's article all about points!
Q: Nice. So the aspiring champion only knows smite? Or will there be another table / sheet for what powers he has access to ?
A: We haven't covered that yet; more on psychic powers coming later.
Q: But GW, where oh where will the points values be listed for matched play?
A: There's every chance that will be covered by tomorrow's "points and power levels" article...
Q: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION ALERT
I'm assuming that psychic powers will be assigned from a book via keyword as I see no other reference there?
A: DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION DETECTED
Fear not, Assumptee... loads more information will be coming. Enlightenment is coming to these dark times.
Q: the lack of points scares the bejesus out of me... and i'm still not happy about losing templates!... going to need a lot more detail before i'm sold
A: What up, Leigh; Guildford represent! Points are still a thing, my fellow Baboon Samurai. Watch out for more on those tomorrow in the "points and power level" article.
Q: Power ranking besides points? Ohhh no.... "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up!"
A: There will be both! Tune in to the article all about points tomorrow.
Q: Rubrics! Huzzah! I have to wonder... what does the Icon of Flame do...?
A: Looks like you'll have to wait to find out that one!
Q: Awesome job! Any chance you'll go over the difference between Force weapons & Power weapons in a future article?
A: Of course we can. More articles planned in the future about melee weapons.
Q: Will these sheets be available in cards similar to Psychic Power cards?
A: No news on that right now. .
Q: What exactly is power rating? Is it the same thing as power level that you wrote later in the article?
A: All will be covered in tomorrow's article, fear not.
Q: If the Matched play points aren't going to be on the sheets where will they be? Will we need another book to view these?
A: Tune in tomorrow for the points and power level article and all will be revealed...
Q: Will there be another Datasheet for competitive game?
A: If you mean a points value, then looks like you need to tune into tomorrow's article entitled "points and power levels"....
Q: You tell us what... Death to the False Emperor does? **cheeky grin
A: Not yet...
Q: Will we have a look at the real points system before the release ?
A: Hey Quentin - sure thing - watch out tomorrow for an article all about points.
Q: Great article!!! Will you make an article about Renegades ?
A: You mean the Forge World models? We are focusing on the main Citadel factions for the articles.
Q: I thought invulnerable saves were gone?
A: Not at all - they are right there!
Q: Great stuff but why not call them "dataslates"
A: ...because they are on a sheet. We wanted to put them on slate but it made the rules too heavy...
Q: Can we get a look at Ork boyz?? Please!!
A: There are literally hundreds of units in the game and we wish we had the time to sho...*SMACK*.
"Give us da roolz,you puny 'umie! Don't make 'im ask again else I'll krump yer good"
Eldar Faction Focus Q: If you say Banshees will be one of the fastest troops in the game then i really wonder what you guys have in store for Harlequins!
Can i expect my fellow clowns to be at the same speed or even faster?!
A: We shall but see!
Q: Are we going to be seeing Aspect Warriors in plastic any time soon, or are we still going to be relegated to Finecast?
A: We have no news on models right now, Andrew - if we ever do hear anything, you will see it here first!
Q: Wait, didn't Fulgrim kill an Avatar by putting it in a headlock and strangling it to death? If so, Guilliman shouldn't fear anything.
A: Besides... Guillian kills three Avatars every day before breakfast. For fun. With a butter knife.
Or so we heard.
Q: You guys better release a skitarii or cult mech (or maybe both) faction focus or the might of the Omnissiah shall make all your computer's unbearably slow.
A: We were wondering why the internet was dropping like a Guardsman in a trench. Now we know.
Q: I'm hoping the Wraithseer will get a datasheet and awesome rules.
A: Guys -with models like that, we are not sure about what is coming yet as FW haven't released information on their rules. As soon as we have it, we will be able to let you know.
Q: When we will have some love for the Custodian Guard?
Soon™, Really Soon™...?
And also, will we have this articles until release? Or will they continue after 8th is available?
A: There will indeed be some more articles coming Real, Real Soon!™
Q: I think Warhammer 40,000 is holding off on the Ork faction preview trying to build up the Waaagh...
A: Savin' da best fer later!
Q: Isn't Reece Robbins the Frontline gaming guy with them awesome Youtube batrep videos?
A: It is indeed him. He has the coolest voice!
Q: This information is completely wrong ... please see the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer for correct info on the Eldar. If you see anyone reading this info please report them to your Commisar!
A: That's how you get promoted around here, trooper!
Q1: Any chance of seeing a Necron profile soon?
A1: You mean.... like this? Q2: Oh...
Games Workshop.
A2: I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "These guys are better than that, right?!".
But we're not. If there is a pun to be had, we will take it.
Q: Will Ynnari remain or have that army just been discarded?
A: You will 100% be able to use that army.
Is anyone else getting tired of the... Hmm... since I don't want to trigger the language filter, let's go with "wise" responses from GW to people's questions? The standout here being the Necron profile one, but there have been several examples in the recent FAQs, including the 8th edition announcements. Once or twice with obviously joking questions might be cute, but this has quickly become annoying to me.
No, I think they are funny. It is better than them being ignored, or "can't say yet" copied and pasted 1000 times.
Agreed - I am enjoying their responses and interaction.
Job well done within the confines of what they can say.
This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
One of the main drawbacks to GW games in my opinion is that they have still not moved past I go, You go. Alternating activation makes for a MUCH more dynamic game.
So will points levels work as before, but power levels allow for more relevant balance. So you have a 2000 pt game where anything goes, but you could have a 2000pt game with no units over a power level of say 15? So you can't have triple knights showing up with a grav-start etc.
This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
One of the main drawbacks to GW games in my opinion is that they have still not moved past I go, You go. Alternating activation makes for a MUCH more dynamic game.
Which is why people like me have been banging the drum for Bolt Action and Maelstrom's Edge for ages.
They're not perfect games, but they're far superior to anything GW seems to cook up these days.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: So will points levels work as before, but power levels allow for more relevant balance. So you have a 2000 pt game where anything goes, but you could have a 2000pt game with no units over a power level of say 15? So you can't have triple knights showing up with a grav-start etc.
No power level is simply less granular point system for open/narrative game.
So rather than X models for Y points with extra models for +Z with heavy weapon for +K points you have like in rubrics 8 points for 4 rubrics+aspiring champion and 6 points for additional 5 rubrics for up to 20 rubrics(so 26 points total). Upgrades like heavy weapon don't cost anything.
Quicker to make up roughly equal armies but less granularity means that imperfect points(as they always will be. Perfect points is impossibility) will be even more compounded. For rubrics for example unit without heavy weapon is same price as unit with. Bolter is NOT equilavent of the heavy weapon...
So you sacrifice some balance for quicker army building.
This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
One of the main drawbacks to GW games in my opinion is that they have still not moved past I go, You go. Alternating activation makes for a MUCH more dynamic game.
Which is why people like me have been banging the drum for Bolt Action and Maelstrom's Edge for ages.
They're not perfect games, but they're far superior to anything GW seems to cook up these days.
Bolt Action is the game 40k should have been.
Yup. Very few games today are I go you go. This style of play is very outdated and takes a ton of strategy out of it. Not that it would be difficult to play 40k with bolt action activation if people really wanted to
They could have up their sleeve a rule that says that, unless otherwise noted, you only need to roll to hit once for weapons that have a random number of shots. If you hit, all shots rolled hit.
Saves some dice rolling.
It saves rolling, but i'd much rather roll for the individual shots as it is less swingy that way, which I'm pretty sure is the way it will be.
This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
One of the main drawbacks to GW games in my opinion is that they have still not moved past I go, You go. Alternating activation makes for a MUCH more dynamic game.
Which is why people like me have been banging the drum for Bolt Action and Maelstrom's Edge for ages.
They're not perfect games, but they're far superior to anything GW seems to cook up these days.
Bolt Action is the game 40k should have been.
Well, I would say that Gates of Antares would be the game as it's sci-fi and all, but yeah, I agree. Still, 40k will be the king no amtter what, as the spread, background, plastic model production and marketing is way beyond the competitors.
They could have up their sleeve a rule that says that, unless otherwise noted, you only need to roll to hit once for weapons that have a random number of shots. If you hit, all shots rolled hit.
Saves some dice rolling.
It saves rolling, but i'd much rather roll for the individual shots as it is less swingy that way, which I'm pretty sure is the way it will be.
Well, when it's all said and done they will do whatever they want to do. I was just providing an answer to tneva's question.
This may be because of playing mainly Antares, DzC, Batman and Infinity for the time period of 6/7th ed. 40k, and being spoiled by the alternating activation and reaction mechanisms.
One of the main drawbacks to GW games in my opinion is that they have still not moved past I go, You go. Alternating activation makes for a MUCH more dynamic game.
Which is why people like me have been banging the drum for Bolt Action and Maelstrom's Edge for ages.
They're not perfect games, but they're far superior to anything GW seems to cook up these days.
Bolt Action is the game 40k should have been.
Well, I would say that Gates of Antares would be the game as it's sci-fi and all, but yeah, I agree. Still, 40k will be the king no amtter what, as the spread, background, plastic model production and marketing is way beyond the competitors.
If this new edition of 40k had alternate unit activation and suppression markers for shooting at units, I would have been all over it like a bad rash!
And here's the irony: months ago, Yakface was saying that Maelstrom's Edge was influenced by Epic 40,000 and its use of the suppression marker/token when shooting at units.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm imagining Mandiblasters won't be as broken as they sound. Maybe something like something you use if the unit got to charge, and it gets the Mortal Wound profile on a to-hit roll of a 6.
Why people assume complains are always about balance? They could be useless and still bad change. Some people care about fluff and don't want it arbitarly changed without good reason. What good reason there is for this change?
I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
ClockworkZion wrote: I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
But we already saw a rending weapon in the soulreaper cannon. It just had -1 AP more than expected; none of this mortal wounds nonsense.
As I said, in AoS, they put Mortal Wounds whenever they think they are gonna be... I assume, balanced. It has 0 to do with some fluff coherence.
Not saying this to "defend" that aplication of Mortal Wounds, just so people have that in mind.
ClockworkZion wrote: I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
But we already saw a rending weapon in the soulreaper cannon. It just had -1 AP more than expected; none of this mortal wounds nonsense.
Because all weapons never change rules like how sniper weapons never lost rending or pinning. Oh wait.
New edition, new rules, weapons based more on their fluff to determine their crunch.
ClockworkZion wrote: I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
But we already saw a rending weapon in the soulreaper cannon. It just had -1 AP more than expected; none of this mortal wounds nonsense.
Because all weapons never change rules like how sniper weapons never lost rending or pinning. Oh wait.
New edition, new rules, weapons based more on their fluff to determine their crunch.
Which is fair enough, but you can't call it a replacement to rending then; it's just a rules change to one weapon instead.
ClockworkZion wrote: I mentioned it a few times but Mortal Wounds may be taking the place of rending. mandiblasters rendingnthrough he weak points of armour is super duper fluffy.
But we already saw a rending weapon in the soulreaper cannon. It just had -1 AP more than expected; none of this mortal wounds nonsense.
The advantage of bespoke rules is that they're not bound to using one USR to create a given effect. Where previously Rend was the substitute for all not-quite-powerful-enough-for-AP 2 effects, now they can give Mortal Wound on 6 for units that can pierce armor via their skill (like Eldar) or just -1 AP for just above average power like an assault cannon.
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Maybe they shouldn't have hired Nathan Explosion to head the model naming team.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fluff says Mandiblasters are good vs Organic targets (and honestly I can see miniature plasma explosions being good against other targets) and nothing implies they can hit vehicles yet. If they can, who cares?
You said it yourself. ORGANIC. How is terminator armour organic? Land raider? Warhound? Warlord?
And if you don't care about fluff you shouldn't have problem with say assault marines getting bolt pistols that shoot 2d6 wound lascannon equilavents or grots that will wreck even warlord titan in close combat in one round with killing power to spare. Both can be made to be anything from too weak to balanced just right to overpowerful. And by rewriting fluff they are even fluffy! So by your logic you should have no problem with either of those two changes?
Terminator armor has weak points and I imagine there is a few spots on a Land Raider where shooting the shards into it and making them explode might be worth knocking off a HP.
Same justification in them having worked against Necrons. See? No problem.
Oh yeah, and if the Titan is damaged enough why shouldn't a grot be able to hit that weak spot that finally tips it over and makes it lose that final HP?
Rippy wrote: PLEASE read all information in OP before making assumptions on information, as those assumptions may already be covered by other articles.
Can I make bloodsumptions, though? Or murdersumptions?
Yes.
Thanks! Making fun of GW's silly naming convention is always fun! All the time! Sorry, all the bloodymurdertime!
To be fair, the bloody mcbloodface faction in AoS does have the silliest names in all of Warhammer!
Maybe they shouldn't have hired Nathan Explosion to head the model naming team.
I'm half expecting a new Bloodbound model to have the ability: Bloodtrocuted.
Man though the impatience of waiting for that new article. Like a bunch of junkies waiting for that next hit.
Maybe they shouldn't have hired Nathan Explosion to head the model naming team.
Too funny.
Just yesterday I was setting up my Dark Eldar 3D 'Arena of Blood' for a photo shoot, and my seven year old kid approached and asked "What are those?" (pointing at the spiky obstacles).
Me: "Those are 'murder stakes' "
Him: Looks over the arena and the Wyches. "Oh. There's a lot of murder things in there... 'murder knife', she's got a 'murder net', he's got a 'murder whip'... "
On a thread related note, I haven't played 40K using 40K rules for about 14 years. I'll be picking this up for sure. Overall the changes sound great.
Random thought - if, as I suspect, Vehicles literally have no special rules beyond what is on their data sheet, then a vehicle, when assaulted, will have to either stay and fight or withdraw normally and lose a round of shooting. That's interesting and kind of makes up for increased durability in assault.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this.
The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book. This is because you don’t need them to play if you don’t want, which frees up room to include more rules for weapons on the datasheet. It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books – so if one unit or weapon starts to dominate tournaments, or certain units don’t seem to be carrying their weight in competitive games, we can address the balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fluff says Mandiblasters are good vs Organic targets (and honestly I can see miniature plasma explosions being good against other targets) and nothing implies they can hit vehicles yet. If they can, who cares?
You said it yourself. ORGANIC. How is terminator armour organic? Land raider? Warhound? Warlord?
And if you don't care about fluff you shouldn't have problem with say assault marines getting bolt pistols that shoot 2d6 wound lascannon equilavents or grots that will wreck even warlord titan in close combat in one round with killing power to spare. Both can be made to be anything from too weak to balanced just right to overpowerful. And by rewriting fluff they are even fluffy! So by your logic you should have no problem with either of those two changes?
Terminator armor has weak points and I imagine there is a few spots on a Land Raider where shooting the shards into it and making them explode might be worth knocking off a HP.
Same justification in them having worked against Necrons. See? No problem.
Oh yeah, and if the Titan is damaged enough why shouldn't a grot be able to hit that weak spot that finally tips it over and makes it lose that final HP?
I'd forget it, I've made this argument, and seen at least one other person put forward a similar idea, but because it runs contrary to the direction of the doom train it gets ignored.
Disagreeing with a point of view is a person's prerogative, but continuallly and totally disregarding a logical alternative to the point of acting like it was never proposed is just disingenuous.
This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
kestral wrote: Random thought - if, as I suspect, Vehicles literally have no special rules beyond what is on their data sheet, then a vehicle, when assaulted, will have to either stay and fight or withdraw normally and lose a round of shooting. That's interesting and kind of makes up for increased durability in assault.
This had occurred to me as well, but I was thinking specifically along the lines of Imperial Knight Titans. They no longer have to worry about getting bogged down in combat and effectively removed from play.
My last game where I took an IK was against Tyanids. My IK got to shoot once before being tied up with an endless swam of termagants. I would have loved the ability to just walk away. The potential issue would then become... They'll just follow and chase my IK around the table in a game of Cat & Mouse.
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
Probably taking into account that now they can move and shoot it more accurately and that it got more powerful because it essentially does extra damage against all targets now and not just vehicles.
That's why I haven't seen the point in getting upset about balance yet. We have no idea what things are going to be weighted against any more.
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
With split fire, I expect special and Heavy weapons to increase in points cost. Not too different from 2nd edition, where a marine was 30 points and a lascannon was 60 points (so double the cost of the model carrying it).
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
Almost like if you want to build your list by hand for a quick pickup game, you can do this thing where you use general power levels for stuff instead of pointing out every grav pistol!
Probably taking into account that now they can move and shoot it more accurately and that it got more powerful because it essentially does extra damage against all targets now and not just vehicles.
That's why I haven't seen the point in getting upset about balance yet. We have no idea what things are going to be weighted against any more.
If anything the fact that it isn't in an increment of 5 tells us the value of the weapon may have been more heavily considered and that we may see the points for it be lower for an army with lower BS.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
With split fire, I expect special and Heavy weapons to increase in points cost. Not too different from 2nd edition, where a marine was 30 points and a lascannon was 60 points (so double the cost of the model carrying it).
It does seem like a pretty logical conclusion to have high point costs for powerful weapons, seeing as how many people are concerned about shooting being too powerful and that points cost is often brought up as the best balance for power.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
With split fire, I expect special and Heavy weapons to increase in points cost. Not too different from 2nd edition, where a marine was 30 points and a lascannon was 60 points (so double the cost of the model carrying it).
So, in a 1500 pt game you deploy the 1000 pt unit and then can choose midway through the game to bring on either of the two reserve units. You won't have to tell your opponent at the beginning what the reserve component of your army is?
Heavy weapons will go up because now there isn't as many drawbacks as before. You can move and shoot (increasing the range)and target separate units so the value goes up. Interesting that they say 2000 will be the norm for a matched play game of about 2 hours. I'll be curious if this mean tourneys fgo from average of 1850 to 2000
So Tactical Marines have had yet another points decrease. I wonder if GW has finally found the right value after all this time?
Also it seems GW may have not learnt from the mistakes they made by over-nerfing summoning in AoS matched play... because unless Summoning Powers have absurdly low Cast values Summoning will probably be more dead than it is currently in Matched AoS, especially with Deep Strike existing in 40k.
For example, a Tactical Marine Squad of five models is Power Level 5, but in a matched play game, each of those Tactical Marines would cost 13 points each, with upgrades ranging from a grav-pistol for the Sergeant at 7 pts, all the way up to multi-meltas at 27 pts.
Interessting that models went down in points and special weapons went waay up. I wonder if this will be a trend? You can field more 'basic' models, but if you want some toys you're gonna have to pay.
TBH Points balance was what had me the most concerned, but if this is anything to go off of, they've taken a really reasonable and common sense approach to it.
In matched play, your points will be capped across the whole game. So if you’re planning to summon units to the battlefield, you will need to set points aside to do this. You won’t need to specify what the points will be for though, so this does leave you with your options open and if during the game, you decide that what you really need is a fast combat unit instead of a durable objective holder, you’ll be able to summon the right tool for the job, points permitting.
So you just set aside say 200 pts for summoning and decide to summon bloodletters on game 1, daemonettes on game 2, etc etc?
Yes
Interesting. I do hope this only affect summoned units (daemons, etc) and not Reserve as a whole...
''The points for units don’t appear on the datasheet but will be elsewhere in the same book... It also means that, in the future, points for units could change without invalidating existing books...''
If the new points are in errata then yes but if they are in an updated book only then my old book will be invalidated.
So, in a 1500 pt game you deploy the 1000 pt unit and then can choose midway through the game to bring on either of the two reserve units. You won't have to tell your opponent at the beginning what the reserve component of your army is?
I think the flexible reserves is going to be a summoning only thing. It's something special they get to replace the fact that they no longer get free stuff. Normal reserved units are going to work just like 7th I bet.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
Like it a lot, hopefully the odd points costs mean that things will be much more granular so we have less things that cost the same but perform differently.
Like the summoning thing as well. Essentially you are buying flexibility (set points aside but don't have to specify the unit is how I read it). Much more balanced than adding extra units to a point capped game.
Of note it looks like most special weapons will be more expensive (though grav pistol went down in cost). If 7 is the min point in that unit then flamers cost more now. The multi melta also went from a cheap HW option to seemingly the most expensive. This also means grav cannons are cheaper. Hopefully that means they got toned down a lot as well.
Nicorex wrote: I am betting all heavy weapons have taken a good size jump up in points.
But guyz haven't ye herd that shooting will be dohmineting dis edition becuz split-fire n' shootn'scoot hevy wepunz
And that MSU (well, not entirely).
A multi-melta dev squad is 178 points.
Lascannons were previously twice as expensive as multi-meltas. Even if they only go to 40 points that's a 270 point squad...
So, in a 1500 pt game you deploy the 1000 pt unit and then can choose midway through the game to bring on either of the two reserve units. You won't have to tell your opponent at the beginning what the reserve component of your army is?
I'm hoping those two forces are set as "reserves" and aren't summoned, meaning you can only do that with daemons and other "summoned" units...
Why wouldn't it be expensive for multi-damage weapons? After all,having tons of super killy weapons on the table would invalidate all balancing they did for Vehicles and such.
So, in a 1500 pt game you deploy the 1000 pt unit and then can choose midway through the game to bring on either of the two reserve units. You won't have to tell your opponent at the beginning what the reserve component of your army is?
It doesn't say that - it's ONLY talking about summoning there.
As for the people saying summoning is dead, if you think the ability to tailor your list to your opponents on the fly is too weak, with respect, you are almost certainly wrong.
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
Probably taking into account that now they can move and shoot it more accurately and that it got more powerful because it essentially does extra damage against all targets now and not just vehicles.
That's why I haven't seen the point in getting upset about balance yet. We have no idea what things are going to be weighted against any more.
Sure, but now that Dev squad that's taking 4 is going to be really, really expensive. Specially for a Salamanders army.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's in built list tailoring, it's a very useful thing
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's a deck that is made all of sideboard, all the time!
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's in built list tailoring, it's a very useful thing
Its also a gamble as you'll be that many points down on the board to start out with
Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's in built list tailoring, it's a very useful thing
Its also a gamble as you'll be that many points down on the board to start out with
docdoom77 wrote: This was one of the least informative previews to date. How about some printed examples?
I'd really like to see how they're going to put such a granular points system in a different part of the book without making it a nightmare to list build by hand.
It's overall a good plan. I like the ability to re-point down the line, but it sounds awfully clunky in practice.
27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O
With split fire, I expect special and Heavy weapons to increase in points cost. Not too different from 2nd edition, where a marine was 30 points and a lascannon was 60 points (so double the cost of the model carrying it).
It does seem like a pretty logical conclusion to have high point costs for powerful weapons, seeing as how many people are concerned about shooting being too powerful and that points cost is often brought up as the best balance for power.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
They're not pushing anything. Power level probably won't get updated and points will.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
I don't think anyone cares about what they are allegedly trying to push.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's in built list tailoring, it's a very useful thing
Its also a gamble as you'll be that many points down on the board to start out with
Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
Nicorex wrote: I am betting all heavy weapons have taken a good size jump up in points.
But guyz haven't ye herd that shooting will be dohmineting dis edition becuz split-fire n' shootn'scoot hevy wepunz
And that MSU (well, not entirely).
A multi-melta dev squad is 178 points.
Lascannons were previously twice as expensive as multi-meltas. Even if they only go to 40 points that's a 270 point squad...
My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
They're not pushing anything. Power level probably won't get updated and points will.
Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
That's only inconvenient if you're completely unfamiliar with the army, otherwise there isn't a whole lot of reason to flip back to the datasheets. It'll be better than the current system of 30 pages of unit entries each with points costs, and an armory page with more point costs, then all the special rules and weapons on a dozen other pages.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
I think it's more of an attempt to attract newer players who are less familiar with the game.
Or put another way, more directly supporting two out of the three new game types.
Besides, when was the last time you sat down and put together a list on paper? That's what the apps are for!
Albino Squirrel wrote: Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
They're not pushing anything. Power level probably won't get updated and points will.
Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.
I mean not to be overly literal, but you're still flipping to a page of a book. It's not that strenuous.
changemod wrote: Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
They're not pushing anything. Power level probably won't get updated and points will.
Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.
Or you build your rough list using power level and then finish the list off using points. I don't see that favoring power levels in the least.
Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.
And on day 1 almost everyone will be using points. In fact you'll have a hard time finding people discussing power level lists on this forum - guaranteed.
My plan is to print out all of the Datasheets that are relevant to the models I currently own. Then Laminate each of those with a thick plastic. Probably 7mm. This should make solid cards for the table.
At that point, having the points in an APP or in a book means you can simply open up to that section and build your army.
During play you will have the cards with rules in front of you and I like to use WYSIWYG for my models.
changemod wrote:Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.
It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.
They're pushing Power Levels because those are more conducive to Narrative/Open play, which is how you get people into the game. You don't draw in a crowd by throwing a spreadsheet at them and telling them to do math right off the bat.
It'll be super easy to get a random person in when they just have to add up units to 100 rather than flip through each upgrade for a few hours.
Galas wrote:Making list in 8th will need a master degree. Have fun spending those last 23 points!
You mean... exactly the way it has been in 40k for years?
Albino Squirrel wrote: Now I can kind of see what some people have been saying, about being worried that tournament gamers are helping so much to refine the rules. People always say that a tightly balanced set of tournament friendly rules benefits everyone, including the more narrative gamers. But now I'm thinking that's not really true.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of the little details that don't make sense are in there for "balance" or tournament purposes. For example, someone probably noticed that the striking scorpions aren't good against space marines. Because most armies have space marines in them, they pointed out that nobody is going to take striking scorpions to a tournament unless they can do something in a game against a space marine army. So they make mandiblasters cause mortal wounds to make them a more attractive choice to the tournament gamer, while not making any sense and breaking a bit of the immersion for some of the more narrative gamers that play the game in order to experience the background on the tabletop.
I like a lot of the major changes to the rules, but whether or not I enjoy the game will probably come down to the missions and all the little details on the individual units. And I'm beginning to worry that they are going to get a lot of the details wrong in their willingness to sacrifice immersion for balance.
+1
I hope you are wrong, but I also have picked up on this when they said orders are automatic for Guard. I know they are trying to streamline but still...
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's like deepstrike except:
It requires a model who can summon them to do so.
It requires that model be in a position on the board where it is useful to summon.
It requires you pass a psychic test to access some of your army.
It requires you spend more points than what the unit you summon is worth (unless you're a real life wizard who can set aside a number of points that is perfect for every unit configuration)
Most if this is also true of the old summoning rules, but the models were free, so it didn't put you at a large disadvantage like this does.
But free models really wasn't fair too. So basically what I'm saying is that summoning NEEDED a nerf, but let's not pretend that these summoning rules are in anyway really good.
Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.
And on day 1 almost everyone will be using points. In fact you'll have a hard time finding people discussing power level lists on this forum - guaranteed.
Exactly, that's why it's vaguely insulting even if entirely accidentally so.
We've seen what General's handbook points do: Everyone takes models in round-numbered increments with all no-brainer if it's free upgrades taken.
For a really extreme example, see those Tzaangor Enlightened models who can take 10 inches of extra speed, an extra wound and some extra close combat attacks... For 0 points. You'd be hard pressed to see a gamer take unmounted ones no matter how narrative-minded he is.
kestral wrote: Random thought - if, as I suspect, Vehicles literally have no special rules beyond what is on their data sheet, then a vehicle, when assaulted, will have to either stay and fight or withdraw normally and lose a round of shooting. That's interesting and kind of makes up for increased durability in assault.
This had occurred to me as well, but I was thinking specifically along the lines of Imperial Knight Titans. They no longer have to worry about getting bogged down in combat and effectively removed from play.
My last game where I took an IK was against Tyanids. My IK got to shoot once before being tied up with an endless swam of termagants. I would have loved the ability to just walk away. The potential issue would then become... They'll just follow and chase my IK around the table in a game of Cat & Mouse.
IIRC in 7th Ed Walkers had the "Our Weapons Our Useless" rule where they could simply walk away if the enemy unit couldn't hurt them? So your knight could have easily just stepping throught the bugs and carried on, with the Termagants literally unable to affect it at all
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's like deepstrike except:
It requires a model who can summon them to do so.
It requires that model be in a position on the board where it is useful to summon.
It requires you pass a psychic test to access some of your army.
It requires you spend more points than what the unit you summon is worth (unless you're a real life wizard who can set aside a number of points that is perfect for every unit configuration)
Most if this is also true of the old summoning rules, but the models were free, so it didn't put you at a large disadvantage like this does.
But free models really wasn't fair too. So basically what I'm saying is that summoning NEEDED a nerf, but let's not pretend that these summoning rules are in anyway really good.
And you get to change what you deliver, where you want to deliver to exactly what you need at that time.
It's also not like the psyker is completely wasted points.
Does anyone really use books these days to build an army?
Ive been using armybuilder and battlescribe for years and cant imagine going back to books.
Build your army and print it with the associated costs/stats/rules.
Simples.
Ratius wrote: Does anyone really use books these days to build an army?
Ive been using armybuilder and battlescribe for years and cant imagine going back to books.
Build your army and print it with the associated costs/stats/rules.
Simples.
I've been forced to use pen and paper for months after Battlescribe crashed, I couldn't get it going again and couldn't find another ipad list builder.
Maybe they shouldn't have hired Nathan Explosion to head the model naming team.
Too funny.
Just yesterday I was setting up my Dark Eldar 3D 'Arena of Blood' for a photo shoot, and my seven year old kid approached and asked "What are those?" (pointing at the spiky obstacles).
Me: "Those are 'murder stakes' "
Him: Looks over the arena and the Wyches. "Oh. There's a lot of murder things in there... 'murder knife', she's got a 'murder net', he's got a 'murder whip'... "
On a thread related note, I haven't played 40K using 40K rules for about 14 years. I'll be picking this up for sure. Overall the changes sound great.
That is some grade "A" parenting right there. Keep it up.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:So Tactical Marines have had yet another points decrease. I wonder if GW has finally found the right value after all this time?
Also it seems GW may have not learnt from the mistakes they made by over-nerfing summoning in AoS matched play... because unless Summoning Powers have absurdly low Cast values Summoning will probably be more dead than it is currently in Matched AoS, especially with Deep Strike existing in 40k.
Indeed. It looks like they went with the same overcorrection they used in AoS.
Eyjio wrote:
Youn wrote: It did point out something odd. Though, I don't really know how this will work out for the Tournament circuit.
Example:
Game points 1500 points
Deployed Force: 1000 points
- 1 marine captain
- 2 Tactical squads with heavy bolter
- 2 Assault squads
- 1 Devastator squad with plasma cannons
So, in a 1500 pt game you deploy the 1000 pt unit and then can choose midway through the game to bring on either of the two reserve units. You won't have to tell your opponent at the beginning what the reserve component of your army is?
It doesn't say that - it's ONLY talking about summoning there.
As for the people saying summoning is dead, if you think the ability to tailor your list to your opponents on the fly is too weak, with respect, you are almost certainly wrong.
Can't remember the last time I saw a summoning army on a tournament standings list for AoS.
Malaur wrote: Man, it looks like I sold my Daemon summon army at the right time!
I actually think summoning is going to be really, really good. It's like deepstrike, but you get to choose which you want at what time for what purpose. Need a heavy weapon? Get it. Need infantry to bog something down? get it instead. your opponent missing most of their heavy weaponry? Get that greater daemon out there.
This is very similar to Magic: The Gatherings Wish spells. They allow you to go to your sideboard and get the answer you need.
It's in built list tailoring, it's a very useful thing
Its also a gamble as you'll be that many points down on the board to start out with
So basically like deep strike is anyway?
With the added benefit of that last Psyker your enemy just killed being worth his points plus whatever reserve points you have left over. Free summoning is bad design. So is full-cost summoning.
:
?
