https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/11/new-warhammer-40000-datasheetsgw-homepage-post-4/

The link is telling me the page doesn't exist anymore

New Datasheet example:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
The link is telling me the page doesn't exist anymore

The linked worked for me...

Where are the points?

Ah the link is working for me now. Not sure why it was derping haha.

I really like the layout, very similar to AoS actually. Melee weapons look pretty awesome

Power is narrative points.

Matched points aren't on the datasheet apparently, maybe in a separate list in the codex?

So Dark Angels, Faction Keyword: Astartes, Heretic Astartes, or both?

thats cool but man its a lot of info.
no index cards for these datasheets.

I can see rhinos of flamer equipped rubrics making people have a bad day. I like that.

It will depend on their cost though. If they are still overcost for what they do compared to other units, then they will continue to never be seen on the table...

Universal Special Rules are gone?

Now... I 100% agree that the game did NOT need 2/3rds of the Universal Special Rules.

but removing ALL of them seems excessive.

There is a point where it's streamlining... and a point where its dumbing down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

By the Emperor those Rubric Marines look horrifying now.

2+ saves against small arms.
The Soulreaper cannon is an absolute beast. -3 armour shred! 4 shots full accuracy on the move...will be reliably plinking a few guys out of cover or 1-2 wounds off a vehicle a turn..

This edition actually looks like a fun playable tabletop experience, I can't wait.

Swords have more armour shred and less bonus str than axes which in turn have more/less than staves/mauls. Interesting thats how they're going with balance. Mauls are really go to against T3 mooks while force swords are better against T6 tough bastards.

 Talamare wrote:
Universal Special Rules are gone?

Now... I 100% agree that the game did NOT need 2/3rds of the Universal Special Rules.

but removing ALL of them seems excessive.

There is a point where it's streamlining... and a point where its dumbing down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

It's not dumbing it down, it's just writing the rules the unit have on their sheet rather than having them written elsewhere. It's more about ease of use.

Who'd have thought thousand sons would be scary?

As for "dumbing down", no I don't see putting USRs on the datasheets as dumbing anything down unless one purposely liked "obscure rules mastery" as a "skill" that they could beat others with. I prefer the rules being on the datasheets and not having to memorize a 300 page rulebook.

On paper, Tsons finally look pretty scary (though points costs for competitive play have yet to be seen) and very fluffy, pretty pleased with what I'm seeing there in general thus far.

The layout and function of the datasheet looks fairly clean and functional, nice having *everything* for the unit (weapons, USR's, options, etc) on a single page, I'm liking that.

All is Dust seems like an interesting return to 3E where they were immune to S4 and under.

But in this case D1 includes alot more then just standard infantry weapons given that we know the Heavy Bolter is S5 which adds an interesting element to how tanky they are given that they can go into cover for another +1 benefit.

I really dont get the point of (Im paraphrasing)

'Hey guys look how great it is that you dont have to cross reference your rules any more'

while also effectively saying:

'Oh btw you now have to cross reference your points costs instead. Yes we could have put them on the sheet, but we didnt'.


And now I'm afraid that there is effectively going to be a 'matched play tax' where those who want to actually play matched games have to pay what is effectively dlc to get their point costs.

Admittedly this is pure conjecture, but Im still not 100% trusting of the 'new GW'.

 Talamare wrote:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

Absolutely agreed. There is no point what so ever in creating this kind of potential confusion. They could have called it anything else. Minor Smite is nice because it doesn't eventually make people go "WAIT A MINUTE! MY SKILL DONG SMASH IS BASICALLY JUST A SH*TTY SMITE!" but anything would have worked, just to not have people make assumptions or have misunderstandings.

On the topic of the Rubric Marines though, these guys have a 2+ armour save against most weapons carried by other troops. That's a really nifty special rule.

secretForge wrote:
I really dont get the point of (Im paraphrasing)

'Hey guys look how great it is that you dont have to cross reference your rules any more'

while also effectively saying:

'Oh btw you now have to cross reference your points costs instead. Yes we could have put them on the sheet, but we didnt'.


And now I'm afraid that there is effectively going to be a 'matched play tax' where those who want to actually play matched games have to pay what is effectively dlc to get their point costs.

Admittedly this is pure conjecture, but Im still not 100% trusting of the 'new GW'.

Uh matched play has been known to require purchases like from day 1

 Purifier wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

Absolutely agreed. There is no point what so ever in creating this kind of potential confusion. They could have called it anything else. Minor Smite is nice because it doesn't eventually make people go "WAIT A MINUTE! MY SKILL DONG SMASH IS BASICALLY JUST A SH*TTY SMITE!" but anything would have worked, just to not have people make assumptions or have misunderstandings.

On the topic of the Rubric Marines though, these guys have a 2+ armour save against most weapons carried by other troops. That's a really nifty special rule.

I think it's because Smite is a spell every Psyker knows, so they had to specify that when these lesser wizards use it, it's not as good.

warpflamers suddenly look really useful. Glad I kept the bits. Oh and we can give our Aspiring Sorcs melee weapons again!

They may not just one-shot marines anymore but they can now do some major on bigger targets. I can't wait to see the Scarab Occult.

The twist on the Smite power is interesting, shows that the Aspiring Sorc isn't as powerful as a full Sorc.

Curious what Death to the False Emperor and the Icon of Flame does. Hopefully DttFE and the Icon are useful compared to forced challenges and Soul Burn

'Oh btw you now have to cross reference your points costs instead. Yes we could have put them on the sheet, but we didnt'.

Yeah but that's something you only need to reference once just as a match begins, it's not something you need to check every so often during the game proper.

tneva82 wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I really dont get the point of (Im paraphrasing)

'Hey guys look how great it is that you dont have to cross reference your rules any more'

while also effectively saying:

'Oh btw you now have to cross reference your points costs instead. Yes we could have put them on the sheet, but we didnt'.


And now I'm afraid that there is effectively going to be a 'matched play tax' where those who want to actually play matched games have to pay what is effectively dlc to get their point costs.

Admittedly this is pure conjecture, but Im still not 100% trusting of the 'new GW'.

Uh matched play has been known to require purchases like from day 1

Yep, And ill still make those purchases, but Id rather spend my money and have sheets which have my rules and point values, not have one set of rules and one set of point values to cross reference whenever I want to write an army list, while having GW tell me that they have change the arrangement of things to make it easier to keep track of stuff.

Cross referencing points takes about 20 seconds while constructing my army list. After that I don't need to look at it anymore.

USRs sprinkled through 300 pages of rules-lawyerese rulebook takes several trips to it during a game to spend 5-10 minutes looking up rules every so often.

They're all right I guess but it'll really come down to how much weapons will deal 1 damage.

Even with all these rules, I'd like to see them become cheaper compared to todays standard. They've always paid a heavy tax for a psyker which wasn't useful. Now it seems like they're making him a tad weaker than your average psyker.

DaPino wrote:
They're all right I guess but it'll really come down to how much weapons will deal 1 damage.

Just take a look at the choices of the rubrics themselves. It's every bog standard rifle, and quite a few others.

If they're priced accordingly that won't be an issue. RIght now the aspiriring sorcerer is an expensive battery for Magnus/Ahriman.

I like the buff against smal arms fire tough, big problem currently is that TS pay a alot for that inv save that doesn't come up enough to justify it and usually ends up adding nothing to their survivability.

DaPino wrote:
They're all right I guess but it'll really come down to how much weapons will deal 1 damage.

Even with all these rules, I'd like to see them become cheaper compared to todays standard. They've always paid a heavy tax for a psyker which wasn't useful. Now it seems like they're making him a tad weaker than your average psyker.

Well now he is reliable i ignore all saves and toughness wound maker.

I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

So does this mean the end of the codex? All we need are these data sheets?

 Marmatag wrote:

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

Unbound doesn't replace the points system in the current version. An Unbound army is still bound by points, you can just buy your units from wherever.
That said, you could of course just say "no points, we bring anything we want to the table!" There's nothing stopping you from playing however you want.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
So does this mean the end of the codex? All we need are these data sheets?

Only for open and narrative play.

Codecies or General Handbooks or whatever will still be needed for matched play.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
So does this mean the end of the codex? All we need are these data sheets?

In AOS the army books (codex) contain artefacts, spells, etc that you can't get without the army book. So yes you can play without the codex, but you'll be missing the extras. The army books (codex) also contain the points whereas the free sheets don't contain any points so if you want matched play (99% of the community) you will need them still.

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

Guys/Gals/Whatevers.

Go read pages 148 - 152 of this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/4410/724730.page

The differences between points and power are spelled out very well.

It's a war scroll, so it's pretty much spot on for what I was expecting. Also, I think we are being shown half of something nifty, I think these kind of profiles are exactly what will appear in the books, and to get competitive points you'll have to go online.This is so they can balance competitive on the fly without invalidating the hardcopy books because the hard copy books only contain points for narrative. It's actually a clever way to have their cake and eat it as well.

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

And really, if you're worried about creating an optimal list, narrative isn't for you. That's the point. People who struggle with list building in the first place will benefit from this change. Lascannons versus Missile launchers is a silly example. How about when you have 70 points and you're deciding what marks to apply, and if you can afford veterans of the long war, or if you're left with enough point to add a dedicated transport, or if you want to buy another psyker mastery level perhaps? maybe you want to add power armor to your daemon prince.

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Yeah I'm really happy with this too. It's like playing Open Play in AoS except the players have an indication of loose balance. I really like the idea and will most likely be using it all the time with friends

 Grimgold wrote:
It's a war scroll, so it's pretty much spot on for what I was expecting. Also, I think we are being shown half of something nifty, I think these kind of profiles are exactly what will appear in the books, and to get competitive points you'll have to go online.This is so they can balance competitive on the fly without invalidating the hardcopy books because the hard copy books only contain points for narrative. It's actually a clever way to have their cake and eat it as well.

Matched points arent free. Those arein pay for books


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

Think that was example, not literal.


Points will always be inaccurate but less granularity the more inaccurate they are.


Replace example with the rubrics but one player takes reaper and one doesn't. Same price.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
It's a war scroll, so it's pretty much spot on for what I was expecting. Also, I think we are being shown half of something nifty, I think these kind of profiles are exactly what will appear in the books, and to get competitive points you'll have to go online.This is so they can balance competitive on the fly without invalidating the hardcopy books because the hard copy books only contain points for narrative. It's actually a clever way to have their cake and eat it as well.

Matched points arent free. Those arein pay for books

If it's anything like AoS, the book you need for points costs and matched play will be, like, $20. Won't be anywhere near the crazy wall of money you need to go through currently, I'm pretty certain.

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

True most weapons have a slight difference which makes them situationally not comparable, but they are often generally comparable anyway, and in a game as massive as 40k there will be places where objective superiority is mathematically provable to be true, and embracing removal of points from these things, is embracing removal of our current best balancing mechanic, in favour of a worse one. Heck even with granular points, we cant get balance, the more abstract this becomes, the less balance we have access to.

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

the point isnt necessarily about those two specific weapons, they're just an example, but that there often are clearly superior weapons options or that elevate the ability of the unit to effectively engage a far greater array of foes, and that's not accounted for in "power level", but is in Points.

We can take a more extreme example of the heavy bolter vs the lascannon. Sure the HB can potentially hit more targets, but the Lascannon brings an entirely differet level of firepower to the unit, able to engage a far broader array of foes and be dramatically more effective against against most targets, while the HB is only more effective against basic infantry where you already have a bunch of weapons in the unit for that purpose anyway. That great leap of capability should havr a method of being accounted for.

Guys. Matched Play will have points for wargear.

If you're playing Open or Narrative, you have already conceded that granular balance is not the goal of the game, because you're adding in scenario-specific effects or setups that can't be accounted for by points anyway. Otherwise you'd just be playing Matched.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

the point isnt necessarily about those two specific weapons, they're just an example, but that there often are clearly superior weapons options or that elevate the ability of the unit to effectively engage a far greater array of foes, and that's not accounted for in "power level", but is in Points.

We can take a more extreme example of the heavy bolter vs the lascannon. Sure the HB can potentially hit more targets, but the Lascannon brings an entirely differet level of firepower to the unit, able to engage a far broader array of foes and be dramatically more effective against against most targets, while the HB is only more effective against basic infantry where you already have a bunch of weapons in the unit for that purpose anyway. That great leap of capability should havr a method of being accounted for.

Except, Heavy Bolters with Heavy 3, S5 and AP-1 seem a lot stronger against mid range infantry than a lascannon or, say, a normal bolter. While a Lascannon is very strong against single targets.
I do know where you're coming from though, and I agree. Tournaments should be played with more accurate point values. But I do really like the idea of this power level thing for pretty much every other match I play.

Guys, again, the Power thing is just for narrative play

GW stated at the end of the article that they're discussing Points tomorrow

So more than likely point costs were left off of this sheet to not distract away from the point of the article, to show an example of the layout of a datasheet

 auticus wrote:
Cross referencing points takes about 20 seconds while constructing my army list. After that I don't need to look at it anymore.

USRs sprinkled through 300 pages of rules-lawyerese rulebook takes several trips to it during a game to spend 5-10 minutes looking up rules every so often.

Most of the USRs that matter are well known and require ZERO rule lawyering and are insanely quick.

What causes the most Rules Referencing is again, not USRs. Since USRs is well known, if I tell you my unit has Relentless. I know what it means, you know what it means. It's instant

What causes the most Rules Referencing is individual special rules. So now if you're using Rubric Marines you will have to say... They have "All is Dust", which means no penalty when they move and shoot. Oh, and it means +1 Saving Throw if the attack has 1 damage.

They could have instead just said... Rubric Marines are Relentless


Also, All is Dust Saves improvement sounds like what Feel No Pain should be in this edition.

So really, instead of having 2 very basic USR, I will instead need to remember an extremely rule that only Rubric Marines... only a SINGLE UNIT IN THE GAME OF 100s OF UNITS HAVE.
Relentless - The -1 Modifier to Hit rolls for moving and shooting with a Heavy Weapon does not apply.
Feel No Pain - Add 1 to the saving throw if the attack has a Damage Characteristic of 1.

I'm gonna die of shock here. The heavy bolter is actually kind of useful now.

I hope they don't erase the possibility to buy squads in sizes of holy numbers. I always fielded my Plague Marines in squads of 7 (and they worked best that way) and also modeled them accordingly.
It seems like you can buy those TS only in squads of 5/10/15/20 though.

 Talamare wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Cross referencing points takes about 20 seconds while constructing my army list. After that I don't need to look at it anymore.

USRs sprinkled through 300 pages of rules-lawyerese rulebook takes several trips to it during a game to spend 5-10 minutes looking up rules every so often.

Most of the USRs that matter are well known and require ZERO rule lawyering and are insanely quick.

What causes the most Rules Referencing is again, not USRs. Since USRs is well known, if I tell you my unit has Relentless. I know what it means, you know what it means. It's instant

What causes the most Rules Referencing is individual special rules. So now if you're using Rubric Marines you will have to say... They have "All is Dust", which means no penalty when they move and shoot. Oh, and it means +1 Saving Throw if the attack has 1 damage.

They could have instead just said... Rubric Marines are Relentless


Also, All is Dust Saves improvement sounds like what Feel No Pain should be in this edition.

So really, instead of having 2 very basic USR, I will instead need to remember an extremely rule that only Rubric Marines... only a SINGLE UNIT IN THE GAME OF 100s OF UNITS HAVE.
Relentless - The -1 Modifier to Hit rolls for moving and shooting with a Heavy Weapon does not apply.
Feel No Pain - Add 1 to the saving throw if the attack has a Damage Characteristic of 1.

It's not as bad as it sounds. It's how it's handled in AoS and there isn't much confusion. Generally there's just a short moment where you ask what the unit does before it acts or before you act upon it. And as you play the game, you learn the gist of what most armies and their units do. I've played games of AoS mostly against Stormcast, but in the couple of games I've played against other armies, I already understand the kinds of things I'd want to look out for.
It's also a lot easier to look at the free datasheets and check out your opponent's unit real quick, than flicking through a giant rule book.
Also don't forget that, while a lot of people who have gone through the large rulebook and played a lot of games and learned the USR's, some people are trying to get into the game and don't know them yet. This new way of doing it makes it SO much easier for new people to learn their armies and get into games faster.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I hope they don't erase the possibility to buy squads in sizes of holy numbers. I always fielded my Plague Marines in squads of 7 (and they worked best that way) and also modeled them accordingly.
It seems like you can buy those TS only in squads of 5/10/15/20 though.

with the latest stuff It looks like narrative and open play seems to be power points for balance. I bet the competitive rules will allow the numbers to be specific though

It is the first thing I do not like from all shown so far. In AoS you can buy a box and play because unit's warscroll has all info you need. Here we are told that some datasheets will not have stats for all weapons or rules. So basically you still need a codex even if you do not play with points.

 Talamare wrote:

Most of the USRs that matter are well known and require ZERO rule lawyering and are insanely quick.

What causes the most Rules Referencing is again, not USRs. Since USRs is well known, if I tell you my unit has Relentless. I know what it means, you know what it means. It's instant

What causes the most Rules Referencing is individual special rules. So now if you're using Rubric Marines you will have to say... They have "All is Dust", which means no penalty when they move and shoot. Oh, and it means +1 Saving Throw if the attack has 1 damage.

They could have instead just said... Rubric Marines are Relentless

...

So really, instead of having 2 very basic USR, I will instead need to remember an extremely rule that only Rubric Marines... only a SINGLE UNIT IN THE GAME OF 100s OF UNITS HAVE.
Relentless - The -1 Modifier to Hit rolls for moving and shooting with a Heavy Weapon does not apply.
Feel No Pain - Add 1 to the saving throw if the attack has a Damage Characteristic of 1.

The problem with USRs is that they restrict design space. If you want something that can shrug off damage, you give them Feel No Pain. But what if you want to make a unit that can shrug off a lot of damage, or only shrug off damage sometimes? Now you're making exceptions to USRs, so you either have to make bespoke unit rules that act kind-of-but-not-exactly like USRs, or create new USRs just for that unit. Which is exactly the kind of thing that led us to 7th and its rules bloat, and is totally untenable in a system with scaling modifiers like 8th edition.

Now, just look at the datasheet. No cross-referencing, no USR-but-actually, no memorizing required.

Those Rubics look nice and fluffy and relatively well thought out barring one or two of the weapons options.
If all units get such similar love then I'll be happy.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I hope they don't erase the possibility to buy squads in sizes of holy numbers. I always fielded my Plague Marines in squads of 7 (and they worked best that way) and also modeled them accordingly.
It seems like you can buy those TS only in squads of 5/10/15/20 though.

The way this works in AoS is that you pay the points for a "block," but the actual number of models you field doesn't have to match that. So you can field a squad of 6 marines, but you'd still have to pay for 10.

We'll have to wait for tomorrow to see if that's how they handle it in 40k Matched.

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

secretForge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I love the idea of power.

We don't need to worry about the point difference between a Warpflamer and an inferno pistol. Because the power of the unit is 8, and it tells you what you can take.

There are quite a few people I play with who hate the points system, but don't want to play unbound.

I'm hoping this is implemented well, because i'm really excited for this. Hopefully in the future it can replace points altogether.

Except when you get some options which are objectively better than others.

Barry is a narrative gamer who really likes the look of missile launchers, he plays against Scott another narative gamer who really likes lascannons. Barry and Scott have a very similar skill level in the game, and yet barry always seems to loose to scott. 'If only there were some mechanic which balanced the power of our favorite weapon upgrades against each other', he says to his friend.

'Yes I heard that a long time ago such a mechanic existed, but people found it too complicated to add up more than the cost of the model, so they decided to abandon it'

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that missile launchers are objectively worse than lascannons in 8th edition. in fact, it could be argued that missile launchers will be more effective against infantry than lascannons, due to their blasts.

True most weapons have a slight difference which makes them situationally not comparable, but they are often generally comparable anyway, and in a game as massive as 40k there will be places where objective superiority is mathematically provable to be true, and embracing removal of points from these things, is embracing removal of our current best balancing mechanic, in favour of a worse one. Heck even with granular points, we cant get balance, the more abstract this becomes, the less balance we have access to.

Except points still exist. This is just a different mode of play.

This entire thread can be boiled down right now to this:

Me: I like Ice Cream.
Everyone else: But how will you repair your roof with ice cream? No one will use ice cream when they have a hammer.

As Marmatag said, if you are worried about X weapon being more powerfull that Y weapon and if it should cost 5-10 points more, you should play Matched Play.

As a Narrative player, I really like this "Power Level" thing. If I want to make a "defensive scenario", I can say "You can choose 100 power level points, and the attacker will have 300".

It offers some short of accountability for your army, but without the precision and effort a proper Point system gives.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

The problem with USRs is that they restrict design space. If you want something that can shrug off damage, you give them Feel No Pain. But what if you want to make a unit that can shrug off a lot of damage, or only shrug off damage sometimes? Now you're making exceptions to USRs, so you either have to make bespoke unit rules that act kind-of-but-not-exactly like USRs, or create new USRs just for that unit. Which is exactly the kind of thing that led us to 7th and its rules bloat, and is totally untenable in a system with scaling modifiers like 8th edition.

Now, just look at the datasheet. No cross-referencing, no USR-but-actually, no memorizing required.

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Is anyone else wondering if most vehicles will have the +1 armour save against 1 damage weapons?
Would be a decent way to keep small arms from being too threatening for them....

And here I sat, looking at the statistics and just thinking: "Oh my goddess, look at all those AP values".

Of course, this is just the kind of unit to show, when a lot of people were (overly?) affraid to see each and every weapon get a nasty AP value so to make armour saving throws obsolete. I guess all those 'regular' troops such as Imperial Guard Infantry squads or Space Marine Tactical squads or even Ork Boyz squads will have far less frightning load-outs.

They did say all rules would be downloadable for free. Also AOS didn't put rules for all old models in the box, only new ones.

Jbz` wrote:
Is anyone else wondering if most vehicles will have the +1 armour save against 1 damage weapons?
Would be a decent way to keep small arms from being too threatening for them....

Doubtful, Small Arms is already non-threatening to them.

We have already math-ed out that it would take like 1000 Lasgun shots to kill a morkanaut.

I cant believe that no one is up in arms about the lack of a force lance option!

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO MY POWER LANCES!!???!!!

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Fearless just needs to be removed, and ATSKNF is probably still around. Zealot would be fine if it was no longer a USR since only a few very specific units even had Zealot.
Again, my stance is that a majority of USRs did NOT need to be USR. My Stance is removing the idea of USR is stupid.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

It says damage "characteristic" of 1. A lascannon has a damage characteristic of d6, no matter what it rolls for damage, so they don't get the +1 against it, ever.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

Damage is d6, not 1. Even if you roll a 1 for your d6 it still negates the +1 bonus. No debate.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

It has to have a damage characteristic of 1, meaning it only ever deals 1 damage. Not just against something that deals one damage but could potentially deal more.

 Boniface wrote:
I don't know if this has already been covered yet, but I see a potential rule debate with this new unit sheet.
The rules state they get +1 to save against weapons that cause 1 damage.
Do you think they mean only ever deal 1 damage or any weapon that deals 1 damage that turn?
I.e. Would you rule a damage D6 weapon that rolled 1 or not?
I can see either side of this.
Thoughts?

Others have already answered but here's very good reason why it is so.

You roll to hit. You roll to wound. You roll to save. Fail. Opponent rolls 1 for damage. Now what? Timeleap back? You would have to roll separately all saves that failed by 1 to see if that is saved after all after the fact...

Would be pretty clumsy system to say the least!

NVM, ninja*d by tneva82

Cool. Glad it's that straightforward.

Earth127 wrote:
Power is narrative points.

Matched points aren't on the datasheet apparently, maybe in a separate list in the codex?

Hopefully, having the point costs by everything adds to the visual clutter. If all the points for everything is concise and in one spot you can add things up quickly without having to flip a bunch of pages.

 Talamare wrote:

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Which works when there are only a few exceptions. But almost every unit in the game has its own special rules in addition to any USRs they might have- and some of those specific rules are just tweaked USRs. Which means any time there's a disagreement about what a rule does, you have multiple places you might need to look to resolve the issue.

Just because you remember what a rule does doesn't mean your opponent does, or that you're correct in every instance. Putting all the rules on the datasheet lets them be more flexible with what units can do what without adding cruft to the core rule set, and lets rules disputes resolve faster.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

Next are you gonna tell me that charging into assault is a USR, because it's a Universal Rule?

 Talamare wrote:
Universal Special Rules are gone?

Now... I 100% agree that the game did NOT need 2/3rds of the Universal Special Rules.

but removing ALL of them seems excessive.

There is a point where it's streamlining... and a point where its dumbing down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Why bother making the Psykers smite so damn long and pointless...

Wouldn't it have been WAY EASIER AND SIMPLER to create a new power called ... MINOR SMITE...

and then just say
Aspiring Psyker has MINOR SMITE

because I don't doubt that there will be other Psykers around with this Minor Smite.

Some of us like having the rules included in the unit profile. It speeds up play, reduces confusion on which "book" is "Right".....
I've played back since 3rd ed, this is a similar direction to AoS and AoS is WAAAAAYYYY easier to get playing on and has way less rule conflicts now that the generals handbook is out.

Rules should be to the point and direct, not in 8 books and impossible to understand.

I think everybody's missing the big point of narrative play and the lists. Let's say I bring my Army to the store for a pickup game. Currently I'll have to bring you for 5 list based upon whatever I'm going to be fighting. If I'm playing against Tau I'll have one list if I'm playing against Space Marines I have another list against IG have another list.

When I go to play I can just bring the Miniatures and one list and tweak my load out when I know what my opponent is playing so it's okay. I don't have to rebalance all my costs down to the wargear. It's flexible and helps prevent bad matchups.

 Talamare wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

So instead of making a occasional rare exception, we will instead see EVERYTHING turned into an exception.

Again, my stance is that we needed to cut out half the USRs.

So instead of making a bunch of unit-specific exceptions, you wanted to.... make a bunch of unit-specific exceptions?

Also, don't give me that 'design space' crap, because no it didn't. The USRs existed because they were common. Several units were already seeing the same rules appear over and over again. It was simple logic to simplify by making it consistent.

Consistency only works if every unit in the game can be modeled by the same set of special rules. The closest 40k has come to this was 3rd edition, which was notoriously bland.

If you don't want to hear "design space," then I have to point at Fearless, Stubborn, Zealot, and ATSKNF. All different implementations at making troops more resistant to morale, with a lot of confusing overlap. And yet you still have unit-specific mechanics that make troops more resistant to morale. Why not decide on a unit-by-unit basis how they respond to morale, and cut out the need to reference a different source?

Oh, and technically USRs still exist. Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire still exist. Anyone arguing that USR shouldn't exist is arguing that those keywords shouldn't exist.

Those aren't USRs. A USR is a special rule, kind of by definition.

No, the point of USR is that there will be a generalized rule for the majority of units and a FEW units with a specific exception.

Fearless just needs to be removed, and ATSKNF is probably still around. Zealot would be fine if it was no longer a USR since only a few very specific units even had Zealot.
Again, my stance is that a majority of USRs did NOT need to be USR. My Stance is removing the idea of USR is stupid.

Heavy, Assault, and Rapid Fire ARE USRs.
They are RULES. That are UNIVERSAL...
You would have been more accurate to argue the "Special" part instead.

The issue with all but the most basic universal "special" rules is that it makes updating things more difficult as any change to those rules effects a ton of units. Which means points costs on older units are never accurate because they were designed with a different rule in mind.

 Gloomfang wrote:
I think everybody's missing the big point of narrative play and the lists. Let's say I bring my Army to the store for a pickup game. Currently I'll have to bring you for 5 list based upon whatever I'm going to be fighting. If I'm playing against Tau I'll have one list if I'm playing against Space Marines I have another list against IG have another list.

When I go to play I can just bring the Miniatures and one list and tweak my load out when I know what my opponent is playing so it's okay. I don't have to rebalance all my costs down to the wargear. It's flexible and helps prevent bad matchups.

I am secretly hoping for "takes all comers" making a return, but will settle for "Army does what it does OK, regardless of opponent."

The absence of that, and the need to customize an army based on an opponent, is what drove me away from 40K. It seemed like there were 3 categories: armies that did their thing, armies that tried to handle the armies that did their thing and rubbish armies.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
It is the first thing I do not like from all shown so far. In AoS you can buy a box and play because unit's warscroll has all info you need. Here we are told that some datasheets will not have stats for all weapons or rules. So basically you still need a codex even if you do not play with points.

Not entirely. I'm guessing it's about how you equip things. I'm guessing a tactical squad built with missile launcher and flamer will definitely be covered by the included rules but maybe not every other weapon. So you can play out of the box without a codex, but if you want all the options, then you'll have to pay.

40k has gone freemium.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with all but the most basic universal "special" rules is that it makes updating things more difficult as any change to those rules effects a ton of units. Which means points costs on older units are never accurate because they were designed with a different rule in mind.

Problem with unit specific rules is that one unit get changed and other unit with same stuff suddenly can get left behind. Dark angels say @hi@

That is still true with USR rules. But your assumption is based on keeping those same units with different rules.

I.e. if tactical squads just have a single set of rules, then they all update at the same time.

Further if those units are costed differently it doesn't matter if they end up with different rules.

But the issue with DA was always wargear, if all imperial wargear is based in the same rulebook it all updates at once.

Essentially because units can be costed based on their own rules, it is better if one of those units is left behind, but still appropriately costed, rather than units getting huge buffs or nerfs with no change in cost.

The problem with DA is that they were poorly costed for worse gear, because the edition changed around them.

Has anyone noticed the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I'm very glad to not see any grenades here. Used to be that grenades had to be purchased, and they just made it so you struck simultaneously during close combat if you charged through terrain (and even then, I think only if your Initiative would normally be the same or higher). Now they let you go in normal order, but EVERYONE has them (except Tyranids, of course), and they have them for free! Means that, outside of some dudes that suffer horrendously for not having them, the rule was pointless. If they want charging into terrain causing attackers to strike last to be important, the first step is reducing the number of units with access to things that let them bypass that rule.

 Yarium wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I'm very glad to not see any grenades here. Used to be that grenades had to be purchased, and they just made it so you struck simultaneously during close combat if you charged through terrain (and even then, I think only if your Initiative would normally be the same or higher). Now they let you go in normal order, but EVERYONE has them (except Tyranids, of course), and they have them for free! Means that, outside of some dudes that suffer horrendously for not having them, the rule was pointless. If they want charging into terrain causing attackers to strike last to be important, the first step is reducing the number of units with access to things that let them bypass that rule.

I'm not necessarily saying it's good or bad.

Thousand Sons used to have frag and krak grenades.

Now they don't even have an upgrade option to get them.

The aspiring sorcerer used to be able to take melta-bombs.

That option is gone.

It's looking like there's going to be a lot less special war gear in 8th edition.

 Traditio wrote:
Has anyone reduced the massive reduction in wargear options, including, but not limited to, the complete absence of grenades on the war scroll?

I don't even know what this sentence means. Is there a typo? Wait... is the first reduced supposed to be noticed? If so then: It's been brought up. It's also been countered with Rubric Marines never had grenades.

docdoom77 wrote: don't even know what this sentence means. Is there a typo? Wait... is the first reduced supposed to be noticed?

Typo on my part. It was, in fact, supposed to be noticed.

If so then: It's been brought up. It's also been countered with Rubric Marines never had grenades.

I don't know about the t-sons themselves, but the aspiring sorcerer did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One further point:

Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

I don't think dedicated transports work like that any longer. When you look at the detachments they're putting out, there's specific slots for "dedicated transports". I think that means they'll just be their own stand-alone unit entry.

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

Here's the reason why this is interesting:

Landraiders.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

That would mean you can get dedicated transport for including land raider as well unless there\s some rule somewhere that prevents but what_ Dedicated can be taken for infantry units only_ Ok solves that but that means every unit without exception qualifies. Is there much units who couldnt take dedicated transport at all in 7th ed_

 Traditio wrote:
Here's the reason why this is interesting:

Landraiders.

Admittedly, I hadn't considered that. However, it's hard to say. If anything, the Land Raider having to be a dedicated transport weakens it. It's likely to be so many points that you can't jam your list with them anyways, and having to take a unit to take a dedicated transport like a Land Raider could, in some ways, be considered a tax. Plus, by being dedicated, it is required to carry the squad that it's dedicated for at the start of the game, or else not carry anything at the start at all. My main point is; not enough info yet to make any reasonable determination.

I'm also wondering how this will work with assault marines.

Assault marines currently have the option to take a rhino or razorback instead of jump packs.

So now Rubric Marines can run, overwatch, hurt vehicles and they lost Warpflame on their flamers.

Also their Aspiring Sorcerer isn't fighting for warp charges against the rest of the force.

More excited for the Terminators since they can split fire and it looks like they wound Dreadnoughts on a 5+ now with AP -3 in combat.

Are saving throws meant to be only armor saves?
Cause otherwise you would get +1 to the inv save as well.

Furthermore with those AP values included now, it could be that inv saves will work differently maybe like FNP now.
Since you would get a 5+ save in a lot of intances anyway.
Of course it could still just be for all Ap -3+ weapons which do more than 1 dmg

I'm pretty positive that the +1 to saving throws applied to Invulnerable saves, considering they are saving throws
I also think that Invulnerable saves are just a value that AP cannot modify below, and that is why Mortal wounds can just punch through even those.

Remember too that higher Str weapons now need to be twice the T to wound on 2+. So str6/7 weapons now wound Rubric only on 3+. Combine with their bolters equally wounding T6/7 on 5+ and anything T8+ on a 6, Rubrics are looking pretty good as all-round choices in 8th

-

Man it's so easy to lose track of stuff with all these partial releases. I'd forgotten the S v T implications when i read the Ts profile, while I've been calacuting and simulating odds in excell on just that.

Has anyone noticed if you stick a rubricae in cover it will have +1 save from dust and +1 from cover meaning you cannot get a 1 against dmg 1 weapons and therefore unkillable against for example a bolt gun ?! Am I reading this right?

 Traditio wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Did anybody notice that the war scroll didn't have an option to take a rhino as a dedicated transport?

Would it need to? Dedicated transports are their own unit type now and the detachments we've seen so far allow you to take one dedicated transport for each other unit you take. Seems like it wouldn't need to go on the sheet if this is the case. In fact, this seems to be a slight confirmation that dedicated transports may no longer be assigned to specific units anymore. But we can't read in to it too much yet.

Here's the reason why this is interesting:

Landraiders.

Honestly having access to Land Raiders for even grunts was one of my proposed fixes for Chaos Marines and if that's a thing I'm giddy.

kelewan wrote:
Has anyone noticed if you stick a rubricae in cover it will have +1 save from dust and +1 from cover meaning you cannot get a 1 against dmg 1 weapons and therefore unkillable against for example a bolt gun ?! Am I reading this right?

I suspect rolls of '1' will still be failure even if you save somehow gets to 1+

-

 Shadow Walker wrote:
It is the first thing I do not like from all shown so far. In AoS you can buy a box and play because unit's warscroll has all info you need. Here we are told that some datasheets will not have stats for all weapons or rules. So basically you still need a codex even if you do not play with points.

You're going to have a book of Datasheets, otherwise you literally will not be able to play the game. They've already said that - UNLIKE Age of Sigmar - the army lists and unit rules will be released in books to be purchased, not as free downloads. Everything you need will be in that book (unless you're allying Eldar and Space Marines, I suppose, then you'll need two books). So, even if the text of the Death To the False Emperor rule aren't on that Datasheet, they'll be in the same book (and Battle Focus will be in the same book as all the Eldar datasheets, and And They Shall Know No Fear will be in the Space Marines book, etc). Presumably those books will have a comprehensive weapons summary chart at the back too.

Thousand Sons did not have Grenades in 6th/7th...shows how many people actually used them.

 Galef wrote:

kelewan wrote:
Has anyone noticed if you stick a rubricae in cover it will have +1 save from dust and +1 from cover meaning you cannot get a 1 against dmg 1 weapons and therefore unkillable against for example a bolt gun ?! Am I reading this right?

I suspect rolls of '1' will still be failure even if you save somehow gets to 1+

-

I dunno if I'm just reading it wrong I'm reading it as you add 1 to your save by adding 1 to your dice roll making it impossible to roll a 1

A roll of 1 is always a failure, it doesn't matter what modifiers there are. Any modifier that would take it to a 1+ save or below would just make it a 2+ save or a 2+ with some kind of re-rollable.

watnheld wrote:
Furthermore with those AP values included now, it could be that inv saves will work differently maybe like FNP now.
Since you would get a 5+ save in a lot of intances anyway.

I'm thinking it's just like a cap on how low the save can get, and it can't get any lower. Or you may be right and an inv is just like FNP, we'll have to wait and see.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thousand Sons did not have Grenades in 6th/7th...shows how many people actually used them.

Actually, the Aspiring Sorc had grenades, but I strongly suspect that many people gave him an Axe since he at least had some hope at surviving until I1 to use it and as such, him having grenades never mattered much. But no, the RUbricae never had access to grenades (which made total sense).

One of the things that is of great interest to me is the lack of fearless and the huge nerf to Ld. Rubricae and the Asp Sorc both used to be Ld 10 and were fearless to boot. Now they're Ld 7/8? Harsh.

 Drasius wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thousand Sons did not have Grenades in 6th/7th...shows how many people actually used them.

Actually, the Aspiring Sorc had grenades, but I strongly suspect that many people gave him an Axe since he at least had some hope at surviving until I1 to use it and as such, him having grenades never mattered much. But no, the RUbricae never had access to grenades (which made total sense).

One of the things that is of great interest to me is the lack of fearless and the huge nerf to Ld. Rubricae and the Asp Sorc both used to be Ld 10 and were fearless to boot. Now they're Ld 7/8? Harsh.

the Space marine profile suggested they're reducing leadership scores across the board too. the real intreasting question is gonna be where the guard are at leadership wise. that'll give us the "range"

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A roll of 1 is always a failure, it doesn't matter what modifiers there are. Any modifier that would take it to a 1+ save or below would just make it a 2+ save or a 2+ with some kind of re-rollable.

Well we HOPE so and it's pretty likely but have we seen confirmation? AOS outside matched play or house rule 1 is not automatic failure so it's not like that's some universal GW truth that's absolutely quaranteed.

Guard might be 5 or 6, but commissars in 12" might kill a d3 to make them auto pass if they fail. Same with orcs and nobs.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Ah the link is working for me now. Not sure why it was derping haha.

I really like the layout, very similar to AoS actually. Melee weapons look pretty awesome

Just for the record, they accidentally released the rules early and then pulled the page again - twice.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Drasius wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Thousand Sons did not have Grenades in 6th/7th...shows how many people actually used them.

Actually, the Aspiring Sorc had grenades, but I strongly suspect that many people gave him an Axe since he at least had some hope at surviving until I1 to use it and as such, him having grenades never mattered much. But no, the RUbricae never had access to grenades (which made total sense).

One of the things that is of great interest to me is the lack of fearless and the huge nerf to Ld. Rubricae and the Asp Sorc both used to be Ld 10 and were fearless to boot. Now they're Ld 7/8? Harsh.

the Space marine profile suggested they're reducing leadership scores across the board too. the real intreasting question is gonna be where the guard are at leadership wise. that'll give us the "range"

True, but marines going from 8 -- > 7 and maybe losing ATSKNF (HA!) is nowhere near as big of a thing as Rubricae going from 10 --> 7 and for sure losing fearless.

 Drasius wrote:
True, but marines going from 8 -- > 7 and maybe losing ATSKNF (HA!) is nowhere near as big of a thing as Rubricae going from 10 --> 7 and for sure losing fearless.

The thing to remember is that the switch from Morale to Battleshock means a big change in how leadership works and also a change in what those values represent. Units never "break" per se any more so losing Fearless is not such a big deal. You will need to lose 2 models from a squad of Rubricae before they even risk losing models to Battleshock (and they look pretty tough).

If you look at AoS, high Bravery is reserved for things like Undead who really are Fearless. My guess is that Necrons and Wraithguard/lords/knights will have 10 in 8th edition.

 Karhedron wrote:

 Drasius wrote:
True, but marines going from 8 -- > 7 and maybe losing ATSKNF (HA!) is nowhere near as big of a thing as Rubricae going from 10 --> 7 and for sure losing fearless.

The thing to remember is that the switch from Morale to Battleshock means a big change in how leadership works and also a change in what those values represent. Units never "break" per se any more so losing Fearless is not such a big deal. You will need to lose 2 models from a squad of Rubricae before they even risk losing models to Battleshock (and they look pretty tough).

If you look at AoS, high Bravery is reserved for things like Undead who really are Fearless. My guess is that Necrons and Wraithguard/lords/knights will have 10 in 8th edition.

And Daemons, both Lizardmen and Chaos ones.

I wonder what the new rules for promethian relay pipes will be. If they still increase the range of flame weaponry by 12", well...

my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Here's to hoping "quick and easy mechanism for balancing less competitive games" means they're going to have a real points system for those of us who get annoyed by the batch costing/free upgrades gibberish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

(The 'rule of 1' thing has me wondering if I'm going to need to restart my homemade Grey Knights book on day one. They're already grotesquely overpriced because they're paying for psychic powers they can't actually use...)

(Though maybe without the "seven-power lore" constraint we'll get usable powers back. Pros and cons to the mess, I guess.)

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Didn't they already state that in the Psychic Phase overview?

 Charistoph wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Didn't they already state that in the Psychic Phase overview?

Nope: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Didn't they already state that in the Psychic Phase overview?

Nope: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

Well, I just took the following to mean that:

Each time you pick a psyker, you can cast as many spells as their datasheet states (which would previously be the same as their Mastery Level)...

Nothing was said about being able to cast the same spell twice, and considering we already know how GW treats the Mastery Level, I'd consider that pretty much exactly that.

 Charistoph wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Didn't they already state that in the Psychic Phase overview?

Nope: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

Well, I just took the following to mean that:

Each time you pick a psyker, you can cast as many spells as their datasheet states (which would previously be the same as their Mastery Level)...

Nothing was said about being able to cast the same spell twice, and considering we already know how GW treats the Mastery Level, I'd consider that pretty much exactly that.

I thought that the rule of 1 in AoS meant a power could only be attempted once each turn. As in, if you have 3 magic users with smite, Smite can only be attempted once, not once with each character. There's nothing about that in the article.

Correct. The rule of 1 in AOS means that you can only attempt a spell once, success or fail.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
my only hope is that we don't see the AOS "Rule of 1" for wizards, where they can only cast one of the same named power each turn. If Thousand Sons Aspiring Sorcs don't even have a single unique spell, I feel like a lot of psykers like Inquisitors, Wyrdvanes, etc are going to be throwing around a LOT of smites. And if everyone's got it, the second you run a regular sorc in your tsons list, there'd be no reason to use any of your sarge sorcs for anything if you can only cast 1 smite a turn..might as well cast the best smite you have.

Didn't they already state that in the Psychic Phase overview?

Nope: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

Well, I just took the following to mean that:

Each time you pick a psyker, you can cast as many spells as their datasheet states (which would previously be the same as their Mastery Level)...

Nothing was said about being able to cast the same spell twice, and considering we already know how GW treats the Mastery Level, I'd consider that pretty much exactly that.

I thought that the rule of 1 in AoS meant a power could only be attempted once each turn. As in, if you have 3 magic users with smite, Smite can only be attempted once, not once with each character. There's nothing about that in the article.

Ah, I thought it meant something different.

They really put that in AoS? How assinine.

Which is pretty dumb, I think.

I understand not being able to stack spells (so no casting five Mystic Shields on one unit to give it +5 to saves) but it doesn't scale well at all. If you're running, say, Tzeentch daemons, it's easy to not have duplicate spells in 500 points. What about 1,000? Or 2,000? Or more?