Only 137 shopping days until Christmas! I think they planned this announcement to come out later, but last minute decided to do it before the Nova Open.
Troops also get a bonus to holding objectives. This is a pretty solid bump to their power. Liking all of this so far, particularly GW's consistently pumping out fixes!
With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.
Granted, there are still problems (as there are in every edition) but I am liking how GW are actively trying to improve their game as opposed to taking your money for a rulebook and leaving you to make your own house rules.
Now if only they could make a rulebook that is (A) just a rulebook and (B) easy to navigate.
Ghaz wrote: With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.
Got to try to force the troop tax, or sales go down. I'm not sure your conclusion is true, however- for some armies, the extra killing power from not taking troops is probably still worth it.
And even in those detachments you can still have a couple troops to do the ObjSec job if you really want.
Last up, we got our first look at Chapter Approved 2017, a new book on its way later this year.
We’ve said right from the start that the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is one that we’d work to make even better over time. This is one of the ways that will happen. Each year, you’ll have a new Chapter Approved, expanding your gaming options and making what we think is already the best Warhammer 40,000 ever, even better.
Expect the first Chapter Approved book in time for Christmas.
It's the 40K version of the General's Handbook for AoS.
Asmodai wrote: Well, this isn't good at all for my Sisters of Silence or Deathwing armies.
Could saying "Infantry" instead of "Troops" be that hard?
The whole point is that non-Troops infantry are relatively less useful if they don't have ObSec and Troops do, therefore encouraging people to take Troops. For armies like Deathwing you'll probably find that the DA Codex includes an option to make a Deathwing detachment and if all the models have the appropriate keyword then they get ObSec, or something like that.
What I find amusing is this is basically backtracking to cater to the competitive crowd that don't want to relearn a game. It's essentially making 8th a modified 7th edition.
With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.
I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!
RiTides wrote: With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.
I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!
Why make a complete ruleset when you can fix it in drips and drabs and charge gamers every step of the way?
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
Probably looking for feedback in all honesty. They've done the same for the Generals Handbook (I think).
Ghaz wrote: With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.
Got to try to force the troop tax, or sales go down.
Oh. My. Friggin. God.
Needing flyers isn't good for the game. It's only because they sold out of stormravens.
Making troops obsec isn't good for the game. It's just to sellING something else.
GW is apparently the most effective company at forcing people to buy every single model.
I, for one, liked the ObjSec rule. They were already giving it to Troops units anyway (check SM, GK and CSM codexes).
Not that sure on the Flyer one... removed the last reason to use Remoras. Piranhas do their job way better (except for speed and firing Seeker Missiles at BS4+ on the move)
The initiative one makes MSU even more attractive... dunno if this is will be good for the game.
RiTides wrote: With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.
I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!
Not necessarily. This Chapter Approved scheduled for Christmas likely isn't printed yet. Stuff on the website, they could've literally decided on today.
So while actually printed books in stores within 2-3 months (?) of people playing their first games of 8th Edition (i.e. the first handful of codicies) was likely finished before the official 8th Edition release, this likely is (and was planned as) the first response to the game being out in the wild, I would think.
Giving Objective Secured to any IMPERIUM detachment is kind of stupid and totally negates the point of making it apply to "Space Marines" detachments. It should require TWO keywords in common, much like how the space marine codex needs <CHAPTER>and ADPETUS ASTARTES. Let's hope they change that.
Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.
It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.
It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.
Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.
It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.
They're just stating they don't count.
Because reasons.
It's different because if <Allegiance> counts then so does <Imperium>, which is obviously not the intention based on Despoilers of the Galaxy and... whatever the SM rule was called. GW did a pretty poor job at writing a pretty well-intended rule, unfortunately.
I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.
Wayniac wrote: What I find amusing is this is basically backtracking to cater to the competitive crowd that don't want to relearn a game. It's essentially making 8th a modified 7th edition.
New != better. In pre-CA 8th, Troops are almost always objectively inferior to other choices, because they bring nothing you can't get elsewhere usually with some additional special rules on top, and because focusing on smaller elite armies to grab first turn was simply the superior way to build an army. Giving Troops ObSec again and having folk roll off for first turn albeit with a small bonus for elite armies solves both problems without having to radically change point values or rules for individual units.
And it's not just the "competitive crowd" that likes this change, I'll wager pickup gamers who prefer to build fluffy armies will love that their preferred way to play doesn't leave them fatally disadvantaged before the first dice is even rolled if they come up against an even moderately fluff-agnostic player who structure their army for effectiveness not background.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.
That might be a good point though. I hope they make that clear.
Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.
I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.
I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.
That still doesn't quite work unfortunately; take Marks of Chaos. I don't think it's intended for <Khorne> Renegades and <Khorne> Word Bearers to come together in a detachment and still have ObSec.
It's fortunate that the SM and CSM books are already out for precedent because I'd genuinely not know what the intention behind this rule is otherwise.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.
That still doesn't quite work unfortunately; take Marks of Chaos. I don't think it's intended for <Khorne> Renegades and <Khorne> Word Bearers to come together in a detachment and still have ObSec.
It's fortunate that the SM and CSM books are already out for precedent because I'd genuinely not know what the intention behind this rule is otherwise.
Which means a few armies get screwed. Mostly chaos, as always, as neither demons nor R&H have a proper tag. Shame they can't write proper rules.
If that even is the intent, I can't actually tell what this rule means tbh. It amuses me they've managed to take keywords, something that should simplify things, and constantly screw it up by not properly defining the various <faction> values, or even what <faction> itself refers to.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the "troop tax" philosophy that comes with Obj Sec, specially since I thought the detachment system gave a plenty good reason to take troops with the offer of more CP for taking Company/Battalion. If they want to make troops worth while, then make the troop choices actually offer something to the army other than "they're cheaper"
If they made it "troops are worth 2 when determining the amount of models for controlling a objective" that at least avoids the problem of a single grot stealing a point away from a full squad of berserkers.
The Roll Off for going first I'm kinda okay with, but then I think the bonus for less drops should have been higher, or at least variable (because anything that discourages mass MSU is a good thing).
The flyer rule we already knew about.
I am otherwise interested to see what else is in this book.
1 less deployment = +1 to go first or choose
2 less deployment = +2 to go first or choose
3 .. = +3
4 .. = +4
5 .. = +5
6 .. = You go first
Additionally, I would only allow a seize the initiative if the difference was 3 or less, and it would cost a command point.
But that's my 2c.
While i'd agree that the bonus should be more (maybe +1 to the roll and seize on a 5+) or something, this option is just way too much.
This change allows people so much more opportunities during list creation, instead of always having to think about the number of drops. Just because a Knight army has 15 fewer drops than a horde army, doesn't mean the horde would never be able to fire the first shot, so to speak. On the flip side however, in the case of things like AM getting the first turn, you might see a lot more games end on turn 1 or 2, depending on the matchup.
My gaminggroup house-ruled "who goes first" instantly when we started playing 8th Ed. We made it so the one who deploys their army first gets +1 to the roll.
Automatically going first just because you have fewer drops (even as little as ONE less) was one of the most stupid things introduced by 8th Ed.
Yes, this will benefit MSU (so what?), but it will also benefit those armies who essentially never got to go first with the "old" rule.
I've played IG-lists with 20+ drops which where neither MSU nor cheesy. I would always go last with that rule, because of...reasons I suppose?
Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?
Deepeyes wrote: Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?
Unless there are significant changes to matched play I doubt the content one would actually need is more than a page or two at most. Easily copied or just remembered. Now if it hits and does contain the sort of content that makes it a needed buy that will indeed be bad, but as it stands it may be a book filled with optional rules (additional scenarios, rules for team battles & FFA, stuff like that) with the changes players actually need being small.
Deepeyes wrote: Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?
When we hit the.... 10 books I bought to play my two armies across 7th edition, I might be upset. Currently with the core rules, this, two indices and three codices I'm still just at 7 total, with one of those being for what is technically a new army. That's down to 60% of the books I purchased last edition, ignoring my new army. Plus I don't have to carry the indices once the codices come out, meaning only five books to carry around, assuming I want access to all three armies at a time.
It's really hard to be annoyed by anything after the absolute garbage fire of 7th edition.
Deepeyes wrote: Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?
Unless there are significant changes to matched play I doubt the content one would actually need is more than a page or two at most. Easily copied or just remembered. Now if it hits and does contain the sort of content that makes it a needed buy that will indeed be bad, but as it stands it may be a book filled with optional rules (additional scenarios, rules for team battles & FFA, stuff like that) with the changes players actually need being small.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.
I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.
GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.
The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).
Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.
After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.
GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.
I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).
spiralingcadaver wrote: Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.
I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.
GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.
The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).
Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.
After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.
GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.
I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).
This isn't just good by GW standards, fixing things this quickly is great by any miniature gaming companies standards.
Exactly.
GW is still not doing everything right, but they've been improving on everything SO MUCH (except prices lol)
Spot on mate. Im thrilled they're acting this fast to patch things.
No matter how playtested things are, it takes a wide release for the cracks to really show. They're showing they are prepared to listen to feedback, look for exploits that appear, and act fast to plaster over those cracks, and fix those exploits.
I m pleasantly surprised.
Im no fan of GW (its pricing and buisiness model needs a serious fix, and its agressive TM of everything is OTT) and annoying shop attendants (who get trained and encouraged to hang off you like wallpaper in the shop). But I'm a fan of the 'New' GW in its swift responses to worldwide competitive playtesting showing cracks, improved customer feedback, and improved community engagement.
They need to sort the pricing out fast though because $60 AUD for a single marine model is nuts. Dropping the prices, or even a 'loyalty' reward (every 100 bucks you spend gets you 20 bucks store credit kind of thing). The game relies on customer loyalty (and will do so more in the future as 3D printing tech advances) and networking (you cant play the game if there is no-one else to play with, because the game is too expensive).
44Ronin wrote: It's not a troop tax, it's a troops BUFF.
It´s a troop buff that shall make you pay the troop tax.
With the new wound table allowing everything to wound everything the that troop buff, am i the only one who think that horde armies are favored?
I would really like know how good a cheesy horde army (= armies consisting only of: conspripts+commissar+commander OR hormagants/termagants with some synapses OR large ork mobs) will prevail against a "normal" army?
I guess the hardest enemy would be a time-out, as moving a couple hundreds of models takes its time.
44Ronin wrote: It's not a troop tax, it's a troops BUFF.
It´s a troop buff that shall make you pay the troop tax.
With the new wound table allowing everything to wound everything the that troop buff, am i the only one who think that horde armies are favored?
I would really like know how good a cheesy horde army (= armies consisting only of: conspripts+commissar+commander OR hormagants/termagants with some synapses OR large ork mobs) will prevail against a "normal" army?
I guess the hardest enemy would be a time-out, as moving a couple hundreds of models takes its time.
That said i like how fast GW is (re)-acting.
Im liking Intercessors for my army even more. 10 man MEQ units (2 wounds a pop) with Obsec (and rapid fire guns at S4, -1 and 30" range) make them pretty hardy objective campers. Add in a 2+ save for cover, and you're going to be mighty hard to dig out.
Vector Strike wrote: I, for one, liked the ObjSec rule. They were already giving it to Troops units anyway (check SM, GK and CSM codexes).
Not that sure on the Flyer one... removed the last reason to use Remoras. Piranhas do their job way better (except for speed and firing Seeker Missiles at BS4+ on the move)
The initiative one makes MSU even more attractive... dunno if this is will be good for the game.
Where is this at in the Space Marine Codex by the way? I apparently missed it or glossed over it.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.
I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.
GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.
The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).
Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.
After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.
GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.
I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).
I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.
So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.
But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.
Tamereth wrote: I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.
So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.
But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.
I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist. You're asking for 1st time perfection which is simply too high a bar, as that can never, ever be attained.
Not to mention a game has to be popular enough that enough people play to find bugs, smaller companies that might seem like they have perfect rules may in fact have hidden issues.
Tamereth wrote: I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.
No amount of playtesting is going to reveal the kinds of cracks and exploits that a general release does with thousands of players pushing and twisting the rules to the limit. I think the basic rules as presented are pretty balanced (the most balanaced rules yet).
People were crying foul with Stormraven spam and Detatchment abuse (in particular the flyer detachment) and there was a noticable amount of elite units being favored over troop choices (to the extent that people are referring to troops as a 'tax' one needs to pay to get the good units down).
GW stepped in and fixed that (publicly announcing it on their website, and releasing the patches largel free in advance) within weeks of release.
As a gamer (roleplaying games, wargames and computer games) for a company to step in so fast with a patch (and most games need patches at some point) that clearly shows they are watching and listening to consumers and players and working fast to come up with solutions, is pretty amazing.
Dont get me wrong. I have issues with GW (pricing and questionable marketing strategy mainly). But in this instance, I think they might actually have learnt and I cant fault them other than to say they should be releasing the 'patch' as a free errata to the rulebook (and included free in future printings) and not in Chapter approved suppliment.
They should go a step further and provide them for free online to people who have already purchased the rules, but with GW's dodgy marketting they'll probably make us pay for them.
I cant fault their listening to feedback, and speed at removing exploits and making the game smoother and more balanced. They've been on the money and lightning fast in this respect so far. It's definately a stretch to see this as some kind of engineered pre-ordained rules patch to get us to fork out more money (insert evil laugh here).
Pricing and stooging us for money (which alienates even rusted on consumers) is another thing alltogether.
Now Im hoping for a points cost adjustment for Dev centurions as I'm sure there is a typo in the book.
MaxT wrote: I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist.
Good thing that he never suggested they did.
Argue against the points the other guy makes, not the ones you wished he made.
Arachnofiend wrote: I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)
Tamereth wrote: I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.
So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.
But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.
I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist. You're asking for 1st time perfection which is simply too high a bar, as that can never, ever be attained.
1st Time perfection?, this is of course the 8th iteration of the game.
No game system is perfect, but I have never experienced one that has needed this many updates and amendments this fast. When you consider that this is the flagship game from the largest company in the industry it's really odd.
Arachnofiend wrote: I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)
GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.
People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.
1st Time perfection?, this is of course the 8th iteration of the game.
Not really, there are only a few games from GW that got more than a first edition
fact is, this this is the first Edition of New40k and now the 6th SciFi Mass-Skirmish game in the grim darkness from GW.
Would be nice if they would stop making new games and just stick with one and improve it over time
but I don't believe so and after second edition of New40k we will see another new grim dark game with another first edition of rules
GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.
People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.
I know and this is were the problem is with Daemons and ObSec.
Because now for ObSec they would need to have Faction Keyword of Tzeentch-Daemon that is different to Tzeetch Faction + Daemon Keyword.
Solution is, either reverse it and say Faction and Keyword are two different things, or Daemons have no ObSec until the Codex add a "Clut/Coven/Warpstorm" Sub-Faction a player can chose.
40k moved n to its 2nd edition faster than Warmachine and Infinity, but not as quickly as Malifaux or Flames of War. It moved onto a 3rd edition slower than Infinity or Flames of War.
Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.
It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.
They're just stating they don't count.
Because reasons.
It's different because if <Allegiance> counts then so does <Imperium>, which is obviously not the intention based on Despoilers of the Galaxy and... whatever the SM rule was called. GW did a pretty poor job at writing a pretty well-intended rule, unfortunately.
<Allegiance> isn't a thing currently in the chaos index, that could change. Even if it did, it would not be the same as <imperium> which does not exist, as CSM don't have <Allegiance> they have <Mark of Chaos>. So it would only apply to detachments of daemons from the same god.
The rule is pretty clear as of now that it refers to bracketed keywords.
Right now this is an issue for Daemons, GSC, and Custodes as they don't have <faction> keywords available.
Im liking Intercessors for my army even more. 10 man MEQ units (2 wounds a pop) with Obsec (and rapid fire guns at S4, -1 and 30" range) make them pretty hardy objective campers. Add in a 2+ save for cover, and you're going to be mighty hard to dig out.
Intercessors might be the Primaris version that is as close to an upgrade for a normal space marine unit (tactical marines) as possible, up to now.
But for my taste that second wound is too pricey and the uprated gun can´t help it justify the points.
15 normal marines bear simply more firepower especially against hordes and 3 troops are more flexible than 2. And for extra costs normal marines can get some gear.
Vs. certain weapons (autocannons, oc plasma) primaris die as easy as normal marines.
18 points per intercessor seems more fitting to me.
I cannot agree at all with this change to who goes first.
Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment. Better nerf would have been that the Super Heavy Detachment gives no CPs. I dont see any reason why it should give 3 CPs.
Transports currently provide both cover and drop minimization and some of the prices look like as if the drop minimization is calculated into the price. The drop minimization becomes nearly pointless with this change.
I was just today planning a list centered around kind alpha strike list with Storm Eagle providing efficient drop minimization to guarantee 1st turn in most cases (6 drops).
Now drop minimization is almost pointless and I just need to scrap my list idea and start anew. Yeah, can be argued that having +1 to roll and being able re-roll once gives me slight edge, but the mechanism is still so random. The chances to don't mean anything. My Storm Eagle list is extremely weak if it happened to face list which spammed lascannons or similar weapons and had re-rolls and then the spammy list wins first turn, he will just shoot Storm Eagle down, it cannot really be hidden. Additionally spammy lists already have an advantage because they can be dropping cheap spammy troops while I set up my whole army. This allows enemy to set up the good counters last to gets maximum effective fire if they happen to win the roll.
So in short, no Storm Eagle for me like this, have to scrap that list idea.
As constructive suggestion:
Who goes first should be something like every 2 difference gives +1 to the one having less drops. It is kind of refreshing mechanic that one can plan a list that has high chance of going first. The game should NOT increase amount of rolls to increase randomness if we are looking to make
The other fact that all horde troops get Objective Secured is just crazy and encourages for example CSM players to spam cultists (except cultists are nowhere near as good as conscripts or boys) and berserkers or maybe noise marines. Berserkers and Noise Marines as they have somewhat realistic chances of cleaning conscripts/boys/similar off the table in melee, assuming they make it there.
Cleaning orc boys or conscripts with shooting is insanely hard, and if you make a list that can shoot them off then you just lose to first list that spams high T and high Sv vehicles.
This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.
This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh. And in the process they broke different things.
No company want to make a game, polish it as best as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leson. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.
Galas wrote: This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.
This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh.
No company want to make a game, polish it as been as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leason. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.
I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.
roll a dice, the winner chose if he wants to go first or chose table side
the one who goes second places the first marker
the one who goes first deploy all his units, than the other player deploy all his units
no seize initiative or anything
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghorgul wrote: I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.
Galas wrote: This isn't the 8th edition of the same game, and not every edition is made just to fix things.
This is like league of legends where every season they change things just to shake the meta. Why they do that? To keep things fresh.
No company want to make a game, polish it as been as they can, and they don't touch it anymore. Thats the formula of the past, guys. Videogames have already learned that leason. Continue development and DLC is the way for the future.
I could see this happening, it will be awesome for the sales too! Change the mechanics and meta once every 2 months! Just imagine how much money GW can make by doing that.
Not every two months. But once a year? Well. What you think Chapter Approved is for? A flexible yearly meta is good for us and good for GW. They sell a bigger variety of models because a bigger variety of them are viable and you don't have models being OP a full edition (So like 2-5 years). For us is better because it means a better balanced game, and at least a fresh gaming enviroment.
I don't understand the point of rolling off for first turn, then immediately after rolling to seize the initiative. You already just rolled of, and you add another roll, which makes finishing deployment first even less of an advantage. The odds of getting to go first aren't that much better for the person who finished deploying first. And they had the disadvantage that the other player deploying a bunch of stuff after knowing where his opponent's entire army is.
Rolling for turn and then allowing for seizing slightly reduces the odds that the winner of the roll will go first from what's basically a 50% chance, but still keeps the roll opposed.
The seizing roll is also optional (or at least used to be) so you could voluntarily go second if (for some strange reason) you wanted to. A reason I can think of is so that you have last turn for a last minute objective scramble.
I really hope they also disallow using a command point to reroll the seize roll.
With no seize, a +1 to go first gives the one to finish setting up first a 67.74% chance to go first.
With a seize, that drops to 56.45%
If the player seizing can reroll with a command point, that drops to 47.04%, meaning the player with the +1 for setting up first actually has a worse chance of going first than the player who tries to seize.
You forgot to add in the chance of the +1 player seizing after losing the initial roll. That makes it about a 56.5% chance of going first with fewer drops,assuming going first is important enough to spend CP on.
Arachnofiend wrote: I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.
No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)
GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.
People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.
So I tried to raise this in the Rules forum and it ended up also being argued a bit in the Tournament forum. Apparently, because GW used <> in the box blurb we're all supposed to know they ALSO meant it only applies to Faction Keywords that have <> around them in the Indices and Codices. At least, this is what the people who actually have some contact (and playtester status) with GW were saying.
No it didn't make sense to me either. I think this will need a FAQ to be honest.
Sadly, I'm partially an outside observer on this. One of my favorite armies is Custodes so we can never have a common faction keyword beyond "Imperium" because we don't have a HQ. I'm glad to see GW at least trying though. They just need to be more careful in how they write rules.
Ghorgul wrote: I cannot agree at all with this change to who goes first.
Yeah, it's probably directed against some specific style list, such as super heavy detachment. Better nerf would have been that the Super Heavy Detachment gives no CPs. I dont see any reason why it should give 3 CPs.
Transports currently provide both cover and drop minimization and some of the prices look like as if the drop minimization is calculated into the price. The drop minimization becomes nearly pointless with this change.
I was just today planning a list centered around kind alpha strike list with Storm Eagle providing efficient drop minimization to guarantee 1st turn in most cases (6 drops).
Now drop minimization is almost pointless and I just need to scrap my list idea and start anew. Yeah, can be argued that having +1 to roll and being able re-roll once gives me slight edge, but the mechanism is still so random. The chances to don't mean anything. My Storm Eagle list is extremely weak if it happened to face list which spammed lascannons or similar weapons and had re-rolls and then the spammy list wins first turn, he will just shoot Storm Eagle down, it cannot really be hidden. Additionally spammy lists already have an advantage because they can be dropping cheap spammy troops while I set up my whole army. This allows enemy to set up the good counters last to gets maximum effective fire if they happen to win the roll.
So in short, no Storm Eagle for me like this, have to scrap that list idea.
As constructive suggestion:
Who goes first should be something like every 2 difference gives +1 to the one having less drops. It is kind of refreshing mechanic that one can plan a list that has high chance of going first. The game should NOT increase amount of rolls to increase randomness if we are looking to make
The other fact that all horde troops get Objective Secured is just crazy and encourages for example CSM players to spam cultists (except cultists are nowhere near as good as conscripts or boys) and berserkers or maybe noise marines. Berserkers and Noise Marines as they have somewhat realistic chances of cleaning conscripts/boys/similar off the table in melee, assuming they make it there.
Cleaning orc boys or conscripts with shooting is insanely hard, and if you make a list that can shoot them off then you just lose to first list that spams high T and high Sv vehicles.
So the answer is 'Dont spam Stormeagles in Matched play' and 'bring more troops and boots on the ground, and plan to both go first and plan if you dont'.
Also, if your list contains only Stormeagles (with dudes in them), you're tabled instantly at the start of turn one. You lose before firing a shot.
Alpha strikes are not fun to play against. This rule makes them less likely.
Malifice wrote: So the answer is 'Dont spam Stormeagles in Matched play' and 'bring more troops and boots on the ground, and plan to both go first and plan if you dont'.
Also, if your list contains only Stormeagles (with dudes in them), you're tabled instantly at the start of turn one. You lose before firing a shot.
Alpha strikes are not fun to play against. This rule makes them less likely.
My planned list has one single storm eagle, would you agree that one single storm eagle is not spamming?
That situation where having only flyers on table turn one makes one lose instantly does not exist. Go re-read the faq, please.
AduroT wrote: Does a Flyer transport full of dudes still capture an objective?
Nope.
Ghorgul wrote: That situation where having only flyers on table turn one makes one lose instantly does not exist. Go re-read the faq, please.
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory.
You're right. It only kicks in if at the end of any turn after round 1 you have nothing but fliers on the board. That happens and you lose.
My point on alpha strikes stand. They invariably lead to one sided games (it either works and you crush them, or it doesnt and the crush you) that arent really that much fun to play against. I refrained from using Skyhammer last edition for just this reason.
YMMV of course and maybe thats your thing. Im not judging you. I guess I just prefer more nuanced games (we use the Maelstrom of War rules for floating random objectives in our games). Its more fun trying to score VP than to simply focus on deleting units.
Had the Avatar of Khaine get priority orders to secure an objective on his own deployment zone on turn 1 last week. Got the Eldar 4 VP on turn 1. I was on the backfoot for the rest of the game (managed to get a few back by achieving both securing an objective and 'death from the skies' when my Inceptors deleted a squad of Guardians with some lucky rolls and Bolter drill strategem after deep striking).
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't understand the point of rolling off for first turn, then immediately after rolling to seize the initiative. You already just rolled of, and you add another roll, which makes finishing deployment first even less of an advantage. The odds of getting to go first aren't that much better for the person who finished deploying first. And they had the disadvantage that the other player deploying a bunch of stuff after knowing where his opponent's entire army is.
Spoiler:
This plays a huge advantage to certain lists, like my guard list where I have 14 DS units and 16 non DS units. Majority of the time I can just watch my oponent deploy their whole army, then counter deploy and then still have a decent chance of going first.
Honestly going back to the old way is much better then at least if you are going second you can counter deploy and have a slight counter to not going first.
daedalus wrote: I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.
I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.
That last point.... that's.... really, really good. I like that. Anyone else think that troop units should have to have a squad leader alive to get obsec?
I *like* this idea... now someone tell geederps to rewrite the book before it gets released
daedalus wrote: I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.
I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.
That last point.... that's.... really, really good. I like that. Anyone else think that troop units should have to have a squad leader alive to get obsec?
I *like* this idea... now someone tell geederps to rewrite the book before it gets released
it's a non-starter. some factions don't have anything like a sgt/champ/squad leader.
We’ve heard a little more about what we can look forward to in the upcoming Chapter Approved, and it sounds more and more exciting the more we hear.
We learned at NOVA tonight that the new book will feature, (amongst many other things)
* An expansion for Apocalypse games of Warhammer 40,000
* Guidelines on running a planetary invasion campaign
* Updated matched play points for dozens of units and weapons across every army
* Loads of new Missions for open, narrative and matched play.
We are also bringing a whole new feature to Open Play. Designing and building your own vehicles is a feature that hasn’t appeared in Warhammer 40,000 since 5th Edition. We are going to trial some new rules to allow you to design your very own Land Raider variants and field these behemoths on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Finally Chapter Approved will also give Factions that have not yet received their codex some expanded rules while they wait, allowing these factions to make use of some of the cool new mechanics available in Warhammer 40,000.
Chapter Approved is looking like a must for any dedicated Warhammer 40,000 player.
I never thought I'd see the Vehicle Design Rules return to 40K in my lifetime...
Sweet, being able to make your own Land Raiders should silence the complaints of a lot of Space Marine and Chaos Marine players that are butthurt that other Chapters get Land Raiders that they don't.
Well the VDR made you pay for individual weapons, which everyone has to do in 8th, so I don't see why it would be too unbalanced to use the VDR in matched play - tax or no tax.
Smart move to introduce it only with Land Raiders (hopefully not just Imperial ones) but I certainly hope it expands later
I can only hope that this will lower the points cost of the Land Raider Terminus Ultra. That thing is about 100 points over what it should be. I know it's not iconic or anything, but I've been sitting on all the bits needed to do a sweet conversion, but the rules suck so bad that I can't bring myself to make it.
FYI, it will be a WWI British Mk IV tank, with the exhaust/ rear hull of a Land Raider, sponsons from a Baneblade, Marine tank hatches, and a TON of iconography strategically placed.
cuda1179 wrote: I can only hope that this will lower the points cost of the Land Raider Terminus Ultra. That thing is about 100 points over what it should be. I know it's not iconic or anything, but I've been sitting on all the bits needed to do a sweet conversion, but the rules suck so bad that I can't bring myself to make it.
FYI, it will be a WWI British Mk IV tank, with the exhaust/ rear hull of a Land Raider, sponsons from a Baneblade, Marine tank hatches, and a TON of iconography strategically placed.
400 points for the firepower of two Predators on the Land Raider platform is a fair price.
cuda1179 wrote: I can only hope that this will lower the points cost of the Land Raider Terminus Ultra. That thing is about 100 points over what it should be. I know it's not iconic or anything, but I've been sitting on all the bits needed to do a sweet conversion, but the rules suck so bad that I can't bring myself to make it.
FYI, it will be a WWI British Mk IV tank, with the exhaust/ rear hull of a Land Raider, sponsons from a Baneblade, Marine tank hatches, and a TON of iconography strategically placed.
400 points for the firepower of two Predators on the Land Raider platform is a fair price.
Um.... With weapons it is more like 600. A Predator is 102 without weapons, 202 with. So, no, a Terminus Ultra isn't as good as three Predators.
""* Updated matched play points for dozens of units and weapons across every army ""
So here is how they'll do: with each new supplement they will nerf buff depending on the meta i guess ? Maybe we can expect slight point change for some already released codex or for long time no codex index factions.
