With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
Oh look, another person that thinks that just because they saw an incredibly obvious potential issue in an article written by a PR guy with no context as to how it functions amongst the larger ruleset who thinks that it's 100% immutable fact that it works exactly how it sounds, and that by seeing this, again incredibly obvious thing, thinks they solved some kind of secret code that only THEY were smart enough to see.
You saw it, I saw it, the rules people probably saw it, the playtesters definitely saw it. Does that mean it's guaranteed to have been fixed? No. Would it be stupid to have abaddon die because a rhino hit a bush? Yes. Well I mean not abaddon specifically but, like a good character, yes it would suck. But you're not special because you can read.
I don't think the rule will ignore characters. It makes sense that you don't get to rid a combat beast up without risk that will strike first when they charge and likely kill anything they hit. If it goes the other way - fair enough. If not - bring CP.
vim_the_good wrote: With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
vim_the_good wrote: With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
Vim
Nope, I'm perfectly happy with them having to land at least 9" away.
vim_the_good wrote: With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
Vim
Normal drop pods need to be 9", but you may see that special one be able to deploy closer and do something like that.
vim_the_good wrote: With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
Vim
You have to place it 9" away now, so unfortunately there won't be a fist from the heavens attack.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I spoke to my GW manager yesterday, and apparently he is going to Dallas, TX this week for a big seminar on 8th edition. So we should be finding out a lot more soon depending on how tight-lipped some managers are or are not.
Yep, same with mine. He promised to drop questionably correct vague hints.
vim_the_good wrote: With vehicles now being more integrated into the CC loop. How do you guys feel about the drop pod now being able to do some kind of concussive/splat attack when it lands?
I realize this was potentially possible before but it just seems more like a no brainer now.
It would feel more fluffy too.
Vim
You have to place it 9" away now, so unfortunately there won't be a fist from the heavens attack.
Well there's couple fw pods that work like flier after deep strike that already had rules for killing enemies with heat blast...
Sidstyler wrote: Man, vehicles might as well be useless now. First they made it so land raiders could be killed by lasguns, now this?!
I'm gonna burn my models!
What is then the focus of the new edition. Its not on vehicles.
Is it on basic infantry (troops)?
Focus is on balance; bring what you want, it's all viable, though balance your build to deal with anything
Balancing is wishful thinking. Its not achievable since the problem is NP-hard I guess.
If GW upholds their feedback to adjust the game thing, then balance isn't impossible, but we won,t see quick adjustments since things are generally only going to be updated once a year, pending any accidental game breaking sort of rule bugs.
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
MongooseMatt? BrookM? Anyone else of the reliable folks with new info?
The Preorder list should be sent to LFGS today
Nothing as of yet, they're surprisingly late, which is unusual in and of itself, as these things are usually shared Monday morning, as early as possible, so shops have enough time to put their orders in.
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
MongooseMatt? BrookM? Anyone else of the reliable folks with new info?
The Preorder list should be sent to LFGS today
Nothing as of yet, they're surprisingly late, which is unusual in and of itself, as these things are usually shared Monday morning, as early as possible, so shops have enough time to put their orders in.
New editions tend to have a two week pre-order. Not being out until later today isn't a huge deal. They may be withholding releasing the info until after they finish their meetings with the GW reps on the new edition.
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
MongooseMatt? BrookM? Anyone else of the reliable folks with new info?
The Preorder list should be sent to LFGS today
Nothing as of yet, they're surprisingly late, which is unusual in and of itself, as these things are usually shared Monday morning, as early as possible, so shops have enough time to put their orders in.
They will do it tomorrow. At least for Europe, I think.
Warhams-77 wrote: Any more news from shops whether preorders for 8th will start this saturday?
MongooseMatt? BrookM? Anyone else of the reliable folks with new info?
The Preorder list should be sent to LFGS today
Nothing as of yet, they're surprisingly late, which is unusual in and of itself, as these things are usually shared Monday morning, as early as possible, so shops have enough time to put their orders in.
New editions tend to have a two week pre-order. Not being out until later today isn't a huge deal. They may be withholding releasing the info until after they finish their meetings with the GW reps on the new edition.
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
That was a pic of the next available date for WD, which has been pushed to June 16th.
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
Nope. Can you link them so Rippy can add them to the OP?
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
Link?
Looking now. It was the article about how all the GW stores needed all the new terrain done by or before June 10th, and no one can be on vacation June 10-18th, and that the reason the June WD will be 2 weeks late is to keep the pre order date a secret longer... Even my local GW manager (a friend of 10+ years before he was in GW) said there is a huge "special event" June 10th and for me to be there and not miss this huge event. Also, After an official announcement Games Workshop tends not to stretch out the release longer than two weeks. Which, two weeks after the end of the month is June 10th… It all seems clear.
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
Nope. Can you link them so Rippy can add them to the OP?
An internal Memo to store managers that said they couldn't take a vacation between June 7th (pre-release) and June 17th (release).
The picture at the end of the White Dwarf that listed the next issue was delayed until June 16th.
The fact that this week Store managers will be in Dallas for information on 8th edition.
All of these point to probably a June 17th release date. Even though, it hasn't been announced officially.
That would mean if the White Dwarf has a battle report about 8th edition and some interesting fluff pieces or old out of print character dataslates. It wouldn't expose anything useful until the day before release. Since, everything useful will be on the internet in about 20 minutes of anyone getting the magazine.
Is it just me or is the new article today kinda late?
Hope the Ultramar conflict zone features the Ultrasmurfs getting their butts kicked for a change.
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
Link?
Looking now. It was the article about how all the GW stores needed all the new terrain done by or before June 10th, and no one can be on vacation June 10-18th, and that the reason the June WD will be 2 weeks late is to keep the pre order date a secret longer... Even my local GW manager (a friend of 10+ years before he was in GW) said there is a huge "special event" June 10th and for me to be there and not miss this huge event. Also, After an official announcement Games Workshop tends not to stretch out the release longer than two weeks. Which, two weeks after the end of the month is June 10th… It all seems clear.
The understanding is that GW stores needed to have the new terrain done by or before June 10th because they want demo boards for the starter set.
xttz wrote: Hoping today's community post spills something on the release date, they tend to put the big stuff out on Mondays
Wait, what? It was already leaked (with WD pics) on that Italian rumor forum that June 10th was the preorder & June 17th the release. I thought this was already talked about here. No?
Link?
Looking now. It was the article about how all the GW stores needed all the new terrain done by or before June 10th, and no one can be on vacation June 10-18th, and that the reason the June WD will be 2 weeks late is to keep the pre order date a secret longer... Even my local GW manager (a friend of 10+ years before he was in GW) said there is a huge "special event" June 10th and for me to be there and not miss this huge event. Also, After an official announcement Games Workshop tends not to stretch out the release longer than two weeks. Which, two weeks after the end of the month is June 10th… It all seems clear.
I believe someone said that WD was delayed due to change of supplier? If so, June 9th still fits with a June 10th pre-release, and June 16th fits with release the day after - it's just a little squeezed. At this point, we can almost certainly take the dates as read.
Today we take a look at brutal urban combat in the 41st Millennium, and a little bit at how terrain works in the new game generally.
Battles in the sprawling gothic hives of the Imperium provide many of the most iconic images of war in the 41st Millennium. To recreate battles like this in the new edition, you need look no further than the new Warhammer 40,000‘s Advanced Rules on Cities of Death. These rules, like the Stronghold Assault rules we’ve seen already, are an optional add-on to theme your battles and add more variety to your games. In these types of games, certain units will thrive, while others will find their paths across the battlefield more limited.
So, speaking of cities… let’s chat about ruins.
The crumbling masonry of once-proud Imperial architecture has been a staple of Warhammer 40,000 battlefields for a while now. In the new Warhammer 40,000, they still will be, but the way they interact with the game will be a little different. Their impact takes the form of bonuses for units with certain keywords, and limitations for others.
Infantry are the big winners here. They alone have the flexibility and dexterity to move easily between levels of a building, over ruined walls, through doors, hatches and windows, as well as taking advantage of holes blasted in the ruins themselves. They are also the only units that benefit from cover naturally, just for being in a ruin. Other units (monsters, vehicles etc…) will need to actually be obscured to gain any bonus.
In Cities of Death games, these bonuses get even better – if a unit does not move, its cover bonus from being in a ruin is increased from a +1 to their Armour Save to +2, representing the unit digging into cover and fortifying their position. This can make even a humble Guardsman squad difficult to shift, and a power armoured unit all but invulnerable.
It’s not just Infantry though, flying units will do very well in Cities of Death games, as they are able to leap from rooftop to rooftop easily. Some of these units will be Infantry as well! Imagine facing an entire army of Night Lords Raptors in the twisting streets of a ruined hive, and you start to understand what terror means…
It’s not going all Infantry’s way of course. There are solutions to dug in enemies. Grenades for example. Any Grenade thrown at a unit in ruins will always count as having rolled the maximum number of shots (6, in the case of a frag grenade) and can reroll to wound thanks to the “Fire in the Hole” mission rule.
One last thing Cities of Death gets us is a new selection of Stratagems. One of our favourites is Sewer Rat, which lets you set up a sneaky units of subterranean infiltrators in the enemy’s face during deployment or right on an objective.
One war zone where the narrative certainly calls for Cities of Death battles is Ultramar. At the end of the Gathering Storm, we already saw the forces of the Traitor Legions launch their attack on the Ultramarines utopian* worlds. Now the great cities of every planet are either surrounded or active battlefields.
With his home under siege, you better believe that the liberation of the 500 Worlds** are high on the list for Guilliman’s Indomitus Crusade…
*Well, by Imperial standards anyway.
**Being in stasis for 10,000 years, it probably only feels like yesterday to Guilliman that he liberated them from the Traitor Legions the first time…
Disembarking before the transport moves is a solid choice - it was that way back a few editions and I think it worked. Disembarking into close combat.... ....how exactly is that going to work with model placement? We can assume that everything open topped now, but still.
That grenade rule is awesome! Likelyhood is that'l rarely if ever kill anyone, especially because people will always forget, but its an awesome inclusion to have! I'm really liking those rules if not the costs of having a CoD board
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
Weird in the first Q&A pete mentioned they'd like to bring supplements like CoD back again in the future... did hesitate a bit i guess he knew it was baked into the new edition.
That grenade rule is fun, and also makes it so that there is upsides and downsides to camping the cover in Cities of Death, which I really like. Means that Imperial vehicles with Frag Assault Launchers and the like will become death dealers!
Latro_ wrote: Weird in the first Q&A pete mentioned they'd like to bring supplements like CoD back again in the future... did hesitate a bit i guess he knew it was baked into the new edition.
So I guess we'll see a Planetstrike article soon too
Charles Rampant wrote: That grenade rule is fun, and also makes it so that there is upsides and downsides to camping the cover in Cities of Death, which I really like. Means that Imperial vehicles with Frag Assault Launchers and the like will become death dealers!
Well, Land Raider Redeemers were, fluffwise, made for just this scenario, and if the terrain permits them, they'll rule on CoD like they are designed to.
I rather like that the core rules have built in optional enhancements built in. By not cramming them into the core rules it keeps the main game simplified, but by having them there players aren't being forced to shell out extra money for what was usually a page or so of extra stuff to take into consideration.
Extra generic strategems for the game types are also a nice way to give more tactical options to the players while also making the players manage their resources (namely their CP) well.
With most players having urban terrain and the balancing that Cities of Death gives armies by limiting the range of shooting and adding in more cover for assault based units, it becomes a wonderful game type for pretty much everyone, and with it in the core rules I see hope for it being a common way to play.
That said, I was hoping for the Drop Pod article today since they said it would be getting it's own article.
Other than specifics, can anyone else thing of any general stuff we're missing to understand 8th?
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.
How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?
Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?
And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.
So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
gungo wrote: So a 3+ power armour unit in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
I would guess it was the first option but I might be wrong.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Really? I read the opposite - some units (presumable all infantry at least) get a benefit from just being in ruins at all, and others like vehicles need to be obscured. Sounds like it's about getting rid of the majority of TLOS checking to me. I'm basing that assumption off this quote from today's article:
Infantry are the big winners here. They alone have the flexibility and dexterity to move easily between levels of a building, over ruined walls, through doors, hatches and windows, as well as taking advantage of holes blasted in the ruins themselves. They are also the only units that benefit from cover naturally, just for being in a ruin. Other units (monsters, vehicles etc…) will need to actually be obscured to gain any bonus.
If true, it speeds things up a lot and should eliminate most rules arguments.
ClockworkZion wrote: I rather like that the core rules have built in optional enhancements built in. By not cramming them into the core rules it keeps the main game simplified, but by having them there players aren't being forced to shell out extra money for what was usually a page or so of extra stuff to take into consideration.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.
How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?
Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?
And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.
Infantry automatically benefit from cover. Keyword Infantry.
Monsters and Vehicles are different, and yes, if you convert something that looks to add advantages or disadvantages to a model when it comes to cover that needs to be discussed with your opponent prior to the start of the game. This isn't rocket science, people.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.
How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?
Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?
And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.
Yes. It looks cool but if you want an extra tall Dreadnought and all the bonuses that come with it, such as enhanced LOS for one, you pay the penalty. If you don't want to take that risk, don't convert. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Re: Oldschool Marines: The game assumes you are using the most recent models. That's no different to a card game like MTG or YGO assuming you have the latest print of a card, the latest Errata, assuming you have the latest patch for a video game. TLOS is a very simple system, can you see or can you not see? The issue lies when you introduce issues such as these, like "my model is this tall but can it be this tall instead?" Old models and conversions go outside what the rules are built for as there are infinite possible conversions and situations, so it uses the latest issue of models as it assumes that's what all players will be using. If it tried to take into account Old Marines and Old Nids and this and that it would become a 5 volume tome of "What To Do If Your Opponent has converted 1991 issue Space Marines by adding a 3mm cork disc to their base and they are posed with an arm in the air and they are hiding behind a 2006 version Chimera."
For those situations:
If the Dread is extra tall, and you can see it, you can shoot it.
If the Marine is short enough to hide and you can't see it, you can't see it.
There's no debate. If you feel an opponent is modelling for advantage, call a TO, but if you're playing in a matched setting you should be bringing standard models.
gungo wrote: So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
I'd assumemit'd follow the old WHFB mechanics: it can increase it beyond a 2+ save for purposes of determining how modifiers take away from your armour save, but you still fail on a roll of a 1. So given the rit buffs you might effectively be a -2+ to save and require a -5 to get back to a regular 3+ but still fail on a roll of a 1 effectively making you act as if it where a 2+ mechanically.
gungo wrote: So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
In 2nd edition, you used to take all pluses and minus then 2+ was a maximum armor. So,
Shooting a Marine with a lascannon in hard cover was (3+) - 2 cover = 1+ then -3 rending = 4+ save vs the lascannon.
If you shot that same marine with a bolter.... (3+) - 2 cover = 1+ then - 0 rending = 1+ save always fails on a 1.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.
How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?
Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?
And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.
Yes. It looks cool but if you want an extra tall Dreadnought and all the bonuses that come with it, such as enhanced LOS for one, you pay the penalty. If you don't want to take that risk, don't convert. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Re: Oldschool Marines: The game assumes you are using the most recent models. That's no different to a card game like MTG or YGO assuming you have the latest print of a card, the latest Errata, assuming you have the latest patch for a video game. TLOS is a very simple system, can you see or can you not see? The issue lies when you introduce issues such as these, like "my model is this tall but can it be this tall instead?" Old models and conversions go outside what the rules are built for as there are infinite possible conversions and situations, so it uses the latest issue of models as it assumes that's what all players will be using. If it tried to take into account Old Marines and Old Nids and this and that it would become a 5 volume tome of "What To Do If Your Opponent has converted 1991 issue Space Marines by adding a 3mm cork disc to their base and they are posed with an arm in the air and they are hiding behind a 2006 version Chimera."
For those situations:
If the Dread is extra tall, and you can see it, you can shoot it.
If the Marine is short enough to hide and you can't see it, you can't see it.
There's no debate. If you feel an opponent is modelling for advantage, call a TO, but if you're playing in a matched setting you should be bringing standard models.
I know all that and I am not disputing that.
The problem here is that you're calling a TO for something that is supposed to be simple - you are complicating things: the very opposite of simplicity as I am sure you knowe. Meanwhile in an abstract line of sight system you wouldn't even need to call a TO because that would be covered.
Do note: I am not defending or attacking TLS or Abstract LoS systems - I can see the pros and cons of each. I simply don't believe TLS is that simple.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
Of course it's simple, but that's not what I said: I said it causes a tremendous amount of arguments. The biggest is if something counts as obscuring, but I've also seen near-unresolvable standoffs over how many models in a unit can be seen through small cracks, especially when terrain keeps you from putting your head close enough to where the model is.
Effects of being in area terrain or drawing a line through terrain to resolve cover effects is a lot cleaner for that kind of thing.
wuestenfux wrote: The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.
I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.
Indeed. If DakkaDakka had been around when the Lord said "Let there be light", half the forum would have complained about how their darkness army was now invalid.
gungo wrote:So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
If it works like AoS, there is no actual cap on the save (I can get my Fatemaster up to an effective -1+ (yes. negative 1 or better save) against non-flying models), but a "1" always fails. I'd expect that to be the case here.
kestral wrote: Disembarking before the transport moves is a solid choice - it was that way back a few editions and I think it worked. Disembarking into close combat.... ....how exactly is that going to work with model placement? We can assume that everything open topped now, but still.
You have room to disembar, disembark away? But where has it been said you can disembark into close combat?
Loved the cities of death article. Being big fan of city fight games this is fun. Maybe best article for me so far!
What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:
Spoiler:
This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?
From today's article:
"They (Infantry) are also the only units that benefit from cover naturally, just for being in a ruin. Other units (monsters, vehicles etc…) will need to actually be obscured to gain any bonus."
I added (Infantry) for context.
This is black and white, infantry models are golden for cover save benefits regardless of how many models in the unit are "obscured".
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
Problem with the TLOS is that it and miniature models don't really work that well...To have for example forest that would actually be blocking LOS(have you ever tried fighting in forest? Paintball etc. That is one TOUGH place to track LOS far!) trees need to be so clumped up that end result is you have trouble putting models!
Same with ruins. Terrain is abstracted generally for sake of playability. Abstracted terrain+non-abstract rules=bad combination.
kestral wrote: Disembarking before the transport moves is a solid choice - it was that way back a few editions and I think it worked.
Yep. In 5th edition, if you got out of the rhino before it moved, you could assault.
kestral wrote: Disembarking into close combat.... ....how exactly is that going to work with model placement? We can assume that everything open topped now, but still.
Yeah, that sounds wonky. I definitely want to read those rules.
Youn wrote: What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:
Spoiler:
This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?
Gonna be honest. If someone goes through the effort of modelling his army twice over to represent moving/going to cover (well done at least)? I'll work with that and play him.
TLS had a lot of stipulations like weapons, backpacks, banners and wings not counting for targetting. Mostly because by allowing targetting of those things you punished people who liked to do conversion work, and made hiding behind most walls basically impossible.
Frankly I kind of want a hybrid system between needing to squat down with a laser pointer and the more abstract stuff. Maybe like you can basically shoot anything, but if you can,t draw an unobstructed line from the shooting unit to any model in the target unit you get a modifier to hit depending on what,s in the way (-1 for a wall or they're partially covered, -2 if there is an intervening unit, -3 the unit is behind several obstacles or you can,t see them at all).
Obviously my idea is fairly rough and could use more refinement, but considering the average weapon in 40k should be able to punch through the average wall to hit the guys you know who are behind it I would love to see a mechanic that makes targetting more permissable, but with lower chances to hit for doing so.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
Of course it's simple, but that's not what I said: I said it causes a tremendous amount of arguments. The biggest is if something counts as obscuring, but I've also seen near-unresolvable standoffs over how many models in a unit can be seen through small cracks, especially when terrain keeps you from putting your head close enough to where the model is.
Effects of being in area terrain or drawing a line through terrain to resolve cover effects is a lot cleaner for that kind of thing.
I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.
If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.
75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?
The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions.
"Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?"
And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.
Logic? In a game with aliens? It's called balance. You don't get to use everything you have while being unable to be touched. That's gamey. What they have done is balance.
Get your Farseer exposed to risk if he wants to influence the fight, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
At this point, most of these teaser articles are just making me less excited about the new edition. Especially the faction focus ones. There's so little about how the rules will fit the background or make for a fun game or make for interesting choices during a game. It's all "this unit wasn't very good before, now it's awesome!!!" Or "here's a rule that doesn't fit the background at all but will make this unit awesome!!!"
The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.
gungo wrote: So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.
If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.
75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?
The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions.
"Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?"
And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.
I think you underestimate the entire group of people who is reading that right now and having a panic attack over what they're going to do when their opponent claims that their model has 74% cover, where-as the model clearly has 75.3% through their masterful positioning and clever maneuvering.
Deadshot wrote: I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.
That would also be likely then same for narrative/open. Or how many alternative LOS systems you think they will cram into 12 page ruleset?
75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?
If you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 48% obscured only and doesn't get it's save is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 48% vs 50%?
If you base rules on some % in TLOS you will have arguments unless it's "do you see any piece of the model" at which point it becomes quite silly(reminds me on turn signal on land raider where marine behind wall got shot on his backbanner!)
Youn wrote: What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:
Spoiler:
This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?
No. Modelling your miniatures in a variety of poses is fine. But you don't get to switch out your miniatures throughout the game for competitive advantage. The former is a grey area, where a slight competitive advantage can be incidentally gained from modelling, the second is outright blatant cheating.
If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
Of course it's simple, but that's not what I said: I said it causes a tremendous amount of arguments. The biggest is if something counts as obscuring, but I've also seen near-unresolvable standoffs over how many models in a unit can be seen through small cracks, especially when terrain keeps you from putting your head close enough to where the model is.
Effects of being in area terrain or drawing a line through terrain to resolve cover effects is a lot cleaner for that kind of thing.
A $10 laser pointer solves 99% of those problems. Just saying...
Albino Squirrel wrote: The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.
Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.
One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.
Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.
One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.
I agree that flamers should benefit from this as well.
If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.
You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.
Also
Warhammer 40,000 We notice you! Forge World have committed to releasing rules for all of the models they currently have on sale, so the Renegades will indeed get rules. What they look like, and how they function... well, we haven't seen that yet...
Warhammer 40,000 Joshua Leinard G. Cardeno We haven't seen anything yet; we have plans for FW sneak peeks soon, mind... watch this space.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.
Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.
One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.
For a bunker that might make sense. For a ruined building it makes no sense. Given the choice, if a grenade is going to land near you, would you rather be in a ruined building or in the open? The choice should be obvious to anyone. In a ruined building there may be a hunk of concrete between you and the grenade. In the open there will not be. It makes no sense.
If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.
You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.
Bonus points if your targets follow the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer designs and have little targeting circles...
gungo wrote: So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?
Armor - Rend = roll to meet or beat
Cover = + to roll
1s always fail.
Its not that simple. If both are a modifier to the roll, they'll cancel out, as AP-1 and Cover +1 will cancel out. But if cover modifies the actual value of the armour save, and AP is just a modifier then that presents a different issue.
For example, take a 2+ save in +1 cover getting shot by a -2 weapon.
Apply the +1 to armour first, and assuming that saves are capped at 2+, this does nothing. Roll and get a 3. The AP-2 brings this to a 1 and the model takes a wound.
However, if both are a modifier
Roll your armour save of 2+ and get a 3. Now, AP-2 would bring this down to a 1, so should fail, but does the +1 from cover bring this back to a 2 and then pass it?
The order makes a clear difference here. If cover improves the Sv Characteristic, its useless for 2+ models. But if both are simple modifiers to the roll made, they can cancel out.
If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.
You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.
Bonus points if your targets follow the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer designs and have little targeting circles...
That's the idea. I'll look into it... but Ill stop talking this here to avoid OT.
Deadshot wrote: I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.
That would also be likely then same for narrative/open. Or how many alternative LOS systems you think they will cram into 12 page ruleset?
75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?
If you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 48% obscured only and doesn't get it's save is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 48% vs 50%?
If you base rules on some % in TLOS you will have arguments unless it's "do you see any piece of the model" at which point it becomes quite silly(reminds me on turn signal on land raider where marine behind wall got shot on his backbanner!)
A fair argument, but here's my reasoning. If its 50/50, its always going to be an argument because each player has a equal basis for argument (assuming that it is indeed 49/51 and not TFG trying to argue 30/70). If its 25/75, the attacking player has reason to say "that's not quite enough," and the defender reason to argue it is, because you're trying to get over the line just enough for it to count. But a 75/25 split in favour of the defender should remove any argument between normal, reasonable people.* You aren't trying to argue that your model is hidden just enough, you are arguing that it is well hidden, by which there can be no debate. Its no longer about an argument of "Barely hidden vs not hidden" or even "hidden vs not hidden." Its arguing "mostly hidden or not hidden," and there'll be few people who can say that 74%, even if not the exact 75%, is not enough for a cover save.*
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Youn wrote: What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:
Spoiler:
This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?
No. Modelling your miniatures in a variety of poses is fine. But you don't get to switch out your miniatures throughout the game for competitive advantage. The former is a grey area, where a slight competitive advantage can be incidentally gained from modelling, the second is outright blatant cheating.
If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.
The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.
I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.
If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.
75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?
The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions. "Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?" And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.
g the
I think you underestimate the entire group of people who is reading that right now and having a panic attack over what they're going to do when their opponent claims that their model has 74% cover, where-as the model clearly has 75.3% through their masterful positioning and clever maneuvering.
* This where the asterisks come in and yes, maybe I am underestimating the Nerd Panic about this. However, you can't write the rules for pedantic and nitpicky people who call you out on 74.444449% covered vs 74.499999%. You have to write rules assuming that the people playing are straightforward, reasonable people**. The way to solve a lot of 40ks issues is A) Don't be a nob (not the green orky kind) and B) don't be a nob.
**This of course doesn't mean anything against mental health or learning difficulties such as autism or such, which is its own unique issue, but assuming both players are don't come under this bracket, don't be a nob about it. That's all 40k involves.
We also don't know how terrain interfaces with who goes first in combat or anything about possible movement penalties, correct? That's all pretty key.
Back to transports for a second, we know that, generally, the squad needs to get out before the vehicle moves. However, there's nothing preventing certain vehicles from allowing a charge after their movement or something bespoke like that. I'm thinking of certain open topped vehicles and stuff that's described as having "assault ramps" and the like. Or maybe adding to or modifying charge moves on the turn the unit deploys. Re-roll charge distance doesn't sound broken, just as an example.
The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.
Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".
Also, GW has had a rule to fix those nit picky arguments since time immemorial - roll off for it and move on. That and a laser pointer fix pretty much all my problems.
Rules are a framework to play as game with your opponent.
Your army is fighting your opponent's army.
This is the only fighting there should be.
If you're fighting with your opponent you will have a bad time.
If you cannot always agree, dice off debatable calls, so long as you're mostly having fun.
If you cannot agree regularly, don't play each other.
There has to be some social contract to a game that can't be written down, where people behave agreeably and don't start trying to say they're an expert at estimating micropercentages of model cover.
The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.
Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".
The whole reason for rules like Go To Ground is to eliminate the need for this. So you can't do abstracted stuff like that for benefit AND switch a model out for tangible benefit on top. I'd applaud the person who unpacked that army from its case for the time and dedication in making every model twice, then laugh and decline to play them.
I wonder how the Tau drones will interact with cover. They didn't have the Infantry keyword, maybe Drone applies to more that just them and they have their own category?
The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.
Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".
Which doesn't change that certain units benefit more from crawling/kneeling poses than others. Assault units for example will improve with those as they don't really get hurt much by hard to shoot. They instead prefer easier cover.
Just another reason to get rid of TLOS. Without that there isn't problem with modeling one way or another. Either way it plays the same. Even the infamous crawling wraithlord!
Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".
I agree. That would be not cool.
The other alternative to weird models is that you just play them assuming they're the stock model. I have a GK dread that has autocannons mounted on the wrist of a DCCW. I cut down the barrels to make them less long, but the angle and length would still let him get some pretty wild shots by comparison to the normal ones. I just tell people that I'm going to draw the shot from where the guns SHOULD be as if it was modeled with the same FW autocannon that's on the opposite arm. I have had literally zero people have an issue with that.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever played a game, be it at Adepticon or a FLGS where there was a problem that communication and setting expectations couldn't solve.
Just another reason to get rid of TLOS. Without that there isn't problem with modeling one way or another. Either way it plays the same. Even the infamous crawling wraithlord!
I can't seem to find it now, but you reminded me of a picture I saw once of a genestealer head glued to a base. The genestealer was "burrowing" and the guy said it was legit because he used the entire model. (He took the rest of the model, ground it up, and used it for basing, IIRC.)
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I wonder how the Tau drones will interact with cover. They didn't have the Infantry keyword, maybe Drone applies to more that just them and they have their own category?
Well, Drone definitely was a keyword there but we also know that there is a keyword "Battlesuit" as well.
Might be special category within the Tau Empire armory/listings?
Okay but the article specifically states that infantry models (which most people seem to have the most problem with) use area terrain instead of True Line of Sight, which is reserved for monsters and vehicles. Personally, that feels like a decent compromise between granularity and ease of play - micromanaging infantry positioning seems to be something GW are really pushing hard against in the new edition.
I am glad Cities of Death is back in (I wonder if the old Planetstrike expansion is being folded into Stronghold Assault). Scenario play produces some of the best games.
changemod wrote: Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.
Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.
It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.
How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?
Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?
And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.
Conversions are actually easy. Just have a point of reference.
For example, I wanted to build a Death Guard Raptor Lord jumping off the ruins off a destroyed Elder War Walker (that's gonna be a cramped base!). So what I could do is measure the overall height of Raptors and different Jump Pack HQ's that are sold, and make that the height of the leftover War Walker. Or have a regular model on hand for when you need to show the regular height.
Transports Q: I know you guys or person managing warhammers facebook must be sick of it but... We've been asking for necron faction focus loads of time too but... You dont understand b0ss I NEEDS THE NECRON FOCUS B0SS PLEASE B0SS EVEN SOME NEW PICTURES OF NECRONS WILL DO B0SS PLS A: Ha! Arda, you ask about this after every article, and once again, I will reassure you that there is one on the way! We haven't forgotten about the Necrons, we promise!
Epic levels of perseverance, though!
Q: Dayum, a Land Raider as a taxi? That would be rad indeed! Traffic wouldn't be a problem at all!
A: I ran a Death Guard Land Raider taxi service once. It was a nightmare. Had to get it cleaned,like, twice a day.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 great news for my Rhinos Are we gonna see some new transport vehicle for Primaris Space Marines?
A: That would be super cool! Watch this space for any news if and when we get it.
Q: Warhammer 40,000 Will we see a Black Templars focus one day?
A: We will look at the Black Templars and indeed, all Space Marines in the future.
Q: When a transport "dies" do the embarked models get placed in its footprint, or is there a disembarkation move?
A: More details on the specifics coming later, [REDACTED]
Q: Warhammer 40,000 please tell me how Dark Eldar Raiders are going to work!!!!! Want that Incubi assault to be devastating!
A: [REDACTED] - there is more to come. But let us tell you this. Raiders are AMAZING on a charge.
Q: Looks good (for armies that like transports, unlike my poor, poor Nids), but I do have one question. Why is it that a model only has a 1 in 6 chance to die if they're inside an exploding transport? That seems very unrealistic and like a way to make sure that you sell a ton of transports at the expense of game balance. Even if I vaporize that Land Raider, five out of six Marines are still coming at me from the point at which they stopped...There's basically nothing I can do to hurt them until they disembark or I force them to by destroying their transport. What am I supposed to do when some tournament player puts all his Marines inside transports and just blitzes for all my important models?
A: That's fair feedback, [REDACTED]. I'm afraid we can't comment on the realism of this as we have never actually witnessed the real effect that an exploding 80-tonne battle tank has on real Space Marines.
But, we can say that's it's worth trying playing with transports in the new edition to really see how they play. Don't forget, everything will be pointed appropriately now too. If our playtesters thought they are immense, they will cost a lot more points.
Q: This didn't really answer much... will assault vehicles (ie the landraider) still allow the vehicle to move and have the troops assault out of it and into combat?
The rule of exiting at the start of the movement phase would seem to make it stupidly easy for the other side to simply kite away...
A: It's a fair enough comment. Well, the enemy can indeed walk away, but then you will get out of the transport, move towards them. and then have your 2D6 charge move. There's not many units that can simply walk away that far...
Q: You said multiple units can fit in a transport. Are we going to be able to purchase say 9 tactical marines and put an IC with them in the rhino for matched play? Your example of the rubric marines had us purchasing them in groups of 5.
A: Hey guys - so, let's say a Rhino has a transport capacity of ten models. It can carry any number of units,so long as that capacity is not breached. You could, for example, carry:
- 1 unit of 10 Tactical Marines
- 1 unit of 5 Tactical Marines and 1 unit of5 Devastators
- A Space Marine Captain and his Command Squad of 5 models.
- 10 Individual heroes!
Q: So if limitations are different, does that mean I can put Terminators in a Rhino like in 2nd ed?
A: You will have to wait and see! While there is no unversal "Bulky" rule, it will say on the Terminators datasheet if there are any restrictions on going into Transports.
Q: Can multiple units sit inside a transport? It was mentioned in an earlier article that only transport capacity is acknowledged for what can embark, but does that mean two squads of Havocs can sit inside a Chaos Rhino?
A: Yes indeed you can.
Q: Sounds like you no longer really want to put shooting units in transports, because you can no longer drive up, jump out, rapid fire. Bad news for the Imperial Guard Armoured fist squads and the like.
On the other hand, transports are now far more useful for things that actually want to get into combat.
A: It just means you have to think a little more about it now. You can still get out of the tank and rapid fire,just not after you have bombed it forwards. Shooting units in transports will very much have a place going forwards.
Q: Faction Focus Ultramarines incoming? Does that mean, there might also be a chance for more infos on the Black Templars? And do they get back some more personal treatment?
A: THERE SHOULD BE! While I imagine that people only want to hear about Ultramarines, given as they are the best Chapter and all, perhaps we might have to be a bit more subtle and call it "Faction Focus Space Marines" instead. - Nick
Q1: So, Warhammer 40,000 how many people can go in a Starwevaer? It doesn't say?
A1: Well, it wouldn't be a teaser if we just showed you everything, would it now...
Q2: Warhammer 40,000 damn you! But but, there is so much unknown about harlies as it is, surely dropping 1 number won't hurt :p
It's not like you're telling us if we're getting a HQ, or how a Death jesters abilities will work, or how much more potent our assault phase will be, or whether our Voidweaver will be something to fear and not just a slot filler :p
Pretty please?
How about I bribe you with a kitten? (picture)
Spoiler:
A2: Ok, seeing as it's you and there is a kitten involved, we will present this as a Harlequin would understand:
"My number is less that on hundred and more than one;
We would tell you now, but then that's no fun.
Count all the stars and subtract the sand granules on a beach,
Once you have done this, my number you will reach".
I think that's about as clear as we can be on that one.
Q: Dark Eldar are seeming better and better now!
A: Oh yes. Have the Raider charge in before the Wyches do and soak up the over watch? Yes please...
Q: Ultramar....yawn
A: Ooh... Oh, I see.... you're... you're one of the bad guys? Dude, I'm sorry for you. It must be lame to keep losing in all the background? - Nick
*LET ME BELIEVE*
Q: And what about drop pods?
A: What about them? They are transport vehicles like any other, except they arrive on the table in a different way.
Q: Is "jink" still a thing in #NewHammer?
A: Remember, Ryan, there are no universal special rules in the new edition. If a unit can do anything that resembled the jink move of old, it will be specifically written on it's datasheet.
Faction Focus Tyranids Q: The only good bug is a dead bug! (So excited to see bugs on the table again, then kill them, and actually be terrified by them!) THANKS GW A: Drop a Deathstrike missile down a 'Nid hole, you got a lot of dead 'Nids
Q: Dear God... The Swarmlord was always one of my fav models in 40K. With those stats how does anyone stand a chance? And the Genestealers! Ouch! My poor Blood Angels... I think Baal is done for...
A: Never! Baal will stand eternal! What are you on about, heretic?!
*checks Swarmlord's stats again*
Ooooooooooh.
Q: I only read this to see inevitable Pyrovore mention. I'm somewhat impressed with the sheer dogged determination it takes to justify what is (was?) the worst unit in the game.
A: But everything has changed now.... and... and just wow.
Q: Thank you GW for the Nids article! Your continuous feedback has been great! A question: any idea how Nids will deal with the big vehicles and wraith knights? Will carnifex be able to get into combat quick enough and eat some nommies? Very excited about the Nids changes!
A: We would love to reveal everything all at once... but we just can't! More on it's way soon!
Q: why in the name of all that is holy did you buff the pyrovore. Now we can't make silly memes about how it is the worst unit in the game xD
A: We're expecting all new Pyrovore memes. Don't let us down, now...
Q: Immunity to moral is great for the Great Devorer. The inhabitants of our galaxy will face fear itself Also good point on improving their mobility.
Will Tyranids get Pistol weapons (I am looking at you Spinefists)?
A: Perhaps? All will be revealed in time...
Q: And the beast?? What about the beast?? Come on faction focus Orks Mork damn you!!
A: We's savin da best fer later....
Q: So with an average deployment zone gap of 18", and some missions having a maximum potential enemy distance of 18", that means that Tyranids are going to have Turn 1 charges as standard (assuming they can roll a 1 on two dice).
A: That's some fast bugs for sure....
Q: Remember Guardsman Perkins, after you have shot the eyes out of the 'Swarmlord' with your Titan-Killing Lasgun you are to affix bayonets and stab the completely ineffectual 'Genestealer' until it stops moving.
A: Sounds like another segment taken from the beloved Infantryman's Uplifting Primer. Such glory.
Q: So with the Synapse rule, are there any negatives for beimg out of Synapse range or only positives when your inside of it? Because if it is only positives being inside of it that might cause me to get a Tyranid army again.
A: Well, not being inside it is negative enough! But more on this coming in the future.
Q: We have seen our beloved parents (genestealers) how much do their children need to wait to see our rules?
The cult will rise!
A: The Faction Focus article for Genstealer Cult is ready... it's just hiding in the shadows somewhere. As soon as we find it, it's yours!
Q1: A1: I would like to know more.
Q2: I love this New company. Look how much fun everyone is having with GW engaged with the community. This should be one the greatest business turn around failure into blooming sucess stories. This should be in Forbes, top 500, and everything else
A2: Wasn't "Forbes' 500" that famous Rough Rider company who were wiped out to a man at the Siege of Thrankx IV?
Q1: Cant you stop being so goddamn awesome GW! [APPLAUSE EMOJIS]
A1: We tried once. It didn't go so well...
Q2: Warhammer 40,000 I have no idea how to get your attention, but i guess persistence is worth a shot can you pls look at the issue with Tyranid warriors? You have previously given a very certain statement that they (tyranid warriors) would have more than the current 3 wounds. Is there an error in todays faction focus?
A2: Hmmm - we will look into that for you.
Q: Will the Silent King be coming to stop them?
A: Well, we tried asking him. But he just wouldn't answer a single question. So rude. It's always the quiet ones...
Q: will you guys be doing any demo videos of the new rules please?
A: Sounds like a great idea! Watch this space.
Q: A: *consults Uplifting Primer*
"There.... there is no training for this!"
Q1: You've realling dragging this out. Interest waning
A1: Sorry to hear that; we can stop telling you guys stuff if you'd prefer?!
Q2: How about some real reveals, instead of the most mundane parts of the new edition broken out piecemeal? Oh boy can’t wait until tomorrow to learn how grot blasters work in the new 40k A2: Wooah, spoiler alert! How did you know that was tomorrow's article?! It was going to be the first of a week-long series of segments entitled "Grot Blasters and You: The Real Warhammer 40,000".
Looks like we'll have to cancel that now and replace it with it with something else...
Q: Genestealer units in the 8th edition..
A: That awkward moment when your remember you left that Tyranid egg-sac in your regulation wash-kit.
Q: Space Wolves next please!
A: Not like a Fenrisian to be impatient! It's bounding it's this way with all the speed of a Thunderwolf on feeding day. Not long to wait!
Cities of Death Q: Warhammer 40,000, will we get a teaser article for Artillery and barrage weapons? Any chance it might include a taste of what's to come for the conceptually-most-awesome-gun-platform-in-the-galaxy?*
*AKA The Vibro Cannon, former Wrecker of Tanks and Ranks.
A: That's a great suggestion, Warren - we will see what we can do,
Q: LOVE the new cover rules - now can we PLEASE just get the new rules? Please? Or at least a release date? Or a date WHEN you are going to announce a release date? Please. Anything. A clue. A little clue. A riddle. Something....
A: A riddle, you say? We do like riddles...
Q: don't tell me we are keeping the bloody stupid terrain rules from 7th... It bogged down to game to no end needing to have special rules for every bloody ruin
A: These are optional rules for your game - you don't have to play with them if you don't want to!
Q: So all the expansion rules are going to be part of the 8th Edition core rules now?
A: Expansions are are optional cool rules, and will be up to players if they want to use them in their games.
Q: The 500 worlds had better be high on his to do list. If he calls one more staff meeting with out letting us go do work I am going to let Tiggy melt his brain.
A: We LOVE your posts, Lord Macragge!
Q: Commissar-kun, Commissar-kun, notice me sempai! Nyaa~ commit heresy with me please?
Is there ANY hope of getting a Renegades rule-set with the new edition OR the Imperial Guard book being functional with Chaos? Need to level these cities for Nurgle.
A: We notice you! Forge World have committed to releasing rules for all of the models they currently have on sale, so the Renegades will indeed get rules. What they look like, and how they function... well, we haven't seen that yet...
Q: Can we have the necron spotlight? They like to fight in cities
A: It's on the way, [REDACTED]!
Its not that simple. If both are a modifier to the roll, they'll cancel out, as AP-1 and Cover +1 will cancel out. But if cover modifies the actual value of the armour save, and AP is just a modifier then that presents a different issue.
For example, take a 2+ save in +1 cover getting shot by a -2 weapon.
Apply the +1 to armour first, and assuming that saves are capped at 2+, this does nothing. Roll and get a 3. The AP-2 brings this to a 1 and the model takes a wound.
However, if both are a modifier
Roll your armour save of 2+ and get a 3. Now, AP-2 would bring this down to a 1, so should fail, but does the +1 from cover bring this back to a 2 and then pass it?
The order makes a clear difference here. If cover improves the Sv Characteristic, its useless for 2+ models. But if both are simple modifiers to the roll made, they can cancel out.
Obviously a natural 1 will always fail.
But it is that simple.
Rend is a modifier to the Save characteristic itself. Cover is a modifier to the "Save Roll".
"I shot you with a rend 2 weapon. You have 2+ armor so your save roll is now 4+. "
"Ok, but I am in cover so I get a +2 to my roll."
*Rolls a 3*
"3 plus 2 is 5 so I beat my Save and I am safe."
Where is there mention of a grenade buff? Didn't see it in any of the links on the front page, but I suppose it's in an article as more of an afterthought rather than the main topic?
Its not that simple. If both are a modifier to the roll, they'll cancel out, as AP-1 and Cover +1 will cancel out. But if cover modifies the actual value of the armour save, and AP is just a modifier then that presents a different issue.
For example, take a 2+ save in +1 cover getting shot by a -2 weapon.
Apply the +1 to armour first, and assuming that saves are capped at 2+, this does nothing. Roll and get a 3. The AP-2 brings this to a 1 and the model takes a wound.
However, if both are a modifier
Roll your armour save of 2+ and get a 3. Now, AP-2 would bring this down to a 1, so should fail, but does the +1 from cover bring this back to a 2 and then pass it?
The order makes a clear difference here. If cover improves the Sv Characteristic, its useless for 2+ models. But if both are simple modifiers to the roll made, they can cancel out.
Obviously a natural 1 will always fail.
But it is that simple.
Rend is a modifier to the Save characteristic itself. Cover is a modifier to the "Save Roll".
"I shot you with a rend 2 weapon. You have 2+ armor so your save roll is now 4+. "
"Ok, but I am in cover so I get a +2 to my roll."
*Rolls a 3*
"3 plus 2 is 5 so I beat my Save and I am safe."
I havent seen anything to say which one is which and unless I'm missing explicit statement somewhere that says this works like this and that works like that, we dont know how these two modifiers interact.
I havent seen anything to say which one is which and unless I'm missing explicit statement somewhere that says this works like this and that works like that, we dont know how these two modifiers interact.
Yea, sorry, i'm speaking with more surety than it warranted.
Q: You said multiple units can fit in a transport. Are we going to be able to purchase say 9 tactical marines and put an IC with them in the rhino for matched play? Your example of the rubric marines had us purchasing them in groups of 5.
A: Hey guys - so, let's say a Rhino has a transport capacity of ten models. It can carry any number of units,so long as that capacity is not breached. You could, for example, carry:
- 1 unit of 10 Tactical Marines
- 1 unit of 5 Tactical Marines and 1 unit of5 Devastators - A Space Marine Captain and his Command Squad of 5 models.
- 10 Individual heroes!
Q: You said multiple units can fit in a transport. Are we going to be able to purchase say 9 tactical marines and put an IC with them in the rhino for matched play? Your example of the rubric marines had us purchasing them in groups of 5.
A: Hey guys - so, let's say a Rhino has a transport capacity of ten models. It can carry any number of units,so long as that capacity is not breached. You could, for example, carry:
- 1 unit of 10 Tactical Marines
- 1 unit of 5 Tactical Marines and 1 unit of5 Devastators - A Space Marine Captain and his Command Squad of 5 models.
- 10 Individual heroes!
Well then. Weeeelllll then! Ok. Rock and roll.
And this is why that roll of 1 applies to characters.
KommissarKiln wrote: Where is there mention of a grenade buff? Didn't see it in any of the links on the front page, but I suppose it's in an article as more of an afterthought rather than the main topic?
In the cities of death article:
It’s not going all Infantry’s way of course. There are solutions to dug-in enemies. Grenades for example. Any Grenade thrown at a unit in ruins will always count as having rolled the maximum number of shots (6, in the case of a frag grenade) and can reroll to wound thanks to the “Fire in the Hole” mission rule.
KommissarKiln wrote: Where is there mention of a grenade buff? Didn't see it in any of the links on the front page, but I suppose it's in an article as more of an afterthought rather than the main topic?
EDIT: Ninja'd.
The way you can use transports means we could see the Primaris Marines running 2 squads to a Rhino I guess.
Just including the power levels, and not points, is a slick move by GW. The models would be playable, with power points, from day 1 for free, but you would have to invest in the rulebooks for matched play.
I also suspect that part of the reason for the White Dwarf Delay is that the 16 page 40K core rules will be included with the White Dwarf, like they did with AOS.
Didn't the basic rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar go up before the release of the box? That's going to be exciting, if they do the same thing here.
Q: Dark Eldar are seeming better and better now!
A: Oh yes. Have the Raider charge in before the Wyches do and soak up the over watch? Yes please...
Now GW becomes nuts!
In each edition some of the rules are ridiculous and here we are.
Are you mad about this? I honestly cant tell. That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
While everything (except rolling for each model when a transport blows up) is a good rule thus far, all I care about is wound allocation. Something they haven't talked about. Only thing I see as a make or break this edition
Bull0 wrote: Didn't the basic rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar go up before the release of the box? That's going to be exciting, if they do the same thing here.
New edition stuff nearly always goes on sale a month or two before a boxed starter, normally, one would assume, to maximize sales of large, full size, rule books as much as anything. Now that's not a thing, it might differ, but I'm guessing not.
str00dles1 wrote: That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
Point in where? Not real world at least where transports dn't drive ahead of troops that unloaded before right into middle of enemy.
Bull0 wrote: Didn't the basic rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar go up before the release of the box? That's going to be exciting, if they do the same thing here.
New edition stuff nearly always goes on sale a month or two before a boxed starter, normally, one would assume, to maximize sales of large, full size, rule books as much as anything. Now that's not a thing, it might differ, but I'm guessing not.
The AoS starter was out from the start, but then, it was effectively a brand new game.
str00dles1 wrote: That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
Point in where? Not real world at least where transports dn't drive ahead of troops that unloaded before right into middle of enemy.
Are there many real life soldiers in APCs armed with swords?
str00dles1 wrote: That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
Point in where? Not real world at least where transports dn't drive ahead of troops that unloaded before right into middle of enemy.
Yeah, the real world!
40K is neither a simulation of modern warfare or even warfare in the 41st Millenium, however, if one looks at any number of movies, tv shows, video games etc etc, the use of vehicles as weapons in firefights, battering rams, cover etc is far more prevalent and a far more accurate comparison. 40K isn't real life, it's Hollywood, and, from a gaming and cinematic perspective, using transports in this way seems wholly appropriate.
EDIT: Sorry Alph, was mid composition when you posted the warning.
I guess I'm OK with using transports as battering rams, though I would like it better if they were a little less good at it - Death or Glory was one of my favorite things back when it sometimes worked. It would be cool as a sacrificial tactic, but with the durability of vehicles it looks more like a tarpit.
On the other hand I'm beginning to the get the feeling that when they said "Melee is awesome now!" what they meant was that they had buffed the stats of dedicated close combat units, not made assault more viable as a tactic for everyone. A genestealer should outclass a tactical marine, but right now they hit on 2s with 3 rending attacks, vs the marine's 1 attack for 3+ (He doesn't even get a bonus for charging any more). That is pretty sad.
Azreal13 wrote: 40K isn't real life, it's Hollywood, and, from a gaming and cinematic perspective, using transports in this way seems wholly appropriate.
this is a really good point, tho I think comic books are a better reference point.
But you're not really driving your transport into the middle of the enemy and then disembarking right into combat, right? Sounds like you're disembarking, then charging the enemy while your transport also charges them, which for some reason prevents the enemy from shooting the guys, only because the player declared the transport charge first.
RoninXiC wrote: Just look at all the 40k art. MASSSSIIIIIIIVE battle where idiots fight between titans.. on foot... with swords... against titans..
40k never made any sense if you compare it to real life.
People are confusing fantasy and sensibility. Just because you have fantasy elements doesn't mean you can't have world that makes sense. That's trademark of good writers. Realm that has fantastic unrealistic elements WHILE MAKING SENSE.
That's how you get suspension of disbelief that allows for world that feels real. With flyign dragons and guys that fight titans with sword.
str00dles1 wrote: That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
Point in where? Not real world at least where transports dn't drive ahead of troops that unloaded before right into middle of enemy.
Have you never seen any Hollywood army movie? Black Hawk Down? They drove Humvees and Blackhawks DIRECTLY into the middle of the enemy.
Heck, even in Iraq, we used all kinds of transports (Bradly's) to get into the city when needed. Tons of up-armored humvees. We STILL do this, even though we don't fight with swords and axes anymore.
*EDIT: Damnit... should read whole thread before replying.
Warhammer 40K is a galaxy populated by crazies wielding technology so advanced they have only a ritual understanding of it. That explains most things just fine for me.
kestral wrote: Warhammer 40K is a galaxy populated by crazies wielding technology so advanced they have only a ritual understanding of it. That explains most things just fine for me.
Pssssh, maybe if you are imperial. Us Xenos understand our technology perfectly well thank you very much.
RoninXiC wrote: Just look at all the 40k art. MASSSSIIIIIIIVE battle where idiots fight between titans.. on foot... with swords... against titans..
40k never made any sense if you compare it to real life.
People are confusing fantasy and sensibility. Just because you have fantasy elements doesn't mean you can't have world that makes sense. That's trademark of good writers. Realm that has fantastic unrealistic elements WHILE MAKING SENSE.
That's how you get suspension of disbelief that allows for world that feels real. With flyign dragons and guys that fight titans with sword.
Yeah, but the issue I have with your arguments is that they pretty consistently have been your rejection of ideas based on the fact you think they should be implemented differently, and when people present ideas which sensibly rationalize the concepts you're complaining about, they get ignored.
This basically boils it down to no logical objection, just pages and pages of you saying "I don't like this" in various colorful ways rather than possessing the personal objectivity to say to yourself "I don't like it, but I accept that this other thing is an equally valid way of solving the issue."
Bull0 wrote: Didn't the basic rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar go up before the release of the box? That's going to be exciting, if they do the same thing here.
I somehow am starting to get the feeling that the unit rules will not be free but will be in the 5 "codexes" only. They seem to be dancing around the availability of the dataslates.
Not that that's a bad thing. If the Codexes are the price of the Grand Alliance books, only like $20-$40, and the base rules are free, that's a decent price point.
As to my point on transports, I don't see every race getting to have their transport smashing into the enemy and then guys getting out to CC, but I see that as a thing for dark elder for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if they could do it, as they are elf space pirates after all
I somehow am starting to get the feeling that the unit rules will not be free but will be in the 5 "codexes" only. They seem to be dancing around the availability of the dataslates.
Not that that's a bad thing. If the Codexes are the price of the Grand Alliance books, only like $20-$40, and the base rules are free, that's a decent price point.
Yeah, I was talking about this in the previous thread. Not a big deal indeed since it's not breaking the continuity of the price model. Personally I was wishing for free AoS scrolls because these would ease purchases and pre-planning so much...
If the power level and the 12 page rules are free. And the match play points are in 5 books priced at the Grand Aliiance Pricing ($35.00). That normally means you would only need to spend about 35.00.
And if you where being cheap. You could print your dataslates with the power point system on them. Then use an ink pen to write the points in them from someone elses books.
This truly is the cheapest I would expect the system to ever get.
Frankie and Reece seemed to have confirmed that MC and Vehicles cannot go through ruins and cannot get on top of ruins at all. So infantry on top of ruins simply cannot be charged by MC and Vehicles.
lord_blackfang wrote: Glad to see a move away from TLOS. Whoever forced that abomination into 5th edition and onward needs to be dragged into the street and shot.
Has this actually been confirmed or are we still just debating?
Youn wrote: If the power level and the 12 page rules are free. And the match play points are in 5 books priced at the Grand Aliiance Pricing ($35.00). That normally means you would only need to spend about 35.00.
And if you where being cheap. You could print your dataslates with the power point system on them. Then use an ink pen to write the points in them from someone elses books.
This truly is the cheapest I would expect the system to ever get.
I'm really expecting points and "3 ways to play" rules to be in a Genera's Handbook-style book for around $25 USD (Please call in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer!). That'd be easier to update on a yearly basis. The "Grand Alliance" style books are really more to provide a physical copy of unit rules for those who either don't have access to them digitally or just prefer physical media.
Wulfey wrote: Frankie and Reece seemed to have confirmed that MC and Vehicles cannot go through ruins and cannot get on top of ruins at all. So infantry on top of ruins simply cannot be charged by MC and Vehicles.
Based on the articles we've seen so far...
Sounded sort of like the big non-Infantry models will be able to just beat on the buildings until they fall down (T10, W~12, Sv3+) and then wade in and wreck face. Presumably, models in a building will be removed on a D6 roll of 1 when a building falls, just like when a vehicle explodes. I'm assuming all ruins/buildings can be attacked and not just those with specific datasheets like the Fortress of Redemption.
kestral wrote: I guess I'm OK with using transports as battering rams, though I would like it better if they were a little less good at it - Death or Glory was one of my favorite things back when it sometimes worked. It would be cool as a sacrificial tactic, but with the durability of vehicles it looks more like a tarpit.
On the other hand I'm beginning to the get the feeling that when they said "Melee is awesome now!" what they meant was that they had buffed the stats of dedicated close combat units, not made assault more viable as a tactic for everyone. A genestealer should outclass a tactical marine, but right now they hit on 2s with 3 rending attacks, vs the marine's 1 attack for 3+ (He doesn't even get a bonus for charging any more). That is pretty sad.
...genestealer doesn't have a gun. The marine will have grenades. And a pistol. And an armor save.
I fail to see how the attacks of a model make close combat more viable if getting to it is half the problem. They've already demonstrated the ways in which assault is a viable tactic.
Q: Dark Eldar are seeming better and better now!
A: Oh yes. Have the Raider charge in before the Wyches do and soak up the over watch? Yes please...
Now GW becomes nuts!
In each edition some of the rules are ridiculous and here we are.
Are you mad about this? I honestly cant tell. That's the point of transports. Drive your troops into the thick of it all so they arrive alive, then they jump out and attack. Makes sense to me.
While everything (except rolling for each model when a transport blows up) is a good rule thus far, all I care about is wound allocation. Something they haven't talked about. Only thing I see as a make or break this edition
Except that what actually happens is you drive you troops to the edge of the thick of it off load then charge your transport into the enemy lines to tie them up and then your brave assault troops charge.
It's the type of gamey rule that I was expecting a group of hard-core tourney players to come up with. It also appears to be a stealth way of fething Tau over that I was expecting after previous faq's and comments from some of these parties. I also suspect the only reason this is causing less concern is that people can see it as a big FU to tau and are feeling a little gleefully.
However I expect once 8th drops it is going to be the main concern a lot of people raise when it starts effecting them. As a TS player I think it's bollocks and will seriously screw me over in a lot of cases.
If I'm a Guardsman and I see an Ork Trukk driving wildly at me? I'm going to be shooting it. Agreed. Sounds balanced to me too.
If you don't have AV in your army then you deserve to lose anyway. Sarcasm is not an argument.
On the other hand, maybe you're not being sarcastic and I just made an ass out of myself. If the latter, carry on.
I'm not being sarcastic It's okay, I thought you might see it sarcastic but at work didn't want to take time to re-write it. It's okay.
I meant for example: you as a guardsman can't overwatch the boyz behind the trukk if stuck in CQC with a frothingly madd Trukk driver... so might as well overwatch the Ork Trukk driving into your squad, it MIGHT hurt. So I totally see why overwatching a vehicle charging you is A-OK. I'd shoot at it if I couldn't run (RE: Commissar), wouldn't you? That is if your AV was unlucky enough to fail at killing it sooner.
I really like that the vehicals can off load the troops who can hide behind it as they both assault in, kinda makes in seem more like apc's act like infantry support vehicles.
RE: transports in assault vs Tau... they still have supporting fire, don't they? I'm sure I remember that being a thing. As for everyone else - prioritise your targets maybe? If you see a Khorne Rhino speeding towards you you might want to wreck the thing before it's within 13" of your front line instead of shooting that Spawn-blob that's doing a little jiggle as they run up the field.
Considering transports outright kill any model on a 1 embarked even the best elite CC units. You prioritize transports packed with tough to kill units. Odds are you not only kill the transport but ~2 models inside a 10-12 capacity transport.
People do remember that the transport still has to complete a charge to do it's job, right? I mean that Chimera might get thrown into gear wrong and only sputter forward 3" instead of making the distance.
It's a strong and viable solution to needing to eat Overwatch that is balanced byt the fact that heavy weapons will be tearing chunks off the transports before they even get close.
And as pointed out by one person on Facebook, it's possible for Nids to get a turn one charge in missions with an 18" deployment zone, even without using buffs to get extra movement.
i think transports will be the least of the Tau's dirty communist xenos problems.
if the transport charges you without letting troops out first. Wrap it with your force! Troops getting out of a transport will have to be within 3" of the transport and more then 1" away from any enemy model. Any that cannot deploy will be destroyed. They are going to get out at range or die.
SeanDrake wrote: It's the type of gamey rule that I was expecting a group of hard-core tourney players to come up with. It also appears to be a stealth way of fething Tau over that I was expecting after previous faq's and comments from some of these parties. I also suspect the only reason this is causing less concern is that people can see it as a big FU to tau and are feeling a little gleefully.
This is a buff to Tau. Their entire army gets to shoot at the transport, then their entire army gets to shoot at the infantry. Why would you think this is a nerf?
Time to hand in your Tzeentch card. It is clear you don't like change.
I'm extremely unconcerned by melee since i'm going to be rolling a 2+ armor against the majority of weapons out there. And a 4++ for anything tougher than that. My rubrics now hit on 3s all the damn time and the force staff is great at smacking tougher targets. Not to mention the flamer that wipes the save of most horde units, still and severely hampers marines. On top of that it seems like I can overwatch now.
Barring that - i'll ram my rhino into them before they ram theirs into me.
I wonder what happens when the transport that carries a unit is charged by another transport and can't move forward without retreating first...
SeanDrake wrote: It's the type of gamey rule that I was expecting a group of hard-core tourney players to come up with. It also appears to be a stealth way of fething Tau over that I was expecting after previous faq's and comments from some of these parties. I also suspect the only reason this is causing less concern is that people can see it as a big FU to tau and are feeling a little gleefully.
This is a buff to Tau. Their entire army gets to shoot at the transport, then their entire army gets to shoot at the infantry. Why would you think this is a nerf?
Does supporting fire currently let you Overwatch for a unit that is actively engaged?
SeanDrake wrote: It's the type of gamey rule that I was expecting a group of hard-core tourney players to come up with. It also appears to be a stealth way of fething Tau over that I was expecting after previous faq's and comments from some of these parties. I also suspect the only reason this is causing less concern is that people can see it as a big FU to tau and are feeling a little gleefully.
This is a buff to Tau. Their entire army gets to shoot at the transport, then their entire army gets to shoot at the infantry. Why would you think this is a nerf?
Does supporting fire currently let you Overwatch for a unit that is actively engaged?
If you mean a unit that is already engaged and is charged by another unit, that unit can't fire overwatch, but other supporting fire units in range can.
Imateria wrote: From what I know (friend who worked for GW and still has contacts in the company) we're looking at a June 10th release for 8th.
Release or pre-order?
Pre order
No, release (as I said in the first post) from what I'm hearing.
So, it begs the question...
If the pre-order is this weekend and release is in 2 weeks from that then why did they push WD back to even later than that?
Why is everyone assuming it's just 1 week release?
Week 1 brb and starter set dice and accessories
Week 2 fek load of primarus vehicles and units!!! Campaign book and whatever else
Imateria wrote: From what I know (friend who worked for GW and still has contacts in the company) we're looking at a June 10th release for 8th.
Release or pre-order?
Pre order
No, release (as I said in the first post) from what I'm hearing.
So, it begs the question...
If the pre-order is this weekend and release is in 2 weeks from that then why did they push WD back to even later than that?
Wow, you are really wishing! Pre order happening this week is very very unlikely. Many have estimated with the faction focus' and other evidence that June 10th would be the most likely pre order date. If it were this weekend, holy bullocks that is a well kept secret. However, things like May 28th being the GW end fiscal year and Warhammer World closing half of the place off June 12th to 16th for making entirely new displays and dioramas might be a clue too. Also, pre orders are usually a week out from release, and that would place release on June 3rd, a date we have not heard yet...
Galas wrote: As a Tau player I don't think I'm gonna have problems with vehicles with all the Heavy Railguns my Broadsides are carring...
And people call me stupid because I just didn't want to spam HYMP...
I think railguns are excellent models and look way cooler than the dorky looking HYMP's. I seen someone do a conversion where they put the boxes on the railguns gun which looked way cooler. I even bought the Heavy Rail Cannon Array for my Ta'unar and intend on mostly using the swiftstrike railgun on my Barracuda.
I totally missed the whole Genestealers+Swarmlord = 16+4d6" effective charge. That's actually hilarious. 30" average charge a go go.
Also, the whole thing around monsters and vehicles not climbing ruins is HUGE. There's now a reason to hide your heavy weapons teams on the roof - only skimmers can get to you, and even then they might have to physically fit. I didn't even really consider it, but think about how incredibly strong that makes Tau on both defence (good luck unseating a Broadside deployed on a roof now) and attack (Crisis Suits jetpacking wherever they want). It does make me kinda worry for the old Tyranid monster mash lists though, as presumably they need to take infantry to deal with buildings now. That's not the worst thing to have to change in lists as I'm sure anyone who played in 5th or 6th owns a ton of termagants (good old tervigon rules) and gargoyles but it's a bit annoying
They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Imateria wrote: From what I know (friend who worked for GW and still has contacts in the company) we're looking at a June 10th release for 8th.
Release or pre-order?
Pre order
No, release (as I said in the first post) from what I'm hearing.
So, it begs the question...
If the pre-order is this weekend and release is in 2 weeks from that then why did they push WD back to even later than that?
Wow, you are really wishing! Pre order happening this week is very very unlikely. Many have estimated with the faction focus' and other evidence that June 10th would be the most likely pre order date. If it were this weekend, holy bullocks that is a well kept secret. However, things like May 28th being the GW end fiscal year and Warhammer World closing half of the place off June 12th to 16th for making entirely new displays and dioramas might be a clue too. Also, pre orders are usually a week out from release, and that would place release on June 3rd, a date we have not heard yet...
2 week preorders for new editions isn't unheard of. Also, WarhammerFest (this weekend) does seem like a good opportunity to announce the preorder.
gungo wrote: Considering transports outright kill any model on a 1 embarked even the best elite CC units. You prioritize transports packed with tough to kill units. Odds are you not only kill the transport but ~2 models inside a 10-12 capacity transport.
Its really no different than now. If a transport blows up. 10 space marines take a S4 hit. 5 wounds with a 3+ save is about 2 dead models. It only penalizes 2+ Sv units and helps all the rest.
Eyjio wrote: They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Yeah, most of the stuff that FW put out in the last few editions has been mostly useless. It should be fun to see the range of usable models vastly expanded.
Day: Friday
Price: £0.00
Start time: 12:00:00 - End Time: 13:00:00
Maximum Players: 300
Description
Learn more about the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 and the exciting developments ahead for the Warhammer community. Field your questions to Games Workshop Studio Head, Pete Foley and Andy Smillie from the Warhammer Community team.
Imateria wrote: From what I know (friend who worked for GW and still has contacts in the company) we're looking at a June 10th release for 8th.
Release or pre-order?
Pre order
No, release (as I said in the first post) from what I'm hearing.
So, it begs the question...
If the pre-order is this weekend and release is in 2 weeks from that then why did they push WD back to even later than that?
Wow, you are really wishing! Pre order happening this week is very very unlikely. Many have estimated with the faction focus' and other evidence that June 10th would be the most likely pre order date. If it were this weekend, holy bullocks that is a well kept secret. However, things like May 28th being the GW end fiscal year and Warhammer World closing half of the place off June 12th to 16th for making entirely new displays and dioramas might be a clue too. Also, pre orders are usually a week out from release, and that would place release on June 3rd, a date we have not heard yet...
2 week preorders for new editions isn't unheard of. Also, WarhammerFest (this weekend) does seem like a good opportunity to announce the preorder.
I truly hope you are right. Here's to optimistic thinking!
Eyjio wrote: They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Yeah, most of the stuff that FW put out in the last few editions has been mostly useless. It should be fun to see the range of usable models vastly expanded.
Teaseract Arks and Shroud Bombers actually weren't too bad in 6th and near the beginning of 7th. Then we had a few things happen:
1. You couldn't get anything in the Decurion. Which wouldn't have been too bad if:
2. The Decurion was the only way to play Necrons competitively, as:
3. Power Creep got ridiculous. How many people actually complained about the Decurion when everyone started getting stupidly tougher models, free upgrades and vehicles, assaulting from Deep Strike, and ridiculous firepower to boot.
It is a huge chain reaction. The rules for the Tomb Stalker and Sentinel themselves aren't bad, but you can't get anything from them in that format (plus they had ridiculously slow movement).
krazynadechukr wrote: Wow, you are really wishing! Pre order happening this week is very very unlikely. Many have estimated with the faction focus' and other evidence that June 10th would be the most likely pre order date. If it were this weekend, holy bullocks that is a well kept secret. However, things like May 28th being the GW end fiscal year and Warhammer World closing half of the place off June 12th to 16th for making entirely new displays and dioramas might be a clue too. Also, pre orders are usually a week out from release, and that would place release on June 3rd, a date we have not heard yet...
xttz wrote: 2 week preorder period starts this weekend with "some rules available soon".
This news is hitting store staff today so you should see further confirmations soon
good info. who's your source?
A GW staff member.
The free rules won't include any points or armywide special rules, just unit datasheets (and presumably power levels).
HTH.
By far for the most common cause of leaks is early copies of WD, simultaneously addressing your point on the delayed magazine release and previous lack of info. Also a late May pre-order date still allows GW to invoice 3rd-party suppliers in the current financial year and boost sales (and probably picking up a few sales of units due to brand new stats to boot - let's see if Pyrovores sell out this weekend )
Eyjio wrote: They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Yeah, most of the stuff that FW put out in the last few editions has been mostly useless. It should be fun to see the range of usable models vastly expanded.
Teaseract Arks and Shroud Bombers actually weren't too bad in 6th and near the beginning of 7th. Then we had a few things happen:
1. You couldn't get anything in the Decurion. Which wouldn't have been too bad if:
2. The Decurion was the only way to play Necrons competitively, as:
3. Power Creep got ridiculous. How many people actually complained about the Decurion when everyone started getting stupidly tougher models, free upgrades and vehicles, assaulting from Deep Strike, and ridiculous firepower to boot.
It is a huge chain reaction. The rules for the Tomb Stalker and Sentinel themselves aren't bad, but you can't get anything from them in that format (plus they had ridiculously slow movement).
I would gladly buy a Tesseract Ark if it had decent rules. I love that model.
Was hoping they would start the week off with a bang and reveal some more primus marines/DG/part of the starter contents. The reveal of the models last week was exciting. The stuff we have gotten since...not so much.
Thargrim wrote: Was hoping they would start the week off with a bang and reveal some more primus marines/DG/part of the starter contents. The reveal of the models last week was exciting. The stuff we have gotten since...not so much.
If i was a betting man I'd say those would appear at Warhammer Fest this weekend. Would be the most logical place to show them off.
Youn wrote: if the transport charges you without letting troops out first. Wrap it with your force! Troops getting out of a transport will have to be within 3" of the transport and more then 1" away from any enemy model. Any that cannot deploy will be destroyed. They are going to get out at range or die.
Of course you have NO idea if that is how it works. For all we know you place occupants as close to the vehicles position as possible then pile into the assaulters and treat it as ongoing.
I may have missed it, and I am sorry if I have, but...
Where have they said a roll of "1" is always a fail for saves
It was not that way in age of sigma, which meant super powerful units in cover with magical assistance NEEDED you to put high powered weapons on it.
Also, do we know if cover saves only affect ranged attacks?
A combination of the two would go a long way towards balancing out ranged and melee units in the game. You'd NEED melee to clear even moderately tough units from ruins, and even shoot armies would want more terrain on the table because they'll want the boost to survivability.
Where have they said a roll of "1" is always a fail for saves
It was not that way in age of sigma, which meant super powerful units in cover with magical assistance NEEDED you to put high powered weapons on it.
Also, do we know if cover saves only affect ranged attacks?
A combination of the two would go a long way towards balancing out ranged and melee units in the game. You'd NEED melee to clear even moderately tough units from ruins, and even shoot armies would want more terrain on the table because they'll want the boost to survivability.
3 rules of one have been around for half of that game's life.
Teaseract Arks and Shroud Bombers actually weren't too bad in 6th and near the beginning of 7th. Then we had a few things happen:
1. You couldn't get anything in the Decurion. Which wouldn't have been too bad if:
2. The Decurion was the only way to play Necrons competitively, as:
3. Power Creep got ridiculous. How many people actually complained about the Decurion when everyone started getting stupidly tougher models, free upgrades and vehicles, assaulting from Deep Strike, and ridiculous firepower to boot.
It is a huge chain reaction. The rules for the Tomb Stalker and Sentinel themselves aren't bad, but you can't get anything from them in that format (plus they had ridiculously slow movement).
Fair points about 7th, though the Tesseract Ark took a substantial hit from the QS change anyway. I disagree about 6th though; the Tesseract Ark was at best passable due to AV14 (effectively) plus the better-Executioner Cannon, but at 250 points it was rarely worth taking over 3 Annihilation barges which was the realistic choice at the time at only 270 points. The Shroud bomber was pretty good until people realised that the bombing rules were (and are still) utter garbage, which makes it super easy to block worthwhile bombing runs. Without the bombs, it just became a slightly more durable night Scythe for over 2x the cost, and with no transport capacity. It was also largely outclassed by the Death Scythe anyway. The Tomb Stalker/Sentinels were just rubbish though; I tried them in friendly games and they still got shot off the table T1 every game - T7 W4 3+ is way too fragile. Now, if you want OP things in 6th edition, Acanthrites were utterly insane; mini meltaguns, rending, T5 W3 3+ + stealth - pretty rough. Even stronger at the start of 7th too, before the current Necron codex was released. Likewise, the Death Ray sentry pylon, even without the cheese reading of the rules, was 2 S10 AP1 hits per models under the line, and was the most ridiculous thing to see on a table. It speaks volumes about how good Annihilation Barges and Wraiths were in the old codex that they didn't see more play.
But yeah, then the Eldar codex came out 2 months after the Necron one and pretty much wrecked any potential 7e ever had. Here's hoping that finally in 8th edition Tomb Stalkers and Pylons (the super heavy especially) will be playable.
If the pre-order is this weekend and release is in 2 weeks from that then why did they push WD back to even later than that?
Wow, you are really wishing! Pre order happening this week is very very unlikely. Many have estimated with the faction focus' and other evidence that June 10th would be the most likely pre order date. If it were this weekend, holy bullocks that is a well kept secret. However, things like May 28th being the GW end fiscal year and Warhammer World closing half of the place off June 12th to 16th for making entirely new displays and dioramas might be a clue too. Also, pre orders are usually a week out from release, and that would place release on June 3rd, a date we have not heard yet...
I'm just asking questions to reconcile the disparities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
guru wrote: 2th june - new 40k seminar in Uk Games Expo
The New Warhammer 40,000
Day: Friday
Price: £0.00
Start time: 12:00:00 - End Time: 13:00:00
Maximum Players: 300
Description
Learn more about the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 and the exciting developments ahead for the Warhammer community. Field your questions to Games Workshop Studio Head, Pete Foley and Andy Smillie from the Warhammer Community team.
I strongly believe that preorders will be this weekend. Firstly Warhammerfest is this weekend and would be an ideal time to unveil the full release. Secondly we usually know what the weeks preorders are by now. The silence speaks volumes.
Thirdly the aos skirmish battlemat has a two week preorder. Why do this unless you want to fill an empty week between 40k preorder and release?
This Warhammerfest looks like it will finally match the gamesdays of old. I am hoping for hundreds of pics and videos of all the new deathguard and primaris minis.
Chikout wrote: I strongly believe that preorders will be this weekend. Firstly Warhammerfest is this weekend and would be an ideal time to unveil the full release. Secondly we usually know what the weeks preorders are by now. The silence speaks volumes.
Thirdly the aos skirmish battlemat has a two week preorder. Why do this unless you want to fill an empty week between 40k preorder and release?
This Warhammerfest looks like it will finally match the gamesdays of old. I am hoping for hundreds of pics and videos of all the new deathguard and primaris minis.
The picture of the June 2017 White dwarf says "On Sale Friday June 16 Grim Darkness, Far Future, Only War..." That'd put pre order at either June 2nd or June 9th depending on a 1 week or 2 week pre order to release window. Then we have several other "hard" evidences (faction & other articles look to finish by June 10th, Warhammer World closing section June 12-16 for a major new display reveal June 17, three foriegn WDs pointing to same dates, etc...) that also point to a June 16th release, Then we know all GWs need their new scenery completed by June 10 & employees can't vacation June 10-18.....and that in turn points to a June 2nd or 9th pre ordering most likely... Also May 28th is GW fiscal end, and they want the new fiscal year (pre orders) to get them off to a strong start for the new fiscal year, so they most likely wont say anything until after May 28th....
But hey, I would love love love for it to be sooner!
krazynadechukr wrote: The picture of the June 2017 White dwarf says "On Sale Friday June 16 Grim Darkness, Far Future, Only War..." That'd put pre order at either June 2nd or June 9th depending on a 1 week or 2 week pre order to release window. Then we have several other "hard" evidences (faction & other articles look to finish by June 10th, Warhammer World closing section June 12-16 for a major new display reveal June 17, three foriegn WDs pointing to same dates, etc...) that also point to a June 16th release, Then we know all GWs need their new scenery completed by June 10 & employees can't vacation June 10-18.....and that in turn points to a June 2nd or 9th pre ordering most likely... Also May 28th is GW fiscal end, and they want the new fiscal year (pre orders) to get them off to a strong start for the new fiscal year, so they most likely wont say anything until after May 28th....
But hey, I would love love love for it to be sooner!
As others have mentioned the biggest source of leaks is WD. A WD pushback doesn't necessarily indicate a release, but possibly an intent to guard against info getting out too early.
krazynadechukr wrote: The picture of the June 2017 White dwarf says "On Sale Friday June 16 Grim Darkness, Far Future, Only War..." That'd put pre order at either June 2nd or June 9th depending on a 1 week or 2 week pre order to release window. Then we have several other "hard" evidences (faction & other articles look to finish by June 10th, Warhammer World closing section June 12-16 for a major new display reveal June 17, three foriegn WDs pointing to same dates, etc...) that also point to a June 16th release, Then we know all GWs need their new scenery completed by June 10 & employees can't vacation June 10-18.....and that in turn points to a June 2nd or 9th pre ordering most likely... Also May 28th is GW fiscal end, and they want the new fiscal year (pre orders) to get them off to a strong start for the new fiscal year, so they most likely wont say anything until after May 28th....
But hey, I would love love love for it to be sooner!
As others have mentioned the biggest source of leaks is WD. A WD pushback doesn't necessarily indicate a release, but possibly an intent to guard against info getting out too early.
So there is no new preorder this weekend.
The only release on the 3rd of June is the aos skirmish playmat.
Are we really going to have a completely empty week on the 10th?
As an aside preorders do not count towards financial results until the sale has been realised (when customers receive the product) so May 27th preorders will go into next year's results.
casvalremdeikun wrote: How many factions are left for Faction Focus. If they are doing them every other day, it seems like they might not get through all of them.
Here's a LIST of the one's they've done. That leaves 20+ factions still awaiting a writeup.
I'm also not sure they would bother to split out DA, SW, and GK.
There are 6 reveals until 6/3 and 9 (10 if you count 6/10). As you can see either they don't cover every granular aspect through 6/10 or they do and it goes well over the release window.
Codex Marines are definitely a single article. Deoending on if the slightly less codex adhering chapters are seperate from main force will determine if they are split off or not.
GK and DW will likely be seperate articles.
Inquistion and Assassins may share an article depending on how they handle the "Forces of the Imperium". Sisters of Silence and Custodes could get rolled into this too since they're painfully small factions with barely any options.
Tempestus may not see an article if they were folded into the Guard completely as an army.
Sisters will likely stand alone due to unique army mechanics and enough units to actually talk about versus the handful from the rest.
Orks of course will run their own show, as will the Space Clowns. Naturally GSC will have their own as well since they weren't mixed into the Nids one.
So assuming the ones that could be clumped are clumped, that leaves like 7 articles, which would come out over 14 days (every other day).
That feels about right, doesn't it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, forgot Crons and Cogs. So make that 9 articles and 18 days.
Assuming the Sisters of Battle don't just get Squatted, I'm guessing that they'll just have a couple of units added into a greater 'Imperial Agents' style list, alongside the Inquisition and other Imperial forces.
Fafnir wrote: Assuming the Sisters of Battle don't just get Squatted, I'm guessing that they'll just have a couple of units added into a greater 'Imperial Agents' style list, alongside the Inquisition and other Imperial forces.
Sisters have models for sale, and thus wold be under the umbrella of "all current models are getting updated into the new eidtion". I know we like to run that dead horse so far into the ground that it lands on Hell's throne, but it really just needs to stop being a thing.
Sisters were a key faction in the Shield of Baal (even if they didn't new rules or kits) and were a key faction in the Gathering Storm (where we got plastic Celestine and the Wonder Twins in the range as well as a lot of fluff).
No army that is getting axed would be getting so much time in the spotlight. Especially not in a campaign designed to kick off te new edition and get the plot moving again.
Sisters aren't away and anyone who claims that they are is either running a dead meme into the ground or is under some mistaken assumption that the world never changes and things that were forgotten and left to collect dust will always be that way.
Eyjio wrote: They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Yeah, most of the stuff that FW put out in the last few editions has been mostly useless. It should be fun to see the range of usable models vastly expanded.
Teaseract Arks and Shroud Bombers actually weren't too bad in 6th and near the beginning of 7th. Then we had a few things happen:
1. You couldn't get anything in the Decurion. Which wouldn't have been too bad if:
2. The Decurion was the only way to play Necrons competitively, as:
3. Power Creep got ridiculous. How many people actually complained about the Decurion when everyone started getting stupidly tougher models, free upgrades and vehicles, assaulting from Deep Strike, and ridiculous firepower to boot.
It is a huge chain reaction. The rules for the Tomb Stalker and Sentinel themselves aren't bad, but you can't get anything from them in that format (plus they had ridiculously slow movement).
I would gladly buy a Tesseract Ark if it had decent rules. I love that model.
As someone with a LOT of FW models, I really do hope they are balanced well. I get tired of either OP or (more often) just poor units.
I absolutely love my xv9 suits, and the necron tesseract ark - but they are indeed pretty bad (don't even get me started on heavy gun drones).
Eyjio wrote: They guys on the FLG podcast also confirmed that "the playtesters" did at least some of the Forge World testing, so hopefully we'll have less obviously broken/useless units in their range going forwards. The broken stuff I'm less concerned about, as it's rarely been too OP, barring obvious abuses like the old Lynx or Thudd guns, but there are a LOT of really bad FW rules stopping units being played. I mean, have you ever seen any of the necron FW stuff, like the Tesseract Ark or the Tomb Sentinel? Stone Crusher Carnifexes? XV9's with phyased ion guns? Eldar Wasps? Basically any of the IG tanks? I doubt it; for many of us, they're too awful to even consider. I'd love to buy a Night Shroud bomber or put my Tomb Stalker on the table, but it's just not feasible other than in the most casual of casual games; they're just dismal.
Yeah, most of the stuff that FW put out in the last few editions has been mostly useless. It should be fun to see the range of usable models vastly expanded.
Teaseract Arks and Shroud Bombers actually weren't too bad in 6th and near the beginning of 7th. Then we had a few things happen:
1. You couldn't get anything in the Decurion. Which wouldn't have been too bad if:
2. The Decurion was the only way to play Necrons competitively, as:
3. Power Creep got ridiculous. How many people actually complained about the Decurion when everyone started getting stupidly tougher models, free upgrades and vehicles, assaulting from Deep Strike, and ridiculous firepower to boot.
It is a huge chain reaction. The rules for the Tomb Stalker and Sentinel themselves aren't bad, but you can't get anything from them in that format (plus they had ridiculously slow movement).
I would gladly buy a Tesseract Ark if it had decent rules. I love that model.
As someone with a LOT of FW models, I really do hope they are balanced well. I get tired of either OP or (more often) just poor units.
I absolutely love my xv9 suits, and the necron tesseract ark - but they are indeed pretty bad (don't even get me started on heavy gun drones).
I would so buy the squiggoth (not the gargantuan...unless I won the lottery) if it had rules outside of imperial armor.
Could be a transport, open-topped, T8, 14 wounds 14" move, kannon, plus a huge number of st8 attacks in combat, for a reasonable amount of points....I can dream can't i?
So will the wall of martyrs line of terrain get official rules or are we ass out becuase they are rumoured discontinued and have been unavailable since last month?
gungo wrote: So will the wall of martyrs line of terrain get official rules or are we ass out becuase they are rumoured discontinued and have been unavailable since last month?
They make them in China, and I think package them in the UK? So they got to wait for the boat from china, then the boat to america.
I noticed this has been a issue with alot of the low production direct only stuff. When it goes out of stock in the North American Sites you got to wait for the boat from the UK and it takes forever.
Fafnir wrote: Assuming the Sisters of Battle don't just get Squatted, I'm guessing that they'll just have a couple of units added into a greater 'Imperial Agents' style list, alongside the Inquisition and other Imperial forces.
Sisters have models for sale, and thus wold be under the umbrella of "all current models are getting updated into the new eidtion". I know we like to run that dead horse so far into the ground that it lands on Hell's throne, but it really just needs to stop being a thing.
Plus GW has specifically stated sisters will get rules for 8th ed...
Chikout wrote: So there is no new preorder this weekend.
The only release on the 3rd of June is the aos skirmish playmat.
Are we really going to have a completely empty week on the 10th?
As an aside preorders do not count towards financial results until the sale has been realised (when customers receive the product) so May 27th preorders will go into next year's results.
Only Horus heresy: Sons of the forge novel preorder....
June 3rd – mark your calendars folks, because that’s the day you’ll be able to pre-order your copy of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. You’ll then be among the first to get your hands on it come release day on June 17th.
Incredible stuff! Here in the Warhammer Community Team, we think that the models alone make this the best Warhammer 40,000 box set ever made. Discussion has already begun about who’s buying two sets in order to bulk out their forces and, as is a time-honoured tradition, there are plenty of pledges of swapsies as the team vie to gain either more Space Marines or Death Guard.
And yet, Dark Imperium is really just the beginning. The launch lineup for the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is the most extensive we’ve had for any game we’ve ever released. So brace yourself, and let’s dive on in!
This is an awesome box set. Inside, you get two armies of brand new miniatures, the full hardback Warhammer 40,000 book, dice and range rulers. Even the outside is covered in gorgeous artwork, and the sight of all those goodies as you open the box for the first time is very satisfying… but a bit more on that later…
Fresh from the forges of Mars, and ready to bleed in defence of the Imperium, the Primaris Space Marines have come tooled for war. The bolt rifle-wielding Intercessors are the mainstay of the force. Alongside them march plasma-toting Hellblasters, providing deadly fire-support. And dropping in from orbit are Inceptors with the short range fury of their twin assault bolters.
Leading these new warriors are the champions of the Primaris Space Marines: the inspiring presence of the Lieutenants, the banner-carrying Ancients, and the commander of the force, a Captain clad in new Gravis armour.
The Death Guard are equally impressive. First up, a unit of Plague Marines. The archetypal unit of the XIV Legion swollen with the raw power of decay, these form of the core of any Death Guard force. Nurgle fans will also be pleased to see a shambling plague host represented by the repugnant and varied Poxwalkers, each draped in scraps of clothing from their former lives. There is a new vehicle on offer too – the Foetid Bloat-drone, a floating Daemon Engine that hunts its prey with a malign intelligence.
Rounding off the Death Guard are their own leaders, including a huge new Lord of Contagion, clad in warped Cataphractii Terminator plate and wielding one of the most brutal looking axes we’ve ever seen. Alongside him is the Noxious Blightbringer, a dark reflection of the noble Legion banner bearers of old, who carries a cursed plague bell that tolls with the death knell of his victims. Last but not least is the Malignant Plaguecaster – one of the pestilent sorcerers of this pox-ridden Legion.
A complete set of datasheets to field both these Death Guard and Primaris Space Marines armies are included in two separate booklets inside the box. You’ll also find a host of new background information on the two forces and on the Plague Wars being fought in Ultramar.
And of course, there’s the new Warhammer 40,000 book itself. This 280-page, hardback tome is included in the Dark Imperium box and is also available separately. This book is your guide to the new edition and contains an extensive exploration of the Warhammer 40,000 setting. This includes some pretty major advancements in the story for every faction in the galaxy, not least of which are the arrival of the Great Rift, the rise of Chaos, and the launching of the Indomitus Crusade.
And rules. Lots of rules. All the rules you need to wage the bloodiest of wars in the far future. Alongside the core rules for the game, there are missions, full guidelines for the 3 ways to play (open, narrative and matched) and advanced rules to represent the myriad war zones of the far future, including all the rules you need to play games of Cities of Death, Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault and Death from the Skies.
June 3rd – mark your calendars folks, because that’s the day you’ll be able to pre-order your copy of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. You’ll then be among the first to get your hands on it come release day on June 17th.
All of the models look very good except for the weird floating marines. I guess they have jetpacks because those are some strange leg poses for a jump pack.
Kirasu wrote: All of the models look very good except for the weird floating marines. I guess they have jetpacks because those are some strange leg poses for a jump pack.
Not a big fan of that plague sorcerer dude to be honest, especially the fact he has poop shooting out. I don't like 'mid-firing- models though TBH.
Kirasu wrote: All of the models look very good except for the weird floating marines. I guess they have jetpacks because those are some strange leg poses for a jump pack.
Likely jetpacks, yeah. They are modeled to be hovering in a very typical gundam fashion
They're just too weird. They look way too bulky, and the guns look silly.
Sure hope books aren't too expensive seeing I need 'em all if I want to use all my armies.
Death guard looks nice. Might get those from ebay if price is right.
Thankfully I will only need the Astartes one. Extra bonus for me tbh since then I can run a Sternguard counts-as far without having to lug along an extra book.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Thankfully I will only need the Astartes one. Extra bonus for me tbh since then I can run a Sternguard counts-as far without having to lug along an extra book.
Yeah well for me...Let's see. Dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, orks, IG, knights, eldar, orks. Oh and think I have pile of tyranids somewhere!
Are those multipart or snapfit/monopose? Either way, lovely models.
Fun to see special weapon squads come back, making it easier to run my HH era marines in 40K. Especially since I have a lot of plasma for them.
Lieutenants are nice to see. 2 wound versions of captains? Probably the best looking models though. Love the helmets mounted on the belts of the bare headed ones. Great touch.
Gravis armor looks to be the Terminator plate matched to Mk X, like how Mk IV has Tartaros, Mk III has Cataphractii, and Indomitus is Mk V on.
Not sure on the assault marines yet. The combined hood and landing struts look cool, but in my mind would work better for a devastator-type unit rather than jump troops. Iffy about the little shields on the bolt pistols either. And they seem to use the Indomitus TDA shoulder pads, not power armor pads like the other squads.
Chaos models look good, but I will be trading those off to a friend who plays chaos. Blight Drone thing looks ace especially.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now that I had a good look at him, I am also not a fan of the Gravis Armour, especially those abdominal plates
That is the weak point of the model. Makes him look chubby, like the ancient metal Cadian Lieutenant.
Rumor was that they were snapfit and monopose. There were more Death Guard than this spoiled at Adepticon - so expect more multipart Death Guard kits on their way, including that smiling terminator with the assault canon. My god they look beautiful.
Is it just me or is the GW standard of painting to make faces look as flat and ugly as possible? Seriously someone tell 'eavy metal how to paint faces. Primaris marine paint job just does not look on the same level as those beautiful death guard.
I love the old school plasma guns, I love the blight drone, and I love the incorporation of nurglings into the models. Papa Nurgy would be pleased. Now to get someone to take the primaris marines off my hands....
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Thankfully I will only need the Astartes one. Extra bonus for me tbh since then I can run a Sternguard counts-as far without having to lug along an extra book.
Yeah well for me...Let's see. Dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, orks, IG, knights, eldar, orks. Oh and think I have pile of tyranids somewhere!
The standard Marines are gorgeous. I love the Lieutenant and Ancient especially. It's nice to see Marines in proper proportions at last, even if we have to swallow some terrible fluff and terrible models (Inceptors) that come alongside them. I hope the Gravis is just a sort of artificer armour type suit for leaders, though, and not a replacement for Terminators.
Sooooo many questions but so awesome. We get a banner bearer!!!
Urgh what chapter to do these guys as. Imperial Fists, Howling Griffons or get some BA heads and pads.
Ill agree I'm not a fan of the Captains belly armour, so is that Terminator armour? Think a new head would make him look so much better.
Not too much a fan of those Assault Marines, I was hoping they were classic choppy choppy version, think its the design of the backpack I am not too fond of.
That Nurgle Lord, my lord.......
Well I know what I am asking for for my birthday.
Edit: Oh snap the captain with his helmet on his belt!! Plasma Squad!!!!!!!!!!
Also wanna try chopping the arms of some of em and giving them Wulfen arms and heads. Try and make em look like the classic Wulfen. Reckon they would look sweet in truescale and guessing the arms will be the right size?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now that I had a good look at him, I am also not a fan of the Gravis Armour, especially those abdominal plates
That is the weak point of the model. Makes him look chubby, like the ancient metal Cadian Lieutenant.
That is indeed the weakest point but I am also not really a fan of the hood - it looks like a cheap knock off psychic hood.
It does look a lot like a psychic hood. The jump restartes have it too. But I think the reason it looks off, and the same reason it gets a pass from me, is that unlike all other terminator marks, the head is clearly both lined up with and above the shoulders, as opposed to far forwards and at the same level like an Ork.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now that I had a good look at him, I am also not a fan of the Gravis Armour, especially those abdominal plates
That is the weak point of the model. Makes him look chubby, like the ancient metal Cadian Lieutenant.
That is indeed the weakest point but I am also not really a fan of the hood - it looks like a cheap knock off psychic hood.
It does look a lot like a psychic hood. The jump restartes have it too. But I think the reason it looks off, and the same reason it gets a pass from me, is that unlike all other terminator marks, the head is clearly both lined up with and above the shoulders, as opposed to far forwards and at the same level like an Ork.
I agree.
As I said the other Primaris are really good - I won't buy them for... reasons... but they are good. It's actually curious that the Gravis and the Inceptor armour (the two new variations) are falling short imo.
Here's hoping the Dreadnought looks awesome so I can actually get a new mini to use!
I don't think the gravis armor is terminator armor. It has a backpack. It has regular marine arms (minus the power fist). The legs just have 2 more armor plates on them. It just looks like fancy artificer armor. Maybe a 2+ save but no deepstrike capabilities.
Non-GW stores should be receiving their first taste of this as well now. No prices mentioned yet, but they do offer launch bundles and gaming tables (a-la Blood Bowl) for demos.
Don Savik wrote: I don't think the gravis armor is terminator armor. It has a backpack. It has regular marine arms (minus the power fist). The legs just have 2 more armor plates on them. It just looks like fancy artificer armor. Maybe a 2+ save but no deepstrike capabilities.
Artificer is generally considered to be either old relics, for personalized masterworks. Neither of which would work for brand new, mass produced troops. I can Gravis being a mass production "heavy" armor for commanders and specialists.
Are the SM officers on 40mm bases and the lord of contagion on a 50mm?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Interesting weapon choice of the plague champion and that SM captain. Powerfist + sword/knife. Probably no more specialist weapon rule?
Probably like in AoS. Attack with every weapon you have.
