Are the fourteen force org charts faction-specific or universal? As in, is there an Ork FOC and a Space Marine FOC, or is there some sort of "speedy" FOC that both Evil Sunz Orks and White Scars Space Marines can take?
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: Are the fourteen force org charts faction-specific or universal? As in, is there an Ork FOC and a Space Marine FOC, or is there some sort of "speedy" FOC that both Evil Sunz Orks and White Scars Space Marines can take?
The 14 mentioned are universal, though I'm sure each faction will have one or two specific FOC's.
LoL so a carbon copy of AoS, someone needs to ask how stormcast fare against marines.
Any interest in 8th just vanished in a cloud of meh, saves me watching the rest.
It sounds like Strength, Toughness and Ballistic Skill might still be in so perhaps not exactly the same. Maybe they're just making it so that no unit is off the bat invulnerable, like AoS. Doesn't make it any easier to kill Durthu with Plaguebearers, despite that being the underlying principle of AoS.
As usual, best policy with gw is to remove the emotional response and simply view the entire ruleset once it's out. Each edition looked good until you realize a few crazy details.
DjPyro3 wrote: Top 3 design goals for this edition.
1. Make a game for all three ways to play.
2. Competitive Aspect viable.
3. Make it much more accessible.
Woo!
Shift back to a more Imperium v. Chaos storyline. Or at least put Chaos more at the forefront at the Imperium's list of problems.
Kirasu wrote: As usual, best policy with gw is to remove the emotional response and simply view the entire ruleset once it's out. Each edition looked good until you realize a few crazy details.
Sorry - the hype train is leaving the station. All aboard...
Two different set of points value. Power Level, focused on narrative play. Get playing quickly, equipment doesn't matter as much as the actual unit.
Matched Fights, pay for units, equipment. Same ol, same ol.
-Vehicles and Monsters both have changing stat lines as they take damage. Works the same way. Sounds like it will work alot like the monsters in AoS.
-No stat is capped at 10.
-Heavy weapons will start doing multiple wounds to make them better at killed monsters/tanks.
Lockark wrote: -Vehicles and Monsters both have changing stat lines as they take damage. Works the same way. Sounds like it will work alot like the monsters in AoS.
-No stat is capped at 10.
-Heavy weapons will start doing multiple wounds to make them better at killed monsters/tanks.
They have gone to a Keyword system. Death Stars shouldn't happen anymore, because a Space Marines abilities will affect Adeptus Astartes, but will not pass on to allies. THANK GOD.
Allies still viable.
Keyword driven system ala AoS.
Keyword abilities only affect specific factions - so a SM captain cant pass his abilities onto IG troopers etc.
"Can control unit interactions much better".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Close combat is now more viable.
Charge first - go first.
Single faction armies will have more command points if they fulfill the bigger force org chart selections.
If the heresy gets on this system the "anything can hurt vehicles" will be funny. "Oh that's a nice Leman Russ. Shame if someone was to shoot 80 bolters shots at it"
NivlacSupreme wrote: If the heresy gets on this system the "anything can hurt vehicles" will be funny. "Oh that's a nice Leman Russ. Shame if someone was to shoot 80 bolters shots at it"
Too bad it will probably have like 30 wounds or what not.
NivlacSupreme wrote: If the heresy gets on this system the "anything can hurt vehicles" will be funny. "Oh that's a nice Leman Russ. Shame if someone was to shoot 80 bolters shots at it"
Too bad it will probably have like 30 wounds or what not.
- No more armour on vehicles. Vehicles have a damage table as they take damage (wounds) stats decrease, every vehicle has its own damage table. e.g. Bolters could hurt tanks.
- Specfically mentioned everyone can hurt everyone else owing to S and T in ref to vehicles.
- 14 force org charts in core rules, if you meet you generate command points one use only. re-roll dice, interupt chargers going first mentioned. Hints these force orgs tottally replace formations.
- Limited to 1cmd point perphase. Certain force orgs give you more or less points. Gives example of big brigate detachment which gives you 9 cms points.
- Codexes not going away, there will be books with their own army command points
- Templates going away confirmed!
- Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex)
- Expansions will still be part of the game planet strike etc will be re-written
- 'Every unit playtestest a lot' after 'will riptides be nerfed' quetion. Mention of massive community playtesting in USA
- Annual rules updates like AoS generals handbook taking community feedback
- 40k rules will have free PDF digital + printed store copies
- No specific tournament rules but guidelines in matched play
- Top goals in dev: 1. game that worked for all three ways to play. 2. More balanced 3. More accessible
- Background focussed more Imperium vs Chaos, acknowledges chaos has slipped and want to bring that back to the main focus of the game
- Wont confirm a release date 'this year'
- Two points system 'Power level' narative play each unit has a general power level value. Full granular common points ssytem for matched play.
- All factions still in, new website missing ones is just a narative thing.
- There will be new factions (hinted at on launch)
- Big monsters will also loose stats like vehicles as they take damage
- Stats no longer capped at 10!
- Multiple damage e.g. wounds is in on weapons
- Matched play 1000pts to anything
- Allies still in works different though. Keywords system very specific on factions gives an example a marine with spec rules prob wont pass onto allies.
- Mentions close combat is viable.
- Background will move on but not radically change. Some on launch which will 'blow people away'
- Everyday from now on till launch will be a warhammer community article on new 40k - kinda hints its coming out sooner rather than later
- If you'v bought a book within 8 weeks of launch, you can email customer services and get a voucher for value of the book bought
1). Most balanced ruleset ever.
2). Updated units and codexs on launch day.
3). No vehicle armor values.
4). Multiple types of detachments.
5). Keyword system and the death of deathstars.
Pretty sure it's 8 weeks BEFORE the announcement. I.e. You can't buy a codex tomorrow and get it for free, but if you bought it last week you'll get your money back.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
For the first time in a very loooooooong time I'm actually rather excited about the potential of a new 40k release. Lots of engagement, focus on quality of rules, etc.
I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...
I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...
Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.
Im also guessing LR and such will have metric tonnes of wounds.
The rules in our existing Imperial Armour books will not be compatible with the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. More than just rule books, each is full of background on the armies and their glorious and devastating battles, so complete your collection before they go!
I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I know it's against "the lore" of the stuff, but there's often very little exciting about a unit in a game that is immortal to 80% of the force on the board. Even in a 1250 point game, I managed to tarpit a Mawkrusha with a unit of Chaos Warriors for a turn which gave me a chance to charge my Plaguedrones into it. I still didn't kill it, but I took about 10 wounds off it, and it was more exciting than it just trampling my warriors. Maybe with some better rolls I'd have even felled it? Surely impossible in the lore, but it feels like you have a chance for your Eowyn to kill a Wraith King.
rollawaythestone wrote: I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.
Won't be a wound chart.
It will be like AoS weapons. A land raider might be something like a 2+ save and 20 wounds. A bolter might have -1 to saves, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound, which would take close to 200 shots to achieve.
You could expect the Lord of Skulls to be something like 40 to 50 wounds or more if it maintains it's current power level.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.
in AOS, and presumably 8th ( ) It's not the weapon, it's effected as you loose wounds. I.E. when the land raider goes from 14 wounds to 10 wounds, it looses 1" of movement.
Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.
If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.
Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.
Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?
Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.
rollawaythestone wrote: I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.
Won't be a wound chart.
It will be like AoS weapons. A land raider might be something like a 2+ save and 20 wounds. A bolter might have -1 to saves, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound, which would take close to 200 shots to achieve.
Not sure that's true. They mentioned Strength and Toughness, didn't they?
I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...
Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.
yeah, all the playtesting, community feedback, etc was all stuff they could have done, but was painfully obvious they were not. They even had their own forums they could have used until 2006, and then shut them down.
Glad its turning around, but it shouldnt have taken this long to do it
Ratius wrote:
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.
Aye, we'll see how it turns out, thats the one bit I feel most hesitant about, but could be worked out to be pretty functional and would solve MC/Tank issues.
sturguard wrote: Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.
If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.
Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.
Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?
Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.
That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.
You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?
Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.[/quote
It's worth noting that the Khadron Overlords Ironclad Battleship has 15 wounds and a 5+ save, however it barely loses any weapon or movement effectiveness until it hits about 5 wounds. Those charts mean they can fine tune how long a tank stays running - maybe 12 wounds down a Land Raider will still be running at 90% efficiency. Suddenly the small chance of bolters being able to damage it is heavily mitigated. And after a few las/melta shots, maybe a hail of bolter fire would be able to damage its internals.
Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt.
If purchased digitally you will have an e-receipt in your email account etc.
If a hardback via credit/debit card then it'll be on your bank statement.
Cash is trickier granted that.
I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...
Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.
So why did we purchase their products at often ridiculous prices? We should get a voucher for their lack of playtesting products.
Ruin wrote: Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.
My notes from new edition Q&A on Warhammer Facebook: No more templates. Vehicles have toughness like everything else, do degrade as they take wounds. Earn "Command Points" playing mission, spend one each phase even during opponent's turn (out-of-sequence) to re-roll dice, interrupt charges, and other abilities specific to faction and force org chart. 14 force org charts in base rules.
Forgeworld models supported too. Bigger detachments generate more Command Points, that's advantage of sticking to single faction. Keyword system should limit deathstar buff sharing. Chargers swing first. Monsters degrade like vehicles. Stats no longer capped at 10. Every weapon has a chance to hurt every unit. Characters affect nearby units but can't "join".
On fluff side: New narrative focus on Chaos versus Imperium sorry filthy Xenos scum. Storyline will develop rapidly but not radically. "New faction on launch" maybe Death Guard maybe not?
Matched play will still have granular points, while in Narrative format each unit has a general "power level" for rough matchup, not including wargear. Annual rule updates confirmed. Expansions like Planet Strike will get rewritten.
If you have receipt for purchase of any 40k book in past 8 weeks, you're eligible for voucher from GW customer service. Still no release date. I was thinking June but now I'm thinking May because nobody's buying while expecting such change.
rollawaythestone wrote: I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.
Won't be a wound chart.
It will be like AoS weapons. A land raider might be something like a 2+ save and 20 wounds. A bolter might have -1 to saves, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound, which would take close to 200 shots to achieve.
You could expect the Lord of Skulls to be something like 40 to 50 wounds or more if it maintains it's current power level.
They mentioned Strength and toughness so I imagine there's still a wound chart.
Ruin wrote: Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.
I eagerly await more news.
Same here, I loved the flamer template. Sigh...
At least 30k still has them.
Just think of all the amazing coffee coasters we all just got access too!
Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.
Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.
I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.
So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.
Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.
That's not quite how it works...
They use "brackets" based on the number of Wounds suffered, not how many Wounds are left.
So let's say, theoretically, a Land Raider has 20 Wounds.
0-3 Wounds suffered--it's full power.
4-7 Wounds suffered--knock a point of Movement off, maybe knock a shot or two off of the Hurricane Bolters or add +1 to the required rolls for PoTMS to hit.
8-13 Wounds--knock a significant amount of Movement off, halve the number of shots it can fire yadda yadda yadda.
Each of the vehicles/monsters likely will have their own "table" on the datasheet with this information, with certain bits and bobs being marked by "*" instead of a set value and that is what would be affected by suffering Wounds.
sturguard wrote: Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.
If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.
Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.
Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?
Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.
That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.
You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?
Yeah I'm older than most, so yeah when I purchase its generally in cash so I know I can afford it rather than carrying thousands of dollars of credit card debt like most. Email confirmations would require you to purchase online, some of us support local game stores. Again, I think you are carrying this a bit too far on how much work people are going to do to find that receipt from 6 weeks ago. Is it a nice gesture, but plenty of companies employ similar tactics- just mail in this receipt to get your free box of cereal or this or that, because they know the actual amount of people that will actually do it is small.
So far everything bar one thing sounds brilliant and a step in the right direction. The game is sounding more and more like it will be a more advanced version of AoS. Which if done correctly will be fine.
That being said, I am not a fan of the background focusing more towards Imperium vs Chaos. As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
VeteranNoob wrote: Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.
If it becomes as prominent in my area as it's father AoS I will never play again
sturguard wrote: Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.
If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.
Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.
Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?
Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.
That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.
You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?
Yeah I'm older than most, so yeah when I purchase its generally in cash so I know I can afford it rather than carrying thousands of dollars of credit card debt like most. Email confirmations would require you to purchase online, some of us support local game stores. Again, I think you are carrying this a bit too far on how much work people are going to do to find that receipt from 6 weeks ago. Is it a nice gesture, but plenty of companies employ similar tactics- just mail in this receipt to get your free box of cereal or this or that, because they know the actual amount of people that will actually do it is small.
Guess that's American credit card culture at work then - over here everyone uses a debit card (not credit), no one uses cash and 90% of customers would have a bank statement even if they didn't keep the receipt.
As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.
Most of these sound like they'll be good changes, but i don't really like the sound of removing vehicle armour values and templates. Were those two things really that bad? I've not actually played for about 10 years so i'm not sure, can someone explain what the problem with those two things were?
sturguard wrote: Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.
If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.
Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.
Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?
Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.
That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.
You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?
Yeah, who keeps receipts anymore when you can look up every purchase you've made in the last 20years on your phone lol?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: Most of these sound like they'll be good changes, but i don't really like the sound of removing vehicle armour values and templates. Were those two things really that bad? I've not actually played for about 10 years so i'm not sure, can someone explain what the problem with those two things were?
Armor values are very binary and create a poor game design space, blast templates are more theatrical than functional and aren't really necessary.
I'm curious what this new FoC meta will mean for formations. We haven't heard anything much about them, have we?
A wide variety of FoCs with differing benefits, plus faction specific FoCs, sound an awful lot like a end-run around the concept of formations.
Personally I would love to see the confusing situation of "multiple FoCs, plus independent formations, PLUS giant meta-formation detachments" gone. AoS resolves that in its own way, but doesn't have FoCs either.
It's a shame we didn't get any word on how psychic powers will work in 8th.
I have a hunch that, like the treatment of vehicles and Monstrous Creatures, psychic powers will work like magic in AoS. That's just based on my gut, though.
The rules sound so much fun. The command point mechanic is a great way to turn standing around in your opponent's phase to a nail-biting ride waiting to spring something at the best chance.
I love the AoS system so I am happy for all the rules coming from that system too.
Two points system, one a ready reckoner for narrative and one more granular for matched? Sounds incredible.
Templates were clunky snce they are a 2d object trying to interact in a 3d environment/battlefield. there wre some silly exploits with them over the years and not a small amount of confusion.
AV became problematic when put up against the stats of MCs and GMS and the fact that some vehicles were utterly immune to certain weapons/factions.
But then on the flipside you have weapons that can wreck your entire vehicle cohort by turn 2.
It was never balanced or workable really.
Damage charts as well were a bit clunky.
Well look at AoS now. It works the same way and it works well. The greater grand alliance armies tend to be stronger than faction specific formations/rules unless they are strong enough to make up for the lack of versatility.
Ultimately even AoS (or any game) will come down to math to determine what is and isn't the best. Also templates were becoming less effective as people took MSU in tournaments and spread their guys out to the very minimum. Kind of cheesing the system a little.
I must be one of the rare individuals who keeps all of their receipts and really tight personal accounting books.
Also most modern businesses can email you a receipt from the register, no online ordering required. And nearly every single Point of Sale system can look up past transactions and reprint your receipt. If they can't then they are a gak run business and you should probably stop shopping there.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Most of these sound like they'll be good changes, but i don't really like the sound of removing vehicle armour values and templates. Were those two things really that bad? I've not actually played for about 10 years so i'm not sure, can someone explain what the problem with those two things were?
Armor values were basically the same thing as toughness extended out past 10, but had the additional effect of making certain vehicles totally immune to certain weapons. That made vehicles very hard to balance in the meta: you either had strong vehicles that forced everyone to overload on anti-vehicle weapons, or vehicles that were mostly totally useless except for a handful of extremely difficult to kill ones (such as knights). Then you had the very binary system of the vehicle damage table, which was another can of worms.
Removing templates is kind of take-or-leave. They're a pretty fiddly, somewhat archaic way of resolving multiple wound weapons and can slow down a game, so in AoS they went to a system where a successful wound from a 'template' weapon just does, say, D6 wounds. But they have their own benefits too. I'm fine with removing them; just results in fewer little pieces I need to keep track of when playing.
Guess that's American credit card culture at work then - over here everyone uses a debit card (not credit), no one uses cash and 90% of customers would have a bank statement even if they didn't keep the receipt.
So instead of placing the blame on the person losing their records you'd rather assume GW would not follow through with a publicly declared statement?
As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.
It isn't about the level of treatment in game and support they receive, but rather the threat is going to be about Chaos being the big threat. Never mind the Tyranids, the race that has already consumed countless galaxies and is now starting to enter the Milky way. Or forget about all Necron Tombworlds waking up, the very things that almost destroyed the galaxy billions of years ago, or the emergent Tau and their rapid technological developments that show up the Imperium, or Orks, one of the main reasons that Space Marines were developed to help reclaim the Galaxy.
No what the real threat is the small remnants of those who lost a war 10,000 years ago.
40K was always about the Imperium of man being attacked by a multitude of threats, not one being greater than the other. Elevating one above the others makes the rest feel as if they are bit players in the narrative. Gone from cast members of equal footing to cameo appearances.
Some weapons get more bonuses versus bigger units. So a catapult might get +1 to hit is there are 10 or more models. Or another weapon might do more damage. There are several ways to cut it.
Expect flamers to be some plus to hit against certain sizes.
Yeah I'm older than most, so yeah when I purchase its generally in cash so I know I can afford it rather than carrying thousands of dollars of credit card debt like most. Email confirmations would require you to purchase online, some of us support local game stores. Again, I think you are carrying this a bit too far on how much work people are going to do to find that receipt from 6 weeks ago. Is it a nice gesture, but plenty of companies employ similar tactics- just mail in this receipt to get your free box of cereal or this or that, because they know the actual amount of people that will actually do it is small.
If you're purchasing things with cash, then you should try...I dunno, just bringing it back?
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
Guess that's American credit card culture at work then - over here everyone uses a debit card (not credit), no one uses cash and 90% of customers would have a bank statement even if they didn't keep the receipt.
Your bank statements itemize each purchase so that you can see exactly what was bought in a multiple item purchase? That is impressive and far beyond what is available in the US. Over here, bank statements just list the grand total of a purchase and if you heaven forbid bought more than one item then the price won't be correct. Heck, even if your GW codex was bought as a single purchase, our statements here don't differentiate between a $50 GW codex or a $50 Bolt Action rulebook.. they show up the same as a generic $50 purchase that GW would be bonkers to accept on empty faith.
In Canada debit is the most common way of buying stuff unless your over 60 then it starts to drop off a little.
Not too many people like using credit cards here. If I have to buy stuff online I use paypal. I hate credit card companies. A lot of American companies are trying to force credit card usage on us here and it's not working.
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
I'd love to see the scatter die squatted. It brought more damage than fun in our games...
There are some special rules in a few units like it is an auto hit for a terrorgheist if the unit is more than 6 models . This change would allow the template weapons of old to wound single model units (like a battle cannon vs a tyrant), but it might also make hero sniping very easey
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
Which was a fault of the rules and player's bad habits (roll the scatter near the target FFS!). Both could have been addressed and templates could have been kept. WMH's template resolution is nice (GW could have adopted a similar system, but that would require new templates) and tight.
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
Gamgee wrote: In Canada debit is the most common way of buying stuff unless your over 60 then it starts to drop off a little.
Not too many people like using credit cards here. If I have to buy stuff online I use paypal. I hate credit card companies. A lot of American companies are trying to force credit card usage on us here and it's not working.
Good tell'em to sod off. 60+ here and use debit all the time.
Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!
Overwatch at full BS ohhhh thats going to leave a mark.
Only kidding they never mentioned Overwatch but just saying probably wait before you buy maore assault troops.
Overwatch doesn't really exist in AoS.
You can fire while in combat, but not necessarily into combat(I think GHB addresses this bit).
There's a few armies/units where they, effectively, get Overwatch. Wood Elves are a notable one where their Warscroll Battalion allows you to fire at a unit within a certain distance of your Nomad Prince, and Sisters of the Watch(the new name for the Sisters of Avelorn) get a special rule called "Loose Until the Last" where once per turn if an enemy unit ends its Charge within 1/2 an inch of the unit the Sisters of the Watch can immediately shoot as though it was their Shooting phase.
VeteranNoob wrote: Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.
If it becomes as prominent in my area as it's father AoS I will never play again
If it becomes as prominent in my area as AoS I can play literally dusk to dawn any day of the week
Not-not-kenny wrote: The only thing I really don't like is that I'm not gonna be able to play the new edition for what, two months? Boy what a refreshing feeling.
Patience is a virtue.
At least they'll give us something each day until launch.
I do wonder how characters will be handled. Is look out sir still in? Can they still hide in units? I think those must be a given considering 40K has so much shooting.
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
Which was a fault of the rules and player's bad habits (roll the scatter near the target FFS!). Both could have been addressed and templates could have been kept. WMH's template resolution is nice (GW could have adopted a similar system, but that would require new templates) and tight.
But I digress, this is neither here nor there.
Templates while having a nice thematic feel to them, do slow the game down, and are one of the biggest points of disagreement during games. Seeing them go is nice. While the way that WHM do there Template weapons is nice, it still feels a bit antiquated in model games to have templates.
Not-not-kenny wrote: The only thing I really don't like is that I'm not gonna be able to play the new edition for what, two months? Boy what a refreshing feeling.
Patience is a virtue.
At least they'll give us something each day until launch.
I do wonder how characters will be handled. Is look out sir still in? Can they still hide in units? I think those must be a given considering 40K has so much shooting.
I think they said no hiding in units, no word on 'look out sir'.
Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!
Overwatch at full BS ohhhh thats going to leave a mark.
Only kidding they never mentioned Overwatch but just saying probably wait before you buy maore assault troops.
Overwatch doesn't really exist in AoS.
You can fire while in combat, but not necessarily into combat(I think GHB addresses this bit).
There's a few armies/units where they, effectively, get Overwatch. Wood Elves are a notable one where their Warscroll Battalion allows you to fire at a unit within a certain distance of your Nomad Prince, and Sisters of the Watch(the new name for the Sisters of Avelorn) get a special rule called "Loose Until the Last" where once per turn if an enemy unit ends its Charge within 1/2 an inch of the unit the Sisters of the Watch can immediately shoot as though it was their Shooting phase.
Overwatch could also work as one of those command points things: Orks are charging at your guardsmen, you spend one command point to shoot at them first, dunno.
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
Not-not-kenny wrote: The only thing I really don't like is that I'm not gonna be able to play the new edition for what, two months? Boy what a refreshing feeling.
Patience is a virtue.
At least they'll give us something each day until launch.
I do wonder how characters will be handled. Is look out sir still in? Can they still hide in units? I think those must be a given considering 40K has so much shooting.
With AoS, the lowliest characters tend to have 5 Wounds with a moderately okay save.
I doubt we'll see hiding in units, given that they mentioned heroes having auras when talking about keywords.
Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!
Overwatch at full BS ohhhh thats going to leave a mark.
Only kidding they never mentioned Overwatch but just saying probably wait before you buy maore assault troops.
Overwatch doesn't really exist in AoS.
You can fire while in combat, but not necessarily into combat(I think GHB addresses this bit).
There's a few armies/units where they, effectively, get Overwatch. Wood Elves are a notable one where their Warscroll Battalion allows you to fire at a unit within a certain distance of your Nomad Prince, and Sisters of the Watch(the new name for the Sisters of Avelorn) get a special rule called "Loose Until the Last" where once per turn if an enemy unit ends its Charge within 1/2 an inch of the unit the Sisters of the Watch can immediately shoot as though it was their Shooting phase.
Even WITH the 7ed overwatch, if orks strikes first after charging, that's really brutal.
Of course, the problem then is delivering the damned greenskins is still going to be a challenge.
Not-not-kenny wrote: The only thing I really don't like is that I'm not gonna be able to play the new edition for what, two months? Boy what a refreshing feeling.
Patience is a virtue.
At least they'll give us something each day until launch.
I do wonder how characters will be handled. Is look out sir still in? Can they still hide in units? I think those must be a given considering 40K has so much shooting.
They cant hide in units in AoS but some have a look out sir type rule. However, I know we shouldn't assume everything is going to be "like AoS". However it does seem to be a common theme in the updates so far that are at least comparable.
As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.
It isn't about the level of treatment in game and support they receive, but rather the threat is going to be about Chaos being the big threat. Never mind the Tyranids, the race that has already consumed countless galaxies and is now starting to enter the Milky way. Or forget about all Necron Tombworlds waking up, the very things that almost destroyed the galaxy billions of years ago, or the emergent Tau and their rapid technological developments that show up the Imperium, or Orks, one of the main reasons that Space Marines were developed to help reclaim the Galaxy.
No what the real threat is the small remnants of those who lost a war 10,000 years ago.
40K was always about the Imperium of man being attacked by a multitude of threats, not one being greater than the other. Elevating one above the others makes the rest feel as if they are bit players in the narrative. Gone from cast members of equal footing to cameo appearances.
I think you should probably not read *too* much into that comment. Every time GW has a big Chaos release, there's talk about "re-establishing Chaos as the main enemy to the Imperium."
And we have a lot of Chaos to come. We know that Nurgle stuff is coming soon -- with Slaanesh and Khorne likely to follow -- and their comments undoubtedly have a lot to do with advertising that. They'll start up the Eldar, Tyranid, etc. hype trains when it comes time to release those codices.
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
Not-not-kenny wrote: The only thing I really don't like is that I'm not gonna be able to play the new edition for what, two months? Boy what a refreshing feeling.
Patience is a virtue.
At least they'll give us something each day until launch.
I do wonder how characters will be handled. Is look out sir still in? Can they still hide in units? I think those must be a given considering 40K has so much shooting.
With AoS, the lowliest characters tend to have 5 Wounds with a moderately okay save.
I doubt we'll see hiding in units, given that they mentioned heroes having auras when talking about keywords.
Can you describe what's the big dealio to characters having auras/keywords?
Are they like 40kUSR that can't be shared, unless the nearby units has same keyword?
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
Which was a fault of the rules and player's bad habits (roll the scatter near the target FFS!). Both could have been addressed and templates could have been kept. WMH's template resolution is nice (GW could have adopted a similar system, but that would require new templates) and tight.
But I digress, this is neither here nor there.
Templates while having a nice thematic feel to them, do slow the game down, and are one of the biggest points of disagreement during games. Seeing them go is nice. While the way that WHM do there Template weapons is nice, it still feels a bit antiquated in model games to have templates.
My gut reaction right now is the lack of them feels gimmicky (like using cards instead of dice in Malifaux), I know I'll come round to it, because as I've said their absence is not a dealbreaker but it just feels "wrong" to play without them.
DrNo172000 wrote: I must be one of the rare individuals who keeps all of their receipts and really tight personal accounting books.
Also most modern businesses can email you a receipt from the register, no online ordering required. And nearly every single Point of Sale system can look up past transactions and reprint your receipt. If they can't then they are a gak run business and you should probably stop shopping there.
Does the offer apply to books you purchased from anywhere or just from GW directly?
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
So wounds against the unit, not model ?
Pretty much
Well that would certainly turn the Thousand Sons unit around in a hurry. A whole unit of flamers getting D3 wounds each against an enemy unit.
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
So wounds against the unit, not model ?
Pretty much
Well that would certainly turn the Thousand Sons unit around in a hurry. A whole unit of flamers getting D3 wounds each against an enemy unit.
As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.
It isn't about the level of treatment in game and support they receive, but rather the threat is going to be about Chaos being the big threat. Never mind the Tyranids, the race that has already consumed countless galaxies and is now starting to enter the Milky way. Or forget about all Necron Tombworlds waking up, the very things that almost destroyed the galaxy billions of years ago, or the emergent Tau and their rapid technological developments that show up the Imperium, or Orks, one of the main reasons that Space Marines were developed to help reclaim the Galaxy.
No what the real threat is the small remnants of those who lost a war 10,000 years ago.
40K was always about the Imperium of man being attacked by a multitude of threats, not one being greater than the other. Elevating one above the others makes the rest feel as if they are bit players in the narrative. Gone from cast members of equal footing to cameo appearances.
I think you should probably not read *too* much into that comment. Every time GW has a big Chaos release, there's talk about "re-establishing Chaos as the main enemy to the Imperium."
And we have a lot of Chaos to come. We know that Nurgle stuff is coming soon -- with Slaanesh and Khorne likely to follow -- and their comments undoubtedly have a lot to do with advertising that. They'll start up the Eldar, Tyranid, etc. hype trains when it comes time to release those codices.
Maybe, and hopefully. It may be a throw away comment that they made, but seeing how the new galactic map looks and the way the new website has the factions who aren't either Chaos or Imperium lumped together it just feels like Chaos are all of a sudden going to be the biggest threat t the galaxy.
Time will tell however,
Still it going to be nice to field units of Genestealers and Hormagaunts again and not think I have wasted points. The new edition is sounding more like a rebalance to everyone in terms of game play.
Might even get to see Pyrovores used! Which will be a shock to everyone.
Formerly Wu wrote: I'm curious what this new FoC meta will mean for formations. We haven't heard anything much about them, have we?
A wide variety of FoCs with differing benefits, plus faction specific FoCs, sound an awful lot like a end-run around the concept of formations.
Personally I would love to see the confusing situation of "multiple FoCs, plus independent formations, PLUS giant meta-formation detachments" gone. AoS resolves that in its own way, but doesn't have FoCs either.
I don't believe they said anything about faction specif FoC's, They said Faction specif Command Point abilities, with 14 FoC's to choose from for everyone. The only rules attached to FoC's is the number of Command Points you get, so I can't see a need for faction specif FoC's anyway.
zamerion wrote: So, attributes will be similar or will change to AoS system?
They never realy said TBH, but with the removal of the 10 cap and useing a system like AoS uses for monsters? It sounds like at the very at least the new stat-lines will be influenced by AoS's system.
As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.
Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.
It isn't about the level of treatment in game and support they receive, but rather the threat is going to be about Chaos being the big threat. Never mind the Tyranids, the race that has already consumed countless galaxies and is now starting to enter the Milky way. Or forget about all Necron Tombworlds waking up, the very things that almost destroyed the galaxy billions of years ago, or the emergent Tau and their rapid technological developments that show up the Imperium, or Orks, one of the main reasons that Space Marines were developed to help reclaim the Galaxy.
No what the real threat is the small remnants of those who lost a war 10,000 years ago.
40K was always about the Imperium of man being attacked by a multitude of threats, not one being greater than the other. Elevating one above the others makes the rest feel as if they are bit players in the narrative. Gone from cast members of equal footing to cameo appearances.
I think you should probably not read *too* much into that comment. Every time GW has a big Chaos release, there's talk about "re-establishing Chaos as the main enemy to the Imperium."
And we have a lot of Chaos to come. We know that Nurgle stuff is coming soon -- with Slaanesh and Khorne likely to follow -- and their comments undoubtedly have a lot to do with advertising that. They'll start up the Eldar, Tyranid, etc. hype trains when it comes time to release those codices.
Maybe, and hopefully. It may be a throw away comment that they made, but seeing how the new galactic map looks and the way the new website has the factions who aren't either Chaos or Imperium lumped together it just feels like Chaos are all of a sudden going to be the biggest threat t the galaxy.
Time will tell however,
As a Xenos player I really don't mind that Chaos takes centre stage as antagonist. Partly because they aren't just a threat to the Imperium.
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
So wounds against the unit, not model ?
Pretty much
Well that would certainly turn the Thousand Sons unit around in a hurry. A whole unit of flamers getting D3 wounds each against an enemy unit.
I was just thinking that, Flamers hmmmm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! MY STERNGUARD WITH THEIR COMBI-WEAPONS! MY KSONS! MY FLAMERS-IN-EVERY-UNIT! WHY, GAMES WORKSHOP?!!!??!!!
I was looking forward to 8th until I saw this. Curse you, Voodoo_Chile!
I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...
Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.
I can just imagine some of the tournament guys playing with the studio team, and they finish up a game.
"Ok, that's probably about it right?"
"Yep, now we know how this gun works. Now, let's pretend the squad has a plasma gun and-"
"Why would they have a plasma gun? They've got a melta gun!"
"Erm... because we have to see how the plasma gun works...?"
"No, nononono, see right here the model's got a melta gun. Brother Frenjolf only uses melta guns, he likes the crisping smell of xenos flesh."
"Ok, swap him out for this other guy with the plasma gun in the case then."
"What, and break up squad 11? There'd be a mutiny!"
Removing templates is kind of take-or-leave. They're a pretty fiddly, somewhat archaic way of resolving multiple wound weapons and can slow down a game, so in AoS they went to a system where a successful wound from a 'template' weapon just does, say, D6 wounds. But they have their own benefits too. I'm fine with removing them; just results in fewer little pieces I need to keep track of when playing.
I'm OK with it, but it has it's own set of problems. Bolt Action just added templates back in because people would cram their models into as small of a space as possible to try to get cover saves. No need to keep a unit spread out if you don't have to worry about templates and blasts.
Draccan wrote: Oh and changing 40k scale is a dealbreaker in my book...
Sure you can play with your old miniatures, but what happens when you want new unit types and new models?
Changing the scale to invalidate 20+ years of space marine models is just............... [no words]
They are making them proper size. Just use your current ones instead if it bothers you that much.
Orks have an easy fix for this, they keep growing depending on how much fighting they do. So a group that's seen a lot of fighting regular Boyz may be equal in size as another group's nobz, and the constantly fighting nobs, maybe the equivalent of a laid back Warboss.
The Ork Boyz driving the original Ork Trukk model are smaller than grits! You can fit a single meganob in the back yet they can transport six in the game.
What's way more interesting to me is that in both recent Start Collecting Nurgle Demons, the Plaguebearer troops are supplied with a 1.25" base even though they are the exact same model as ones you buy separately that come with a 1" base. The large base helps in games of 40k and is a penalty in AoS.
Removing templates is kind of take-or-leave. They're a pretty fiddly, somewhat archaic way of resolving multiple wound weapons and can slow down a game, so in AoS they went to a system where a successful wound from a 'template' weapon just does, say, D6 wounds. But they have their own benefits too. I'm fine with removing them; just results in fewer little pieces I need to keep track of when playing.
I'm OK with it, but it has it's own set of problems. Bolt Action just added templates back in because people would cram their models into as small of a space as possible to try to get cover saves. No need to keep a unit spread out if you don't have to worry about templates and blasts.
But, spending time to move and spread out your models to mitigate template/blasts weapons is a time suck.
Adding the whole template resolutions being it's own time suck.
Going to this new no-template system ought to speed up that aspect of the game...
But, spending time to move and spread out your models to mitigate template/blasts weapons is a time suck.
Like that one tournament player with ~100 orks that used a 2" tool to make sure he had maximum spacing in case I used all of the blasts that I didn't take in my army...
I picture Tom Kirby reading this stuff about "play testing" and "community feedback" and screaming at his monitor "YOU IDIOTS...they don't know what they want, YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT"
Flamers of Tzeentch Warpflame attack is a range 18" 3 attack, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound D3 damage attack. (oddly no rules on GW's website)
So I suspect they're going to play around with them. Some may end up like Warp-fire projectors, others might get a more comprehensive change.
There are also probably some better examples out there.
So wounds against the unit, not model ?
Pretty much
Well that would certainly turn the Thousand Sons unit around in a hurry. A whole unit of flamers getting D3 wounds each against an enemy unit.
I was just thinking that, Flamers hmmmm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! MY STERNGUARD WITH THEIR COMBI-WEAPONS! MY KSONS! MY FLAMERS-IN-EVERY-UNIT! WHY, GAMES WORKSHOP?!!!??!!!
I was looking forward to 8th until I saw this. Curse you, Voodoo_Chile!
Why are you seeing this change to flamers as bad? Yes a single flamer will probably hit more than 3 guys but a unit of flamers hitting D3 each is much better than a unit firing flamer templates, your flamer spam is good and also in comparison to other changes in the game might be an excellent choice.
Did they mention anything similar to Mortal Wounds?
Only in so far as heavy weapons will do multiple damage to vehicles.
Could extrapolate mortal wounds from that?
The impression I got from what was said is that heavy weapons will do multiple damage, period, and used the example of it against vehicles and monsters.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some heavy weapons get "Devastating Damage" or something like that, where on Wound rolls of 6s they can't be saved against.
MikeRC97 wrote: I picture Tom Kirby reading this stuff about "play testing" and "community feedback" and screaming at his monitor "YOU IDIOTS...they don't know what they want, YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT"
My fear is he is sitting behind his monitor, "good, let them believe we listen to them so they really think those changes are what they wanted and not what we told them that they wanted"
They deal multiple (random) wounds. Artillery pieces like Cannons have a high armor modifier (reduce save by 2) and deal high amounts of damage (d6 wounds). In essence, it's estimating that a cannon hit with a template would approximately cover 6 models, and then d6 is to determine how many get hurt. Much easier than fiddling with where to place a marker for 5 minutes and then arguing about what it covers once you scatter it and if it scattered the correct way.
Which was a fault of the rules and player's bad habits (roll the scatter near the target FFS!). Both could have been addressed and templates could have been kept. WMH's template resolution is nice (GW could have adopted a similar system, but that would require new templates) and tight.
But I digress, this is neither here nor there.
You know your right Because I never target models against an intelligent opponent that , god forbid, uses cover like multiple levels of ruins. He would NEVER place his painstakingly and lovingly hobbied models in those ruins, so your totally right, I should easily, and always, be able to throw a large die near his models without worry of smashing said die into anything of personal value to them or losing it in some hard to retrieve, invisible spot. Man I have been playing wrong for years!
But, spending time to move and spread out your models to mitigate template/blasts weapons is a time suck.
Like that one tournament player with ~100 orks that used a 2" tool to make sure he had maximum spacing in case I used all of the blasts that I didn't take in my army...
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
Simply striking first after charging as opposed to something like an initiative modifier also seems kinda broken. I mean its ok with something like ork boys vs tacticals but saying that a conscript would be able to hit a greater demon whose strenght and agility is pretty much infinitely better is rather ridiculous.
Also not a fan of templtes being gone but oh well.
Everything else seems ok tho. Especially MCs and GCs losing effectiveness as they take damage. That was long needed.
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Avoiding template weapons is far from making the game more tactical. It is purely mechanical and thematical, and while I'll miss the thematical element I won't be sad to see it go.
Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!
Overwatch at full BS ohhhh thats going to leave a mark.
Only kidding they never mentioned Overwatch but just saying probably wait before you buy maore assault troops.
Overwatch doesn't really exist in AoS.
You can fire while in combat, but not necessarily into combat(I think GHB addresses this bit).
There's a few armies/units where they, effectively, get Overwatch. Wood Elves are a notable one where their Warscroll Battalion allows you to fire at a unit within a certain distance of your Nomad Prince, and Sisters of the Watch(the new name for the Sisters of Avelorn) get a special rule called "Loose Until the Last" where once per turn if an enemy unit ends its Charge within 1/2 an inch of the unit the Sisters of the Watch can immediately shoot as though it was their Shooting phase.
Even WITH the 7ed overwatch, if orks strikes first after charging, that's really brutal.
Of course, the problem then is delivering the damned greenskins is still going to be a challenge.
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Yeah, they could potentially down a landraider in like 97 game turns! what an outrage. /s
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
DrNo172000 wrote: I must be one of the rare individuals who keeps all of their receipts and really tight personal accounting books.
Also most modern businesses can email you a receipt from the register, no online ordering required. And nearly every single Point of Sale system can look up past transactions and reprint your receipt. If they can't then they are a gak run business and you should probably stop shopping there.
Does the offer apply to books you purchased from anywhere or just from GW directly?
I would assume direct.
Else a clever bugger goes, buys up a bunch of 7th ed codexes for cheap clearance from a FLGS or vendor and then cashes in credit.
A while back I remember reading a report that said that an M1A1 Abrams got knocked out by small arms fire. Apparently rounds ricocheted into the turbines and caused a fire, knocking out the vehicle. It wasn't a total kill but small arms fire did manage a vehicle kill on a MBT. Rare sure but I bet a Guardsmen killing a Land Raider will happen 1 out of 1000 games.
There have been entire threads dedicated to 40k stories of the yumpastabowl that have defiled fluff conventions. I doubt vehicles not being immune to small arms in 40k is going to drastically change that.
Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!
Overwatch at full BS ohhhh thats going to leave a mark.
Only kidding they never mentioned Overwatch but just saying probably wait before you buy maore assault troops.
Overwatch doesn't really exist in AoS.
You can fire while in combat, but not necessarily into combat(I think GHB addresses this bit).
There's a few armies/units where they, effectively, get Overwatch. Wood Elves are a notable one where their Warscroll Battalion allows you to fire at a unit within a certain distance of your Nomad Prince, and Sisters of the Watch(the new name for the Sisters of Avelorn) get a special rule called "Loose Until the Last" where once per turn if an enemy unit ends its Charge within 1/2 an inch of the unit the Sisters of the Watch can immediately shoot as though it was their Shooting phase.
Even WITH the 7ed overwatch, if orks strikes first after charging, that's really brutal.
Of course, the problem then is delivering the damned greenskins is still going to be a challenge.
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
I expect the way it will work is once a tank looses a few wounds it T might drop representing gaping holes in it which will then open up it being vulnerable to small arms which kinda makes sense and adds some crazy new tactics to the game
Tanks being immune to small arms is fine - but this is 40,000 years into the future. A bolter is a devastating weapon compared to modern weaponry. The logic could go either way.
I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...
I wouldn't count on that.
The "Warzones" in the Galaxy section for the new website call out Armageddon as being a site where neither the Orks or Astra Militarum are "prepared for the escalation that the war is about to experience".
Same with the Arsonist of Charadon launching a Waagh! into Maccragge.
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
Wytch cults going to wreck yo face...and then wear it.
....all those models can already charge out of their transports?
TBH the only people that care about this are the armies that can now use rhinos, rather than land raiders, to charge out. Small disposable assault units might be a thing for imperial armies again.
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
Hear hear. If painstakingly spacing models to MAYBE get one less of them under the template is 'tactics' then I'm Sun freaking Tzu.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
Good point. I surely do hope so, although I still see little need for throwing away the AV system.
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
Wytch cults going to wreck yo face...and then wear it.
....all those models can already charge out of their transports?
TBH the only people that care about this are the armies that can now use rhinos, rather than land raiders, to charge out. Small disposable assault units might be a thing for imperial armies again.
Charging out of Gorka/orka naughts! or out of a stompa!
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
Wytch cults going to wreck yo face...and then wear it.
....all those models can already charge out of their transports?
TBH the only people that care about this are the armies that can now use rhinos, rather than land raiders, to charge out. Small disposable assault units might be a thing for imperial armies again.
Charging out of Gorka/orka naughts! or out of a stompa!
It's about time! Why they weren't assault vehicles to begin with, I have no idea...
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
COULD is the operative word! It doesn't say how likely, though. I COULD have a date with Fiona Apple tomorrow just by emailing her!
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
They did, but they didn't say 'When' everything can hurt everything.
Huh. Well, pleasantly surprised, and cautiously optimistic (emphasis on the caution).
I totally get the fluff problems of bolters and lasguns having a chance of plinking a tank, but I think that's a great move, since it'll finally mean that your squad with a heavy weapon won't be categorically wasting all its small arms fire.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
They did, but they didn't say 'When' everything can hurt everything.
If we take a clue from Shadow War Armageddon, you can end up having to hit on more than a 6 roll.
I could very well see this translated to 40k wounds where you might need to wound with a 6 and then re-roll and get a 4+ on the second roll to wound in the first place.
That is also assuming we stay with the d6 system and don't move to a new system.
Don't forget they have d10s out there now and they've been testing new dices in the prospero boxes.
rollawaythestone wrote: Tanks being immune to small arms is fine - but this is 40,000 years into the future. A bolter is a devastating weapon compared to modern weaponry. The logic could go either way.
As much as I actually hate admitting it but vehicles being able to he damaged by any weapon is probably closer to the fluff than now. Last time I looked at Imperial Armor and other official sources on 40k tank armor, most of them are rocking cutting edge WW2 armor lol. I think the Land Raider has like the equivalent of a foot of hardened steel for its armor lol.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.
the question than is just why to add it in the first place?
so they ad the possibility for T >10
add wound at least at 6 to compensate that
add more Wounds to compensate low strength spam
so why just do it in the first place
a Land Raider being T10 with 2+ save that cannot be wounded by anything below S8 with ~6 Wounds gives the same result as the one that needed 15 wounds to compensate the can be wounded with a 6 rule
adding more rules than necessary to get the same result got us the bloated 7th edi in the first place
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
They did, but they didn't say 'When' everything can hurt everything.
What do you mean?
They said stats drop as big creatures and tanks take damage that could be when x can start to hurt y
In the same way every gun can hit everything on the board when its in range... your bolters might be able to finish off a rhino when its taken 4 wounds...
There could also be a special rule for Land Raiders and other such massive tanks "Heavily Armoured - Subtract 1 from the number of wounds dealt from every shot resolved against this model." So Lasguns with Damage 1 are negated, but even Heavy Bolters with Damage 2 can get through, and a close range Multimelta with Damage 6+d6 can almost ignore the rule.
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring
Play against anyone with a high model count?
I'm often playing Orks vs. Imperial Guard. Our games easily take an extra half-hour JUST for model spacing. It's not fun.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time. This is pretty much one of the worst decisions GW could have made both from lore and gameplay standpoint.
i'd hold off on this sort of talk until more info comes out, for example they made a strong emphasis that stats are not capped at 10... lasguns wont be wounding your tank if its T6+ (assuming the to wound chart is the same)
They said more than once that everything can hurt everything.
COULD is the operative word! It doesn't say how likely, though. I COULD have a date with Fiona Apple tomorrow just by emailing her!
Congratulations on the most random celebrity name drop I've seen in awhile.
Side note: She's pretty far from the spot light. Emailing her probably has decent odds, so she might not be the best metaphor.
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring
90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.
Voldrak wrote: If we take a clue from Shadow War Armageddon, you can end up having to hit on more than a 6 roll.
I could very well see this translated to 40k wounds where you might need to wound with a 6 and then re-roll and get a 4+ on the second roll to wound in the first place.
this was a long time in 40k and fantasy before it got removed for being too complicated?
we also have (had?) the re-roll for BS >7
templates in general were the only reason for units not to stick base to base together to get all in cover
not they are gone, just makes the game less tactical as you don't have to make the decision in game what formation you chose to to be less effected by the enemy weapon
but than, this is what GW calls "make it easier to get into the game", less decisions need to made during the game so it is easier to start
Since when was measuring out 2" between all your models every turn "tactical"? It was a no-brainer move that did nothing but waste time. Every game started with "any templates?" followed by a sigh if your opponent said yes, time to bring out the 2" tool... Very happy to see templates go away.
if you never had to made the decision "should I place my whole squad inside terrain to get cover against those plasma guns or spread them out to have less models below his templates, or maybe I spread them out a little bit and spread the other unit less so that he waste his templates on them" or anything similar
your game must have been very boring
Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?
BrotherGecko wrote: A while back I remember reading a report that said that an M1A1 Abrams got knocked out by small arms fire. Apparently rounds ricocheted into the turbines and caused a fire, knocking out the vehicle. It wasn't a total kill but small arms fire did manage a vehicle kill on a MBT. Rare sure but I bet a Guardsmen killing a Land Raider will happen 1 out of 1000 games.
There have been entire threads dedicated to 40k stories of the yumpastabowl that have defiled fluff conventions. I doubt vehicles not being immune to small arms in 40k is going to drastically change that.
A challenger 2 took a triple digit number of rpg hits and needed a new coat of paint your point is.
DrNo172000 wrote: I must be one of the rare individuals who keeps all of their receipts and really tight personal accounting books.
Also most modern businesses can email you a receipt from the register, no online ordering required. And nearly every single Point of Sale system can look up past transactions and reprint your receipt. If they can't then they are a gak run business and you should probably stop shopping there.
Does the offer apply to books you purchased from anywhere or just from GW directly?
I would assume direct.
Else a clever bugger goes, buys up a bunch of 7th ed codexes for cheap clearance from a FLGS or vendor and then cashes in credit.
Well I assumed they might offer the same to the discounters but only at the discounted rate, rather than full rate; otherwise yeah I'd be down every store buying lots up...
Haven't you heard? You can charge out of transports now! Time for that Mad Max-themed WAAAAGH! Boy list you always wanted. WITNESS ME!
Wych cults going to wreck yo face...and then wear it.
....all those models can already charge out of their transports?
TBH the only people that care about this are the armies that can now use rhinos, rather than land raiders, to charge out. Small disposable assault units might be a thing for imperial armies again.
Their transports that were inherently weaker being opened top with none of the benefits of other armies. Leveling the field means that obscure units - like Wyches - get to go do their intended purpose again....come screaming out of vehicles for murder-tastic times.
90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.
for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them
and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter
Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?
no, why?
but the more player decision GW removed over time by just adding random effects or because the options were just gone, the bored they got
thats why I did not played much in 7th, too much random stuff combined with too less players effecting the game made it boring (it always was more playing against the game instead of playing against your opponent)
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Yeah, they could potentially down a landraider in like 97 game turns! what an outrage. /s
Erm, no? I would understand such logic if 40k was using D20 and you had roll to 20 to wound a LR with something like a lasgun. But that is obviously not the case.
Besides, it doesn't matter. Even having a crapload of, say, cultist with autoguns shooting at a land raider should not in any way hurt a machine that is supposedly able to easily withstand anything but the most devastating weapons.
Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.
I suspect it will be like AoS. Fixed to hit, fixed to wound and then an armour save. Certain weapons will be more efficient versus tanks and MC because of things like rends and multiple wounds.
50 Guardsmen (rapid fire no longer exists) do one wound to a Land Raider if they hit on 5+, wound on 5+ and the LR gets a 2+ save. They only do two wounds if it has a 3+ save. If the LR then has 15-20 wounds it is a pretty inefficient way to chip some damage on it.
90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.
for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them
and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter
Because that's the only other option - it's either meticulous unit spacing to account for templates, or shoving models haphazardly across the table. There is, literally, no other opportunity for tactics in movement.
Kanluwen wrote: I just got this as a reply from Pete Foley via Twitter:
Hey! It's fixed to hit, opposed strength/toughness. #new40k
So for shooting its the same as it's always been. Interesting if this is also for close combat - which is fine I suppose. I would have been disappointed with Strength/Toughness going away, but can stomach fixed To Hit for both shooting and CC.
Tyel wrote: Opposed strength/toughness suggest you will not be able to wound anything.
I suspect it will be like AoS. Fixed to hit, fixed to wound and then an armour save. Certain weapons will be more efficient versus tanks and MC because of things like rends and multiple wounds.
50 Guardsmen (rapid fire no longer exists) do one wound to a Land Raider if they hit on 5+, wound on 5+ and the LR gets a 2+ save. They only do two wounds if it has a 3+ save. If the LR then has 15-20 wounds it is a pretty inefficient way to chip some damage on it.
Opposed Strength / Toughness can still allow you to wound everything is they just change the "-" in the To Wound chart to "6"'s.
COULD is the operative word! It doesn't say how likely, though. I COULD have a date with Fiona Apple tomorrow just by emailing her!
Congratulations on the most random celebrity name drop I've seen in awhile.
Side note: She's pretty far from the spot light. Emailing her probably has decent odds, so she might not be the best metaphor.
Well I assumed they might offer the same to the discounters but only at the discounted rate, rather than full rate; otherwise yeah I'd be down every store buying lots up...
You would need to know the release date as well though.......
I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...
I wouldn't count on that.
The "Warzones" in the Galaxy section for the new website call out Armageddon as being a site where neither the Orks or Astra Militarum are "prepared for the escalation that the war is about to experience".
Same with the Arsonist of Charadon launching a Waagh! into Maccragge.
I play AoS with my son and like the system plus I really think that 40k needs a complete makeover and have been very optimistic about everything i heard so far... but... the latest news all points at a number of factions will get the brettonia treatment to make room for all the new power armour.
I am convinced that since orks have been useless for so long the lack of sales will make them one of the first xenos to be silently swept under the carpet.
And I was really looking forwrd to getting back into 40k again.
90% of the time the choice is obvious and what little tactics it adds doesn't come close to compensating for the drudgery of spacing your guys out every time you move them.
for a game that is all about the right placing of your models in the movement phase of course remove the importance of such things make it easier
never had a problem with moving my models fast around and place them
and I don't think I really would enjoy a game were I just push a blob straight forward because it doesn't matter
Was that the only thing that kept your games from being boring?
no, why?
but the more player decision GW removed over time by just adding random effects or because the options were just gone, the bored they got
thats why I did not played much in 7th, too much random stuff combined with too less players effecting the game made it boring (it always was more playing against the game instead of playing against your opponent)
Movement is very important for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with templates and mean you certainly can't "push a blob straight forward".
Spacing of units
Covering other unit
Accounting for weapon range
Accounting for charges/close combat
Etc
All of which are a lot more interesting than making sure my little blue 2" measuring thingie doesn't touch more than one model at a time.
rollawaythestone wrote: Opposed Strength / Toughness can still allow you to wound everything is they just change the "-" in the To Wound chart to "6"'s.
Voldrak wrote: If we take a clue from Shadow War Armageddon, you can end up having to hit on more than a 6 roll.
I could very well see this translated to 40k wounds where you might need to wound with a 6 and then re-roll and get a 4+ on the second roll to wound in the first place.
this was a long time in 40k and fantasy before it got removed for being too complicated?
we also have (had?) the re-roll for BS >7
Shadow War is based upon Necromunda. The next 40k edition will have movement stats and maybe armor save modifiers but that similarity is coincidental. Don't look to Shadow War for hints about 40k.
Well I assumed they might offer the same to the discounters but only at the discounted rate, rather than full rate; otherwise yeah I'd be down every store buying lots up...
You would need to know the release date as well though.......
I thought it was 8 weeks prior to the announcement? Otherwise couldn't I just go and buy the books now? I suppose they could take them down the day before the 8 week window hits but that will give away the exact release date?
I'm not worried about the release date though. Given we have rumours of when GW staff aren't allowed any holiday I can probably take a good guess and have a fair chance...
so why just do it in the first place
a Land Raider being T10 with 2+ save that cannot be wounded by anything below S8 with ~6 Wounds gives the same result as the one that needed 15 wounds to compensate the can be wounded with a 6 rule
adding more rules than necessary to get the same result got us the bloated 7th edi in the first place
No idea, dude. That's how they wanted it, I guess. I don't disagree with you, but that's how it is.
I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...
I wouldn't count on that.
The "Warzones" in the Galaxy section for the new website call out Armageddon as being a site where neither the Orks or Astra Militarum are "prepared for the escalation that the war is about to experience".
Same with the Arsonist of Charadon launching a Waagh! into Maccragge.
I play AoS with my son and like the system plus I really think that 40k needs a complete makeover and have been very optimistic about everything i heard so far... but... the latest news all points at a number of factions will get the brettonia treatment to make room for all the new power armour.
I am convinced that since orks have been useless for so long the lack of sales will make them one of the first xenos to be silently swept under the carpet.
And I was really looking forwrd to getting back into 40k again.
I have serious, serious doubts that they would ever take Orks out of the 40k line. I could see some worries about some factions losing favour and falling into that situation, but ORKS? Come on now. They've been one of the most recognisable parts of the setting for 40k since the game came out...
I think we can count on the orks getting nerfed to oblivion, it will keep the theme of them going...
I wouldn't count on that.
The "Warzones" in the Galaxy section for the new website call out Armageddon as being a site where neither the Orks or Astra Militarum are "prepared for the escalation that the war is about to experience".
Same with the Arsonist of Charadon launching a Waagh! into Maccragge.
I play AoS with my son and like the system plus I really think that 40k needs a complete makeover and have been very optimistic about everything i heard so far... but... the latest news all points at a number of factions will get the brettonia treatment to make room for all the new power armour.
I am convinced that since orks have been useless for so long the lack of sales will make them one of the first xenos to be silently swept under the carpet.
And I was really looking forwrd to getting back into 40k again.
If that's how you feel, that's how you feel I guess.
I really don't think there's going to be factions cut "to make room for all the new power armor" though. So far we know of the big guys(whether or not they'll be a new faction, I genuinely don't know--I still think they're going to end up being more of a "new unit") for the Imperium and Death Guard for Chaos.
Latro_ wrote: 40k Live FAQ Summary as best i could do it!
- No more armour on vehicles. Vehicles have a damage table as they take damage (wounds) stats decrease, every vehicle has its own damage table. e.g. Bolters could hurt tanks.
- Specfically mentioned everyone can hurt everyone else owing to S and T in ref to vehicles.
- 14 force org charts in core rules, if you meet you generate command points one use only. re-roll dice, interupt chargers going first mentioned. Hints these force orgs tottally replace formations.
- Limited to 1cmd point perphase. Certain force orgs give you more or less points. Gives example of big brigate detachment which gives you 9 cms points.
- Codexes not going away, there will be books with their own army command points
- Templates going away confirmed!
- Every army gets rules day one. 5 books, rules for all armies split across these. (low price point mentioned, a lot less than a codex)
- Expansions will still be part of the game planet strike etc will be re-written
- 'Every unit playtestest a lot' after 'will riptides be nerfed' quetion. Mention of massive community playtesting in USA
- Annual rules updates like AoS generals handbook taking community feedback
- 40k rules will have free PDF digital + printed store copies
- No specific tournament rules but guidelines in matched play
- Top goals in dev: 1. game that worked for all three ways to play. 2. More balanced 3. More accessible
- Background focussed more Imperium vs Chaos, acknowledges chaos has slipped and want to bring that back to the main focus of the game
- Wont confirm a release date 'this year'
- Two points system 'Power level' narative play each unit has a general power level value. Full granular common points ssytem for matched play.
- All factions still in, new website missing ones is just a narative thing.
- There will be new factions (hinted at on launch)
- Big monsters will also loose stats like vehicles as they take damage
- Stats no longer capped at 10!
- Multiple damage e.g. wounds is in on weapons
- Matched play 1000pts to anything
- Allies still in works different though. Keywords system very specific on factions gives an example a marine with spec rules prob wont pass onto allies.
- Mentions close combat is viable.
- Background will move on but not radically change. Some on launch which will 'blow people away'
- Everyday from now on till launch will be a warhammer community article on new 40k - kinda hints its coming out sooner rather than later
- If you'v bought a book within 8 weeks of launch, you can email customer services and get a voucher for value of the book bought
I added it to the OP, in case the OP (quoted there!) forgets to do it himself!
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.
And in return I would suspect lascannons will do multiple wounds that scythe through Guard and he'll be removing most of a unit a turn.
I'm OK with that.
It's probably not likely to be viable though and that isolated. The real question is whether you take those guardsmen now and aim at the LR with only one wound left (and how many) or the Marines that are 'softer'.
so why just do it in the first place
a Land Raider being T10 with 2+ save that cannot be wounded by anything below S8 with ~6 Wounds gives the same result as the one that needed 15 wounds to compensate the can be wounded with a 6 rule
adding more rules than necessary to get the same result got us the bloated 7th edi in the first place
No idea, dude. That's how they wanted it, I guess. I don't disagree with you, but that's how it is.
My take is that they dont want a redundant unit, which I fully agree with. Your guardsmen may take 11 turns to kill a tank but the fact is they can, so they become easier to price and can't be made irrelevant by a single tank.
That adds no more rules than your example does, ironically it has less since you don't need the double toughness to strength ratio.
Liberal_Perturabo wrote: Wow. Removing armor values from vehicles is dumb. Like, insanely dumb. Tanks being immune to small arms fire was the whole bloody point for having it. Now a bunch of guardsmen with lasguns will potentially be able to take down a land raider given enough time.
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
Latro_ wrote: What shocks me a bit is that they said they'v had the community heavily involved with playtesting and we'v had very few leaks!
some loyal geeks out there or some hardcore NDA's were signed.
The other alternative is that if elements of Front line gaming (did I read that correctly) have been involved then blabbing about it will likely leave them never to get anywhere near GW ever again.
As it stands they have GWs ear so can get a game they think is better and also allows them to get a bigger wider audience. Why sacrifice that?
So, your saying your 5 point per model guards men at 500 points can defeat my 250 point land raider in 11 turns. If you take 1000 points of guards men they can do it in about 5.
Assume a blob squad of 50 guardsmen shooting at a Land Raider from within 12" with lasguns. Assume a Land Raider has 15 wounds and a 2+ save.
50 dudes = 100 shots
needing 4s to hit = 50 hits.
Needing 6's to glance = 8.33 wounds.
Needing 2's to save: 1.4 wounds.
You'll need 11 rounds to kill the land raider.
And in return I would suspect lascannons will do multiple wounds that scythe through Guard and he'll be removing most of a unit a turn.
I'm OK with that.
It's probably not likely to be viable though and that isolated. The real question is whether you take those guardsmen now and aim at the LR with only one wound left (and how many) or the Marines that are 'softer'.
The other question is do you fire the lascannon in the Guard squad at the Land Raider and then fire the Lasguns at the Marines in cover, or just throw everything at the Land Raider?
Unless it's been FAQ'd, with the way they did Age of Sigmar? You could fire weapons at multiple units or engage in CC against multiple units at the same time.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
I never said I liked it. It's not fluffy. It's actually silly. It's just not very likely.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?
I mean, the game really doesn't have anywhere to go but up. As long as I get my free rules I'm a happy camper.
I actually REALLY like there's 14 generic CADs. That's a ton of customization available from that alone, and I like that the Bolter can only improve at this point.
Also the flatout statement that FW is all good is great.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?
IIRC, Power armour is said to be the equivalent of tank armour - Terminator armour is supposed to be like starship plating!
Ah, well even if the Land Raider won't be making those scything wounds.. opposed Str/Tough means it'll laugh even harder at Guard shooting lasguns at it.
I don't understand how this will kill a deathstar?
Land Raider Redeemer ( Keywords: Imperium, Vehicle, Adeptus Astartes, Grey Knight, Land raider?)
-- Kaldor Draigo (Keywords: Imperium, Hero, Adeptus Astartes, Grey Knight, Terminator, Kaldor Draigo, Lord of War?)
-- 5 man Paladin squad (Keywords: Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Grey Knight, Terminator, Elite, Paladins?)
-- 2 Librarians (Keywords: Imperium, Hero, Adeptus Astartes, Grey Knight, Terminator, Psycher, Librarian?)
Pretty sure we just had a discussion about it taking 50 guardsman like 11 turns to kill a land raider. Once, you load that squad inside by the end of turn 3 they will be in melee. That is going to be one tough unit to burn down.
Draigo and some paladins are an acceptable Death Star. It's the ridiculousness created by allied combos that they are talking about.
However, Draigo will no longer be protected "inside" the unit. He will be targetable in some way just like in AoS. It's possible he might get a look out sir or some such, though.
rollawaythestone wrote: Draigo and some paladins are an acceptable Death Star. It's the ridiculousness created by allied combos that they are talking about.
However, Draigo will no longer be protected "inside" the unit. He will be targetable in some way just like in AoS. It's possible he might get a look out sir or some such, though.
I think it's abominations like the Bark Bark Star that they're trying to curb.
Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.
I never said I liked it. It's not fluffy. It's actually silly. It's just not very likely.
Breaking an NDA is probably one of the biggest don'ts out there. Bols,FTN, beasts of war stopped talking rumours some time ago you could probably pin a sort of time table on that and figure out when Gw started playtesting. It's right about the time everyone quiet. Wich if my quick research is right is somewhere around the magnus bin video. That puts us it around early october. Fingers crossed they've been playtesting between october and March (adepticon).
thick is that book going to be?
Because I never target models against an intelligent opponent that , god forbid, uses cover like multiple levels of ruins. He would NEVER place his painstakingly and lovingly hobbied models in those ruins, so your totally right, I should easily, and always, be able to throw a large die near his models without worry of smashing said die into anything of personal value to them or losing it in some hard to retrieve, invisible spot. Man I have been playing wrong for years! 
