I recommend 1page40k for a good rule set.
Also... I too took a year off. But if gave me more objectivity... not less
Thanks I'll check it, ussualy prefer making up my own rules though.
I am objective enough btw, I hate dumbing down of movement phase in all games, always praise the opposite and wouldn't say it's some extravagant, unfounded criticism.
Why are you still posting on a topic you do not care about and for a game you will not play?
Oh it's Morale today? Cool, even better! For me this will be a real test of how good the new system is, because morale needs to play a far more important part in the game than it does now.
I have a general question here, and I hope nobody objects to me bringing AOS into it, because it is relevant, but how will future rule changes work in 40k 8th, if as expected, it uses the AOS model?
For example, 40k players are unhappy with rule X. They give feedback to GWHQ, and GW says we'll fix it with new rule Y.
So how do rules changes come about in AOS? FAQ? New unit cards in the miniature boxes? A free download? A new book.?
Stargrunt has random movement when you run (and IIRC charge)
Lots (and lots) of games have a random mechanism to see if you get to move at all (Lion Rampant and it's derivatives, for example), Hail Caesar/Blackpowder etc. (Warmaster derivatives, so slightly based off GW)
There are many, many games where you're not in complete control of the location of your troops.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have a general question here, and I hope nobody objects to me bringing AOS into it, because it is relevant, but how will future rule changes work in 40k 8th, if as expected, it uses the AOS model?
For example, 40k players are unhappy with rule X. They give feedback to GWHQ, and GW says we'll fix it with new rule Y.
So how do rules changes come about in AOS? FAQ? New unit cards in the miniature boxes? A free download? A new book.?
I'm genuinely curious.
Thanks.
Judging from AoS, core rules fixes will be printed in an yearly balance book and presented as optional rules superimposed on the old or used instead of them (yada yada when playing a matched play scenario use this instead of this). Unit rules will first be updated online and then printed in the new codex. All of this is judging by how AoS does it and I can't see why GW won't follow with 40k aswell.
matphat wrote: As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think boys are going to get a nice boost. Here are a few things I noticed
* You can assault from a Gorkanaut/Morkanaut.
* You can now put 30 boys in base to base without worrying about blast templates. This lets you use movement trays, and suddenly fielding 150 boys can be done easily
* Assault ranges were improved a little bit. Every inch counts.
* Nobs with PKs can be a thing again. Even big choppas might be useful.
Now with the bad news. Orks have been bottom tier for most of the existence of 40k. That's the harsh truth. Don't expect them to suddenly be top tier. At best they will be competitive.
The idea of "tiers" should ideally be removed from matched play, but let's wait and see if the design studio has reinforced their views on challenging armies in the new edition. If all goes well, orks should be tip - top (yay, me orksies)
Or perhaps... dare I say it, the whole concept of "tiers" can do one, as the game will be fairly balanced, allowing all factions to compete with each other in different ways depending on their builds?
Future War Cultist wrote: Did they say what was going to be on show today? It's combat weapons isn't it? This should be good. I'm really keen to see if chainswords might get an AP value. I've always felt like they should.
I have been keeping the OP up to date with next expected news release (bottom of the post)
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh it's Morale today? Cool, even better! For me this will be a real test of how good the new system is, because morale needs to play a far more important part in the game than it does now.
Maybe pinning and fear will actually do something, instead of rarely slightly inconveniencing your opponent.
I doubt the concept of tiers or power armies will go away, as I don't think I've ever seen a game where there's 100% perfect balance. I'm just hoping that it's far from the 7th edition tiering where the armies go from broken down to not even worth looking at; as long as every army can actually hope to win against any other army, I'll call that a success. I mean, I'm still expecting Eldar to be OP because they literally always are, but maybe I won't hate them so much that I want them to die in the setting any more.
Morale should be interesting. There's always been a slight issue with retreats in that they're A) hard to track and B) lead to weird situations of shepherding of units off board edges. We'll see how much is actually revealed, it might just be like the fight phase post and tell us next to nothing. I'm hoping transports are tomorrow.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have a general question here, and I hope nobody objects to me bringing AOS into it, because it is relevant, but how will future rule changes work in 40k 8th, if as expected, it uses the AOS model?
For example, 40k players are unhappy with rule X. They give feedback to GWHQ, and GW says we'll fix it with new rule Y.
So how do rules changes come about in AOS? FAQ? New unit cards in the miniature boxes? A free download? A new book.?
I'm genuinely curious.
Thanks.
Strictly speaking we haven't actually seen a change to the core rules for Age of Sigmar yet as far as I know. Despite how some people are putting it, the Generals Handbook doesn't actually change the core rules of the game but layers on top the "3 Ways to Play" system of Open, Narative and Matched.
We have been told that the core rules of the game will be free, which I assume means it'll be the same as it is in Sigmar, a PDF on GW's website thats free to download and will get reprinted in just about every book they release. Being a PDF on their website means it can be pretty easy to update, preferably with a little warning for all of us, and means having those 12 pages at the front/back of the books you already own invalidated, but the rest of the book being good to carry on with.
We've also been told that there will be a Generals Hanbook style release for 40K as the 3 ways to play set up won't be included in the core rules. Just like with the GHB, we've been told this will get updated and reprinted on a yearly basis.
For the codexes I imagine errata's will be handled the same way they are now, PDF's uploaded to GW's website, but comprehensive changes will have to wait until a new edition of the codex comes along. My guess/hope is that points will be left to the 40K version of the Generals Hanbook (the Warlords Pamphlet?) as being updated on a yearly basis makes rebalancing existing and new armies easier but we'll see.
Imateria wrote: Strictly speaking we haven't actually seen a change to the core rules for Age of Sigmar yet as far as I know. Despite how some people are putting it, the Generals Handbook doesn't actually change the core rules of the game but layers on top the "3 Ways to Play" system of Open, Narative and Matched.
Rules of 1 could be considered one. Albeit those silly enough applies only to matched despite pretty much required to fix some of the worst oddities.
Maybe they will introduce measurement from base to base which is pretty essential if you want game to actually work with strangers. Otherwise by rules certain models can't even legally ATTACK other model without fudging it(okay he's close enough despite math saying it's impossible for him to be close enough ever) or putting model over base of other(which will understandably raise complains from those who have spent lots of time painting and basing models that could get damaged by that).
labmouse42 wrote: You can now put 30 boys in base to base without worrying about blast templates. This lets you use movement trays, and suddenly fielding 150 boys can be done easily
Hollow wrote: Or perhaps... dare I say it, the whole concept of "tiers" can do one, as the game will be fairly balanced, allowing all factions to compete with each other in different ways depending on their builds?
That's certainly my hope.
With rules for everything day one, it's about as solid an opportunity as they'll ever have to sort out balance issues - whether it's armies that got left behind, or units within armies which rarely see the field.
On the subject of morale, I'd like to see some sort of rule similar to what the Skyhammer formation has currently where you can have a unit supress another so that they can't fire back as efficiently. You could have weapons like mortars or heavy bolters be comparatively poor at actually killing things but really good at forcing people to hunker down, so you'd have a choice between support weapons and just blowing people up.
Stupid fething 2d6 charge... still unreliable and frustrating
Multi-unit overwatch. Multiple times per phase no less... so ni more tactical overwatch-sponges, one more tactical level striped out of the game
Hard cover favoring highly armored units more than lightly armored, which is BS, no rules on visual cover
Marines firing heavy weapons on 4+
And they have the audacity to say they listened to us and didn't dumb down 40k
labmouse42 wrote: You can now put 30 boys in base to base without worrying about blast templates. This lets you use movement trays, and suddenly fielding 150 boys can be done easily
Very curious if they'll touch on ATSKNF. Guessing it's still existing but who knows. Also guessing that if it's still the name of a rule... it's mechanicly a very different thing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I have a general question here, and I hope nobody objects to me bringing AOS into it, because it is relevant, but how will future rule changes work in 40k 8th, if as expected, it uses the AOS model?
For example, 40k players are unhappy with rule X. They give feedback to GWHQ, and GW says we'll fix it with new rule Y.
So how do rules changes come about in AOS? FAQ? New unit cards in the miniature boxes? A free download? A new book.?
I'm genuinely curious.
Thanks.
Strictly speaking we haven't actually seen a change to the core rules for Age of Sigmar yet as far as I know. Despite how some people are putting it, the Generals Handbook doesn't actually change the core rules of the game but layers on top the "3 Ways to Play" system of Open, Narative and Matched.
We have been told that the core rules of the game will be free, which I assume means it'll be the same as it is in Sigmar, a PDF on GW's website thats free to download and will get reprinted in just about every book they release. Being a PDF on their website means it can be pretty easy to update, preferably with a little warning for all of us, and means having those 12 pages at the front/back of the books you already own invalidated, but the rest of the book being good to carry on with.
We've also been told that there will be a Generals Hanbook style release for 40K as the 3 ways to play set up won't be included in the core rules. Just like with the GHB, we've been told this will get updated and reprinted on a yearly basis.
For the codexes I imagine errata's will be handled the same way they are now, PDF's uploaded to GW's website, but comprehensive changes will have to wait until a new edition of the codex comes along. My guess/hope is that points will be left to the 40K version of the Generals Hanbook (the Warlords Pamphlet?) as being updated on a yearly basis makes rebalancing existing and new armies easier but we'll see.
Not true, the general handbook already alters the core rules in matched play:
Monsters and cover: In matched play monsters cannot claim cover.
That looks like a change to the core rule, clearly meant to patch a balance issue.
That kind of cretinous behavior is what turns companies off listening in the first place.
Well, hopefully GW understands that naturally not everyone is gonna be on board right away. They're clearly trying to turn things around, and they're obviously listening more now than they probably ever have, but surely they realize that their actions and behavior for at least the past decade or more will have cultivated a lot of this kind of negativity in the community and that there will initially be some skepticism or push-back.
And, also, trolls are a thing.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, anyway. The way I see it, after 7th it would be hard for GW to do any worse. I'm skeptical about some of this myself but I'm reserving judgment until we see the final product.
matphat wrote: As a dedicated Ork player I'm still unconvinced that my army won't still suck, but since it's sucked for so long, I'm not too worried about it. If it is suddenly viable? I'll be stoked. So far, nothing we've heard from the community site feels like it impacts me or Da Boyz very much. Once I see points costs and stat lines, I'll have something to consider.
I think boys are going to get a nice boost. Here are a few things I noticed
* You can assault from a Gorkanaut/Morkanaut.
* You can now put 30 boys in base to base without worrying about blast templates. This lets you use movement trays, and suddenly fielding 150 boys can be done easily
* Assault ranges were improved a little bit. Every inch counts.
* Nobs with PKs can be a thing again. Even big choppas might be useful.
Now with the bad news. Orks have been bottom tier for most of the existence of 40k. That's the harsh truth. Don't expect them to suddenly be top tier. At best they will be competitive.
All I want is for orks to be balanced, both internally and agains other factions. Having half to two thirds of the codex being completely trash is so boring. I want to be able to let my flashgits drive around in a battlewagon without being a complete push over or fielding killa kans...
Stupid fething 2d6 charge... still unreliable and frustrating
Multi-unit overwatch. Multiple times per phase no less... so ni more tactical overwatch-sponges, one more tactical level striped out of the game
Hard cover favoring highly armored units more than lightly armored, which is BS, no rules on visual cover
Marines firing heavy weapons on 4+
And they have the audacity to say they listened to us and didn't dumb down 40k
Really happy that the have kept 2D6 charges. Everything being reliable tends to make for a boring game.
Overwatch is still on the cards giving shooty units a chance to cause a little damage before being squashed by hard-assault units.
I'm glad that cover doesn't favour any particular unit. A clean, clear and concise bonus across the board is great news.
Really happy that a simple modifier for heavy weapons has been employed, allowing for a lot more movement and therefore creating a more dynamic gaming experience.
I'm glad GW have listened to us and haven't dumbed it down.
Hollow wrote: Really happy that the have kept 2D6 charges. Everything being reliable tends to make for a boring game. [...]
I'm glad GW have listened to us and kept it dumbed down.
Fixed that for you
For real though, other than charge disagreements, you're right; GW seems to have done a great job this time around. We'll see how the points shake out to see if it's balanced, but the core rules look both simpler and more fastidious.
I'm excited to see Ork vehicles again! The first WD I ever got had a battle with Killa Kans and I've always loved them, but they're not been good since... were they ever good? All the Ork walkers are really good models, but never see any play - I'm hoping that changes.
Why people think that in 8th more than one unit can overwatch against a charging unit at any time? It only happens if they are charged too (as it already is in 7th).
Only Tau can (for now) help others with overwatch.
Except infantry etc don't really have weaker side armour like vehicles have...
And no facing leads to the stupid visualities like side moving predators etc.
Is that so? What about the stupid visual of monstrous creatures walking backwards? or soldiers with shields having them facing the wrong way? There are MANY examples of non-vehicle units which should also have weaker flanks to attack as to think that infantry don't have stronger armor in certain areas is a bit silly. You armor the area you most anticipate the bulk of an attack to come from.
I rather have faster gameplay than deal with ideas of "correct visuals" when the person clearly doesn't care about consistency, ONLY what they consider "correct"
If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.
Vector Strike wrote: Why people think that in 8th more than one unit can overwatch against a charging unit at any time? It only happens if they are charged too (as it already is in 7th).
Only Tau can (for now) help others with overwatch.
Because GW clearly said that.
That being said only the units that were charged can overwatch, so basically it would only work with multui-charges (currently only one unit can overwatch against multi-charge).
Tau shtick is being able to overwatch even if they were not charged at all.
You wouldn't play an entire edition because vehicle facing doesn't play out how you think it should? Really? EVERYTHING else could be amazing, but vehicle facing... thats a deal breaker. No way, no how, if how my miniature tank's facing isn't properly accounted for I'm out.... wow.
OP will be updated 5 hours late today sorry dudes, I need some sleep, and staying up to midnight every night to update is taking its toll on my weary old soul.
You wouldn't play an entire edition because vehicle facing doesn't play out how you think it should? Really? EVERYTHING else could be amazing, but vehicle facing... thats a deal breaker. No way, no how, if how my miniature tank's facing isn't properly accounted for I'm out.... wow.
Except everything else we'we seed so far is NOT amazing.
Some steps are in the right direction, some are not, some are just flat out stupid.
Outside of 2D6 charges I've basically liked about almost everything that's been revealed thus far. So I believe they got the core rules nailed down pretty solid. So sign me up for happy camper group.
My only concern at the end of the day is balance, and that comes down to unit pricing which is still a complete unknown.
Backfire wrote: If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.
...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?
As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?
2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.
So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?
Wouldn't that be the to hit roll?
More likely, it would be the weapon range and various on-scroll abilities/powers (veil of tears).
Backfire wrote: If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.
...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?
As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.
That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory
You could add a random value in the range of every weapon to simulate fog of war? Yes you could. Would it bog down the game with a lot of rolls and measurements? Yes it would.
The random range is fine only on assaults, because they are critical moments of the match, so you can spend more time on it.
A good game allocates time to an action in relation to the effect that such an action has on the game. You don't spend 20 minutes to calculate the effect of an attack that could possibly remove an infantry model.
A couple quick things I'd thought of, seeing as the new rules will cut out USRs and streamline in other ways:
- Will Twin Linked anything even exist anymore? Will anything currently with this rule just double its shots? Or do you think a very small number of more essential extra rules such as TL carry over?
- Unless the rulebook gives a few rules for certain keywords, like vehicles, I guess that means vehicles will now assault/be assaulted like any other unit? Do they charge instead of tank shock/ram? Do they get overwatch? A non zero number of attacks? Do they have to lose a turn Falling Back just to be relevant again? So many questions that don't seem to have particularly clear answers yet. The only vehicle shown I believe was a Dreadnought, which already fights in CC as normal because it is a walker.
tneva82 wrote: That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory
I mean, it's pretty hard to refute that when the only vehicles which saw mass use were either SM or Guard. DE, for the little play they saw, also did it when they played (also because side armour is the same) and so did Necrons (ditto). In fact, for the majority of vehicles which saw play, it was true that their side=front armour - the only notable exception was the chimera, which you'd want to face forwards anyway to use the front weapon (assuming some restriction on that is still present). I can't see that it'll be any different in 8th at all, with slight exception that rear armour MIGHT be shown more often if (and it's a big if) there's no penalty for doing so.
KommissarKiln wrote: A couple quick things I'd thought of, seeing as the new rules will cut out USRs and streamline in other ways:
- Will Twin Linked anything even exist anymore? Will anything currently with this rule just double its shots? Or do you think a very small number of more essential extra rules such as TL carry over?
It's pretty likely they go the AoS route where if you have one weapon it does what it says on the warscroll and if you have two of the same it gives an additional benefit such as re-rolling 1's.
People should stop using "but the community don't want!" or the inverse.
Is obvious that people are individuals with different opinions. So "I don't like this, and they should change it because ALL OF US think that way!" is not a valid argument in any shape of form.
tneva82 wrote: That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory
I mean, it's pretty hard to refute that when the only vehicles which saw mass use were either SM or Guard. DE, for the little play they saw, also did it when they played (also because side armour is the same) and so did Necrons (ditto). In fact, for the majority of vehicles which saw play, it was true that their side=front armour - the only notable exception was the chimera, which you'd want to face forwards anyway to use the front weapon (assuming some restriction on that is still present). I can't see that it'll be any different in 8th at all, with slight exception that rear armour MIGHT be shown more often if (and it's a big if) there's no penalty for doing so.
If vehicles work just like infantry only newbies and those who don't give a damn about efficiency don't keep sideways. No disadvantage, plenty advbntages
Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at some new background and lore in the new Warhammer 40,000, and then on Friday, we’ll take a look at Battle-forged armies.
DO ITTOIT wrote: Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.
Melee armies have guns, too. Transports will be effectively immune, but it makes me wonder if squadrons are a thing still...probably not any longer.
nintura wrote: Nice! However, are SMs still immune I wonder.... I really hated that they seem to have exceptions to the majority of rules.
Stormcast aren't...
I wouldn't expect SM to be immune, but to have heroes/characters that modify the value or potentially allow for them to be immune within a bubble.
They mention a Dark Apostle allowing for you to use his LD if models are from the same Legion.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
I'm just glad they asked anyone. Please explain why their input makes you upset.
DO ITTOIT wrote: Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.
Melee armies have guns, too. Transports will be effectively immune, but it makes me wonder if squadrons are a thing still...probably not any longer.
Vehicles will have discipline 10, so in a squadron of 3 you can lose 2 vehicles, roll a 6 and still don't lose the last vehicle.
nintura wrote: Nice! However, are SMs still immune I wonder.... I really hated that they seem to have exceptions to the majority of rules.
Didn't a previous article show SMs to be Ld7? If so, you'd have to lose two models throughout the turn just to have a chance at losing one more in the Morale phase.
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
I wonder what else they're not tossing out, I mean while it sounds simple it does seem like we're only getting pieces of it.
Not that I mind this though, it works well enough in AoS.
Well, that morale phase post was disappointing. I mean, I like the system... but we already knew everything other than 1 test per turn. I guess 1 test per turn is good because assault armies get to do combat before they lose models to morale shock via shooting? Anyway, I was more hoping for things like pinning to be shown (or even say whether it exists at all). It's good though, leadership is now actually a meaningful stat at least, and elite units are okay in that they expect to take fewer casualties and have higher leadership, whereas hordes will presumably get mulched.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
Interesting. What do you dislike which has been shown so far?
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.
Again, I hope so. I would think so. But it's not what they said. Otherwise it's way too punishing.
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.
It is, because that's what the article says:
The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.
I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.
Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.
It is, because that's what the article says:
The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.
Hah, they updated the article to fix the bit I quoted. it originally said "that many models". I cut and pasted that line from the original article.
I hope they keep the rules from Age of Sigmar granting a +1 to Bravery for every 10 models in the unit. (not to mention an Inspiring Presence type stratagem)
Also if they keep the Greentide (100 Boyz formation) in some form then you could be looking at a unit with +9 Bravery
Voodoo_Chile wrote: I hope they keep the rules from Age of Sigmar granting a +1 to Bravery for every 10 models in the unit. (not to mention an Inspiring Presence type stratagem)
Also if they keep the Greentide (100 Boyz formation) in some form then you could be looking at a unit with +9 Bravery
I can see that being in. I can also see a potential max size for units being added, too.
That’s it! No units falling back, no regroup tests – all that is gone.
This isn't a selling point for me.
Plus, I'm starting to see how '12 pages' is going to be it...
Still, I'll give it a whirl - it is GW's last chance to get me back into 40K after all!
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this either. I've liked a lot of the changes so far but I'm a little sad to see these things go.
I get what they're going for by paring down the morale phase... but that part of the game was the source of a lot of flavour for me, personally. Especially cause I play Orks
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.
DO ITTOIT wrote: Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.
Deep striking, being ridiculously fast.. there are ways round it. Plus from my limited knowledge of AoS some armies have specific mechanics that allow the, to deep strike and redeploy across the battlefield - plenty of things to mitigate casualties on the way in but probably only visible when we get the unit and faction specific rules. I wouldn't worry too much just yet.
A copy and paste of battleshock is perfect! I love that system and it'll work good in 40k too, provided that the +1 for every ten models in the unit remains.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.
Yeah I'm not sure what the argument is, here. The game is going to be somehow worse specifically because people who play it all the time are providing input on the new rules? Like you said, their style of play is the one that's more restrictive in any case - even if GW wasn't trying to account for both styles, which they are, you can mend your play experience with ease.
And oh my goodness, 'for profit'... I don't think you could say their motivation is money from any point of view... just saying, if you start an FLGS or a hobby gaming convention/tournament in the interest of walking away rich, you're gonna have a bad time!
New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.
Daedalus81 wrote: Go read AoS rules. Come back when you've played a few games.
Thanks, but no. I need at least a 1-foot pole to touch that thing, and I left mine at my DnD group.
I don't see how it does not punish big units without a solid leadership bonuses for numbers - if you focus-fire a big unit it takes a lot of casualities and now must take a morale test with a massive penalty, but if that unit is split into small units you limit maxumum LD penalty and focus-fire just pipe out one unit and leaves the rest intact without the risk of loosing models in others to morale tests.
On a side not it adds out-of-phase bookkeeping as you now must track the number of casualties each unit sustained during entire turn.
Meade wrote: New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.
This
It's also a massive dumbing down of the phase even if most armies ignored morale but it's needed since it added way to much time to games for armies like orks.
I still think run moves should be a set amount like 1/2 movement rounded up but that's because I think it's another needless die throw.
You wouldn't play an entire edition because vehicle facing doesn't play out how you think it should? Really? EVERYTHING else could be amazing, but vehicle facing... thats a deal breaker. No way, no how, if how my miniature tank's facing isn't properly accounted for I'm out.... wow.
That miniature tank might as well be a guy with a gun then... what's the difference really. Bad for suspension of disbelief.
You don't need to set it up according to targets and predicted opponent's moves. Bad for game depth.
The game gets another step closer to a computer rts from the 90s, select your blob and click an opponent's blob, look out for sth in the blob not being close enough so everything shoots at once! Bad and backwards for games in general.
Slightly disappointed that more isn't being done with leadership in terms of suppression/pinning mechanics and such like, but I suppose that it does fit with the 'faster-play, less long-term bookkeeping' ethos, and I must confess that the 2-3 games of Sigmar I've played have gone much quicker than equivalent WFB-sized games (which the passing of time has sadly put a premium on!) so not unexpected.
I dare say that such things could well be special rules for individual units on their data cards, like mortar barrages, sniper teams and the like, but it's not the end of the world if they don't; the game's chugged on without such things for a while now.
Meade wrote: New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.
In AoS units with a base size of 5 on average have slightly lower bravery than a unit that has a base size of 10. Stormcast eternal liberators for instance have a base unit size of 5 and a bravery of 6. Saurus Warriors come in units of 10, and have a bravery of 10. Both of these are considered basic troop choices. This should be a fine way to balance units with different number of models.
Bulldogging wrote: I didn't see where they addressed single models with multiple wounds, like Carnifexen for example.
How does AoS handle that?
As it reads they would be immune to morale.
Indeed. And even if you take a Brood of Carnifex, or other big stuff, remember their wounds will likely be going up, and Battleshock/Morale is based on models lost, not wounds suffered. This is why things like Ogres are a horror in AoS - multiple wounds, middling Battleshock, but kicking out pretty reliable multiple damage. That they're expensive in points leading to Smol Army Syndrome, and the resultant horrific outnumbering is the main downside!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: This could really hurt Tyranid hordes, hopefully Synapse will prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.
AoS has various ways and means round Battleshock - from Command Ability to let one unit ignore it (and that's a universal ability, rather only certain armies), buffs to your Bravery value from other units/higher numbers in the unit.
Skellingtons for instance....they've got Bravery 10 - so it takes a lot of killing to start worrying them with Battleshock. Nids I imagine will be much the same.
It's interesting that failing the Morale test has you remove X models and not X wounds.
"The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models."
On a side not it adds out-of-phase bookkeeping as you now must track the number of casualties each unit sustained during entire turn.
You already do that currently. Now instead of keeping track for each phase, you manage it over the entire turn. Actually a bit easier, IMO. Still a bit of book keeping, but not new book keeping.
Mezmerro wrote: I don't see how it does not punish big units without a solid leadership bonuses for numbers -
There is a solid leadership bonus for numbers. Or, at least there is a rule for that in Age of Sigmar... +1 LD for every ten models in the unit, I think.
Mezmerro wrote: I don't see how it does not punish big units without a solid leadership bonuses for numbers -
There is a solid leadership bonus for numbers. Or, at least there is a rule for that in Age of Sigmar... +1 LD for every ten models in the unit, I think.
Well, so far we didn't see any confirmation of it being in 40k.
Anyways +1 for 10 models is not really that solid with a level of focus-firing you can do in 40k compared to more melee-oriented AoS.
I worry that people are taking all these pieces in isolation. One of the key features of the new game is command points.
These will allow rerolls of fluffed charge and morale throws among other things. Then you have unit and hero abilities. I can't imagine that a commissar will not give you some way to affect a morale roll for example.
On top of that you have the psychic phase which will surely work in tandem with these rules.
To use the Msu example there is an ability which all AOS generals have which allows one unit per turn to auto pass morale checks. In an Msu army this power becomes a lot less effective as you can only protect a small fraction of your army.
Meade wrote: New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.
In AoS units with a base size of 5 on average have slightly lower bravery than a unit that has a base size of 10. Stormcast eternal liberators for instance have a base unit size of 5 and a bravery of 6. Saurus Warriors come in units of 10, and have a bravery of 10. Both of these are considered basic troop choices. This should be a fine way to balance units with different number of models.
Yes but Saurus Warriors, like Chaos Daemons have the Daemon tag. All "Daemons" both Order and Chaos have LD 10. Both Ardboys and Arkanaut company are 10 man basic Troop choices and come with Bravery 6.
Meade wrote: New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.
In AoS units with a base size of 5 on average have slightly lower bravery than a unit that has a base size of 10. Stormcast eternal liberators for instance have a base unit size of 5 and a bravery of 6. Saurus Warriors come in units of 10, and have a bravery of 10. Both of these are considered basic troop choices. This should be a fine way to balance units with different number of models.
Yes but Saurus Warriors, like Chaos Daemons have the Daemon tag. All "Daemons" both Order and Chaos have LD 10. Both Ardboys and Arkanaut company are 10 man basic Troop choices and come with Bravery 6.
My bad then. I'm fairly new to AoS, and I've only dealt with Stormcast, Tzeentch Daemons, and Seraphon so far.
The question is, what happens to fearless? Will that still be around? If so, does it just mean you take no extra casualties. What about pinning, fear and the other old ld tests?
As someone who has played Orks, Nids, Guards, Renegade Guards, and large foot-slogging sisters (stupid I know) - the leadership tests make sense.
People complaining that this makes things to "tournament" and "streamlined" should fight a non-mechanized guard army at 2,500 points with hundreds of models.
Move -> Run -> LS Test + Retreat... even if 5 squads do this? That is 3 different periods of movement measuring with 10-30+ models. ESPECIALLY with my renegade guard where I could have 30+ man squads with low LS.
This saves time and makes the game enjoyable for blob-armies... Move once. Break moral? Lose models. HUGE time savers.
Where-as I would expect more elite armies to have special rules for staying in the fight.
I'm not really a huge fan of this morale system. It is very boring. You kill a lot of models, and thus in the morale phase you kill some more models. Oh well.
Fragile wrote: This could really hurt Tyranid hordes, hopefully Synapse will prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.
Tyranid and Orks are both hurt pretty bad by this morale rule. Given, before the orks would either break and run or possibly kill even more of themselves with mob rule due to failing morale, it is hard to tell which is worse when both are terrible.
Any army with low save + large numbers can get whittled down really quick with this. I would hope too that the Tyranid get some sort of synapse benefit to help with it, and what I would love to see is a return to the old Mob rule of LD=squad size. Since the stat caps have been removed, this would mean a full 30 boy squad that lost 13 guys to shooting one turn would have a Leadership of 17 still would possibly lose less guys as a result. I never understood orks running anyways... so much of their background talks about them laughing when the guy next to them gets blasted away, just means more fighting for them...
Without that.. adding 13 to a D6 roll could mean almost all that 7-12 of the remaining 17 would disappear... If they didn't make it across the table before another round of shooting, they would probably be gone entirely. With the high volume of high STR guns that most other armies have been given to deal with hordes, it doesn't even take a whole army shooting to do this to 2 or 3 units a turn, especially armies built from almost all shooting units.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't MSU spam be a bad idea, as there's a greater chance they would be wiped out due to a bad LD roll?
ENtire point of MSU is to lower the impact of your units being eliminated.
Let's see in details:
You have 5-marine fire squad, lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on D6+2 higher than their Ld7. On 1-5 you actually pass the test. On 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more that 6 on D6, so no wipe out for them.
And you'd have the same thing going on for a 10-man squad. Lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on d6+2 higher than their LD7. On a 1-5 you actually pass the test. On a 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more than 6 on a d6. So no wipe out for them.
IT IS THE SAME.
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The question is, what happens to fearless? Will that still be around? If so, does it just mean you take no extra casualties. What about pinning, fear and the other old ld tests?
What'd open up some interesting options would be if you got the likes of Pinning(+x) so you make a LD test with the modifier listed. This then opens up the granularity between a battle cannon or other artillery hitting a unit (hit the fething deck!!) and a sniper rifle (go careful lads...)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't MSU spam be a bad idea, as there's a greater chance they would be wiped out due to a bad LD roll?
ENtire point of MSU is to lower the impact of your units being eliminated.
Let's see in details:
You have 5-marine fire squad, lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on D6+2 higher than their Ld7. On 1-5 you actually pass the test. On 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more that 6 on D6, so no wipe out for them.
And you'd have the same thing going on for a 10-man squad. Lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on d6+2 higher than their LD7. On a 1-5 you actually pass the test. On a 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more than 6 on a d6. So no wipe out for them.
IT IS THE SAME.
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
And those 5-man squads will have to make two separate leadership checks. You're assuming that the opponent will do focus the same effort on two half-size units rather than split attention.
Chikout wrote: These will allow rerolls of fluffed charge and morale throws among other things. Then you have unit and hero abilities. I can't imagine that a commissar will not give you some way to affect a morale roll for example.
Imagine a 30 model unit. Something Guard, Nids or Orks are waiting yo do with new template-free shooting.
That unit have an Ld of 6 and suffers 12 casualties (easily achieved in one shooting phase). Now it must roll D6+12 over Ld6 (or 9 if it takes +1Ld for every 10 models like the guys above suggest). It would take 7-12 (or 4-9 with Ld bonus), 8.5(6.5)average extra casualties. No matter how much you re-roll they would loose at lest 7(or4) extra models.
Now let's MSU that unit into three 10-model units
Each takes 4 casualties (12 total as before).
Each takes an Ld test on D6+4 against Ld6 (7)
On 1-2(3) it passes the test, then takes up to 4(3) casualties, average 1.6(1)
Multiply it on 3 - 0-12(9), average 5(3).
Boom
MSU takes far less tamage from morale on average from the same ammoutn of firepower, with a slight chance to take slighly more at extreme rolls, offset by a chance tyo take no damage at all. ANd that's if the damage is evenly spread which it would not. In reality one unit would likely be wiped out by shooting alone wasting potential morale damage (and proabbly some shooting damage too), another unit would suffer minor casualties and the thir would not be shot at at all.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't MSU spam be a bad idea, as there's a greater chance they would be wiped out due to a bad LD roll?
ENtire point of MSU is to lower the impact of your units being eliminated.
Let's see in details:
You have 5-marine fire squad, lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on D6+2 higher than their Ld7. On 1-5 you actually pass the test. On 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more that 6 on D6, so no wipe out for them.
And you'd have the same thing going on for a 10-man squad. Lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on d6+2 higher than their LD7. On a 1-5 you actually pass the test. On a 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more than 6 on a d6. So no wipe out for them.
IT IS THE SAME.
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
So the MSU is wiped then? Because it started with 5 models.
My initial reading of the morale rules leaves me far less certain about the functionality of this ruleset, as it will inherently already require patching in codex books with Ld gimmickry reinforcement for high model count units simply to make them usable. That's a bad sign.
High LdMSU units almost wont care unless they're mostly dead anyway, Ld will be a potential finisher, but no more. For horde armies, Ld can easily turn 10 or 15 casualties out of a 30 strong unit into an almost total unit wipe.
It also means that stuff like drop pod storm bolters can be used to simply force tests on almost every unit in an opponents army through simple plinking.
Expect to see even fewer horde armies and yet more MSU if there is not significant patching done at the codex level.
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
This morale system in 40k feels open to way too much abuse and I can't see this having been properly playtested.
Latro_ wrote: It appears to me this mechanic actually helps charging armies.
currently:
shoot them - they might run away messing up your charge totally.
charge in - fight and who wins ld test
now:
shoot them - hurt them they stay there
charge them - hurt them and you also fight first
You total up the wounds you did from when you shot them and the subsequent charge at the end to see how many additional guys snuff it.
Its kinda like a double punch to dent that check on their ld at the end.
Not normally an issue for assault units, but you're still going to need to pull your punches a bit with the shooting to avoid the ever widening chasm of failure you'll get as your opponent removes from the front anticipating the charge.
Vaktathi wrote: My initial reading of the morale rules leaves me far less certain about the functionality of this ruleset, as it will inherently already require patching in codex books with Ld gimmickry reinforcement for high model count units simply to make them usable. That's a bad sign.
High LdMSU units almost wont care unless they're mostly dead anyway, Ld will be a potential finisher, but no more. For horde armies, Ld can easily turn 10 or 15 casualties out of a 30 strong unit into an almost total unit wipe.
It also means that stuff like drop pod storm bolters can be used to simply force tests on almost every unit in an opponents army through simple plinking.
Expect to see even fewer horde armies and yet more MSU if there is not significant patching done at the codex level.
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
This morale system in 40k feels open to way too much abuse and I can't see this having been properly playtested.
Yeah, it doesn't look good for hoards. Hopefully they will get something to mitigate that. Maybe Mob Rule will involve morale shenanigans, like in 4th ed.
Didn't it say that vehicles don't have to test for morale?
Just checked - it says single model units don't check, and as vehicles have ld it would seem that they can take morale tests.
However, the ld appears to be pretty high, and vehicle squadrons are small. This means that assuming that LRBT are LD8 like dreads, losing a vehicle will not be enough to kill another tank, as you can't exceed 8 on a D6+1, or even D6+2
Vaktathi wrote: Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
Per these new rules Ld7 grans immunity to morale tests from one lost model, Ld8-from two and so on. So unles Russes have LD6 or lower (unlikely) it won't happen.
At least until something *cough*psykers*cough* lowers their Ld.
Having read the reactions to the new morale rules, my impression is that many who are offended by them have not played AOS and seen them in action. I am just going by what I see as the trend, but if 40k is going to be like AOS, then several other things need to be accounted for. The changes in AOS army building from Warhammer Fantasy army building were drastic. WHFB had a tournament standard of 2000 point armies.These armies could have upwards of 300 or more miniatures. AOS tournament play stands around 2000 to 2500 points. But your points buy you far less. As a result, you have fewer units to activate. If this happens in 40k, then yes, you could totally plaster a unit to make it take a morale test, but every unit would have fired at the one. Now before I get all of the replies of "oh yes you can take a lot of models in AOS", a second factor is that they have under-costed the big monsters. Monsters are the real damage dealers in AOS. Typically, units that you can take in large numbers have low stats, especially armor saves. So a large monster wading into such a unit will kill off so many that it will vaporize the unit in the morale phase. For this reason, large monsters are the target of early shooting (because their effectiveness degrades with damage), and tend to get charged by other large monsters. In this environment, you really are urged towards taking a large monster yourself because they kill more than they cost. Also, armies tend to be homogenous. In the current tournament circuit a lot of the winning armies are mishmashes of several armies thrown together to get the best combination of abilities. In AOS, the rewards for sticking to your army list are just too strong to ignore. Most army lists stick to their book. In 40k units tend to be delivery systems for high power hand to hand characters, or psykers trying to hide behind a shield of troops (OR DOGS). In AOS characters don't join units. They just have abilities that effect units within a certain range. That means if you really want a character dead you can focus fire on him and kill him. So what you will probably see in the new 40k is an army consisting of troops pulled from one book and in a particular formation from that book, 1-2 Monstrous creatures or big tanks, 3-5 units of troops, and 2-3 heroes. The game should take about 1-2 hours. Now I am just describing tournament armies, nothing is stopping you from taking Apocalypse sized armies if you really want to. Even then, your games will be faster. All of this assumes they are using AOS as a model. I can't tell you how much they are taking from AOS. I can tell you that I live in San Diego and talk to the guys from Frontline all the time. Frontline is one of the groups who have been playtesting the rules for 40k. While no one at Frontline has told me anything about 40k, I do know that 1) Those guys are 40k fanatics, hence why they formed their independent tournament circuit, and 2) The whole staff have entirely switched from playing a lot of 40k to playing a hell of a lot of AOS. Now what might that tell you?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't MSU spam be a bad idea, as there's a greater chance they would be wiped out due to a bad LD roll?
ENtire point of MSU is to lower the impact of your units being eliminated.
Let's see in details:
You have 5-marine fire squad, lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on D6+2 higher than their Ld7. On 1-5 you actually pass the test. On 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more that 6 on D6, so no wipe out for them.
And you'd have the same thing going on for a 10-man squad. Lost two to shooting, now you need to roll on d6+2 higher than their LD7. On a 1-5 you actually pass the test. On a 6+ you lose one model. You cannot roll more than 6 on a d6. So no wipe out for them.
IT IS THE SAME.
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
So the MSU is wiped then? Because it started with 5 models.
The point is that the MSU player has TWO such units. One is wiped out, one is unaffected where as the guy with the 10 man unit has to suffer MORE deaths due to possible LD failure.
Expect to see even fewer horde armies and yet more MSU if there is not significant patching done at the codex level.
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
This morale system in 40k feels open to way too much abuse and I can't see this having been properly playtested.
Let's not panic and claim horde armies to be dead just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models (heck, thex even directly cited an example for the latter).
Jumping to conclusions is dangerous, especially if we know only a fraction of the rules (that includes more detailed rules for the phases that have already been covered in articles that are there to provide an overview in the first place).
Not normally an issue for assault units, but you're still going to need to pull your punches a bit with the shooting to avoid the ever widening chasm of failure you'll get as your opponent removes from the front anticipating the charge.
Removal of casualties from the front hasn't been confirmed (or rather denied, looking at the hints GW has given and how AoS works) yet. If you mean shooting at an assault target and the controlling player removing models from the front? Yeah, you're right.
Chikout wrote: These will allow rerolls of fluffed charge and morale throws among other things. Then you have unit and hero abilities. I can't imagine that a commissar will not give you some way to affect a morale roll for example.
Imagine a 30 model unit. Something Guard, Nids or Orks are waiting yo do with new template-free shooting.
That unit have an Ld of 6 and suffers 12 casualties (easily achieved in one shooting phase). Now it must roll D6+12 over Ld6 (or 9 if it takes +1Ld for every 10 models like the guys above suggest). It would take 7-12 (or 4-9 with Ld bonus), 8.5(6.5)average extra casualties. No matter how much you re-roll they would loose at lest 7(or4) extra models.
Now let's MSU that unit into three 10-model units
Each takes 4 casualties (12 total as before).
Each takes an Ld test on D6+4 against Ld6 (7)
On 1-2(3) it passes the test, then takes up to 4(3) casualties, average 1.6(1)
Multiply it on 3 - 0-12(9), average 5(3).
Boom
MSU takes far less tamage from morale on average from the same ammoutn of firepower, with a slight chance to take slighly more at extreme rolls, offset by a chance tyo take no damage at all. ANd that's if the damage is evenly spread which it would not. In reality one unit would likely be wiped out by shooting alone wasting potential morale damage (and proabbly some shooting damage too), another unit would suffer minor casualties and the thir would not be shot at at all.
Put that unit within 12 inches of your general assuming it has this immune to morale ability (like AOS) , it loses 0, the 3 units of ten lose 3 or 4. As before we don't know the core abilities that armies have, we don't know the unit abilities, we don't know how specific command abilities work. There are some units in AOS that gain extra attacks when fighting in large units, so there will be perks that balance out a weakness to morale.
Hopefully the battle forged armies info coming in a couple of days will tell us more.
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
With a Leadership value of 7 a Russ squadron would need to lose two models AND roll a 6 to fail a test. Ld8 would basically make them immune.
I think only larger squadrons of vehicles (like Killa Kans) need to worry about this.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
And those 5-man squads will have to make two separate leadership checks. You're assuming that the opponent will do focus the same effort on two half-size units rather than split attention.
Whicg miggt not be possible(you shoot with one unit), increases chance of no check(you kill one model per unit). Even at worst msu is better. You can see best btw with ultimate msu lone models. This is big part why monsters are popular in aos...
No need to get bttw overly defensive. All rules help certain units more than other and leadership has benefitted msu line forever. Nature of the beast. In return 8th ed h2h order goes from neutral to anti-msu(assuming one unit can split attacks vs multiple units in contact which would be ridiculous msu boost)
Just because one rule helps mpu or horde doesn't make it bad. Not many possible good rules if it did
No it's not same. You lose 5 models, msu lost 5 models and that's it. 10 squad has 66% chance to lose more models including all.
And those 5-man squads will have to make two separate leadership checks. You're assuming that the opponent will do focus the same effort on two half-size units rather than split attention.
Whicg miggt not be possible(you shoot with one unit), increases chance of no check(you kill one model per unit). Even at worst msu is better. You can see best btw with ultimate msu lone models. This is big part why monsters are popular in aos...
Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.
Put that unit within 12 inches of your general assuming it has this immune to morale ability (like AOS) , it loses 0, the 3 units of ten lose 3 or 4. As before we don't know the core abilities that armies have, we don't know the unit abilities, we don't know how specific command abilities work. There are some units in AOS that gain extra attacks when fighting in large units, so there will be perks that balance out a weakness to morale.
Hopefully the battle forged armies info coming in a couple of days will tell us more.
You're right, we don't know the whole picture, but that's not the reason for hoping for the best.
I analyze what we do know now. It's not pretty so far, so I expect the worst.
If I'm wrong it would be a nice surprise for me. If you're wrong it would be a nasty disappointment for you.
I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of nice surprises instead of nasty disappointments.
Lord Kragan wrote: Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.
With this new system Leadership is basically just another part of resilience.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
I really think GW is incapable of creating a rules system where they learn from their past mistakes. For those of you complaining that 7th edition was full of rules bloat, this seems to be an area where you will see exactly that. So GW has outlined the morale system- but then Nids will have the Snyapse rule that will ignore or modify the system and Orks will have some sort of mob rule which will ignore or alter the system and Marines may have ATSKNF which may affect the system and you may have command points which ignore the system etc etc. So we end up with a rule, that for most of the game isn't a rule anymore. So while the core system might be fine, it will be broken by individual army rules. 7th edition actually wasnt a bad rule set without the army books/formations/ and data slates that followed after. I fear this edition will end up in a similar vein.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support
Lord Kragan wrote: Monsters with heroes are popular because they are, generally speaking, the best way to ensure holding objectives and because of their resilience/damage output ratios. Leadership is literally the last of the things you check when saying whether or not you want a monster.
With this new system Leadership is basically just another part of resilience.
And it was before. Because they didn't give a damn.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
Except MSU infantry units get crippled or outright killed even faster by the morale system and the additional casualties. Meanwhile the system allows for granularity to better simulate Tyranids and Orks having very low morale in the lore when they lose synapse or are no longer outnumbering their enemy/have lost most of their models as their low profile Ld kicks in when they lose their special morale buff effects and simulates parts of the unit deserting or retreating off the battlefield.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm imagining non-synapse Nids will have very low bravery and will compensate by having synapse make them auto pass all bravery tests or something.
Right...just like a Termagant unit's Ld characteristic doesn't tell the whole story now. Instinctive Behavior and Synapse are important considerations.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
This is being unnecessarily harsh IMO. "We're aware that this sort of thing needs an alteration to be balanced, so we've taken steps to make it fair." "Yeah, well that just means your core rules are biased!"
The rules only favor X or Y if they're inherently better when you factor in all the rules.
There's being critical for something that's a poor design choice, and then there's holding things to an impossible standard (everything has to be viable, but you're not allowed to modify rules on different units to ensure that, it all has to come from the core.)
If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
And what's the problem with this exactly? Most armies will benefit from the default MSU while other armies will get specific boosts to hordes, hell some armies may get special bonuses for having fewer models per unit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
EnTyme wrote: If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?
It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support
Maybe MSU is indisputably better for Morale.
But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).
It's entirely possible to have tradeoffs in different phases of the game, and some won't favour MSU.
If you really don't expect Commisars or Orks to be able to execute a model from a Guard or Boyz unit to prevent the rest from having to take a Morale test, do you even 40k, bro?
It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
And what's the problem with this exactly? Most armies will benefit from the default MSU while other armies will get specific boosts to hordes, hell some armies may get special bonuses for having fewer models per unit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
the problem is that it requires codex level patching (which, with GW's track record, is sketchy at best) for certain units (units that often are the most fundamental basic core of many armies) to function right and leaves avenues for weaknesses that can be exploited that are simply an an artefact of the rules not scaling their functionality properly as opposed to being an intended mechanic.
Am i being a bit thick or with MSU why don't i just shoot a little bit at a lot of units to force lots of checks opposed to a lot of shots at one unit for a bigger check
are we mathing even f that is the case bigger units suffer...
e.g. i have 2 units of 10 boys you kill an ork from both
ld6 (for sake of argument) i roll a 6 then a 6 for both units i'v lost 4 orks
i have one unit of 20 boys you kill two
i roll a 6 you killed 2 more for a total of 4 as above
except i had to roll 2 sixes not one in the second example
Mezmerro wrote: It'd likely be a re-roll if they keep the current theme. And with D6+casualties vs Ld system re-rolls aren't that useful for horde units.
Mhm, and what tells you that it will "likely be a re-roll"? There haven't really any been mentioned in the new rules so far.
Looks to me that you are basically making that up in order to convince us how the morale system will still suck because commissars and similar Ork rules will likely not be worth it.
Assuming the worst by any means necessary, kek.
I think only larger squadrons of vehicles (like Killa Kans) need to worry about this.
Kans are the only vehicle model in the game right now that has to contend with leadership; and in order to be graced with that privilege, their points cost nearly doubled.
I don't worry TOO much about how kans will do in the next edition, because either they've realized that no one plays them anymore after the nerfs and cost increase and will adjust it accordingly, or else they didn't and life goes on as it is now.
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).
That's assuming Melee is actually worth the trouble. With MSU you send one small unit to eat the charge and die, then shoot enemy melee guys do bits. If they somehow don't kill your tiny cheap expendable squad it's even better then before - you can now withdraw it out of melee and still shoot them to bits, only now you have a remnant of a sacrificial unit you can use as a speedbump once again.
Vaktathi wrote: Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
Per these new rules Ld7 grans immunity to morale tests from one lost model, Ld8-from two and so on. So unles Russes have LD6 or lower (unlikely) it won't happen.
At least until something *cough*psykers*cough* lowers their Ld.
I will HOWL with laughter if exploding vehicles have been replaced with running away vehicles. In some ways it's not a terrible thing or that unrealistic - they bug out, or they stop to help their friends and take no further part in the battle.
I like the premise of the new morale phase. If Dark Eldar and Harlequins still get all their negative modifiers to leadership, it's a more consistent strategy. Each stack of -1 leadership will kill an extra model per unit per turn, with no saves allowed. That's easier to plan around rather than hoping you pin or cause units to flee.
I'm a little disappointed to see that the time saved from no longer measuring models to spread out for templates seems to be replaced with precisely measuring firelines to be 3.1" away from each other.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
I'm just glad they asked anyone. Please explain why their input makes you upset.
I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
Eyjio wrote:Well, that morale phase post was disappointing. I mean, I like the system... but we already knew everything other than 1 test per turn. I guess 1 test per turn is good because assault armies get to do combat before they lose models to morale shock via shooting? Anyway, I was more hoping for things like pinning to be shown (or even say whether it exists at all). It's good though, leadership is now actually a meaningful stat at least, and elite units are okay in that they expect to take fewer casualties and have higher leadership, whereas hordes will presumably get mulched.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
Interesting. What do you dislike which has been shown so far?
As I mentioned in my reply to Not-Not-Kenny, I prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". I've been in the hobby since 2nd edition; back when Movement stats, To Hit modifiers and Armor Save modifiers were a thing. These mechanics had some issues back then and so I'm a little skeptical to see them return. I really don't like vehicles having the same state line as everything else. I don't understand how/why people cannot connect the dots that Armor Value + Hull Points is literally the same thing as Toughness + Wounds. Also, I'm not a huge fan of adopting the AoS Battle Shock mechanic for Morale.
Breng77 wrote:
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.
My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.
I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.
Yeah I'm not sure what the argument is, here. The game is going to be somehow worse specifically because people who play it all the time are providing input on the new rules? Like you said, their style of play is the one that's more restrictive in any case - even if GW wasn't trying to account for both styles, which they are, you can mend your play experience with ease.
And oh my goodness, 'for profit'... I don't think you could say their motivation is money from any point of view... just saying, if you start an FLGS or a hobby gaming convention/tournament in the interest of walking away rich, you're gonna have a bad time!
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Looks to me that you are basically making that up in order to convince us how the morale system will still suck because commissars and similar Ork rules will likely not be worth it.
Assuming the worst by any means necessary, kek.
Well other than re-rolls the only other useful way is to ignore morale tests completely.
Which means GW themselves admit their system suck and use special rules to curcumvent it.
Either way the core system suck
And yes, I do subscribe to assuming the worst mindset. Partly because it's GW we're talking about, but mostly because it's a sure way to avoid being thoroughly disappointed.
Oh, and I also provide math to my side of argument. Optimists provide hope to theirs. Math beats hope. Always.
*sorry, Tzeentch, i didn't mean to*
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
Except MSU infantry units get crippled or outright killed even faster by the morale system and the additional casualties. Meanwhile the system allows for granularity to better simulate Tyranids and Orks having very low morale in the lore when they lose synapse or are no longer outnumbering their enemy/have lost most of their models as their low profile Ld kicks in when they lose their special morale buff effects and simulates parts of the unit deserting or retreating off the battlefield.
Umm no. MSU units are MORE resilient to the damage. As I showed: 10 tac vs 2x5. You lose 5 models. 2x5 suffers 5 casualties. 10 suffers 5-10 casualties due to the battleshock...(and idea of trying to shoot multiple units for small checks doesn't help. For one it means you TOO are MSU so lol for second it increases chance of no roll for battleshock and third this rule favours trying to concentrate lots of damage to one unit over lots of units suffering 1 casualty)
If you want to be more resilient against this you want as many units as small as possible. Ideally 10 tacticals would be 10 units of 1. Albeit that would kick you in the teeth h2h but for shooty units 10 units of 1 would be ideal. 5 units of 2 second best etc.
It's pretty damn obvious that without bespoken rules to help horde units the LD rules favour MSU. Which is just as it is. As I pointed out h2h activation rules favour few big units. Every rule tends to favour something over other so it's not even something worth getting fretted over. Some could say this is good after edition of death stars.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Which shows rules favor msu if horde units need bespoke rules to compensate
And what's the problem with this exactly? Most armies will benefit from the default MSU while other armies will get specific boosts to hordes, hell some armies may get special bonuses for having fewer models per unit. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
Nothing. I'm pointing out the rules are obviously NOT same whether you are MSU or non-MSU. That's so blindingly obvious only biggest white knight would try to rush to defend imaginary attack against rule(so rule favours MSU? So frigging what? Combat order favours few big units. Wopedoo. LD has from 2nd ed onward favoured MSU. Big wopedoo) by trying to claim it's same when it's obviously not.
Look LD even with everything factored in can favour MSU and that's just statement without being attack against rule so no need for any white knights to pretend it was. This rule favours MSU. Other rules favour big horde units. That's wargame.
But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).
It's entirely possible to have tradeoffs in different phases of the game, and some won't favour MSU.
Yay this. Every rule basically tends to favour one kind of unit or another. Even in 7th ed there were rules that favoured assault army over shooty army. Whether game favours one over other too much is then decided by COMBINATION of those tradeoffs.
Mezmerro wrote: Oh, and I also provide math to my side of argument. Optimists provide hope to theirs. Math beats hope. Always.
*sorry, Tzeentch, i didn't mean to*
The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.
Analyzing the core rules in isolation, when the system is specifically meant to be relatively simple with more complex interactions brought in from army rules, seems kind of pointless to me.
Latro_ wrote: e.g. i have 2 units of 10 boys you kill an ork from both
ld6 (for sake of argument) i roll a 6 then a 6 for both units i'v lost 4 orks
i have one unit of 20 boys you kill two
i roll a 6 you killed 2 more for a total of 4 as above
except i had to roll 2 sixes not one in the second example
Average is 0 casualties from both. With 2 casualties to 1 unit increases odds.
Basically you want to concentrate fire to ensure you overcome that LD and thus in the end cause MORE casualties.
If you kill 1 model from unit you start with -5. If you kill 2 models you start at -4. After you kill 5 models _every casualty is automatic dead ork_. With small tests here and there one dead ork does not result automatically into dead ork in battleshock test.
theocracity wrote: The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.
So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.
v0iddrgn wrote: I have no doubt that Mob Rule or Synapse or Commisars will negate the problems with the new Morale tests against horde styled armies.
In this case we would have a morale system that everyone ignores because of bespoken rules. Same as now! Yay for a Change that changes nothing!
Which is why I don't expect them to negate it completely but reduce effect. Extra LD or something. Maybe rerolls. Either way units that ignore it completely will likely be few except for units of 1.
theocracity wrote: The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.
So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.
Well considering the only ways you could think of to affect it were rerolls and ignoring entirely, I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are. I can already think of several ways that armies could interact with Bravery that could change the calculation in an actual game scenario, rather than just assuming that bespoke rules get ignored in a system that was designed to utilize bespoke rules.
For example, a Necron army could spend command points to have a Bravery test restore models to the unit instead of losing them. Khorne units could gain buffs based on the number of models lost to it.
I get that those are 'bespoke' rules and that QED that means the core rules suck, but ignoring that the bespoke rules are an intended part of the system is myopic imo.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
You're misinterpreting me. That's not the narrative I'm trying to paint.
Vaktathi wrote: My initial reading of the morale rules leaves me far less certain about the functionality of this ruleset, as it will inherently already require patching in codex books with Ld gimmickry reinforcement for high model count units simply to make them usable. That's a bad sign.
High LdMSU units almost wont care unless they're mostly dead anyway, Ld will be a potential finisher, but no more. For horde armies, Ld can easily turn 10 or 15 casualties out of a 30 strong unit into an almost total unit wipe.
It also means that stuff like drop pod storm bolters can be used to simply force tests on almost every unit in an opponents army through simple plinking.
Expect to see even fewer horde armies and yet more MSU if there is not significant patching done at the codex level.
Also concerned about vehicle squadrons since they have morale now, nobody wants to lose a Russ tank to a single D6 morae roll just because they had already lost one.
This morale system in 40k feels open to way too much abuse and I can't see this having been properly playtested.
Yeah, it doesn't look good for hoards. Hopefully they will get something to mitigate that. Maybe Mob Rule will involve morale shenanigans, like in 4th ed.
Didn't it say that vehicles don't have to test for morale?
Just checked - it says single model units don't check, and as vehicles have ld it would seem that they can take morale tests.
However, the ld appears to be pretty high, and vehicle squadrons are small. This means that assuming that LRBT are LD8 like dreads, losing a vehicle will not be enough to kill another tank, as you can't exceed 8 on a D6+1, or even D6+2
It seems more and more obvious that all the playtesting has been focused on mostly space marines while using a very limited set of xeno armies.
I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.
My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.
I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.
Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.
Trust me the incentive for the people who run these events is at worst the notoriety within the community, but most just enjoy putting on a well run event for others. Now you may not enjoy the playstyle of a balanced game, but it seems to me that the system in general was developed by GW and then tested by these competitive groups (who better than those that routinely break the game, have large groups of potential testers etc.). The similarities to AOS speak to as much. The insinuation that profit that these guys are making on any level plays a part is absurd. Even if this were the case they would be the best suited as they have the biggest incentive to make the edition as enjoyable for as many people as possible.
I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.
Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.
Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.
Fragile wrote: This could really hurt Tyranid hordes, hopefully Synapse will prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.
I suspect bring in synapse range will mitigate it entirely cancel the effects of battleshock, just like it does now with the conferred fearlessness.
And I suspect it does not.
There will be very few units indeed that will not feel its effects.
Since every 1 model unit already ignores it that should take quite a lot of "very few units indeed". Having army with plenty of ways to make units ignore it like synapse would go agains that statement.
Hefty discount sure. But cancel entirely? Not so sure.
theocracity wrote: The funny thing about math is that the calculations change when you add variables.
So far the best I achieved with variables (that do not override the core system completely) was to lower the gap between Horde and MSU, but even then not bu much.
Well considering the only ways you could think of to affect it were rerolls and ignoring entirely, I think I'll wait to see what the actual rules are. I can already think of several ways that armies could interact with Bravery that could change the calculation in an actual game scenario, rather than just assuming that bespoke rules get ignored in a system that was designed to utilize bespoke rules.
For example, a Necron army could spend command points to have a Bravery test restore models to the unit instead of losing them. Khorne units could gain buffs based on the number of models lost to it.
I get that those are 'bespoke' rules and that QED that means the core rules suck, but ignoring that the bespoke rules are an intended part of the system is myopic imo.
Good points, and to add a couple more, using the example of a pair of 5-man squads to one 10-man squad. The larger squad could have an option to upgrade to a veteran sergeant, granting a higher leadership. The smaller squads could, combined, have a higher points cost than the larger squad (like in 30K). The larger squad may, in general, just have more options available to it.
So far, all of the rules that have been previewed wouldn't even fill a single page, much less the 12 pages we've been told. I'll reserve judgment until I see more than a handful of teasers.
I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.
I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.
We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.
We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).
Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.
We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.
LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).
There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.
There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.
ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.
I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Good points, and to add a couple more, using the example of a pair of 5-man squads to one 10-man squad. The larger squad could have an option to upgrade to a veteran sergeant, granting a higher leadership. The smaller squads could, combined, have a higher points cost than the larger squad (like in 30K). The larger squad may, in general, just have more options available to it.
So far, all of the rules that have been previewed wouldn't even fill a single page, much less the 12 pages we've been told. I'll reserve judgment until I see more than a handful of teasers.
Those are more of army list things. Rules would still favour MSU. It would just be reflected in points funnily enough. MSU would still be more powerful but would reflect in points. Just like S10 weapon is more powerful than S1 and is reflected in points.
Veteran sergeants from small units are unlikely to go away(and didn't AOS even have 1 automatically in each squad...).
It's pretty damn obvious that without bespoken rules to help horde units the LD rules favour MSU.
Doesn't need bespoke rules, it just needs some rule you don't yet know about.
The common, default everyone has it, it rule in AoS is that the general can make 1 unit immune to morale for 1 turn. That makes a single horde unit better than MSU. But it does not of necessity make mean several horde units are better. Of course general might have other abilities they use which are better so you don't use that default one.
All hordes also get bonus bravery in AoS as well. That gives higher LD so means less lost models per failed morale (or no fail at all). In the simple examples above talking about losing 1 or 2 models then the horde is better, as that will have a higher LD for the test. You will still get focus fired to death, but heh hoh anything getting focused on will probably die, but hordes are better at handling the smaller casualties than MSU in that regard.
Also AoS favours big units in combat due to alternate activation, not sure whether new 40k has that yet? So their may be a tension there.
Then there are also those tangential things; like units that affect everything within a range e.g. some things that charge in AoS inflict auto wounds on each unit within X". That favors a large unit over MSU, less you lose models from multi units, and take morale tests from multi units. I know my Lizard men with their Basiladon loves MSU enemies - more near by units = more mortal wounds dished out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those are more of army list things. Rules would still favour MSU. It would just be reflected in points funnily enough. MSU would still be more powerful but would reflect in points.
Maybe, have they said anything about points? Cos in AoS there is no points for upgrades like that. Every unit just gets the leader, banner, musician and wpn choices it wants. You buy the unit and choose how it is configured.
If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.
Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.
Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.
I kind of agree with this. You're right that rules suited for tournaments can be fit for casual play, but I don't think that is necessarily so. Some games can be so precise in how they are written and so strict in how they are played that it can be very difficult to enjoy them in a casual setting. They are fit for tournament play and the mindset that tournament players approach the game with, but they repel casual players by erecting various barriers, whether that's reading annoyingly-written rules or engaging in fiddly measurements. These tight rules also tend to lack the bits of character and diversity that make a game appealing to a casual player in favor of flattening out the rules, making pieces similar, and reducing things to a small number of variables.
Now, I don't think that 8th Edition will go too far in this direction, and we certainly don't have enough information to form an opinion either way, but there is certainly the possibility that it will become a more tournament-driven game. I like some of what the Frontline guys do, but based on the battlereports and other videos I've seen from them a lot of things that they enjoy in the game are not the same as what I like or would want to see. I do have faith in their ability to break the game and expose glaring imbalances, so giving them things to play test is a good idea, but I hope that 8th Edition isn't entirely a tournament-driven affair.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
I am not sure why people don't look at the AoS warscrolls for orcs to see how they actually are working. It's not like Orcs are going to work differently. For example:
Spoiler:
Orcs are Bravery 5 for Boyz. They have:
One of their leaders has (think of this as the Dark Apostate example): COMMAND ABILITY Da Great Leader: If Gorbad Ironclaw uses this ability, all other Greenskinz from your army add 2 to their Bravery whilst they are within 16" of him. In addition, you can re-roll wound rolls of 1 for these units if they are within 16" of him when they attack in the combat phase. This ability lasts until your next hero phase.
The boyz themselves have two rules to protect themselves: Orc Banner: You can add 2 to the Bravery of all models in a unit that includes any Orc Banners as long as there is an enemy model within 3" of the unit.
And once boyz should die they get a save: Skull Icon: If a model flees from a unit that includes any Skull Icons, roll a dice; on a 6 the Icon Bearer thumps some courage back into the cowardly Orc – he returns to the fight and doesn’t flee.
So, based on that. If one guy is modeled with a banner in the unit. Then they have a 7 bravery with a 6+ save on all boyz that attempt to run away. And if they have that hero nearby they have a 9 bravery.
You are going to have to kill alot of boyz to make those guys run.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
Which post was that? The one with assumptions about everything and not a shred of evidence to support your position? Ah, my mistake.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.
oni wrote: I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
A strongly balanced core set of rules is far better for everyone involved. Yes, this includes casual narrative focused players. When you have a strong set of balanced rules, you need to care even less that you're not taking highly unoptimized things.
"But I don't care if things are bad!"
Well, it's better for the game if they aren't bad and they provide a reasonable function to your army.
oni wrote: I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
A strongly balanced core set of rules is far better for everyone involved. Yes, this includes casual narrative focused players. When you have a strong set of balanced rules, you need to care even less that you're not taking highly unoptimized things.
"But I don't care if things are bad!"
Well, it's better for the game if they aren't bad and they provide a reasonable function to your army.
You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?
When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.
I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.
I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.
We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.
We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).
Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.
We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.
LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).
There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.
There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.
ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.
I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.
I am not hunting for anything, I want this edition to be fun and playable like everyone else. But everything shown so far is pointing to a game for small units with good saves and good stats. As soon as we move towards the lower end off save and BS it start to get broken. +1 or -1 suddenly makes a world of difference if you only hit on 5+ or have a 6+ save.
I am sure that Manz missiles and nob bikers will be good but there is no way that they will be able to make shoota boyz or flash gits balanced.
Right now i have finished painting 10 flash gits, I have 8 tank bustas, 3 nobs and 2 meks half finished and i have base coated 6 killa kanz, 2 trucks, 3 mek guns and a looted wagon. Do you really think that i would have done this if i wanted to hate 40k?
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
That still doesn't factor in leadership buffs from leader and character models, so the calculations don't really get us anywhere when it comes to represent the game after the release of the new edition. Not to mention horde factions like Orks and particularly Tyranids potentially getting unique strengrh in number moral buff roles.
Let's imagine 30-model squad from my example is lead by Ld10 IC. It'd lower average morale damage by 10-6=4 models to 4.5(2.5).
Which is still higher then MSU take without that expensive IC's support
Maybe MSU is indisputably better for Morale.
But remember that the new Fight! Phase rules are stacked in favour of larger units (Because you activate units in alternate order, larger units activated quickly = more models swinging doing damage before your opponent).
It's entirely possible to have tradeoffs in different phases of the game, and some won't favour MSU.
This is HUGE actually and I wanted to chime in. Traditionally MSU has ALWAYS been better because you get more units, meaning you give your opponent many broken up targets while you get more choice with so many more units to activate yourself. However in this new edition say 30 orks are engaged with 4, 5 man marine units, in 8th the marine player will get to activate 5 dudes at a time while that ork player can activate all 30 crippling the remaining units that have yet to attack. It gives a massive perk to horde armies actually.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.
Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?
Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.
I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.
Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.
Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.
I've played plenty of games that I've lost interest in because the rules are precise and tactical and designed for tournaments. WMH is probably the single best example: You essentially end up with a card game with really confusing/bizarre movement rules. There are SO MANY abstractions that kill any kind of mental image you might have of giant monster combat going on. They took a ton of the rules from Monsterpocalypse, which was a tactical, tight PP game that the PLAYER won, not the list, but still maintained the visceral feel of kaiju giant monster fights, and totally lost their heads 15 miles up their butts with WMH. The interesting and satisfying ideas are there (battletech style damage charts for big robots with disabling components, summoners commanding big creatures, a ramping up rage system that grants power boosts but reduces control, etc) but the relentless focus on tournament meta-play and precision sucked the life out of the system to the point where you basically can't play it casually because the abstractions are so giant. Terrain might as well be felt mats, and so, 95% of the time, it is. The 'kill the caster' mechanic puts tons of emphasis on MTG-style "one shot combos". Focus and Fury become a Eurogame token-shuffling sidegame you have to manage completely separately from thinking about models and where you want them to be. The practice of bypassing the premeasuring by using your caster range which you can measure is headache inducing and obnoxious.
I'm not saying 40k has or will become that - their roots and what the company wants to do is VASTLY different - but it can happen.
Personally, I like New Morale, because I feel it's less to keep track of, putting it all in one spot during the turn is nice, and just like fixed to-hits, it's a mechanic that a new player can instantly understand and retain after one explanation.
Backfire wrote: If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.
...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?
Guess we can, but I'm not seeing them now. I don't like removal of templates, because it probably leads to infantry deploying in clumps, which looks stupid in game of this setting. Similarly, if vehicles don't have facings, that's another visual aspect lost, and for little gain, since it's not like old AV system was particularly problematic or hard to understand.
As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.
They were also silly, but they haven't gone anywhere: existing silliness is not an argument to add more silliness.
I think we can all agree that MSU will be a beneficial tactic in certain circumstances, and hordes will be beneficial in different circumstances. Even if the core rules benefit MSU more if doesn't mean much, because it's unlikely you'll be playing an army that only uses the core rules. The core rules will not cover every scenario with perfect balance, because they're designed to be provided in a free pamphlet that lets army books do the work of supporting distinct army styles.
I agree 100% that play testing is good. I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
Tournament players know the rules the best, generally as they use them the most. Why wouldn't you want those people doing the playtesting? We had a time when Narrative Players Only did playtesting, it's called Games Workshop and it got us where we are today.
Remember, EVERYONE can play the game with "Tournament Rules" but tournaments cannot use half-tested casual only rules.
Clear and concise rules benefit every single player.
I've played plenty of games that I've lost interest in because the rules are precise and tactical and designed for tournaments. WMH is probably the single best example: You essentially end up with a card game with really confusing/bizarre movement rules. There are SO MANY abstractions that kill any kind of mental image you might have of giant monster combat going on. They took a ton of the rules from Monsterpocalypse, which was a tactical, tight PP game that the PLAYER won, not the list, but still maintained the visceral feel of kaiju giant monster fights, and totally lost their heads 15 miles up their butts with WMH. The interesting and satisfying ideas are there (battletech style damage charts for big robots with disabling components, summoners commanding big creatures, a ramping up rage system that grants power boosts but reduces control, etc) but the relentless focus on tournament meta-play and precision sucked the life out of the system to the point where you basically can't play it casually because the abstractions are so giant. Terrain might as well be felt mats, and so, 95% of the time, it is. The 'kill the caster' mechanic puts tons of emphasis on MTG-style "one shot combos". Focus and Fury become a Eurogame token-shuffling sidegame you have to manage completely separately from thinking about models and where you want them to be. The practice of bypassing the premeasuring by using your caster range which you can measure is headache inducing and obnoxious.
I'm not saying 40k has or will become that - their roots and what the company wants to do is VASTLY different - but it can happen.
Personally, I like New Morale, because I feel it's less to keep track of, putting it all in one spot during the turn is nice, and just like fixed to-hits, it's a mechanic that a new player can instantly understand and retain after one explanation.
But you do understand that, had you a mind to, you were in an infinitely better position adding more into that precise rule set to make it less abstract than you would have been trying to fix a tangled set of Christmas lights of a ruleset in order to try and make it tighter and more precise?
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.
Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?
Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.
Oh sarcasm, hyperbole, and unprovoked escalation. This ought to be constructive. This is why I have only a handful of posts. My bad for attempting to have a discussion on a discussion forum.
Your point being that I can't know if that's absolutely 100% true? Yes that's correct. I would be shocked if they did have legion rules or a "Legion" keyword though on the cultists warscroll (or whatever they'll be called in the 40K version). In all of the 8th edition preview information they were careful to use specific language so I'm hypothesizing that "Legion" was a specific word choice.
My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.
I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.
Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.
This makes no sense, so because you failed to make a profit, somehow every other organizer must? I mean, other conventions outside the ones in this community exist and make profits your aware right? It's the same model. I would agree with you that there is a certain event size that is incredibly tough to make money, to big for a store, not big enough to get reduced rates from a hall/hotel. But the idea is to get large enough that you make a profit like any business.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.
They are providing a DESIRED service.
Yea I hate that mentality, I WANT them to make money doing something great they love. It's always annoyed me that it is taboo to discuss that element.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
The DA comments mentioned benefiting those from his "Legion". Cultists aren't part of a legion.
Mind sharing the new 40k datasheets?
Since you obviously have them, to know that Cultists aren't given a "Legion" trait.
Oh sarcasm, this ought to be constructive. This is why I have only a handful of posts. My bad for attempting to have a discussion on a discussion forum.
Your point being that I can't know if that's absolutely 100% true? Yes that's correct. I would be shocked if they did have legion rules or a "Legion" keyword though on the cultists warscroll (or whatever they'll be called in the 40K version). In all of the 8th edition preview information they were careful to use specific language so I'm hypothesizing that "Legion" was a specific word choice.
Honestly, I think this is your biggest mistake, but not you alone. I think a certain percentage of the angst being generated (but by no means all) is down to overanalysis of language.
Just today, they've apparantly edited the blog post because the first attempt didn't correctly describe how the LD mechanic worked (didn't mention it was the difference between scores, implying that if you rolled an 8 vs LD7 you lost 8 models, not one) so to ascribe too much care to choice of language on their part probably isn't the way to go.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.
I men, with every new rules drop the possibility of using a fun and balanced ork army gets smaller and smaller. It looks like they are aiming to make another 30k.
I disagree with everything you said, even the parts I snipped out.
We will be getting our saves against bolters and other similar weapons.
We will (probably) be able to take wounds from the backs of our units).
Our trukks are going to get a toughness value and potentially some kind of save.
We can finally ignore the I2 crap that's plagued us.
LD mechanics mean that suddenly our units wont be running off the table because they got splattered a little too much; instead we lose models (which we do all the time now as it stands).
There's a HUGELY STRONG implication that our stuff will finally be costed appropriately.
There's commitment to fix rules when they don't work with a regular schedule rather than whenever they happen to get around to the ork codex or decide to re-issue a supplement that already exists.
ALL of the models rules will be available day one (and possibly for free), and then afterwards we are probably going to be among the first to get an update in print.
I'm sorry, but you are on actively the hunt for stuff to hate if you actually cannot see the silver here. The ONLY thing thats kinda a shaft for xeno armies is that GW has suddenly decided to bring the chaos/imerium narrative to the forefront, so they will probably get a bit more focus in the fluff than we will.
I am not hunting for anything, I want this edition to be fun and playable like everyone else. But everything shown so far is pointing to a game for small units with good saves and good stats. As soon as we move towards the lower end off save and BS it start to get broken. +1 or -1 suddenly makes a world of difference if you only hit on 5+ or have a 6+ save.
I am sure that Manz missiles and nob bikers will be good but there is no way that they will be able to make shoota boyz or flash gits balanced.
Right now i have finished painting 10 flash gits, I have 8 tank bustas, 3 nobs and 2 meks half finished and i have base coated 6 killa kanz, 2 trucks, 3 mek guns and a looted wagon. Do you really think that i would have done this if i wanted to hate 40k?
Two words: Mortal Wounds. Mortal wounds are the great equalizer in sigmar and will likely act the same way in 40k.
Oh, you have your elite expensive marines with good saves and good morale? 4 mortal wounds and the whole squad is gone after morale. You lose 4 orcs and don't even think about it.
Mortal wounds are TOO prolific in Age of Sigmar and as such the game is pushed towards either extremely large, cheap, effective units to cushion the blow mortal wounds cause, long range shooting that can avoid them, or stormcasts who can do other shifty crap to get around them(but are OBSCENELY vulnerable when they run out of tricks.)
Sylvaneth is an army where basically the whole board can get to 2+ rerollable armor and they've been having trouble competing at the tournament level because they just don't have enough bodies to deal with mortal wounds.
Side Note: The meta of sigmar has been utterly fascinating(with the exception of shooting being a bit op in certain areas) It started out as bit monsters and powerful elite units, then massed mortal wounds came in and it became 'how many mortal wounds can I cram into one list? Then in response to that people started upping their unit sizes and taking cheaper models to blunt the mortal wound output. Minus a few standout OPs like Tzeentch skyfires the metagame of sigmar has been fascinating to watch and I would love it if 40k had a chance to go through the same evolution.
My comment was in jest, but it's foolish to assume that they're not gaining something from these events. If they lost money at each event, they wouldn't continue to do them. I listen to the podcast's and I'm aware of how they present the topic of 'event profits', but it's such a sensitive subject with the community at large that they're not going to brag/discuss their earnings. Do you brag to your friends, family and coworkers about how much money you make? I have a strong feeling that you don't. Trust me... There's incentive there somewhere to do these events.
I'm not angry. I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.
Having run a GT, worked at a convention etc. I can say it is foolish to assume that they are gaining something monetary from these events. Lots of people lose money/break even or at best re-invest in things like terrain etc. I lost money (for a small GT bordering on $500 or so) every year. These things are super expensive to put on. Fronting money to rent space, tables, storage for terrain, new terrain. Go look into renting space at a convention center/hotel and then look at GT tickets and tell me where all the profit comes from.
This makes no sense, so because you failed to make a profit, somehow every other organizer must? I mean, other conventions outside the ones in this community exist and make profits your aware right? It's the same model. I would agree with you that there is a certain event size that is incredibly tough to make money, to big for a store, not big enough to get reduced rates from a hall/hotel. But the idea is to get large enough that you make a profit like any business.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
For some reason those that play GW games don't want good tournaments is my only conclusion. It's really just a Warhammer thing, other games don't care about tournaments making money.
They are providing a DESIRED service.
Yea I hate that mentality, I WANT them to make money doing something great they love. It's always annoyed me that it is taboo to discuss that element.
I've been part of a convention outside this space that is larger than adepticon in size (or any wargaming convention) 20k+ attendees, they don't make money. Space rental can be extremely expensive. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is incredible difficult especially in the wargaming space. It is not just my solo experience (I did it as cheaply as possible, I did it at said larger convention so I did not need to even rent space, but I also did not receive ticket proceeds.
It is also apparently a very swingy profit business. Wizard world made a profit ($900k in 2014) one year, before losing $4.3 million in 2015. So overall little profit. Now that is across tons of conventions so some single events were likely profitable. But it just goes to show that conventions are hard to consistently turn a profit on and these are much larger conventions than anything in wargaming, with presumably paying vendors, exhibitors etc.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Let's not panic just yet considering how this morale system was basically copy pasted from AoS... and AoS has a positive Ld value boost for every 10 models in the unit, as well as plentiful morale buffs being handed out as bubble auras by character/HQ/leader models.
I've already posted math on expected casualties on single unit vs MSU with or without Ld bonuses for every 10 models. MSU takes far less morale damage in both cases even in the ideal case of even spread, and with uneven spread MSU would take even less.
And special weapons? A unit of 5 models isn't going to do much when it is rendered ineffective. A unit of 10 with special weapons will maintain it's role for longer. Sure you'd have two units with special weapons (for more points), but one of them can get knocked out far more quickly than that unit of 10.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.
Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
You know the guys that run those events are not walking away with buckets of cash, right? The guys that put on those events are volunteers who donate their time and energy to making the game awesome.
Even companies like FLG that did the playtesting have a financial incentive to make the game as balanced as possible. How is that a bad thing?
Red Corsair wrote: I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
I agree. The only thing that bugs me is anyone who openly pretends they aren't making money when we know that they are. I get that they may be trying to avoid blowback from certain corners of the community, but there's nothing wrong with making a buck and they shouldn't have to lie about it. Unless they're cheating on their taxes or something (please note that I'm not actually claiming that anyone is doing that).
Anyway, more on topic...the idea that what's good for a tournament player is good for everyone is quite the canard. For instance, a narrative player may want a certain level of granularity that runs counter to a tournament player's desire to finish games in a timely manner. A narrative player may want a certain visceral or visual aspect to the game where a tournament player is better served by abstraction. It's easy to say everyone benefits from tight rulesets and balance, but those usually come at a cost of some kind. Personally I'm fine with what I'm reading about 8th, but I can see how there might be players who'd prefer balance and rules clarity through a LESS streamlined ruleset.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.
Providing water in the banquet apparently cost them several thousand by itself.
oni wrote: I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
There is a whole level of play designed for narrative play. "Bring the models you have and throw them on the table". There is another one where you buy units but not upgrades for ease of play. Both of those seem 'narrative' to me. Just because the rules are actually playtested does not mean they cannot be used for narrative play.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.
Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.
This assumes that there are other options in the area. In mine there aren't for conventions this size. So not much negotiating and walking away that can happen. A ton has and it still loses money. I know they discount stuff, that is why things can happen at all. But it still costs quite a bit. It might vary area to area, but some places are very expensive. I'm speaking about conventions I know, including some of the noted conventions, as well as looking up profit from large conventions. It just isn't that common. For huge cons (comicon, gencon etc) it happens, but for most conventions (including the largest wargaming conventions it is minimal at best.
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
The thing is though that renting a hotel ballroom etc is super expensive. Just looking at a few it seems common for a ballroom to cost $10k+ per day. So for a 3-4 day event like LVO $40k+ would not be unreasonable, especially when you consider storing the terrain, truck rentals, prizes etc.
Right, now rather then looking at prices out of context negotiate with them and guarantee them 2-3 full room blocks of reservations and they will heavily discount it, if not you go to another hotel and let them sit on the offer. It's not like I haven't factored in the things you just listed, it in my post you quoted FFS. Even by using your bad business of not negotiating your single event paid for the space, luckily they sell twice as many tickets through other events.
This assumes that there are other options in the area. In mine there aren't for conventions this size. So not much negotiating and walking away that can happen. A ton has and it still loses money. I know they discount stuff, that is why things can happen at all. But it still costs quite a bit. It might vary area to area, but some places are very expensive. I'm speaking about conventions I know, including some of the noted conventions, as well as looking up profit from large conventions. It just isn't that common. For huge cons (comicon, gencon etc) it happens, but for most conventions (including the largest wargaming conventions it is minimal at best.
Please don't confuse my point. I am not saying every convention ever makes a profit. that's like assuming every business makes a profit. You can't compare any one directly to another, it doesn't work that way. If you are limited in an areas, you need to move to a more competitive area....like Vegas.... Notice they started in the Bay areas an moved to another state, it's because they adapted, and good for them! BTW, if done correctly, you can pay yourself for the time. So the organization could break even or make little profit on paper, but you as the organizer still got paid. But this is getting into the weeds, so PM me if you want to continue, thank you for sharing with me though
endlesswaltz123 wrote: If they were going to raise some stats over 10, LD should have been one of them with this new mechanic. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case... Marines have LD7... How low are some other units LD going to be?
They also mentioned Dark Apostle having Ld10 ad spreading it arount himself in a bubble.
WIth 10-men cultist squads they're gonna be as good as fearless in that bubble.
The way this system works in AoS, most armies have a way to get around battleshock; much like in 40k, the difference is that INHERENT immunity is almost non-existent. You want to be battleshock immune you can be, but it requires forethought, investment and in game strategy to actually pull off.
Stormcasts have a leader that give them 24" immunity to battleshock if he's your general, but he's 220 points and having him as your general means you can't benefit from other powerful general abilities. It also means that if he gets sniped you're now completely vulnerable to morale and likely in an overextended position.
It also doesn't hurt big units as much as people think it does, it just means you have to think about your blob squad instead of fire and forget.
For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
casvalremdeikun wrote: For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
I would be really surprised if that were the case, but it might be something like:
A unit containing an <insert name here> can add 1 to any rolls for Battleshock.
I also don't expect the Chaplain to mirror the Dark Apostle exactly. The Chaplain might allow for ignoring Battleshock tests in a smaller radius(6" to the Dark Apostle's 12") while the Dark Apostle allows for using his Leadership, for example.
Vaktathi wrote:it will inherently already require patching in codex books
There will be no patching. Instead there will be total rewrites. If you want to see how far the rewrites will go, compare a Warhammer Fantasy Battle 8th Edition Army Book entry with an Age of Sigmar Warscroll.
Oni wrote:I'm upset at the notion that this edition may have been heavily influenced by entities that prefer a vastly different play style than my own.
Given the narrative content in the last few 40k books as well as the multiple campaign books for Age of Sigmar, something tells me that you'll have loads of content for narrative play. And with a new general points system, it'll be easier than ever to modify an existing battle plan to use whatever models you want. So if a "last stand" type scenario has 20 marines and a dreadnought defending against a ton of daemons, you'll be able to use the scenario with say 500 points of defender and 1000 of attacker. Or if you don't need the general points system, then don't use it. I highly doubt the addition of guideline type points or the playtesting of matched play by tournament people will somehow diminish what GW is already doing for narrative approaches.
casvalremdeikun wrote: For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
I would be really surprised if that were the case, but it might be something like:
A unit containing an <insert name here> can add 1 to any rolls for Battleshock.
I also don't expect the Chaplain to mirror the Dark Apostle exactly. The Chaplain might allow for ignoring Battleshock tests in a smaller radius(6" to the Dark Apostle's 12") while the Dark Apostle allows for using his Leadership, for example.
I would be fine with that. A Squad Sergeant is the leader after all. If Independent Characters can't join units anymore (not confirmed), they better do things like give bonuses to Morale tests.
Ignoring battleshock is an extremely powerful ability, and very few models actually can bestow that rule (and they always cost a lot). Synapse will probably give LD10 to lesser bugs.
Anyway, AoS morale rules don't sit well with casualties taken from the front and with ICs in units, so i can think we can safely assume those rules are not in 8th.
We can already see that the dark apostle has an aura based ability.
casvalremdeikun wrote: For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
I would be really surprised if that were the case, but it might be something like:
A unit containing an <insert name here> can add 1 to any rolls for Battleshock.
I also don't expect the Chaplain to mirror the Dark Apostle exactly. The Chaplain might allow for ignoring Battleshock tests in a smaller radius(6" to the Dark Apostle's 12") while the Dark Apostle allows for using his Leadership, for example.
I would be fine with that. A Squad Sergeant is the leader after all. If Independent Characters can't join units anymore (not confirmed), they better do things like give bonuses to Morale tests.
Different LD values inside a single unit? I don't think so.
Sergeants will not have a profile, it will be a rule of the unit. "One model of this unit can be a sergeant. A sergeant has a bonus of +1 on ranged hit rolls".
casvalremdeikun wrote: For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
I would be really surprised if that were the case, but it might be something like:
A unit containing an <insert name here> can add 1 to any rolls for Battleshock.
I also don't expect the Chaplain to mirror the Dark Apostle exactly. The Chaplain might allow for ignoring Battleshock tests in a smaller radius(6" to the Dark Apostle's 12") while the Dark Apostle allows for using his Leadership, for example.
I would be fine with that. A Squad Sergeant is the leader after all. If Independent Characters can't join units anymore (not confirmed), they better do things like give bonuses to Morale tests.
Different LD values inside a single unit? I don't think so.
Sergeants will not have a profile, it will be a rule of the unit. "One model of this unit can be a sergeant. A sergeant has a bonus of +1 on ranged hit rolls".
Except the Sergeants of damn near every Space Marine unit have completely different loadouts than the rest of the Squad. He is going to have his own profile just like the leader unit in a Stormcast Eternal unit has his own. Possibly might have more than just a higher leadership, maybe more attacks.
oni wrote: I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
A strongly balanced core set of rules is far better for everyone involved. Yes, this includes casual narrative focused players. When you have a strong set of balanced rules, you need to care even less that you're not taking highly unoptimized things.
"But I don't care if things are bad!"
Well, it's better for the game if they aren't bad and they provide a reasonable function to your army.
You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?
When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.
Even when it clearly is not.
Exactly! When is the last time we've seen AoS played any other way than Matched Play?
Profit does not always need to equal "I'm rich bitch!" status, but there's obviously enough incentive there to keep doing these events.
Like genuinely liking 40k and enjoying to share that with others by organizing events for it and having fun? Your attempts to create a "they are just greedy and doing it for benefits!" narrative is getting more and more forced every time you post about it.
I am SURE they do it because they love the game, but I am a bit disgusted by the notion that if someone makes a profit doing something they love then they somehow are greedy or less likeable. I haven't read every post by oni so I am not defending him, and i am not calling you out here, i have see this before though from others.
I mean, it takes a special type of naive to think they aren't turning a profit and are only doing it for the community. Why not both? It isn't bad to make money doing something good that you love after all, it's what everyone dreams of doing in fact.
Simple logic here but whats an LVO ticket, $85 last I checked, ~500 in the main event, that's $42,500.00 from the one event of how many? Plus are other games in 4 days. Use a hotel in it's off season and guarantee to fill 2-3 room blocks and they will comp yours and your staffs rooms plus discount the hall if not comp that as well. Next hurdle is terrain, but luckily the Frontline crew in particular have grown as a business as well as an event and now sell terrain and mats meaning they can use inventory for the event then sell it off after rather then store it all year. Them making a profit is awesome they deserve it. Never understood why it's perceived as scummy by part of the community to make a profit running major tournaments.
Red Corsair, you seem to be in my camp on this one. Mr. Ragnar Blackmane has unfortunately grossly misinterpreted what I wrote.
No more discussions of convention costs, etc here!
This is the 8th edition rules thread. To discuss other tangential topics please start a thread in the Dakka Discussions, 40k General Discussion, or Tournaments Discussion forums.
Further OT posts may be edited / deleted to keep this thread on track.
Sounds like the best armies will be the ones that pack the most weapons into minimum units. Such a terrible way to go, who wanted 4th Ed no retreat applied to every morale test?
oni wrote: Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.
I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.
[/sarcasm]
Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.
You know the guys that run those events are not walking away with buckets of cash, right? The guys that put on those events are volunteers who donate their time and energy to making the game awesome.
Even companies like FLG that did the playtesting have a financial incentive to make the game as balanced as possible. How is that a bad thing?
I really don't care about the extent of their profits. That wasn't the point behind my sarcastic comment.
Except the Sergeants of damn near every Space Marine unit have completely different loadouts than the rest of the Squad. He is going to have his own profile just like the leader unit in a Stormcast Eternal unit has his own. Possibly might have more than just a higher leadership, maybe more attacks.
Sergeants in AoS don't have a separate profile. To what are you referring?
I'm sure each army will find a way to reduce this or make it unique to them. Orks will probably get bonuses to their leadership for unit size for example, guard might be able to use Orders to modify it, and Marines might roll twice and take the lowest because of ATSKNF-- things like that.
But the thing is, they want morale to be relevant to all armies. Not just a few rare ones like Guard. And TBH I think this is one of the better ways they could have done that.
casvalremdeikun wrote: For Space Marines it looks like a Chaplain is going to basically be mandatory if his rules mirror the Dark Apostle. I would be willing to bet that things like Sergeants have higher leadership than their Squads and you use the highest leadership in a unit. Same with Ork Nobs, Eldar Exarchs, etc.
I would be really surprised if that were the case, but it might be something like:
A unit containing an <insert name here> can add 1 to any rolls for Battleshock.
I also don't expect the Chaplain to mirror the Dark Apostle exactly. The Chaplain might allow for ignoring Battleshock tests in a smaller radius(6" to the Dark Apostle's 12") while the Dark Apostle allows for using his Leadership, for example.
I would be fine with that. A Squad Sergeant is the leader after all. If Independent Characters can't join units anymore (not confirmed), they better do things like give bonuses to Morale tests.
Different LD values inside a single unit? I don't think so.
Sergeants will not have a profile, it will be a rule of the unit. "One model of this unit can be a sergeant. A sergeant has a bonus of +1 on ranged hit rolls".
Except the Sergeants of damn near every Space Marine unit have completely different loadouts than the rest of the Squad. He is going to have his own profile just like the leader unit in a Stormcast Eternal unit has his own. Possibly might have more than just a higher leadership, maybe more attacks.
Oh that's nice, they posted a warning.
That's pretty decent of them, actually. I appreciate that.
That's really weird because on the Forgeworld website we have this statement under all the books...
A new, updated edition of Warhammer 40,000 is arriving soon.
Games set during The Horus Heresy using Forge World's Battles in the Age of Darkness expansion will continue to use the rules set out in the current edition of Warhammer 40,000. Please check our Facebook page for further information.
@Spoletta Provided that they even keep the same look as an AoS data sheet, what would stop them from having it say that a Space Marine Sergeant has a Leadership of 8?
You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?
When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.
Even when it clearly is not.
You're not making any sense whatsoever. Balanced rules are better. Full stop. You can't try to make up some reason that they're not.
I'll be playing both Narrative and Points based depending on how I feel in the day/week.
Read some of his posts in the AoS forum. Kan is on a crusade to prove everyone who plays Matched Play eats live puppies and kicks kittens.
Spoletta wrote:
Anyway, AoS morale rules don't sit well with casualties taken from the front and with ICs in units, so i can think we can safely assume those rules are not in 8th.
I believe both of those have been confirmed in either Facebook or Twitter responses. Hopefully we'll see them in a community preview soon.
Kirasu wrote:Sounds like the best armies will be the ones that pack the most weapons into minimum units. Such a terrible way to go, who wanted 4th Ed no retreat applied to every morale test?
Isn't that already the case, though?
angelofvengeance wrote:I hope guys like Chaplains have like battle prayers .
Any reason to break out my Chaplains is okay by me.
About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both mindsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.
An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.
And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...
There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.
Galas wrote: About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both minsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.
An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.
And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...
There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.
What happens when even your best, most elite units have the same crappy Ld? Flash gits for example?
Smellingsalts wrote: Having read the reactions to the new morale rules, my impression is that many who are offended by them have not played AOS and seen them in action. I am just going by what I see as the trend, but if 40k is going to be like AOS, then several other things need to be accounted for. The changes in AOS army building from Warhammer Fantasy army building were drastic. WHFB had a tournament standard of 2000 point armies.These armies could have upwards of 300 or more miniatures. AOS tournament play stands around 2000 to 2500 points. But your points buy you far less. As a result, you have fewer units to activate. If this happens in 40k, then yes, you could totally plaster a unit to make it take a morale test, but every unit would have fired at the one. Now before I get all of the replies of "oh yes you can take a lot of models in AOS", a second factor is that they have under-costed the big monsters. Monsters are the real damage dealers in AOS. Typically, units that you can take in large numbers have low stats, especially armor saves. So a large monster wading into such a unit will kill off so many that it will vaporize the unit in the morale phase. For this reason, large monsters are the target of early shooting (because their effectiveness degrades with damage), and tend to get charged by other large monsters. In this environment, you really are urged towards taking a large monster yourself because they kill more than they cost. Also, armies tend to be homogenous. In the current tournament circuit a lot of the winning armies are mishmashes of several armies thrown together to get the best combination of abilities. In AOS, the rewards for sticking to your army list are just too strong to ignore. Most army lists stick to their book. In 40k units tend to be delivery systems for high power hand to hand characters, or psykers trying to hide behind a shield of troops (OR DOGS). In AOS characters don't join units. They just have abilities that effect units within a certain range. That means if you really want a character dead you can focus fire on him and kill him. So what you will probably see in the new 40k is an army consisting of troops pulled from one book and in a particular formation from that book, 1-2 Monstrous creatures or big tanks, 3-5 units of troops, and 2-3 heroes. The game should take about 1-2 hours. Now I am just describing tournament armies, nothing is stopping you from taking Apocalypse sized armies if you really want to. Even then, your games will be faster. All of this assumes they are using AOS as a model. I can't tell you how much they are taking from AOS.
So your response to people who think that the new Morale system will discourage hoard armies is to say they don't understand AoS then cite multiple ways AoS is apparently discouraging hoard armies...huh.
I can tell you that I live in San Diego and talk to the guys from Frontline all the time. Frontline is one of the groups who have been playtesting the rules for 40k. While no one at Frontline has told me anything about 40k, I do know that 1) Those guys are 40k fanatics, hence why they formed their independent tournament circuit, and 2) The whole staff have entirely switched from playing a lot of 40k to playing a hell of a lot of AOS. Now what might that tell you?
That GW wanted to AoS-ify 40K and it seems they picked people to give them the feedback they wanted to hear.
oni wrote: I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
There is a whole level of play designed for narrative play. "Bring the models you have and throw them on the table". There is another one where you buy units but not upgrades for ease of play. Both of those seem 'narrative' to me. Just because the rules are actually playtested does not mean they cannot be used for narrative play.
OF course narrative doesn't mean "bring whatever you have and throw them on table"...
Galas wrote: About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both minsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.
An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.
And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...
There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.
What happens when even your best, most elite units have the same crappy Ld? Flash gits for example?
That they probably will not have the same crappy LD in 8th edition. Or they will have their own advantages to other elite units. Being cheaper, more buff potential, etc... I don't know. Is very hard to really make a acurate judgement without the specific rules of untis and factions.
Spoletta wrote: The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.
How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?
The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.
Edit: There again, we have already seen that the structure of the model profiles is different from AoS, so on a second thought sergeant profiles are possible.
Kirasu wrote: Sounds like the best armies will be the ones that pack the most weapons into minimum units. Such a terrible way to go, who wanted 4th Ed no retreat applied to every morale test?
There is not enough info right now to make that assessment.
Do you get a bonus for being close to your warlord?
Do you get a bonus for being larger than 10 men in a squad (30 orks, 20 CSM)?
Can you use command points to get a bonus or auto-pass?
Don't space marine commanders have a rule that lets nearby units use their leadership? Rites of battle or something? Also, I imagine that 40k will also gain Inspiring Presence. Aura of disciple would be pretty now good. And if they have keep the bonus to leadership for every ten models in the unit then everything will be OK.
Spoletta wrote: The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.
How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?
The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.
A veteran sergeant might simply give the same bonus as a standard bearer in AoS, especially as banners in 40k are more a company level thing and not a squad thing.
Besides, we will very likely see some units with mixed stats. I can't imagine Orks without Nobs...
Spoletta wrote: The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.
How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?
The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.
A veteran sergeant might simply give the same bonus as a standard bearer in AoS, especially as banners in 40k are more a company level thing and not a squad thing.
Besides, we will very likely see some units with mixed stats. I can't imagine Orks without Nobs...
I agree, i edited my previous post when i remembered that the model profiles shown so far are different from the AoS profiles.
They are in a line, meaning that more than one can be listed in the same squad.
This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)
Crimson wrote: This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)
If they go the AoS route, I could easily see Kastelan Robots being one unit and Datasmiths being a second unit. The Datasmiths would grant a benefit to the Kastelans if within X"... similar to how Seraphon Skink Herders give benefits to Salamanders, but you really take them separately.
angelofvengeance wrote:I hope guys like Chaplains have like battle prayers .
Any reason to break out my Chaplains is okay by me.
Bust the prayers out for the boys!
Should be some cool rules for the greatest model in Warhammer.
Maybe we will get something akin to when AoS first released were we get free rolls or something if we smash the table with our fist/home-made mace/flail and roar a litany of hate right into our opponents face. Spittle spraying the young child spectating next to you.
rollawaythestone wrote: Wow. Surprised there is so much hate today about Morale. It's been confirmed this is how Morale will work since Adepticon more than a month ago.
Never fear. There will be enough hate for each individual change, daily. Until release! Yay!
Crimson wrote: This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)
If they go the AoS route, I could easily see Kastelan Robots being one unit and Datasmiths being a second unit. The Datasmiths would grant a benefit to the Kastelans if within X"... similar to how Seraphon Skink Herders give benefits to Salamanders, but you really take them separately.
Wow, really? So, you could take an army of just Salamanders? Might be time to re-visit AoS
I hope this isn't the case for 40k. The implications are strange and unwieldy. What would they do, take the Nob part of the Ork Boyz sprue out of the box? Take the Runtherder out of the Grotz box? What about armies like Thousand Sons where their unit leaders are psykers?
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
I feel horde armies are not effective in AoS but don't feel this is down to battleshock.
Could of sworn the current hotness for AoS was tons of rank and file dudes.
its probably going to be different with more available shooting.
At first, the enviroment was more about big models and elite units. Then, the nation of the Mortal Wounds attack. Now, you are seeing in the enviroment more horde armies because they just ignore the mortal wounds. Thats something I have never seen in warhammer or 40k in years. A competitive enviroment that changes, not with editions or nex codex, but with the tactics and list peoples uses.
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Personally I perfer to be playing the game rather than reading books, arguing over definition of rules or moving retreating models backwards slightly only to regroup them.
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
I laughed
but short games means we can play best 2 out of 3, or different opponents
Did anyone like challenges? I don't think I saw any non-Chaos players do them in 7th, and in 6th they were mostly just really game-y ways to abuse the assault mechanics. Likewise, sweeping advance has always been awful - you either had to take units which ignored it, or units which would die before it mattered. I'm not sad to see either go.
Galas wrote:At first, the enviroment was more about big models and elite units. Then, the nation of the Mortal Wounds attack. Now, you are seeing in the enviroment more horde armies because they just ignore the mortal wounds. Thats something I have never seen in warhammer or 40k in years. A competitive enviroment that changes, not with editions or nex codex, but with the tactics and list peoples uses.
Eh, I'm not sure it's a good thing. Mortal wounds seem like a degenerate mechanic which I'm none too happy with - they make the game into an arms race which always terminates in either more dudes or some broken way to bypass mortal wounds/hordes.
insaniak wrote:Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
I get your point, but did you like the previous editions' versions of morale where it was 95% pointless? Units falling back usually turned into a game of babysitting enemy units as they walked off the board even when it was actually relevant. In the grand scheme of things, this change is only really going to affect hordes - small units will probably continue to be shot to death so you aren't relying on a failed Ld test; no changes there. I'm not going to begrudge any mechanic which slightly speeds up the game, even if there were arguably better ways to do it.
Speaking of which, I'm going to go on a limb and say there will be a balancing factor for MSU. They've said that they want armies to be rewarded for being fluffy, and I can't imagine for a moment that min-maxing with MSU wasn't considered - especially considering the backgrounds of the testers, who would all be more than familiar with it. Morale looks bad for hordes, but there could be many other things in their favour which we're unaware of yet.
Oh, Eyjio, I agree with you, Mortal Wounds have been give in AoS very freely, and they should restrain from that. With the new Kharadron Book having 0 Mortal Wound outpot (I think), I think they have realised that.
I was just talking about the changing competitive enviroment, it was not an argument in favour of Mortal Wounds.
I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.
I get your point, but did you like the previous editions' versions of morale where it was 95% pointless? Units falling back usually turned into a game of babysitting enemy units as they walked off the board even when it was actually relevant.
It wasn't perfect, but it had its moments. The particularly pertinent one was with forcing a unit to fall back off an objective. With 8th, you'll be forced to actually wipe them out instead.
And that's my main worry with 8th edition - all indications so far are that instead of focusing on gameplay, they're just focusing on killing things as quickly as possible. And that doesn't make for an interesting game. An interesting game is one in which your units can do things.
An alternative to the 'shepherd the unit off the board' approach would have been something more akin to 2nd edition, where instead of falling back to the table edge, units fell back towards the nearest cover. Once in cover, they could attempt to rally.
In the grand scheme of things, this change is only really going to affect hordes ...
Indeed... making my Orks less effective than they already are is another reason to dislike these rules.
Morale looks bad for hordes, but there could be many other things in their favour which we're unaware of yet.
Stupid rules being balanced out by other stuff doesn't make the stupid rules any less stupid.
Future War Cultist wrote: Mob rule in AoS is a bonus to hit rolls in assault. The more orruks in the unit the better it is.
Rats too.
giant rats x 30 or something hits on 3s and gains 3 attacks each or something like that
vs 10 which give you hits on 5s 1 attack.
Im 99% sure there will be a lot of ways to mitigate battle shock.
what im curious about is how will certain psycic powers work against things like vehicles. pretty sure there will be one that will force a target to take a test. normally vehicles cant take it except when in a squadron. (oh god ld6 sentinel squad loses a guy and rolls a 6 on the test would lose a whole sentinel lol)
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Ha!
It is starting to feel like that!
A lot of game companies seem to feel that SPEED must trump, well, everything?
I'm OK with maintaining a certain level of complexity and crunch and sacrifice a few extra minutes of my day - which I've already allotted to hobby time!
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
I laughed
but short games means we can play best 2 out of 3, or different opponents
Agreed! There were only a handful of changes I really wanted out of the new edition and streamlined rules and shorter game length were at the top of my list!
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Ha!
It is starting to feel like that!
A lot of game companies seem to feel that SPEED must trump, well, everything?
I'm OK with maintaining a certain level of complexity and crunch and sacrifice a few extra minutes of my day - which I've already allotted to hobby time!
We have to accept it. Fast games are the bread and butter today. The money is in X-wings, in Movile games, etc, etc... not in games that took 4 hours to play and need to read books and books to understand how it works.
Not saying that those have no place. Sure they have, they are the ones I play most. But just like Videogames, one need to go to "indie" devs to encounter more niche games that appeal to their tastes. GW has entered the Mainstream wargame/boardgame market, and seeing how his making them money, I think the day of old are not coming back(Just compare SW:A with Necromunda. Is a streamlined version, to play a mini campaing in one day)
To people worried about Orks, you should check out the Rampaging Destruction rules that Destruction armies get.
Basically at the start of the turn before movement you get a free D6" of movement to any unit within 6" of a hero. There is a "warlord trait" that gives you +2 to that roll, then you get your regular movement and then run. Also there are a decent amount of units that can run and still charge.
My Beastclaw Raiders (ogres on mounts) big monsters get all this and have move 12", giving them a turn 1 charge range of 27" on average, 16" minimum, and 38" max. Oh yeah and my warlord has a ability that gives reroll charge range to any unit within 14" from a MC base!
There is a good chance Orks/Tyranids will have access to some if not all of these rules, plus transports for Orks.
All I'm saying is we really need to wait till release to judge effectiveness of armies. You need the whole picture.
That distance is, uh, WM/H-levels of alarming. That doesn't really inspire confidence if the answer to CC not being strong enough is to make CC units run further than machine guns shoot.
Forcast wrote: To people worried about Orks, you should check out the Rampaging Destruction rules that Destruction armies get.
Basically at the start of the turn before movement you get a free D6" of movement to any unit within 6" of a hero. There is a "warlord trait" that gives you +2 to that roll, then you get your regular movement and then run. Also there are a decent amount of units that can run and still charge.
My Beastclaw Raiders (ogres on mounts) big monsters get all this and have move 12", giving them a turn 1 charge range of 27" on average, 16" minimum, and 38" max. Oh yeah and my warlord has a ability that gives reroll charge range to any unit within 14" from a MC base!
There is a good chance Orks/Tyranids will have access to some if not all of these rules, plus transports for Orks.
All I'm saying is we really need to wait till release to judge effectiveness of armies. You need the whole picture.
Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.
Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?
Forcast wrote: To people worried about Orks, you should check out the Rampaging Destruction rules that Destruction armies get.
Basically at the start of the turn before movement you get a free D6" of movement to any unit within 6" of a hero. There is a "warlord trait" that gives you +2 to that roll, then you get your regular movement and then run. Also there are a decent amount of units that can run and still charge.
My Beastclaw Raiders (ogres on mounts) big monsters get all this and have move 12", giving them a turn 1 charge range of 27" on average, 16" minimum, and 38" max. Oh yeah and my warlord has a ability that gives reroll charge range to any unit within 14" from a MC base!
There is a good chance Orks/Tyranids will have access to some if not all of these rules, plus transports for Orks.
All I'm saying is we really need to wait till release to judge effectiveness of armies. You need the whole picture.
Yeah somehow I doubt the answer to the game being fun is 1st turn charges.. Just makes AoS look even worse imo.
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Personally I perfer to be playing the game rather than reading books, arguing over definition of rules or moving retreating models backwards slightly only to regroup them.
Agreed.
...not to mention being able to play a game without 6 inches of books and badly layered rules which are filled with unique bespoke rules with bespoke exceptions to one another. Which is why I haven't played in years, and am excitedly looking forward to playing again. Games should be able to be fast enough to avoid being bogged down with bs, and if you finish too fast, you can always play another game.
Personally I'm liking everything I see. Even the 2D6 charge range, because we don't know what other rules changes are coming with them, nor do we know... well... anything save for wild speculation at this point, beyond the rules teases and examples we've been given over the last week and a few days now.
I'm going to give the full rules a fair shake and try them out over the course of a month, playing as many games as I reasonably can with both of my armies. (Blood Angels & Guard for those following along.)
I'm excited to see the game streamlined. That's been my biggest complaint with 7th edition personally speaking, well that, and the discrepancy with power levels of several codexes. It's hard to explain to someone new that the army the love the look of (Tyranids) isn't the best when it comes to competitiveness compared to a list like Necrons.
I'm the primary tournament organizer at my local game store that has recently come under new ownership. We have had a LOT of new players enter the game recently, much to my excitement I'll note. Our current escalation league has ~30 people playing in it, of which I would estimate 12 to 15 of those players are brand new to the game. They're all having a blast and are enjoying putting together their models, learning how to paint, figuring out how to play and learning the game. The biggest complaint I get from most all of them is the confusion and sheer volume of special rules and how those rules interact.
Having a more concise rules set will make my life a lot easier when it comes to teaching our new players.
On a personal note, I'm excited to see the armies all working from the same base line from a balance perspective. I want to see how my armies change, and are adapted to the new edition. I want to start working on more models soon, and building a few new squads to celebrate the new edition. I'm looking forward to seeing how units that are personal favorites of mine will work.
An example being Sanguinary Guard. I LOVE these models. They're some of my favorite models in the Blood Angels lineup, but I almost never run them as I prefer Death Company on the tabletop comparatively. I want to see what kind of carnage Sanguinary Guard will be able to inflict. Will their Angelus Boltguns operate like pistols in melee? How will their Encarmine blades and axes work? Will Death Masks cause some effect? That's just one unit, and I've got a codex worth of questions to have answered.
All those squabbling over rules and spreading dissent and argument, how about we all take a breath, and remember why we got into this game, and the universe of the 41st millennium, in the first place. Could it suck? Sure, it could, but let's wait and see before we make any decisions about how good or bad it's going to be. I for one remain cautiously optimistic, but that's just this man's opinion.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.
This is a really good question. Though, the morale reveal did say that almost all units would feel the affects of morale.
Then, take into account that though there are many ways to manipulate battleshock tests in AoS (both positive and negative), to my knowledge, there are no armies that just straight-up say 'we don't take battleshock tests, ever'. Even brave AoS Sigmarines aren't immune to battleshock.
Given that, I would assume that things like mob rule, fearless, stubborn, ATSKNF, would just buffer or limit the effects of morale. But bottom line is that, though marines shouldn't be running from fights, I really think they will. I expect that immunity to morale is going to be rather limited.
Maybe not in large numbers, and maybe not often. But I don't think they're going to be 100% immune for free. Same for nids and the like.
Yeah, I have to admit being a bit salty with over all the 7th edition books I have being invalidated, but I really am liking all the 8th edition changes so far.
Fingers crossed for Gensetealer Cult's Ambush tables surviving the edition change.
insaniak wrote: Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!
Ha!
It is starting to feel like that!
A lot of game companies seem to feel that SPEED must trump, well, everything?
I'm OK with maintaining a certain level of complexity and crunch and sacrifice a few extra minutes of my day - which I've already allotted to hobby time!
We have to accept it. Fast games are the bread and butter today. The money is in X-wings, in Movile games, etc, etc... not in games that took 4 hours to play and need to read books and books to understand how it works.
Not saying that those have no place. Sure they have, they are the ones I play most. But just like Videogames, one need to go to "indie" devs to encounter more niche games that appeal to their tastes. GW has entered the Mainstream wargame/boardgame market, and seeing how his making them money, I think the day of old are not coming back(Just compare SW:A with Necromunda. Is a streamlined version, to play a mini campaing in one day)
You're almost certainly right there in that this is where "The Market" is going - no matter what!
Still, if it makes 40K playable again, I guess that's OK.
Forcast wrote: To people worried about Orks, you should check out the Rampaging Destruction rules that Destruction armies get.
Basically at the start of the turn before movement you get a free D6" of movement to any unit within 6" of a hero. There is a "warlord trait" that gives you +2 to that roll, then you get your regular movement and then run. Also there are a decent amount of units that can run and still charge.
My Beastclaw Raiders (ogres on mounts) big monsters get all this and have move 12", giving them a turn 1 charge range of 27" on average, 16" minimum, and 38" max. Oh yeah and my warlord has a ability that gives reroll charge range to any unit within 14" from a MC base!
There is a good chance Orks/Tyranids will have access to some if not all of these rules, plus transports for Orks.
All I'm saying is we really need to wait till release to judge effectiveness of armies. You need the whole picture.
Absolutely agree. We should all SPECIAL RULES wait until we SPECIAL RULES get the rest of the SPECIAL RULES revealed before we SPECIAL RULES form an opinion on SPECIAL RULES how the game will SPECIAL RULES work.
Again, special rules negating a stupid core rule doesn't change the fact that the stupid rule is stupid. If the existence of those special rules makes the stupid core rule irrelevant, why even have the core rule in the first place?
They aren't special rules if everyone had them. They are just rules. Units have individual rules now, is not that big of a deal really. Obviously, if you like a strong core ruleset like WHFB was, this is a totally different game desing phylosophy.
I was sitting here thinking with my ork army i can have some turns where i loose models from like 8+ units! we now need to track exactly how many models were lost per unit over three phases of a turn till the end!
counters i guess?
I think we are getting hung up on the core rules, they'v said its 12 pages so its gonna be blanket easy systems and catchall... its the unit special rules that are gonna make a lot of the doom and gloom go away
Latro_ wrote: How do you guys in AoS manage the BS phase?
I was sitting here thinking with my ork army i can have some turns where i loose models from like 8+ units! we now need to track exactly how many models were lost per unit over three phases of a turn till the end!
counters i guess?
i usually just keep dice next to the unit. or have models knocked over next to it until the end of the turn if it isnt that many.
Latro_ wrote: How do you guys in AoS manage the BS phase?
I was sitting here thinking with my ork army i can have some turns where i loose models from like 8+ units! we now need to track exactly how many models were lost per unit over three phases of a turn till the end!
counters i guess?
I think we are getting hung up on the core rules, they'v said its 12 pages so its gonna be blanket easy systems and catchall... its the unit special rules that are gonna make a lot of the doom and gloom go away
It's not a massive issue due to a lot of ways to negate battle shock, a lot of units have to few model compared to leadership and the bigger units or at least the vulnerable ones can be buffed. But back on point, I use miniature dice, we use red dice for wounds and light blue dice for casualties. Easy to keep track that way.
I was thinking about ATSKNF. It could be something as simple as " this unit never counts as rolling more than D6+3 for a moral test" It still limits casualties without the full benefits of always passing.
How will battle shock affect chaos units, because not all chaos legions have dark apostles, or are we all back in the same old rut again. If so traitor legions didn't last long. We're loosing depth of game play here.
" but it seems to me that the system in general was developed by GW and then tested by these competitive groups (who better than those that routinely break the game, have large groups of potential testers etc.). The similarities to AOS speak to as much."
GW could have asked "Build us a 40k game that rocks"
Instead they said" Were changing 40k to be like AOS, polish up the and get rid of the rough spots for us. Now I don't blame Frontline gaming they had to work with what they had.
Crimson wrote: This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)
If they go the AoS route, I could easily see Kastelan Robots being one unit and Datasmiths being a second unit. The Datasmiths would grant a benefit to the Kastelans if within X"... similar to how Seraphon Skink Herders give benefits to Salamanders, but you really take them separately.
Wow, really? So, you could take an army of just Salamanders? Might be time to re-visit AoS
I hope this isn't the case for 40k. The implications are strange and unwieldy. What would they do, take the Nob part of the Ork Boyz sprue out of the box? Take the Runtherder out of the Grotz box? What about armies like Thousand Sons where their unit leaders are psykers?
What nonsense, why would they split the boxes? They currently sell those tri character packs, they sell necron warriors and scarabs in the same box, gaunts and rippers too and in aos grifhounds with characters. It's a non issue. We don't know how unit composing is dealt with yet and anyway in aos units still have leaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I was thinking about ATSKNF. It could be something as simple as " this unit never counts as rolling more than D6+3 for a moral test" It still limits casualties without the full benefits of always passing.
when I did home brew aos rules for 40k to get my gf playing 40k again we made ATSKNF stop negative modifiers to bravery and grant a flat save against battleshock loses. Worked fine. But we did also consider using a forced retreat mechanic where you either took casualties as normal and fight on or fallback using the retreat rules and miss out on stuff in the next turn. Either could be used imo. But it's probably something different. It does make me laugh tho as a lot of the changes I worked into my home brew have happened to the real rules right down to the dropping initiative stat and including move stats.
The morale phase shall give rise to the age of the MSU! Anyways I think it's worth remembering that stats aren't capped at 10, so hopefully that makes morale still do something but not completely useless. Also I hope it doesn't make Tau shooting even more jacked up than it already is... Also I am a bit confused by the fight phase thing about taking turns activating fights... The combat phase article was very confusing to me.
and get rid of the rough spots for us. Now I don't blame Frontline gaming they had to work with what they had.
