40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**changemod**

Imateria wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I hate the idea of abandoning templates, its always been a staple of Warhammer 40K.

If I get back into 40K (I've only ever played 5th Ed), I'll want to houserule templates back into the game.

I'm glad they're gone, they were a useless wastes of time and cause of agro.

Social experiment question: Are you a tournament player?

I have a pet theory the reason templates are out is because they had tourney guys do the playtesting, in the environment where fun goes to die.

**changemod**

labmouse42 wrote:
changemod wrote:
Social experiment question: Are you a tournament player?

I have a pet theory the reason templates are out is because they had tourney guys do the playtesting, in the environment where fun goes to die.
Why is it where fun goes to die? Because the people there play to win? They use the rules to build the best armies possible?

I'm equally a competitive tournament player and a casual beer-n-pretzels player. They are both equally fun, just in different ways. Just because you don't like the competitive fun, does not mean it's not fun for others.

What it means is that there is less likely to be wacky-out-of-balance units. How is that a bad thing?

It means games will be lowered from 3 hours to play to 90 minutes. How is that a bad thing?

Don't read too much into it, in this particular case because it's extremely rare outside a tournament environment to see someone obsessively space their horde unit for fraction of an inch perfect anti-template spacing instead of just shuffling if forwards in roughly 2 inch apart formation.

Putting down a flame template or an apocalyptic blast is an immensely satisfying part of the game.

**changemod**

paqman wrote:
Some comments from GW on the face book page:

"We haven't got to assault yet. Stuff is gonna die, don't you worry."
"Hey Steve,We haven't gotten to assault yet - don't worry. Your crusaders are going to have a great time in the new edition."
"Hey Michael Ryan, Assault armies are going to do just fine. Remember, points and rules for every unit are being adjusted and, you haven't seen what combat look like yet. (Which we'll have tomorow)"
" There's far more to combat than charging, Blane. We'll see a bit more of it tomorow. People will fear the assault army, you'll see."

Quite excited for tomorow's update.

I definately wouldn't read anything either way there, that's their standard format for assurances nowadays that applies whether the thing the person is worried about is going to happen or not.

**changemod**

Vorian wrote:
warboss wrote:
Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

It's not a bad mechanic at all. You mean it's a mechanic you don't like.

He gave a clearly defined reason for calling it bad, that has more substance than simple statements as to whether or not an opinion is an opinion.

**changemod**

Hmm almost no new information. The only real thing I see there not covered before is that you won't want units to stand within 2 inches of one another.

**changemod**

davou wrote:
ooooooh man, 3 inch pile into new combats!

Yeah, but it won't come up often.

If you've got a mult-model unit on particularly large bases you have a decentish chance of pulling this off, but otherwise having to pile -towards- the -closest- enemy limits any opportunity.

**changemod**

labmouse42 wrote:
I wonder how, in play, units with large bases like plague drones or bloodcrushers will work. Will it be easier to tag other units with them?

It'll only actually come up with those, unless your opponent places his units fantastically poorly. You'll need a pretty big base to clip a neighbouring unit when you need to pile towards the closest enemy.

**changemod**

nintura wrote:
Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Yuup. Melee is gonna be a flaming pile of trash, just as expected.
Really looking forward to not using 8th rules for this ugly abomination of a phase.

Seriously. How do you go on living with such a negative view of life and everything in it.

Context applies here:

All week GW have been dropping sly hints that there's some huge new deal in assault that makes the nerf to combat being able to withdraw at will represents.

Then the assault preview comes out, and nope: What we already knew plus a niche-case way of doing a multi-charge whilst only facing one overwatch.

**changemod**

labmouse42 wrote:
nintura wrote:
So instead of spreading your models out 2" to avoid blasts, now you gotta spread your units out so they don't get dragged in
How much you need to spread your models depends on how large the assaulting force is.

5 assault marines will not be able to cover very much. 30 orks or 9 bloodcrushers will. This is because as they wrap around to get into base to base with the nearest enemy, they have a better chance of 'clipping' an adjoining unit.

Here's the thing: In Sigmar you aren't allowed to "wrap around". If there are two of your guys between the guy you want to pile in and the enemy, then that guy is out of luck and stuck where he is.

**changemod**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
changemod wrote:
labmouse42 wrote:
nintura wrote:
So instead of spreading your models out 2" to avoid blasts, now you gotta spread your units out so they don't get dragged in
How much you need to spread your models depends on how large the assaulting force is.

5 assault marines will not be able to cover very much. 30 orks or 9 bloodcrushers will. This is because as they wrap around to get into base to base with the nearest enemy, they have a better chance of 'clipping' an adjoining unit.

Here's the thing: In Sigmar you aren't allowed to "wrap around". If there are two of your guys between the guy you want to pile in and the enemy, then that guy is out of luck and stuck where he is.

That doesn't matter when the attacking unit and the assault looks similar to this:

The models at the edges of the stretched out charging unit will still end up closer to the Unit A and C after the charge than the initially charged unit in the middle. As a result they get to move towards those uninvolved units at the beginning of the 'fight' phase and if they are within 3" then they get to suck them into the combat without anything ever getting stuck. Unit A and C never get a change to overwatch either as the player of the red unit never declared a charge against them. This is a massive buff for giant but cheap melee units, especially now that templates are gone.

"Massive buff" implies people are going to mess up their positioning that poorly on a regular basis. All you need to do is spread out slightly more and stagger how far forwards your units are a little and the geometry is suddenly all wrong.

**changemod**

I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

**changemod**

jamopower wrote:
changemod wrote:
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.

It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.

And sure, Death Stars result from stacking a billion rules onto a unit, but buffing auras still apply those rules. There's not really any difference in brokenness between applying four characters rules to a unit by coherency and applying them by aura. Any fix to avoid too many of those buffs stacking up (key words, for example) can be applied just as easily to a joined character.

And no, saves and move values aren't complicated. Staying in coherency will naturally limit the unit to the slowest model, saves are rolled seperately.

Heck with AoS style wound assignment it's even simpler to resolve mixed saves: If owner picks who takes wounds, the attached character only really needs to roll saves after his entire bodyguard has died.

**changemod**

Ghaz wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys... I doubt anyone would care. Just as long as it's not an obvious 'gaming the system' sort of thing.

If melee weapons get ranges it will become very problematic.

They are getting ranges, per GW on Facebook.

Ick, that's both an unnecessary complication of the melee rules, and a big nerf to the previous be in the front row or within 2 inches of the front row rule.

Now being behind the front rank mostly disqualifies you from hitting.

**changemod**

jhnbrg wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Melee weapon ranges make the consolidation move more important now it seems. And means anyone who can't hit can try to drag other units into melee since they're not actively engaged.

Its a HUGE nerf to horde armies!

Hard to overstate, in fact. Before you could expect about three rows of Hormagaunts to get to attack.

**changemod**

Youn wrote:
There is a video on Youtube were GW themselves explain piling in in AoS. The rule basically says, if you can move closer to a model you are allowed to pile in. He then goes into explaining the model 1/2" away from a model can pile in to the other side of the model. And the models behind him may move forward. But the models that are behind other models run into an issue that they cannot pile in because they aren't able to move closer to the fight.

It is very clear on how pile in works at least for AoS. And since, these two systems appear to be identical. I would guess they work the same.

A downright surreal video frankly. The way he piles in looks like an elaborate WAAC interpretation of "if you aren't touching the enemy you can move 3 inches closer to the enemy"

And yet that's the intent. Extremely gamey and convoluted when it would have been simpler to just allow models to sidestep for their friends.

**changemod**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Kirasu wrote:
Ghaz wrote:

Spoiler:

Age of Sigmar Combat Gauge.

Ah so its a stupid way to sell people more products. The simple solution is just to allow people to attack within X" of their friends. Less worrying about movement during combat and the very weird pile in moves.

You can make the same arguement about the use of flamer and blast templates. In this case though a tape measure works just fine instead.

Templates were fairly cheap and came with every starter set.

The combat gauge is the most absurd product I've seen from GW, entirely because of it's massive price. Not in the starter either.

**changemod**

Frankly I've found the attempts to shut down all negativity far more unpleasant to read than any ammount of the negativity itself.

-This is a discussion board, positive and negative views are all part of the discussion.
-It is not unreasonable to comment on rules as they come out, or speculate on how they fit together. We'll get a fuller picture as we go, but there's no crime on commenting on the current picture.
-The idea that one must have perfect information to have an informed view is -sometimes- correct, but is being overused here. To use a fairly non-inflammatory analogy: You need to have a lot of information about Indiana Jones 4 to definitively comment on it's quality, but hearing without seeing it that it uses aliens is enough to comment on the idea of introducing aliens to a franchise without them, and how you think that could impact things.
-A lot is changing, and certain patterns are emerging. These are things which will inevitably cause a lot of negative feeling amongst many, and someone who lashes out at every detail has every bit as much right to discuss the new edition as someone who is hyped up to the point where they'll defend every single aspect of it.

**changemod**

Daedalus81 wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:

Great post. This phenomenon of having some posters who are adament on always defending GW from all kind of criticism, is weird to say the least, and also very annoying. Only explanation that I can guess is that they are a bit like groupies that live vicariously through some celebrities, but they are doing it through a company.

Yea that isn't the issue at hand at all. And you can easily see this problem demonstrated mere posts from yours

1) GW is perfect
2) I am happy with what I've heard so far and want to hear more.
3) I like most things, but I really need to know more before I can judge.
4) This all sounds terrible and I don't care to listen.
5) THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER. I QUIT.

People think #2 is the same as #1. When the real problem in my opinion involves #4 and #5.including several of your own posts.

That you've missed out "I dislike most things I've heard, and am leery of the direction this is taking." indicates a bias against negativity.

And frankly, 1 and 5 are perfectly viable to express as long as they aren't trying to shut one another down. Perhaps more reactionary than a simple stance of like or dislike open to rational discussion, but not a problem compared to -either- side getting hostile and trying to quash dissent.

**changemod**

Anyhow my opinion is that formations as a list building tool were rarely a problem, just the free rules given out by them.

The concept of formations minus extra rules is excellent for structuring themed armies such as ravenwing, deathwing, a necron destroyer cult etcetera.

I sincerely hope that the other force organisation charts include ones where elites, fast attack and heavy support consist the tax units rather than troops, as that'd much more readily allow for creative theme building where you don't have to explain why your deathwing have 5 tactical marines hanging out with them for no apparent reason.

**changemod**

tneva82 wrote:
So what variety is in free bonuses? Are you attached to FREE BONUSES or combination of units? Combination of units you can likely still get. Just not FREE BONUZES!

Well, for an example: I currently have a few gimmicky theme armies brought about by 7th's list building freedom. To use the most extreme, I have an all-dreadnought list where my only tax is a single drop pod, and I was taking some pods for deployment anyhow.

Strictly speaking, If I can't still play a pure, 100% dreadnoughts in pods list anymore, that "Your army is still viable" statement is a lie.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Desubot wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Sisters: Lol, you get one if you're lucky.

Sounds about right lol.

But seriously not seeing any fortifications on the FOC spoiled so far tells me that at least one of the 14 foc will be defender which will require at least 1 fort and make heavy support compulsory. id bet my hat on that.

I'd lay money on fortifications and lords of war being outside the force organisation charts and under the broader umberella of your entire army, given they aren't in the massive super-FOC.

**changemod**

Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
(New) infos from the GW responses on Facebook to comments related to the last rule preview:

Q: Will there be faction-exclusive detachments in addition to the general ones, though?
A:Hey Yannik- well, we haven't seen any yet if there are. That would be pretty cool, though!

Q:Currently focused on building a Night Lords detachment using the Raptor Talon formation and a formation of Fallen.
A: Hey Schuyler - you will absolutely be able to use your army, all is good. The Chaos Marines and Fallen will have rules on release, so you can happily use your force. (Also Knights still in).

A: Hey Anon; There will be a Cult focus article on the way soon, so hold out for that!

A: Ha! We love memes! But we cannot leak stuff before it's announced... kinda the point of announcements! Good try, though...

A: Hey Alex- no need to worry at all. You will 100% be able to use your Custodes in the new edition.

A:Hey Mindy - remember, these are just 3 of the 9 detachments, so it doesn't 'mean' anything! Suffice to say, you will 100% be able to use your Harlequin army in the new edition.

A:Will, it's all good dude - Deathwing armies are very much a thing and totally playable.

A: Turn that frown upside down, John.... Dark Eldar are soul-stealing murderous gits in the new edition... trust us!

Q: Do you still pay for dedicated transports or is it free? Not clear in the article.
A: Hey Mark; This is all about the organisation of the unit, not about points as such. No points are mentioned anywhere here, so it's safe to assume you pay points for things if you are in a matched play game.

A: Guys, it's all good- we are not about to take to take away models or not let you use your armies. We can 100% guaruntee you can use any models you can use now in the new edition.

Q: What happens with armies with no HQ? (Harlequins)
A: Hey Carlos - well, we haven't got that information yet... but you will definitely be able to use a pure Harlequins army in the new rules.

A: There are 12 game-wide detachments in the new rules. If there are any more, we haven't seen anything about them yet...

Also focus previews for all the factions coming it seems.
Have to say that the GW Facebook guy is pretty good at reacting to questions, went through at least 50 responses.

Also Foley confirmed on twitter that there's only 12 detachement charts in the beginning, not 14.

It's amazing how bad they are at actually being reassuring.

**changemod**

streetsamurai wrote:
when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless

Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?

Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?

**changemod**

streetsamurai wrote:
changemod wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
when a claim on a subjective matter is made by someone who is involved in the developement of something and who also want to sell it to you, it is indeed rather worthless

Remember when people were getting worried about assault sounding weaker than before and they claimed that the daily reveal on the combat phase would make assault units seem way better, and then it had only one new piece of information that didn't in fact make assault units seem way better?

Then it leaked that weapons mostly have a 1 inch range now so horde assaults have a much harder time getting a lot of hits in?

I honestly don't underststand your point here ?

I'm supporting your point.

The language of the previews and answers has been less than perfectly truthful, albeit in many cases because of subjective "this is going to be great and we guarantee you'll love it" rhetoric.

**changemod**

Sorry what's the advantage of moving models sideways?

I can see a situational one for blocking line of sight by maximising the amount of vehicle obscuring a unit, but you can just pivot for that you don't need to permanently hold them side on,

**changemod**

I'd say 40k's single biggest problem was poor integration of things that were introduced after the 3rd edition framework, such as flyers, Superheavies, the psychic phase and so on. After that, balance improvement is good, but the aforementioned was one of the biggest reasons balance wasn't working.

**changemod**

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Potentially, maybe... but it would seem odd if Dreadnought don't degrade while Rhinos do (assuming, of course, Rhinos degrade).

Or that a Carnifex degrades but a Dreadnought doesn't.

It can probably be inferred that things with 10 or less wounds don't degrade because they're simple enough to kill with heavy weapons already.

Hardly guaranteed, but the lack of red asterisk stats on Dreadnoughts leans that way.

**changemod**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
nintura wrote:
So theoretically, a TL-Lasgun from an ordered IG person would be 8 shots at half range?

Indeed.

Also, I dislike the changes to the Battlecannon. It's WAY too random and not reliable at all. Random shots and wounds? Not convinced

A battlecannon does anywhere between wounds one guardsman and blows all 18 wounds off a gorkanaut (both obviously extreme outliers).

**changemod**

Or they could just have datasheets that are unique except for weapons, which are referenced elsewhere in the book.

Then when they sell those datacards they've been making lately, one card is the weapon list card.

**changemod**

Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.

It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.

**changemod**

Daedalus81 wrote:
changemod wrote:
Points not being on the datasheet is an inconvenience for army building. In a physical book you'll need to flick back and forth repeatedly, whilst in a digital edition it's worse because of having to repeatedly find the two pages in question.

It also seems vaguely insulting that power levels -are- listed, like they're trying to push their new method harder.

They're not pushing anything. Power level probably won't get updated and points will.

Power level can be referenced instantly, points needs to be looked up. That's a push favouring power level even if they did it entirely by accident.