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.

 Rippy wrote:
OP is once again up to date, haven't read last few pages as I got over the nastiness/bickering, so let me know by PM if I missed anything.

Thanks to ClockworkZion for #17!!!

Glad I could be of use.

 kestral wrote:
Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.

I can tell you right now who at least some of the unlucky few will be. Are you ready for this revelation?

Check it out:

Ork armies whose large squads have been properly depleted, or who have been isolated from other large squads.

Tyranid armies whose synapse units have been destroyed.

What a novel concept, eh? Having to actually interact with your opponent's army in a unique way, targeting units in a more thoughtful manner then "shoot my AV at vehicles and anti-infantry at infantry and hope for the best".

 kestral wrote:
While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).

Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

They also kept a rule that makes charges more reliable, and made WAAAGH and every turn use rule (granted it's now a smaller bubble, but being able to first turn a bunch of units is still good even if the entire army can't do it at the same time).

There's also nothing saying you can't take more than one Warboss either, and if that bubble ties to Warboss models, not the army general, then Orks may be able to spread it out quite nicely.

I'm more concerned about how many of the individual Ork character types will actually be HQ, or at least take up an HQ slot. That standard mid-sized force chart, the one that requires three troops, only has three HQ slots, which doesn't sound like many if Warbosses, Bigmeks, Painboys, and Weirdboyz are all HQ. I suspect some of those options will either be X per Warboss, or moved to Elite. I've been wondering why the new force org has so many elite slots, and this could be the kind of situation that mitigated for it.

EDIT: Wasn't 8th related but tied to the busts release in Japan. Ignore my momentary lapse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
*

Already discussed elsewhere a while ago, nothing new really and most likely a Japan only thing.

 BrookM wrote:
Already discussed elsewhere a while ago, nothing new really and most likely a Japan only thing.

Yeah, my brain caught up after the fact and realized it was probably not related.

Burnas, Lootas, & Tankbusta will be extra killy, but suffer from battleshock.

Big mobz of boyz are really choppy, and will ignore battleshock until there are only a handful of them left.

Weirdboyz and Warpheadz will have an actual use on the table.

Kanz and Dreadz will be not terrible

 Verviedi wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?

This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.

This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.

The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.

There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:

1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe."
2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea.
3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)

It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.

Hmm, some neat changes to Orks. I especially like that Mob Rule is basically reverse synapse with huge hordes providing a buff to small, tougher, specialist units. It will also mean that people will have to deal with those big mobs if they want morale to affect the horde.

It is a nice way to encourage having at least one or two gigantic, leadership-boosting mobs in your army.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Bated breath for the Sister of Battle and Inquisition focus myself

You mean the “Barely a single line on Sisters, barely a single line on Inquisitiion, barely a single line on assassins, barely a single line on tempestus scion, …” focus.
What's the opposition of focus? Because this really doesn't sound focused to me .

 adamsouza wrote:
Burnas, Lootas, & Tankbusta will be extra killy, but suffer from battleshock.

Big mobz of boyz are really choppy, and will ignore battleshock until there are only a handful of them left.

Weirdboyz and Warpheadz will have an actual use on the table.

Kanz and Dreadz will be not terrible

Actually thanks to be new mob rule I don't think the small elite units will suffer that much.
Remember they can benefit from the leadership value of a nearby ork squad, which can buff their leadership with numbers.
There is now good reason to go horde

It's working great for AoS, so I don't believe you're drawing accurate conclusions.

I like to bring 30-50 boyz (shoota and choppa) to the table in squads of 10-15. Any more and it gets a bit boring, so I hope the whole ld thing works with only like 30 boyz (because I like to focus more on Kans and Dreads as a ork player).

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?

This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.

This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.

The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.

There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:

1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe."
2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea.
3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)

It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.

It's also important for some people to realize that there are games other than 40k where those terms are quite common. I would say there are a lot of gamers that play video games and/or non-GW games which all use common terms. For someone to say "tier" is a word that is going to go away is pretty damn absurd considering it's used to describe different levels of quality all the time.

Spam was definitely around in the 90s with games such as Warcraft, Starcraft and command and conquer. I personally dislike the term Beardy as it doesn't convey anything meaningful. I guess if you played DnD in the 80s it means more.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 kestral wrote:
While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).

Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.

So I played fantasy when they did a big reset like this. FYI, I had to use my temporary Woodelf army list for 5 years. Not everything will be replaced immediately. Plus my army was still competitive the whole time.

I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 kestral wrote:
While I can agree that internet negativity can really weigh things down and turn people off, the notion that new players have slogged through 350 pages of this and might be deciding not to play based on my having a less than favorable view of the nuance of some new rule seems... ...far fetched. "Think of the children!" isn't fair in this context. Speculating about how things will work is a big part of this thread after all. Some of those speculations will be negative, many will be wrong (including some of the positive ones).

Nah. What'll put off new (and even more so for returning) players is the promise of free rules and datasheets, so we could play again with our old figures or spend all our hobby money on new figures.
In reality, the rulebook is a giant beast like the last fantasy one and we need a temporary index book for our armies which will soon be replaced by a codex. And a points update tome each year.
I think that lot is more off putting than a select bunch of internet whiners.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. This is my worry about these new books as well. It doesn't seem to be in any way cheaper than the old system. If anything it's more expensive because those index books will be invalidated quickly.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.

It's infantry only, sadly. Meganobz, though!

 JimOnMars wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.

It's infantry only, sadly. Meganobz, though!

Well, crud. I wish you could teleport walkers. It would go A LONG way to making them useful. It also torpedoes my plan B, two units of MAN's in kitted out battlewagons. Now that would be something fun to deal with on turn 1 all up in your face.

I think the price depends what you want out of the game. To get one army up and running in 8th you need the free rules and one index book. This is a cheaper entry point than any edition before. If you want the extra rules you have to buy the big rulebook which is a bit more money but seems to have the planetary assualt stuff built in.

If you want to go full competitive then you will need to buy an updated ghb type book each year, and a Codex which will be more expensive than before but should make for a better balanced game over all.
Honestly I think anyone who buys all the index books day one is kind of wasting their money. GW's rate of codex releases is much faster than before so who knows what books will get done this year.
The best choice would seem to be to choose one army, buy the index for that and try out the new rules.
These will all be stock items so they are not going anywhere.
If you find yourself liking the game then buy the big rulebook or the starter set. This is certainly my plan.

Don't think they're going to get all the codices published that fast. Honestly, take a look at past WFB editions and AoS. Sure some armies will get their codex relatively quick out of the gate, but others may take a year or two. Do you really want to risk sitting around waiting for your codex? Nobody here is going to know their exact release schedule.

Honestly, people probably don't want to admit that these indices are a steal "because GW always feths up" or something.

On the other hand, there are people like me. I have 17 armies. Buying the index books will mean that, at the very least, I will have a need for every book for at least the first 5 or 6 releases (likely more like 9) until the first index bbecomes obsolete. That's got to be at least 2 years.

I was under the impression we were getting free/very cheap rules like AOS seemed to, at least at first. That was a huge selling point for me - whatever I thought of the fine points of the 8E rules, if I didn't have to drop a couple hundred to play my armies, I'd give it a thorough trial. I suppose there is always book sharing.

Chikout wrote:
I think the price depends what you want out of the game. To get one army up and running in 8th you need the free rules and one index book. This is a cheaper entry point than any edition before. If you want the extra rules you have to buy the big rulebook which is a bit more money but seems to have the planetary assualt stuff built in.

If you want to go full competitive then you will need to buy an updated ghb type book each year, and a Codex which will be more expensive than before but should make for a better balanced game over all.
Honestly I think anyone who buys all the index books day one is kind of wasting their money. GW's rate of codex releases is much faster than before so who knows what books will get done this year.
The best choice would seem to be to choose one army, buy the index for that and try out the new rules.
These will all be stock items so they are not going anywhere.
If you find yourself liking the game then buy the big rulebook or the starter set. This is certainly my plan.

Although technically I agree with your first sentence I don't think it is realistic to assume that most existing players will be happy with the free rules and an index. GW have already stated that existing players are likely to want to pick up the "advanced" rules.

I also dont think you can describe people buying the points/rules updates as "full competitive" players. If you are playing match play any opponent's basic expectation will be that you are using the most up to date rules, won't it?

Now I don't necessarily think either of the above is a problem. It is an edition change so paying for new rules is a normal expectation (along with updated army points in the form of the index) and the GHB style book is an extra expense to help keep the game balanced. I just don't think it is helpful to try and dismiss these costs by assuming most people can avoid them and keep playing as they are used to.

The two issue I see are:

- the claims of free rules seem a little clickbait-y to me. They seem more akin to a beginner mode to introduce new players. Again, GW have said they expect existing players will want the extra rule book. Therefore making a big deal of the free rules is largely irrelevant to most people on here and I can understand people being miffed

- the indexes potentially being invalidated by codexes in an uncertain timeframe. If GW do the codexes right and truly make them optional then people can stick with the indexes. My fear is that the codexes will be a bit 'pay to win' by including the most powerful force organisations, special equipment, weapon options etc. Therefore most people will want to pick them up. I would love to have my fears proved wrong though and just see the codexes as mainly fluff and background so truly optional.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I just thought of something amusing. What if orks used two Weirdboys to teleport 18 Killa Kans right up in front of the enemy? It would be an in-your-face alpha strike, able to shoot and hold it's own in close combat. Tough enough to survive a couple turns, and a big enough threat that the enemy would have to ignore the rest of your army for a turn or two.

It's infantry only, sadly. Meganobz, though!

Well, crud. I wish you could teleport walkers. It would go A LONG way to making them useful. It also torpedoes my plan B, two units of MAN's in kitted out battlewagons. Now that would be something fun to deal with on turn 1 all up in your face.

Just drive there.

It will only be a few inches back from their zone anyway.

Seriously, this has to be the least amount of news in a news thread yet. I just went 5 pages of people quoting each other without a single drop of 8E info.

This sucks. Post news, talk directly about the news or go away... please.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Well, battleshock appears to be one of those rules that only applies to OTHER PEOPLE, since Ork Ld in 10-20 range make it a moot point, synapse makes it a moot point, small elite units are pretty much off the hook, death guard plague walkers don't take it, etc. Who will be the unlucky few for whom it is really a problem? Small ork units I suppose.

I can tell you right now who at least some of the unlucky few will be. Are you ready for this revelation?

Check it out:

Ork armies whose large squads have been properly depleted, or who have been isolated from other large squads.

Tyranid armies whose synapse units have been destroyed.

What a novel concept, eh? Having to actually interact with your opponent's army in a unique way, targeting units in a more thoughtful manner then "shoot my AV at vehicles and anti-infantry at infantry and hope for the best".

Edited for reflexive snark. However, I don't think shooting at Synapse creatures is new....

The ork rules seem cool enough, so perhaps you're right there. Kind of a blobby Synapse, but seems interesting and reasonable.

 3orangewhips wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
I remember playing 40k when people didn't give a gak what "tier" armies were. The game seemed much more fun without those type of concepts. I wonder why people keep going back to them?

This is what I have an issue with. All these arse-dribble terms are a relatively recent adoption. To those who have said I need to find out how "games function" and that "these terms have been around forever and are part of the game" must be new to the scene. I've been playing wargames for 25 years. 20+ years with GW, things didn't use to be discussed in these terms, mainly because the terms are ridiculous, don't actually mean much and are generally used by plebsicles who like to discuss how many gigawatts are in their idonglephone. BORING.

This is you speaking. This is how your posts read to me. Mindless hate, for the sake of hate, and having smug superiority over those you deem as unworthy. You are insulting people for using universal terms, that have always existed.

The sheer extent of the falsity of what you have posted in that post is mind-boggling. Are you saying that basic terms such as "MSU" or "spam" are new? They have always been around. Spam has existed since there were more than three units in the game.

There was a time in the 90's when comments like "spam" or "tier" weren't really part of the jargon. But we had other things that conveyed the same message:

1. "Tier" was typically expressed by a phrase like "It's a S4/T4 universe."
2. Spam wasn't identified as such a meta concept, but we used phrases like "rhino rush" or "green tide" to describe essentially the same idea.
3. WAAC was typically described as "beardy" or "grognardy" (I think grognard originated in D&D)

It's just a common language to discuss something abstract.

I'm honestly surprised at the response I got.. mindless hate? lol.. wow.. seeing something you enjoy go from a beer and pretzel game to something people fantasize over and apparently have mindless hatred about (?) The level of reaction was kind of hilarious to me and I thank you for responding. It illustrates that I'm not hallucinating or making up some fantasy realm where every single person wasn't absolutely obsessed with some copy/paste deathstar internet list power-meta-tourney gaming.. I would, from comparing posts happily give 8th a try with someone of your mindset. That other type of personality is what has me cringing at the idea of gaming in any sort of organized scene though.

To be fair, the jargon for power gaming may not have been there in the 90's, but the power gamers were. It wasn't all net-listy and icky though, and I remember that period with great fondness.

Powergamers have never been representative of the whole hobby anyway, even if it's felt like that lately. They're just a very vocal minority. I say that with fondness too, as I'm guilty of taking some serious beard to Grand Tournaments back when those were still a thing. Different strokes. Most scenes have a wide variety of guys in them.

If you want a quick yardstick, walk into a store and look at the armies and scenery. Fully painted armies and cool terrain? Probably you kind of group. Unpainted armies and crap terrain? Maybe not so much.