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.

JB wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Presumably, the incentives to take storm bolters would be moving and still firing twice at 24" and being able to charge after you fire.

SOB?
I see far too little stormbolters (outside GK) as it is and not buffing rapid fire weapons relative to the stormbolter will see even less variation.

GK henchmen and some IG models also get options for stormbolters. I think they are worth the points so what limits me is a lack of available stormbolters for the model conversions. It's that limitation, not the rules, that prevents more people from using them IMO.

EDIT: Looks like current edition IG have lost any options for stormbolters except for Yarrick and vehicle weapons.

I use them on my SM command squad, power weapon/fist/ hammer, storm shield, & storm bolter.

I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

davethepak wrote:I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

As a long standing DA player i hear you bro, but even i think Nids need a buff and so do soooo badly too, i would even happily wait for my green marine dex to see a new Tau one

Praxiss wrote:If power weapons are now AP3 wouldn't give Terminators (and other 2+ save models) a HUGE boost as they would now have a 2+ save against all attacks in CC?

Seems a little harsh to me.

I always felt like 2+ armour saves were pretty meaningless, yeah it is nice if you are getting shot at by bolters and stuff, but there are so many high AP weapons that stuff like storm shields are a must if you actually want survivability.

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

And I now want to send my dinner back. That image made me really not hungry. Ugh. Welp, can't wait for the 30th so I can get my 6th edition.

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, I really love DakkaDakka

Lolz

That said, I'm sure hammers, pf's, scythes, etc. Will be ap2. Probably just normal pws won't be

Yea, by power weapon, I think he means power sword/axe/halberd. The fist will be stronger and the hammer and the chain fist will be better again. Anyway, I thought this had already been accepted.

The question that I´m curious about is what weapons (if) will be subjected to the relentless getting +1 shot.

If power weapons are AP3 and power fists AP1, I would question what other major buffs (detriments) sgt. related equipment might hold (singling out hidden fists for example). It's not like we see Sgts. running around with power weapons right now--and reducing the AP to 3, regardless of a 5++ will certainly not increase the frequency of them being taken.

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

Yeah we really need to iron out those pesky illogical stunned and shaken rules so my suspension of disbelief can be settled and I can focus on the more rationally palatable aspects of the game like long range weapon touting bio-morphing space traveling insects, human souls being bound to mechanized bodies, magical psychic powers, space elves and orcs, Gods manifesting themselves out of hedonistic tendencies... you know the logical meat and potatoes of my plastic toy soldier's imaginary universe.

The vehicle rules sound promising, assuming that they do something to address the horrible glancing hit rules in 5th Edition. Specifically, Glancing Hits should not guarantee a Stun result.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

Yeah we really need to iron out those pesky illogical stunned and shaken rules so my suspension of disbelief can be settled and I can focus on the more rationally palatable aspects of the game like long range weapon touting bio-morphing space traveling insects, human souls being bound to mechanized bodies, magical psychic powers, space elves and orcs, Gods manifesting themselves out of hedonistic tendencies... you know the logical meat and potatoes of my plastic toy soldier's imaginary universe.

Regardless of the silliness of the setting the game is an abstraction of modern post industrial warfare. It's basically just world war two with giant samurai in it. A big point of that warfare is small arms firefights and those haven't been particularly meaningful in 40k for a decade. Almost every unit that can fire a rapid fire gun is better off using it as a club instead. Portions of the game that don't work in a logical or "realistic" way and aren't in some other way good detract from the game. Some of them are required (igougo), and some are part of the fluff and fun (close combats), but some things are neither fluffy nor logical. Some things are just remnants of poor game design in the past and should/need to be revised.

Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

davethepak wrote:I for one like the "rumors" here so far.

However, I also realize a lot of implications for them (listed as a lot of concerns in earlier posts). I am not going to worry about any of those concerns at this point, as we are only seeing a VERY small part of the picture.

While I WONT say "well, if we see that issue, certainly GW did and addressed it" as well, we know that is NOT sound logic.

However, considering there is an entire book of stuff, and new FAQs etc...I am not going to get too excited about any of this.

I will be pre-ordering my book as soon as I can...and hoping that overall things will be better. As I play nids and tau, I would say they can't get worse....but you never know.

As a budding nids player I agree with you here. I dont remember the glory days that nids enjoyed as I started (and quit) 40k in 5th.

Seems to me an easy way to reduce a lot of their woes that I've noticed in my short affair with them would be making the T4 bugs less prone to being wiped out by a single salvo from Longfangs. Either add Eternal Warrior to monstrous creatures or make some rule that to ID a monstrous creature you add +1 to their toughness when calculating or subtract 1 or something. Seriously.. Space Wolves seem like they were created solely for the purpose of elimating T4 3+ bugs. =(

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

ShadarLogoth wrote:Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

If this is directed at me, I counter by pointing out that I never said that I wanted an all or nothing system, nor do I want Stunned results to go away (though in their current incarnation they're a bit ridiculous), I just don't believe that a Glancing Hit should have a guaranteed effect. In the current system you roll D6 and subtract two from the result. It would be pretty simple to change it so that results that have a modified score of less than a 1 have no effect, and truly glance off of the armor.

SkaerKrow wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Personally I don't think it is bad game design though, it allows a sub-dual intermediate damage spectrum for tanks without being overly complicated. It also allows for dynamic distinction between vehicles, MCs, and troops. Vehicles being easy to silence but hard to kill is fundamental to the core game mechanics, and I think you'll be waiting a long, long time if you ever expect that distinction to completely go away.

Also, to what end? What are you going to replace it with, an all or nothing damage table? Are we going to simultaneously reduce the cost of every single vehicle in the most recent two codices as they pay a premium to ignore glance results that you wish to be expelled from the game?

If this is directed at me, I counter by pointing out that I never said that I wanted an all or nothing system, nor do I want Stunned results to go away (though in their current incarnation they're a bit ridiculous), I just don't believe that a Glancing Hit should have a guaranteed effect. In the current system you roll D6 and subtract two from the result. It would be pretty simple to change it so that results that have a modified score of less than a 1 have no effect, and truly glance off of the armor.

That doesn't sound like a bad system (and would go a long way in re-balancing everyone else with the extremely cheap Fortitude), and no I was really referring to ShumaGorath's desire to see shaken and stunned completely removed from the game.

Hollowman wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

This is all assuming they are a rational actor, of course, and not the corporate equivalent of a 4chan user going HERP DERP DERP in a pile of rancil mayonnaise, whom they sometimes seem to do an uncanny impression of.

Hollowman wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:I say again. What marketing? GW views the Internet crowd as a vocal minority, we are not their main demographic. The big spenders are the little Timmys with a core game buy then one or two big splurges at a birthday and/or Christmas. Esp. in this economic climate imagine all of the parents that are only being given a week's notice for something that is pretty much a compulsary update for mummy's little darlings fave game. I know I don't have £45 or thereabouts lying around.

Who says how GW views the internet crowd? The current black out on info only makes sense if GW views the internet crowd as either A. A large part of the demographic or B. able to influence a large part of their demographic. GW seems to view the internet crowd as singularly powerful - able to create product sales through rumors and curiosity and destroy product sales through negative criticism. In that light, their non-advertising makes sense. In any other light, it does not.

Very well said. Anyone that says a multi-national multi-million dollar company like GW ignores the internet and power gaming community is simply not taking the time to think about it rationally. They are quite aware how negative perception shouted from the rooftops of a vocal minority can cause huge chunks of plastic to hang from the shelves in perpetuity.

I don't think GW ignores the Internet anymore. I just think they hate all of us. I know my local GW manager has always done his best to disparage and belittle all GW hobby forums and people who post on them. Either he's a massive tool by choice, or it's some kind of party spiel he's been ordered to push.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I don't think GW ignores the Internet anymore. I just think they hate all of us. I know my local GW manager has always done his best to disparage and belittle all GW hobby forums and people who post on them. Either he's a massive tool by choice, or it's some kind of party spiel he's been ordered to push.

Well, I don't if I would call it hate, however if you worked for GW and everywhere you turned you had people spewing vitriol at the company just because they can't figure out how to win games with their plastic toy soldiers...how would you feel?

I remember having a similar discussion with a blackshirt. Great guy, non judgmental, however he said he simply stopped visiting forums because he got sick of being shouted down by the vocal minority for having the audacity to disagree with their assessment of random unit A.

GW deserves a fair bit of criticism, but just look at the knee jerk reactions and negative perceptions on this very thread. Extreme amounts of hyperbole gets thrown around by some, largely grounded in baseless assumptions about ineptitude that couldn't possibly co-exist with a company as successful as GW. The difficulty level they present themselves with having a massive amount of armies with a massive amount of options is that some options aren't go to work with some strategies as well as others, and ultimately some options are simply going to fall out of favor whenever a paradigm shift is made with a new codex/edition . However, instead of looking into themselves, or just realizing you can't always win a game with dice, people rage on the company, as if winning was some how a part of the contract when you bought your models.

Not that I can't empathize with this mentality. I tried long and hard to get my old Pariahs to work only to see them get less and less competitive with each successive edition. However, I feel in general GW has made huge strides in creating a more balanced and dynamic game since I started playing 12 years ago.

Tough noogies. Negative customer feedback is a given for every industry. Do you think video game programmers have it any easier from their fans? Hell no, they get death threats and inarticulate shrieks of fury whenever a patch is delayed or a game's ending does not please the million. The same for MTG's rules developers and artists, countless popular novelists or TV and movie directors, actors and writers

People hating you is the cost of doing business. Lashing out at them or treating them with contempt in return, though, that's just plain oafish.

Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

What a delightful world we live in.

It's "Welcome to the Internet" I guess. In a place where you can leave your opinion without without any consequences, there is going to be a lot of hatred. People foreign to the internet communities are simply alienated by that.

What they miss, is that the real life is no different. No one is going to pat a construction worker on the back for just doing his job. If he screws up, he is going to get shouted at.
If GW does their job of providing great miniatures and rules, they even get praised for it - that more than our construction worker can hope for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShadarLogoth wrote:So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

Nah, not evil. Just stupid. They want our money, so they have to be nice to get it.

Well, pretty sure they are getting that money either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's "Welcome to the Internet" I guess. In a place where you can leave your opinion without without any consequences, there is going to be a lot of hatred. People foreign to the internet communities are simply alienated by that.

I agree this is something that is certainly symptomatic of the internet community at large, however that doesn't mean it's right or ideal.

I believe we, especially as a community of generally above average intellects, have a responsibility to strive for more rational discourse, particularly in forums such as this. I guess it depends on you point of view, but do you come hear for the cathartic nature of spewing hate with no desire to learn and get better, or do you come here to share your ideas with like minded and dissenting opinions with the hope of getting better at your craft?

Sorry...

tldr wrote:If I'm reading this right...

"Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat. "

Grey Knight Nemisis Force Swords add +1 to any save, therefore all Strikes will now have 4++ in close combat...

WHAAA?!

Please, this is a ridiculous jump of conclusions. Force Weapons are currently treated as power weapons, but if they're going to introduce a statline for all close combat weapons, then I seriously doubt that any weapon will "count as" or be "treated like" a power weapon any more. Force weapons will more likely have their own weapon statline, which in no way indicates that they'll also get the 5++ rule. There's no need to freak out about GK becoming even more powerful.

Of course, I'm making as many assumptions as you, but this solution seems far more likely to actually happen.

Also keep in mind that pancake had this exact change and limited the 5++ save to power weapons without additional abilities.