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.

 flakpanzer wrote:
If I remember right, the 40k Facebook page noted that you have to declare all of the attacks for a unit before rolling any dice.

This section of the rulebook seems to indicate that is NOT the case. Thoughts?

RESOLVE ATTACKS: Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:

Declare intent then resolve each attack one at a time.

The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. You can still resolve one at a time if you've declared targets already.

 Therion wrote:



Everything he can do is fine and dandy, it's the points cost I have a problem with. You're refusing to even discuss the points cost, which funnily enough is the balancing factor of every unit in the game. I don't care if Abaddon the Despoiler has 200 attacks at S200 for 200 wounds each, as long as he's priced based on those stats. My argument is that the Wraithknight is overpriced. It neither has the firepower or survivability to justify the price point. I can approach it's points cost from any angle, and it falls short. It neither provides enough wounds, or enough lascannons, or enough close combat attacks, or any combination of the three to get to its price point. Especially in a world where it doesn't fight at full effectiveness when it has the last wound remaining, but degrades immediately starting from turn one. It's also a giant model and a giant target for a plethora of very points efficient ranged weapons in the game that have a very real chance of taking it out in short order in a points efficient fashion.

The fact you don't even entertain the possibility that the price is wrong is pure insanity. You're automatically assuming that the price that the balance team came up with was correct, when the track record from GW shows that sometimes they price units even as much as 40% too high or too low. To me, the only debate is how much it is priced wrong. Is it 100 points too expensive or 50? You're just not the one to debate the subject with.

Cheers.

Right, so you accuse me of not entertaining the possibility, when you don't entertain the opposite possibility.

Here's an easy scenario -- WK with glaive.

My turn
I start at over 24".

Their turn
Move and shoot for 5 wounds.

My turn
Move, run with CP, and charge with CP.
Use my pile-in to get 2 or 3 RBs into combat - quite easy with such a huge base. Lose 0.33 from overwatch.
Put 3 attacks on one and kill it. The other attack will do 3.3.

Their turn
Retreat and fire with 4. 5 wounds. Still not half.

My turn
Charge again.
Kill another and wound another

Their turn
Retreat and fire with 3. 4 wounds. At half.

My turn
Charge again.
Kill another and lock one.

Their turn
Retreat and fire with 2. 2.7 wounds. Still half.

My turn
Charge again.
Kill another and lock one.

Their turn
Retreat and fire with 1. 1.3 wounds. Might be in the next bracket.

My turn
Charge again.
Wound one and lock both. Game over.

There you have it. Equal points and I didn't even have a gun.

Points to consider:

1) The razorbacks can retreat at the loss of hits, but they all need to be very close to all be able to get shots in making them vulnerable to getting looped into a charge.
2) The WK can easily deploy to a flank and deny most of the RBs from shooting at it and with the WC version do considerable damage itself.
3) The WK benefits far more from a force multiplier like Fortune - which it is eligible to get.
4) I didn't even account for RBs degrading.

 Kriswall wrote:

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.

That's my point. Imperials and Chaos will be able to 'soothe' their problems with a bit from another detachment, while xenos (except eldar, of course) can't.

Are chapter tactics gone? just the name of their chapter only?

 conker249 wrote:
Are chapter tactics gone? just the name of their chapter only?

will show up in their respective codexes

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.

That's my point. Imperials and Chaos will be able to 'soothe' their problems with a bit from another detachment, while xenos (except eldar, of course) can't.

Im Pretty sure your space elves can ally with your other darker space elves or the funny elves

but thats pretty much how its been. Necron and Nids pretty much were always all or nothing. besides that fluff abortion with blood cron bro fisting.

Tau seems to have gotten fethed over but they internally do a lot well anyway so i dont see an issue. actually Tau and Necrons can both field fantastic shooting and assault chaff or otherwise can get out of combat and shoot at danger close range with minimal to no penalties.

So, to clarify, there are effectively only 7 armies in the game now? Everything is a sub-faction of one of these 7?

1. Imperium
2. Chaos
3. Eldar
4. Necrons
5. Tau
6. Orks
7. Tyranids

Seems like Tau, Necrons and Orks are boned on unit options due to having ZERO sub-faction options. Even Nids get to pick between regular Nid and GSC units.

I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

 warboss wrote:


Where is the three detachment rule stated? I've been catching up and admittedly haven't followed every image gallery link for each faction but the pic on the last page didn't mention detachments but rather keywords/factions. It's not that I doubt you both but rather I'm just curious as to what else I missed.

While it's just a suggestion for tournaments, these rules were heavily play-tested by the major tournament organizers, yes?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 flakpanzer wrote:
If I remember right, the 40k Facebook page noted that you have to declare all of the attacks for a unit before rolling any dice.

This section of the rulebook seems to indicate that is NOT the case. Thoughts?

RESOLVE ATTACKS: Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:

Declare intent then resolve each attack one at a time.

The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. You can still resolve one at a time if you've declared targets already.

Makes perfect sense. Thank you.

 Kriswall wrote:
So, to clarify, there are effectively only 7 armies in the game now? Everything is a sub-faction of one of these 7?

1. Imperium
2. Chaos
3. Eldar
4. Necrons
5. Tau
6. Orks
7. Tyranids

Seems like Tau, Necrons and Orks are boned on unit options due to having ZERO sub-faction options. Even Nids get to pick between regular Nid and GSC units.

I don't know what you mean by this?

GSC have their own army list, seperate from Nids.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.

That's my point. Imperials and Chaos will be able to 'soothe' their problems with a bit from another detachment, while xenos (except eldar, of course) can't.

Sorry, Kriswall - but that example isn't going to get any sympathy from me!

Here, I get that you want to be able to play what you want to play, but if you're just doing your own thing anyways in terms of army structure, then why be concerned about what the "standard" rules are in the first place?

It may seem unfair somehow but really it's not, not to mention it's helping rid the game of some of the worst offenders in terms of antifun mechanics, and given the context of the setting it makes sense. I mean... I don't think that Bolt Action would be any better by having the rules include armies that mix Germans and Russians together.

 Oaka wrote:

 warboss wrote:


Where is the three detachment rule stated? I've been catching up and admittedly haven't followed every image gallery link for each faction but the pic on the last page didn't mention detachments but rather keywords/factions. It's not that I doubt you both but rather I'm just curious as to what else I missed.

While it's just a suggestion for tournaments, these rules were heavily play-tested by the major tournament organizers, yes?

Assuming decent amount of cover and terrain... maybe.

4x4 game in 2 hours for 1k points seems kinda long.

or maybe its just me.

 Grinshanks wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
So, to clarify, there are effectively only 7 armies in the game now? Everything is a sub-faction of one of these 7?

1. Imperium
2. Chaos
3. Eldar
4. Necrons
5. Tau
6. Orks
7. Tyranids

Seems like Tau, Necrons and Orks are boned on unit options due to having ZERO sub-faction options. Even Nids get to pick between regular Nid and GSC units.

I don't know what you mean by this?

GSC have their own army list, seperate from Nids.

They share the Tyranids Faction keyword, so they are effectively both sub-factions of the overarching Tyranids faction. In other words, I can take a Hive Tyrant AND some GSC units in the same army.

 Grinshanks wrote:
I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

Nothing we shouldn't be expecting already, to be honest. This would be the simplest way to achieve the desired streamlining and keeping tabs on balance.

My only true pet peeve with this edition is the removal of wound allocation to the nearest model in the shooting phase.

 buddha wrote:
Well crap, the death guard army list has no bikers, raptors, terminators, heldrakes, mauler fiends,havoks, or chosen which I have models for. I guess just make up some random renegade chapter in the meantime?

You have no idea how angry I am right now - having spent a few hundred pounds buying a new vectorium-based death guard army, I now find my army list is pretty much invalid.

No bikes, terminators, havocs.

I have two heldrakes - luckily still shrink-wrapped.

This whole thing is an utter disaster - and it was all a plan for my 40th birthday.

I feel like geedurps just pissed in my cornflakes

zerosignal wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Well crap, the death guard army list has no bikers, raptors, terminators, heldrakes, mauler fiends,havoks, or chosen which I have models for. I guess just make up some random renegade chapter in the meantime?

You have no idea how angry I am right now - having spent a few hundred pounds buying a new vectorium-based death guard army, I now find my army list is pretty much invalid.

No bikes, terminators, havocs.

I have two heldrakes - luckily still shrink-wrapped.

This whole thing is an utter disaster - and it was all a plan for my 40th birthday.

I feel like geedurps just pissed in my cornflakes

You took a gamble expecting everything to fit no problems. dont think thats Gee Dubs fault.

you could always do a second detachment of smelly heretics in green.

Eyjio wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
I can make a marine list which out-shoots, outlives and outmaneuvers any of the Necron lists I've tried to make. For ****s sake, this is depressing. Maybe I'll wake up and it'll all be a nightmare...

You being unable to make good lists isn't the game's fault.

Feel free to try if you think I'm wrong. Marines do anything Necrons do but better. It's absolutely a fault with the game, the points are too high for necron AT - they cannot deal with big models at all. No other faction pays 75 points for 1 lascannon shot, where that's the cheapest possible option they have.

Tau Broadside HRR's say Hi. At 160pts for one.

 Desubot wrote:


You took a gamble expecting everything to fit no problems. dont think thats Gee Dubs fault.

you could always do a second detachment of smelly heretics in green.

There isn't even a bonus for DG yet so it's all pretty moot. Just slide your guys into appropriate detachments and play.

 Grinshanks wrote:
I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

Read the lists in the back of the 3rd ed. rulebook and your reaction would be similar. These are get-you-by lists until the full Codexes come out for each army. For that, they're actually much better than the 3rd ed. ones were.

 Jambles wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.

That's my point. Imperials and Chaos will be able to 'soothe' their problems with a bit from another detachment, while xenos (except eldar, of course) can't.

Sorry, Kriswall - but that example isn't going to get any sympathy from me!

Here, I get that you want to be able to play what you want to play, but if you're just doing your own thing anyways in terms of army structure, then why be concerned about what the "standard" rules are in the first place?

It may seem unfair somehow but really it's not, not to mention it's helping rid the game of some of the worst offenders in terms of antifun mechanics, and given the context of the setting it makes sense. I mean... I don't think that Bolt Action would be any better by having the rules include armies that mix Germans and Russians together.

I'm not "doing my own thing". Armies that were legal for 'standard games' (~1850pts) of 7th edition are no longer legal in similarly sized 8th edition matched play games. That sucks.

I'm allowed to be upset that the models I bought, assembled and painted can no longer be used for average sized 'points' games unless I go out and buy a ton of new models. As an example, the ~700 points of painted Necrons I have are worthless for 'standard matched play' unless I go out and buy/assemble more than 1000 extra points.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:

It stops xenos combos, but imperial and chaos?
fF they really wanted to limit combos, they should limit to having the same faction keywords. So no SM and IG playing together in matched play

You mean like how Guard characters can basically only affect Guard characters or how Marine characters affect Marine characters?

Man, if only they had thought of that...

Oh wait!

This here is the crux of it - having different factions play together wasn't in and of itself the problem, it was that combinations of those units from different armies created effects that were greater than the sum of their parts.

So the change is that, while you can still field armies with mixed Imperial allies, you won't be seeing things like Azrael buffing a huge unit of conscripts anymore.

BUT...

In a 2000 point limit game, you can effectively play a solid 1000 point Space Marines army standing next to a solid 1000 point Guard army. With Xenos, you don't have that option. I can't field 1000 points of Necrons next to 1000 points of Tau. It's all or nothing. 2000 Necrons or 2000 Tau.

Feels very much like a slap in the face after pushing cross faction armies so hard.

I guess if your whole point in playing was to cheese it out? Or have stupid formations? (same thing really...) It was a vector for them to sell more. "Take whatever and play!" Seems great, but makes the game broken and terrible.

Again, that is why there is Open play, and Narrative play. Take what you want still. Anyone complaining that they cant take their OP combo of races for matched play clearly doesn't care about balance or the future of the game.

your 700 points of necrons need 300 points more and there, you can play a 1k game.

 Grinshanks wrote:
I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

And as just Ravening Hordes for 6th edifion of fantasy, it will be the most balance 40k has been in decades

Until codexs come again to destroy us all...


And I have no problems with Tau being only Tau... I can smeell the Kroot Mercenaries and Demiurg and Tarellian Codexs incoming

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/31/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-necrons/

...lol. Little late, are we, GW?

 Asmodai wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:
I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

Read the lists in the back of the 3rd ed. rulebook and your reaction would be similar. These are get-you-by lists until the full Codexes come out for each army. For that, they're actually much better than the 3rd ed. ones were.

*looks at untouched 2yr old wfb get you by lists and sniggers*

 Oaka wrote:

 warboss wrote:


Where is the three detachment rule stated? I've been catching up and admittedly haven't followed every image gallery link for each faction but the pic on the last page didn't mention detachments but rather keywords/factions. It's not that I doubt you both but rather I'm just curious as to what else I missed.

While it's just a suggestion for tournaments, these rules were heavily play-tested by the major tournament organizers, yes?

2 Hours seems long for a 4x4. I wonder if they have anything for Power play? 250 power on a XxX lasts X hours, etc

 Latro_ wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
God dammit I need to know if my 8 Kans will actually get some use in 8th ed! XD

here you go bro

<3333333 Holy cow guys!!! You can have three Deff Dreads in a unit!!!! Guyzzzzs! GUUUUUUUUUUUUYZ!

 Asmodai wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:
I know everyone got their knickers in a twist over the formation crazy last edition.

But now that everything has been leaked, this editions seems really, reeeeally bland.

Seems like everything rule has been reduced to -save and D6 damage.

Read the lists in the back of the 3rd ed. rulebook and your reaction would be similar. These are get-you-by lists until the full Codexes come out for each army. For that, they're actually much better than the 3rd ed. ones were.

These leaks look like they're coming from the real books though, not printouts or WD pages. Unless you mean the bigger books are stopgap and proper codexes as we know them now are gonna come later? that sort of ruins the whole anthology codex approach to me.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Oh great, my AdMech army just got gutted for the most part. Thanks GW.
Rangers and vanguard received a huge nerf with massive leadership reduction and no longer being able to shield them with Dominus or Cawl. Not to mention that AP4 galvanic rifles now only get a whopping -1 AP on 6s to wound, while scout sniper rifles throw out mortal wounds.
Doctrina imperatives are no more, while canticles got reduced in power.
Ruststalkers and infiltrators did get a cost reduction, while having most of their neat special rules removed, which was the very point of taking them.
Servitors did get +1 wound, but got significantly more expencive. Not to mention that heavy arc rifle is now some sick joke of a weapon, wounding most of the vehicles on 5+, while torsion cannon is just a worse version of multimelta. So much for technological superiority I guess.
The only units that received a clear buff are the units that were fine in the first place - techpriest dominus, dunecrawlers and a certain unit of extremely ugly robots.
There is one exeption though. Ironstriders and dragoons are now viable. That was a good change.

I completely disagree, there is a lot of good stuff in there, and the best part is that they're one army now and you can run what you want

What good stuff that I didn't mention? The only good things there are the things that were good to begin with + ostriches.

Kataphrons are still fine, skitarii guys are fine, rust stalkers are fine, dunecrawlers, kastellan and even the staff priests got good/better. Our sniper rifles also give out mortal wounds, you're comparing apples to oranges by comparing galvanic rifles to scout sniper rifles; they're bolt gun equivalents but better.

Cantles are no worse than other army wide abilities now in 8th

Grav cannons are still good, plasma kataphrons are very scary now, we've basically got army wide ignore cover, even Icarus arrays arent horrible now with no flyers. And Fulgurite Electro-Priests, holy crap did you look at them? They're crazy good.

The only unit that really got noticably worse are infiltrators, but their point reduction along with reduction of rust stalkers aint bad

Vanguards/rangers are now leadership 6-7 compared to 8-9 like they used to be. Along with the fact that they can't hide behind techpriests anymore that's a huge survivability nerf. Not to mention that galvanic rifles used to be AP4 which translated as AP -1 into 8th edition. But not for AdMech. Because apparently magoses are all much dumber than thechmarines and can't create a good weapon, so we only get AP -1 on 6s to wound.

Destroyers are now roughly on the same power level while becoming significantly more expensive. Plasma cannon is better but grav is still generally better overall. They are also a 3-wounds model that kill themselves on plasma overcharge.

Breachers are also more expensive while becoming much worse at killing vehicles - heavy arc rifle is awful and torsion cannon is a poor man's multimelta.

Ruststalkers and infiltrators lost their FNP, lost their movement bonus + ruststalkers lost their AP 2 on second turn along with grenades and infiltrators lost stealth, shredding pistols and their aura is now pretty much useless. What's the point of making a unit cheaper while removing special rules if special rules was the whole point of that unit?

Ignore cover is not nearly as powerful, since it's just an addition to and armor save and the only guys that get it are vanguards and rangers which are going to die in droves now.
Electropriests are still a slow moving bunch of T3 guys with a garbage save in an army with no transports, so they are still going to get mowed through by any capable shooting.

Duncrawlers and robots were good. They are still good. Nothing has changed.

zerosignal wrote:

 buddha wrote:
Well crap, the death guard army list has no bikers, raptors, terminators, heldrakes, mauler fiends,havoks, or chosen which I have models for. I guess just make up some random renegade chapter in the meantime?

You have no idea how angry I am right now - having spent a few hundred pounds buying a new vectorium-based death guard army, I now find my army list is pretty much invalid.

No bikes, terminators, havocs.

I have two heldrakes - luckily still shrink-wrapped.

This whole thing is an utter disaster - and it was all a plan for my 40th birthday.

I feel like geedurps just pissed in my cornflakes

Can you not just give all those mark of Nurgle though and use them? They won't get some of the bonuses, but you can still use them in the same attachment.