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.

tneva82 wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
"do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"

Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.

Well now hiding is default...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.

You are shifting blame from the crappy GW writers to players. Blame for players using this lies squaredly on _game designers_. They decided the game works like this. Not players.

I'm blaming the disigners for me not liking the rule(I dislike and"I'm not a fan of" translate into that) and players for implementing such use of the rule.
--------------

If vehicles had bases, like in warmachine, would that improve the mechanics?

tneva82 wrote:

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.

Sigh hard to explain with ascii but land raider is positioned so that the track sees only unit B. Due to angles and wall in between unit A sees just the wall. Ergo land raider fires every gun at unit B but enemy can only retaliate with unit B(assuming it didn't die). For unit A to shoot it needs to move.

Before this would have resulted in at least 1, possibly all guns from land raider seeing neither unit. Now you can hide from 1 unit completely while shooting at will.

Nah, your ascii and example are good, it was me who didn't read it correctly.

tneva82 wrote:
Default is hide them behind walls.

They can still perform their function better than they used to. Or at all in case of combat vehicles.

I honestly don't understand how multiple offtopic warnings from the mods and even an offtopic warning in the title and op can be ignored this blatantly. Take your meaningless rule discussion about antennas in YMDC.

 Zande4 wrote:
I honestly don't understand how multiple offtopic warnings from the mods and even an offtopic warning in the title and op can be ignored this blatantly. Take your meaningless rule discussion about antennas in YMDC.

Actually we were discussing 8th edition rumours. But thanks for being impolite.





Has anyone been able to find anything on objective markers themselves?

Trying to drag this back OT

1) Is jink indeed gone?

Some Flyers get a -1 to be hit but only when "airborne" so yes Jink has gone, a few other units have or will have modifiers to be hit but they are on a unit by unit basis

2) For matched play missions, where does it say who/what can score? Or is everything "scoring"?

sorry not read through that bit of the leaks

3) Do flyers just start on the board now?

Yep seems so - much easier.

4) For warlord traits, are the three listed still used for matched play?

not sure

6) There's no "instant death" anymore is there?

Not that I am aware of there are wound and mortal wounds - the latter can't normally be saved by armour or even Invuln but there are units that can ignore one or more on themselves or take them in lieu of other units..

it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons

But every other model can do that already. Why is it you need to insist that only vehicles be limited? Shouldn't we have fire arcs for every other model too? And Tyrannid models almost all look like they have more armor on their Top/Back than on their front. They should be easier to wound from the front. They can already shoot left arm guns if only their right leg is showing around a corner. On top of that you have the vehicles that were monstrous creatures by game rules, but clearly not creatures at all. I'm totally for facing for weapons and armor. If it is consistent across all models. But it wasn't.

I mean everyone can suspend disbelief enough for every other aspect of the game, but not that vehicles could turn and shoot during their turn. Or that when firing upon them, you ARE shooting the weak points (not a single 40k vehicle has a good armor layout. What it comes across as, is people whining that they won't be able to kill vehicles as easy.

Is there a full core rules leak anywhere? The imgur one (http://mystecore.imgur.com/) doesn't seem to have it all, for example I can't see anything about the fly keyword.

Fly is under the retreat rules, no?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Fly is under the retreat rules, no?

Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

Those are awesome! Need/Want!!

Justyn wrote:

it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons

But every other model can do that already. Why is it you need to insist that only vehicles be limited? Shouldn't we have fire arcs for every other model too? And Tyrannid models almost all look like they have more armor on their Top/Back than on their front. They should be easier to wound from the front. They can already shoot left arm guns if only their right leg is showing around a corner. On top of that you have the vehicles that were monstrous creatures by game rules, but clearly not creatures at all. I'm totally for facing for weapons and armor. If it is consistent across all models. But it wasn't.

I mean everyone can suspend disbelief enough for every other aspect of the game, but not that vehicles could turn and shoot during their turn. Or that when firing upon them, you ARE shooting the weak points (not a single 40k vehicle has a good armor layout. What it comes across as, is people whining that they won't be able to kill vehicles as easy.

This. So much this. If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?

There is IMO only one answer: Because you don't want to. Yeah, you can find about five billion rational "arguments" for each side, but at the end it all boils down to I don't want it and therefore I don't like it. Which is IMO completely fine. Everybody can want and like what he or she wants. But trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.

 RoboDragon wrote:
Is there a full core rules leak anywhere? The imgur one (http://mystecore.imgur.com/) doesn't seem to have it all, for example I can't see anything about the fly keyword.

I'm pretty sure everything you need for Fly is on the unit profiles for units that can fly, and the basic movement page. Is there something specific you want to know about Fly?

On a side note, our thread here has entered the most exalted ever list!

I just wanted to pop in and say thanks again to all the continued support in keeping this OP in tip top form! (Even the moderators adding a splash of info up the top! )

The continued PMs letting me know missed info etc. is overwhelming! Thanks so much again, I am having a blast keeping this up to date.

Please don't hesitate to PM me anything you want added, or something that I missed, I appreciate PMs I wake up to in the morning.

The continued hype for 8th is amazing!

Edit: and nearly a million views also! Wowza!

UncleThomson wrote:
Because you don't want to.

I tried to see five, I really did.

UncleThomson wrote:
trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative

 Rippy wrote:
On a side note, our thread here has entered the most exalted ever list!

I just wanted to pop in and say thanks again to all the continued support in keeping this OP in tip top form! (Even the moderators adding a splash of info up the top! )

The continued PMs letting me know missed info etc. is overwhelming! Thanks so much again, I am having a blast keeping this up to date.

Please don't hesitate to PM me anything you want added, or something that I missed, I appreciate PMs I wake up to in the morning.

The continued hype for 8th is amazing!

you have done a fantastic job

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

Those are awesome! Need/Want!!

Yeah the escape pod and chirurgeon are especially cool

 RoboDragon wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Fly is under the retreat rules, no?

Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?

Infantry get cover for being in it, anything else needs 50%.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 RoboDragon wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Fly is under the retreat rules, no?

Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?

Infantry get cover for being in it, anything else needs 50%.

That's not strictly speaing accurate, currently until they fix ruins, having 1 or more models on the ruin grants cover to the entire squad. If you look at the woods rules, you can see what they meant to say with ruins but they forgot the word "entirely".

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 oni wrote:
Wait... So if I move one model out of the woods the unit loses cover, but if I put one model in ruins the unit gains cover? WTF?

What? The rules are literally the same for both. Units on the base of either gain cover, other units only gain cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the firing unit. They are worded exactly the same.

No they are not. The woods rules say the infantry unit must be 'entirely' in the woods to get cover. The ruins rules simply say the unit must be 'on' the ruin. Without the word 'entirely' it would generally be understood that as long as one model is on the ruin, the entire infantry unit would get cover.

It just need to be FAQ'd, but its sad to see something so simple (on the same page) slip past already.

Want to add craters into this jumble? Craters work on a per-model basis.

Unless you're charging, then it only takes one guy to slow down the whole unit (THANKS STEVE).

tneva82 wrote:
So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?

Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.

That's harsh, insulting and unfair. GW have made a deliberate design decision to abstract alot of things to allow battle sized games to occur without taking forever. Clearly in your eyes that abstracted vehicles too much, and to say that is fine, but to go from "i disagree with their design decision" to "they're gak because they didn't do what i wanted" is just wrong. Shame on you.

UncleThomson wrote:
If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?

I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:

1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.

For example:

 -DE- wrote:
You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".

They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.

So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.

The whole game is an abstractation. We can moan about things not making sense (like nids farting Dakka or Space Marines overwatching by firing over their shoulders like their trick shooters) but at the end of the day any and everything the rules allow can be given an explination that makes sense.

Ooooooorrr we can just spend all of our time on the internet complaining that the same rules for MCs who could fire their weaoons in directns they couldn't see, applying to tanks is somehow silly now that tanks do it.

Like I've said before: a game that has facings either needs to go all in, or not at all. To only make facings important for a single unit type in the entire game is frankly silly. It doesn't force tactics, it simply makes the unit weaker while all other units get a free pass to move however they want.

Since nothing else is designed for having facings, I frankly am glad vehicles got rid of it too. Now I can dynamically pose my walkers without fearing that I'll be told that one of their guns can't shoot forwards because of the model's pose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?

I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:

1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.

For example:

How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.

anyone notice scout snipers might actually be amazing.

roll a 6 and you do one normal savable wound AND a mortal wound

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.

Well no, that doesn't work as a counter-point because the rules explicitly point out what happens when a tank moves (if suffers penalties to hit with heavy weapon shooting). So now you're abstracting movement as well?

Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)

I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.

Eyjio wrote:
I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.

I am being consistent.

I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.

Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC

There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.

 Grinshanks wrote:
There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.

Yeah... see that doesn't make it any better.