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.

As long as you dont have to stipulate exactly what models you are going to summon, I am fine with paying before hand. The basis of summoning is that it can be a tactical response to what your opponent put on the table or what happens on the battlefield. E.g. do I want my summoned units to hold an objective or charge one? The conundrum is that there is a high risk connected to such a system. What if my summoners are taken out before the demons can be summoned? There needs to be a system in place where the demons I paid for gets to appear on the battlefield regardless of whether the summoner died or not. The summoners just being a homer is a solution, but IIRC from earlier editions that means the demons have to be summoned close to the summoner, which takes away a lot of the tactical use of summoning.

Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.

It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.

But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???

To be honest, I'm fine with Gaunts or Scarabs or whatever. As long as the price is appropriately reduced and reliability increased. I've never really liked the way I need "backup" models for summoning, if I just pay for them and that's it I won't feel like I've wasted an opportunity because I didn't paint enough models or wasted my time painting models I'm never going to use

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.

It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.

But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???

The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I hope armor facings go away. That was another sometimes contentious part of the game.

Greet the age of vehicles moving side ways as it would be stupid not to.

That has existed in every edition since 3rd, but good try at snarkiness

Before you exposed weaker side to fire with that. Now there is zero drawback. Big difference.

You don't see difference between giving up survibality over no drawbacks whatsoever?

I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.

SeanDrake wrote:
Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.

The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.

Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.

Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.

So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect..

Well, this is a genuine first. This is literally the first time I've ever heard someone defend the ridiculous length of 7e games. Around here, there's absolutely nobody I've ever talked to who hasn't complained about the length of games; I saw one match between IG and Daemons yesterday that lasted for 4 hours. The amount of downtime for players is almost farcical at this point - if someone want's to resolve a single unit of Wyverns, you can be there for 12-15 minutes watching as someone places a template, rolls, rerolls, hits, wounds, rolls, scatters, measures scatter, argues about whether there's a hair of a model's base under the template or not, etc. It's pretty common to see players have 20 minutes where the most they got to interact with the game was making a few cover rolls. Any board game which did that would be crucified by the community, and promptly forgotten for the reason that it's really boring to watch someone shuffle models around after umming and ahhing about it for a while. That you think it's solely so people can get more money as if faster games actually increases revenue somehow, when you still need to rent the space out for whole days to set up anyway is you acting in bad faith. I struggle too even get my friends to even touch 40k nowadays, because we can play 3-4 board games (3 short, 1 long) in the time it takes to play through 1 game of 40k, and there's much more interaction for everyone in those games too. If 40k was lengthy due to needing time to think through tactics and then take turns, fine, but it's not; the majority of time spend in 40k is resolving psychic powers, shooting blast weapons and resolving out-of-sequence movement. That we have fewer models starting on the table than at the start of 6e, yet games take almost twice as long is something which absolutely needs fixing, whether you believe it's an issue or not.

Incidentally, you can't claim to not speak for the community, and then turn around and say these changes are for the wishes of a minority of players. You're either speaking for yourself, or you're guessing what other's want - you can't do both. If I'm honest, it sounds like you just don't like change and feel a need to grind your axe against people who don't deserve the vitriol.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Never really had a problem with summoning other units. I mean, including Daemons in a Chaos list basically meant summoning them back in the day as they couldn't start on the table.

It changed the way the army was structured - you needed Icons to bring them in, and the Daemons themselves were part of your list. The unlimited summoning Daemons/Herald Nesting Dolls problem stemmed from those stupid psychic powers.

But paying points for Blue Horrors so that when your Pinks die they turn into said Blue Horrors? Or buying units of Gaunts for a Tervigon? Or even Scarab bases for Tomb Spyders? What???

Blue horrors only recently started splitting into free units and didn't get any price increase when they did. People used horrors before they split and then all of a sudden they started getting free units for nothing.

With that in mind yes they should pay, either increase the cost of horrors or pay for reserves, but it doesn't matter, you pay either way.

If you had marines climb out of centurions who then shed armour into scouts or paladin out of dreadknights you'd expect a cost to be included

Yea game length is ridiculous at the minute, there's no two ways about that. It's put off most of my friends from getting into. Can nearly guarantee they will pick it up when 8th drops unless there is somehow a monumental c*ck up in army balance

 Sarigar wrote:
I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.

Well yes if front and rear were same effect was reduced(though you still exposed rear...when before whether opponent shot at front or side it was same so there was no benefit from moving into side. If rhino is side way that flanker now hits rear).

But rhino is obviously every vehicle in the game. There's no chimeras with 12/10/10, no leman russ with 14/12/10. Nooooo! There's only rhino's. Yes! That's it! Makes absolutely sense...NOT!

You really don't see difference? Before most of vehicles(even rhinos) had SOME drawback. Now there's NO DRAWBACK WHATSOEVER! In otherwords if you don't move them sideways in 8th ed you are basically fool.

Please move all your tanks sideways in 8th and just deny yourself​ shots from weapons that lack angles to that side.

Sorry what's the advantage of moving models sideways?

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

tneva82 wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I suspect you never experienced Rhino rush . If you had, you would realize there were no real drawbacks with facing. It was all very easy to mitigate.

Well yes if front and rear were same effect was reduced(though you still exposed rear...when before whether opponent shot at front or side it was same so there was no benefit from moving into side. If rhino is side way that flanker now hits rear).

But rhino is obviously every vehicle in the game. There's no chimeras with 12/10/10, no leman russ with 14/12/10. Nooooo! There's only rhino's. Yes! That's it! Makes absolutely sense...NOT!

You really don't see difference? Before most of vehicles(even rhinos) had SOME drawback. Now there's NO DRAWBACK WHATSOEVER! In otherwords if you don't move them sideways in 8th ed you are basically fool.

What's the advantage of moving a truck or battlewagon sideways? I feel like I'm missing something...

SeanDrake wrote:
Just catching up on the thread and I just noticed something the person saying the testers chosen is an issue appears to have been right.

The GW rep stated that they made changes based on the player bases "biggest concern" that games should be much shorter and now 90minutes or less was normal.

Not going to speak for the "community" but locally I can say no one considered 7th's length to be the main issue. Certainly getting it under 90 minutes was not even registering on the concern scale.

Now tournament players might want quicker games and certainly organisers would as shorter games more players and more revenue.

So given that apparently 8th has been built around a core based on the wishes of the minority of players, what would be a tournement organizers 2nd and 3rd biggest wishes so we might have an idea what else to expect.

You seem to be making the logical leap from 'advantageous to tournament organisers' to 'not wanted by anyone else'... which is curious.

Game length has been a fairly commonly listed barrier to entry. A lot of prospective players don't want to have to invest the time that a game of 40K (particularly when new players are involved) often takes.

So while shorter games aren't something that I personally was looking for, I can certainly see it as something that was at the very least needing a bit of a look at.

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be making the logical leap from 'advantageous to tournament organisers' to 'not wanted by anyone else'... which is curious.

Game length has been a fairly commonly listed barrier to entry. A lot of prospective players don't want to have to invest the time that a game of 40K (particularly when new players are involved) often takes.

So while shorter games aren't something that I personally was looking for, I can certainly see it as something that was at the very least needing a bit of a look at.

But was game length a "big concern", compared to 40k's shopping list of other problems?

And as a counter-point to game length, wasn't one of the problems with game length not that games took forever to play, but rather took forever to set up, especially when compared to the speed at which you removed models (something set to only increase with what we've seen of the new rules).

Yeah, likewise I'm not too bothered by game length, but I admit it does get kinda boring sometimes and games can easily drag on longer than they feel like they should. 4 hours to play one game is not at all ideal. 90 minutes sounds just about right, and also makes it possible to fit in multiple games in an afternoon.

It would also help too if you weren't spending large amounts of time waiting on the other player to resolve their turn before getting to do anything again, as said before.

Game length is 100% the main barrier to my playing 40k. I played a game of napoleonics in less time it took others to play though their 40k. Hell, we even did a big 8 player refight of Pegasus bridge across two tables (bolt action rules) and finished it up before the 1 vs 1 40k game had neared completion.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Please move all your tanks sideways in 8th and just deny yourself​ shots from weapons that lack angles to that side.

Didn't they say tanks work like monsters? In that case nope. Monsters shoot freely just like you don't measure arc from bolters on your tac marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But was game length a "big concern", compared to 40k's shopping list of other problems?

No idea. Although it's one that is potentially cleaned up as a side effect of fixing the other nonsense... so it doesn't hurt to list it as a goal

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

 Platuan4th wrote:
Please move all your tanks sideways in 8th and just deny yourself​ shots from weapons that lack angles to that side.

If armour facings go, then so do the firing arcs. There would be no point to maintain one and drop the other.

A standard game of 40k definitely needs to be completed within 2.5 hours in my opinion, so that 2 day, 5 game events are possible. For Age of Sigmar it takes 60mins for every 1000 points you have on the table (or near abouts). That's what I would want for 40k too. I am very happy to hear the game is speeding up.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And as a counter-point to game length, wasn't one of the problems with game length not that games took forever to play, but rather took forever to set up, especially when compared to the speed at which you removed models (something set to only increase with what we've seen of the new rules).

Yes, one problem with 6th and 7th edition games was that they weren't necessarily long to play, but they did take longer to set up, particularly with armies which had to roll for lots of stuff beforehand (Daemons...).
Another issue was when more Codices and supplements came out, army rules might be spred over 2 books, PLUS the BRB. So one would start looking for rules of certain unit from the supplement, which would then refer to the main Codex, which in turn would refer to BRB. It was pretty annoying. Also, there were too many tables, when you roll for Perils one never remembers the effects, you have to check the table and apply the effects...stuff like that, when it all adds up, it gets tiresome.

I think the time taken to play a game in 7th was completely dependent on the armies involved. Horde armies would take forever due to having massed infantry that all needed to be spaced out exactly 2" due to blast templates. Psychic heavy armies were another thing that would slow it down due to an extensive psychic phase.

A 1500pt game between my Dark Eldar and a friends Ravenwing or another friends Ultramarines would take between 90 minutes and 2 hours. Against guard, Tzeentch and GSC my same army would be looking at a 3 hour game.

 Imateria wrote:
I think the time taken to play a game in 7th was completely dependent on the armies involved. Horde armies would take forever due to having massed infantry that all needed to be spaced out exactly 2" due to blast templates.

just no, than the horde player does not know how to play his army (a player who is used to 100 model ork army moves faster in most cases as the 40 model marine player who really spend too much time for those 2")
played a horde army since 4th, and moving the models around was never the part were you lost time.

wound allocation, random effects​/movement, Maelstrom missions (or stuff in general that need planning but you don't know before your phase starts) etc
the main time consuming stuff in 7th happens before the game starts and during turns before models are moved

so for 8th, D6 running, 2D6 charge and 3"pile in with 1" for CC, will slow a horde army more down than removing templates will speed it up

 insaniak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But was game length a "big concern", compared to 40k's shopping list of other problems?

No idea. Although it's one that is potentially cleaned up as a side effect of fixing the other nonsense... so it doesn't hurt to list it as a goal

This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.

I can tell you that since 7th came out the chances of me completely finishing a game went down dramatically. Either the guy I was playing with had to look up rules left and right or roll a gazillion times for various things like the Psychic Phase. 7th was cumbersome and tedious AT BEST!

*Edit* Some of us older players have more responsibilities and less time than we used to so take that into consideration.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.

I can see why they didn't though, as it'd indirectly nerf all armies which fired assault weapons before charging (coughOrkscough). The only way to avoid that is to allow shooting into combat, which personally I'm quite happy didn't migrate across from AoS. I agree that all movement at once is a "nice to have" thing though.

Returning since 5th edition , I'm quite excited to see how 8th pans out

 Platuan4th wrote:
The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.

Since the Blue Horrors are a separate unit from the Pink Horrors they split from, you do pay points for the unit of Blue Horrors.

Eyjio wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is partly why I was disappointed they didn't roll ALL movement in to the movement phase. Horde armies that focus on assault are painfully slow to play because you have to move many models multiple times in a turn. They cut out some of that finicky stuff but they could have gone further and made horde armies much more pleasant to play.

I can see why they didn't though, as it'd indirectly nerf all armies which fired assault weapons before charging (coughOrkscough). The only way to avoid that is to allow shooting into combat, which personally I'm quite happy didn't migrate across from AoS. I agree that all movement at once is a "nice to have" thing though.

It wouldn't have to if they got away from the idea that everything has to be done in a specific phase. Just because you shift all movement to a single action doesn't mean you have to take away other actions.

I don't see any reason you couldn't declare an attempt at charging, shoot assault weapons, receive overwatch fire then move assaults. If we feel that'd overly nerf short ranged assault weapons, do it the other way around, move first and then shoot, counting the shooting as if it happened while the unit was moving.

GW has a fascination with "everyone has to do everything at once", everything has to move, then everything has to shoot, then everything has to assault and so on.