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.

Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.

I think objective secured is something most armies' troops should get. The rules otherwise vastly diminished the point of taking an entire subsection of, well, just about everyone's army.

I'm gonna be first in line and say that this is something elite troop choices should get, though. I don't think it's reasonable that particular units without any sort of command structure that are <20 models large should necessarily be able to out-contest a point compared to, say, a handful of space marines, or even some dire avengers. Maybe this is something that should be attached to that Sargent/Exarch/Nob/whatever character that most troop squads have.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.

That still doesn't quite work unfortunately; take Marks of Chaos. I don't think it's intended for <Khorne> Renegades and <Khorne> Word Bearers to come together in a detachment and still have ObSec.

It's fortunate that the SM and CSM books are already out for precedent because I'd genuinely not know what the intention behind this rule is otherwise.

Arachnofiend wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.

That still doesn't quite work unfortunately; take Marks of Chaos. I don't think it's intended for <Khorne> Renegades and <Khorne> Word Bearers to come together in a detachment and still have ObSec.

It's fortunate that the SM and CSM books are already out for precedent because I'd genuinely not know what the intention behind this rule is otherwise.

Which means a few armies get screwed. Mostly chaos, as always, as neither demons nor R&H have a proper tag. Shame they can't write proper rules.

If that even is the intent, I can't actually tell what this rule means tbh. It amuses me they've managed to take keywords, something that should simplify things, and constantly screw it up by not properly defining the various <faction> values, or even what <faction> itself refers to.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the "troop tax" philosophy that comes with Obj Sec, specially since I thought the detachment system gave a plenty good reason to take troops with the offer of more CP for taking Company/Battalion. If they want to make troops worth while, then make the troop choices actually offer something to the army other than "they're cheaper"

If they made it "troops are worth 2 when determining the amount of models for controlling a objective" that at least avoids the problem of a single grot stealing a point away from a full squad of berserkers.

The Roll Off for going first I'm kinda okay with, but then I think the bonus for less drops should have been higher, or at least variable (because anything that discourages mass MSU is a good thing).

The flyer rule we already knew about.

I am otherwise interested to see what else is in this book.

I agree in regards to going first.

1 less deployment = +1 to go first or choose
2 less deployment = +2 to go first or choose
3 .. = +3
4 .. = +4
5 .. = +5
6 .. = You go first

Additionally, I would only allow a seize the initiative if the difference was 3 or less, and it would cost a command point.

But that's my 2c.

 Marmatag wrote:
I agree in regards to going first.

1 less deployment = +1 to go first or choose
2 less deployment = +2 to go first or choose
3 .. = +3
4 .. = +4
5 .. = +5
6 .. = You go first

Additionally, I would only allow a seize the initiative if the difference was 3 or less, and it would cost a command point.

But that's my 2c.

While i'd agree that the bonus should be more (maybe +1 to the roll and seize on a 5+) or something, this option is just way too much.

This change allows people so much more opportunities during list creation, instead of always having to think about the number of drops. Just because a Knight army has 15 fewer drops than a horde army, doesn't mean the horde would never be able to fire the first shot, so to speak. On the flip side however, in the case of things like AM getting the first turn, you might see a lot more games end on turn 1 or 2, depending on the matchup.

It's not a troop tax, it's a troops BUFF.

My gaminggroup house-ruled "who goes first" instantly when we started playing 8th Ed. We made it so the one who deploys their army first gets +1 to the roll.

Automatically going first just because you have fewer drops (even as little as ONE less) was one of the most stupid things introduced by 8th Ed.

Yes, this will benefit MSU (so what?), but it will also benefit those armies who essentially never got to go first with the "old" rule.
I've played IG-lists with 20+ drops which where neither MSU nor cheesy. I would always go last with that rule, because of...reasons I suppose?

Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?

 Deepeyes wrote:
Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?

Unless there are significant changes to matched play I doubt the content one would actually need is more than a page or two at most. Easily copied or just remembered. Now if it hits and does contain the sort of content that makes it a needed buy that will indeed be bad, but as it stands it may be a book filled with optional rules (additional scenarios, rules for team battles & FFA, stuff like that) with the changes players actually need being small.

 Deepeyes wrote:
Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?

When we hit the.... 10 books I bought to play my two armies across 7th edition, I might be upset. Currently with the core rules, this, two indices and three codices I'm still just at 7 total, with one of those being for what is technically a new army. That's down to 60% of the books I purchased last edition, ignoring my new army. Plus I don't have to carry the indices once the codices come out, meaning only five books to carry around, assuming I want access to all three armies at a time.

It's really hard to be annoyed by anything after the absolute garbage fire of 7th edition.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Deepeyes wrote:
Anyone else taking issue with the fact that we have to pay for this book? A book that is meant to help balance match game rules? How many books do we have to buy before Christmas?

Unless there are significant changes to matched play I doubt the content one would actually need is more than a page or two at most. Easily copied or just remembered. Now if it hits and does contain the sort of content that makes it a needed buy that will indeed be bad, but as it stands it may be a book filled with optional rules (additional scenarios, rules for team battles & FFA, stuff like that) with the changes players actually need being small.

They did also mention twelve new missions.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.

I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.

GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.

The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).

Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.

After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.

GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.

I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).

@Malifice

Exactly.
GW is still not doing everything right, but they've been improving on everything SO MUCH (except prices lol)

Malifice wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.

I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.

GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.

The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).

Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.

After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.

GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.

I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).

This isn't just good by GW standards, fixing things this quickly is great by any miniature gaming companies standards.

RoninXiC wrote:
@Malifice

Exactly.
GW is still not doing everything right, but they've been improving on everything SO MUCH (except prices lol)

Spot on mate. Im thrilled they're acting this fast to patch things.

No matter how playtested things are, it takes a wide release for the cracks to really show. They're showing they are prepared to listen to feedback, look for exploits that appear, and act fast to plaster over those cracks, and fix those exploits.

I m pleasantly surprised.

Im no fan of GW (its pricing and buisiness model needs a serious fix, and its agressive TM of everything is OTT) and annoying shop attendants (who get trained and encouraged to hang off you like wallpaper in the shop). But I'm a fan of the 'New' GW in its swift responses to worldwide competitive playtesting showing cracks, improved customer feedback, and improved community engagement.

They need to sort the pricing out fast though because $60 AUD for a single marine model is nuts. Dropping the prices, or even a 'loyalty' reward (every 100 bucks you spend gets you 20 bucks store credit kind of thing). The game relies on customer loyalty (and will do so more in the future as 3D printing tech advances) and networking (you cant play the game if there is no-one else to play with, because the game is too expensive).

But thats a topic for a different thread.

 44Ronin wrote:
It's not a troop tax, it's a troops BUFF.

It´s a troop buff that shall make you pay the troop tax.

With the new wound table allowing everything to wound everything the that troop buff, am i the only one who think that horde armies are favored?
I would really like know how good a cheesy horde army (= armies consisting only of: conspripts+commissar+commander OR hormagants/termagants with some synapses OR large ork mobs) will prevail against a "normal" army?
I guess the hardest enemy would be a time-out, as moving a couple hundreds of models takes its time.


That said i like how fast GW is (re)-acting.

Firefox1 wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
It's not a troop tax, it's a troops BUFF.

It´s a troop buff that shall make you pay the troop tax.

With the new wound table allowing everything to wound everything the that troop buff, am i the only one who think that horde armies are favored?
I would really like know how good a cheesy horde army (= armies consisting only of: conspripts+commissar+commander OR hormagants/termagants with some synapses OR large ork mobs) will prevail against a "normal" army?
I guess the hardest enemy would be a time-out, as moving a couple hundreds of models takes its time.


That said i like how fast GW is (re)-acting.

Im liking Intercessors for my army even more. 10 man MEQ units (2 wounds a pop) with Obsec (and rapid fire guns at S4, -1 and 30" range) make them pretty hardy objective campers. Add in a 2+ save for cover, and you're going to be mighty hard to dig out.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I, for one, liked the ObjSec rule. They were already giving it to Troops units anyway (check SM, GK and CSM codexes).

Not that sure on the Flyer one... removed the last reason to use Remoras. Piranhas do their job way better (except for speed and firing Seeker Missiles at BS4+ on the move)

The initiative one makes MSU even more attractive... dunno if this is will be good for the game.

Where is this at in the Space Marine Codex by the way? I apparently missed it or glossed over it.

Malifice wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Ugh. The whole faction keyword thing is one more bit of GW lazy writing where if they'd written it clearly rather than assuming everyone knew what they were talking about and wanted to do that, they wouldn't have messes like this.

I cant beleive the negativity in this thread.

GW finally (finally) seem to be listening to their customers (with everything barring those ridiculous prices) and people are still sooking like 3 year olds.

The rules were released, and the GW staff have been watching for any exploits as literally thousands of people try and twist the rules to see what exploits they can pull off (Bobby G and 6 Stormraven list spam for example).

Within weeks they fix that. Weeks.

After the simmering pile of crap that was 7E when it was years for things like Hellturky spam to be nerfed and so forth, people are still complaining.

GW seem to finally be doing the right thing with the ruleset, listening to the consumers and making changes according to that feedback. I for one applaud them.

I also rate the new rules for matched play. I now need to go back to my Salamander army and increase the troop numbers for Obsec. (3 x 5 man Tac squads isnt going to cut it anymore).

I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.

So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.

But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.

 Tamereth wrote:
I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.

So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.

But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.

I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist. You're asking for 1st time perfection which is simply too high a bar, as that can never, ever be attained.

Not to mention a game has to be popular enough that enough people play to find bugs, smaller companies that might seem like they have perfect rules may in fact have hidden issues.

 Tamereth wrote:
I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.

No amount of playtesting is going to reveal the kinds of cracks and exploits that a general release does with thousands of players pushing and twisting the rules to the limit. I think the basic rules as presented are pretty balanced (the most balanaced rules yet).

People were crying foul with Stormraven spam and Detatchment abuse (in particular the flyer detachment) and there was a noticable amount of elite units being favored over troop choices (to the extent that people are referring to troops as a 'tax' one needs to pay to get the good units down).

GW stepped in and fixed that (publicly announcing it on their website, and releasing the patches largel free in advance) within weeks of release.

As a gamer (roleplaying games, wargames and computer games) for a company to step in so fast with a patch (and most games need patches at some point) that clearly shows they are watching and listening to consumers and players and working fast to come up with solutions, is pretty amazing.

Dont get me wrong. I have issues with GW (pricing and questionable marketing strategy mainly). But in this instance, I think they might actually have learnt and I cant fault them other than to say they should be releasing the 'patch' as a free errata to the rulebook (and included free in future printings) and not in Chapter approved suppliment.

They should go a step further and provide them for free online to people who have already purchased the rules, but with GW's dodgy marketting they'll probably make us pay for them.

I cant fault their listening to feedback, and speed at removing exploits and making the game smoother and more balanced. They've been on the money and lightning fast in this respect so far. It's definately a stretch to see this as some kind of engineered pre-ordained rules patch to get us to fork out more money (insert evil laugh here).

Pricing and stooging us for money (which alienates even rusted on consumers) is another thing alltogether.

Now Im hoping for a points cost adjustment for Dev centurions as I'm sure there is a typo in the book.

MaxT wrote:
I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist.

Good thing that he never suggested they did.

Argue against the points the other guy makes, not the ones you wished he made.

So is the new +1 to seize an official errata, or just something that we will be able to use in special missions?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

This makes no sense. Daemons have the Chaos faction. It says right in their rules.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)

MaxT wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
I think the point is all these fixes shouldn't be needed after launch for "the most play tested version of the game ever". Most other companies would have finish writing the rules before they had them printed and charged customers for them. How much of the rulebook has been amended replaced by faq's / errata already. Now GW are going to charge you more money to buy a fixed version of the rules.

So come xmas to play a space marine force, you would need the rulebook, chapter approved, the index and the codex. That's assuming all the faq's / errata released so far is included in the chapter approved, if not you'll need to print them off to. All within 6 months.

But it's OK 8th edition doesn't have the same issues with bloat that 7th did, oh no sir.

I'd suggest that you go and play one of those other wargames that are perfect right out of the gate and never ever require any kind of change ever, but they literally do not exist. You're asking for 1st time perfection which is simply too high a bar, as that can never, ever be attained.

1st Time perfection?, this is of course the 8th iteration of the game.

No game system is perfect, but I have never experienced one that has needed this many updates and amendments this fast. When you consider that this is the flagship game from the largest company in the industry it's really odd.

 kodos wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, TS+Daemons won't get ObSec (if done right) because TS are Faction: Tzeentch, while Daemons would be Faction: Tzeentch-Daemons (if you go that way, the Changling/Heralds won't buff Magnus or CSM Princes either because they just count for Faction Tzeentch-Daemons and not Faction Tzeentch with the Keyword Daemon)

GW have already said the faction keywords and regular keywords have no difference after the game has started.
So the Changling does buff Magnus because they are both Tzeentch Daemons.

People are just trying to be difficult and twist this when GW has already clarified it.