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.

But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Vorian wrote:
But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Then they'll do a new edition.

I don't see why, they will have moved to a model with an annual "edition" with the general's handbook. That will be the same hype and presumed sales bump of a new edition.

They are giving the rules away for free, so it's not like they need to sell rulebooks.

They seem to have finally landed on the idea that a reputation for balanced rules might be good for sales (shocking I know)

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Vorian wrote:
But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Then they'll do a new edition.

I know this was being facetious, though I wouldn't be surprised if they called this "new Warhammer" instead of 8th edition for the reason of this being the last ever edition, just with yesrly rule adjustments/changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except if it isn't popular of course

they'll skip forward and number it 10th edition, with yearly updates
2017: Warhammer 40K 10th Edition
2019: 10th Edition: The Assault Update
2021: 10th Edition: the Vehicles update
2023: 10th Edition: Apocalypse

Vorian wrote:
But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Shorj of fixed armies in fixed scenarios and fixed terrain it's impossible to balance period.

And in few years 9th ea arrives.

Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.

tneva82 wrote:

Vorian wrote:
But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Shorj of fixed armies in fixed scenarios and fixed terrain it's impossible to balance period.

And in few years 9th ea arrives.

Depends what you mean by balance. It's never going to be perfect, obviously, but it can be balanced enough that it's basically equal most of the time

 Rippy wrote:
Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.

Thanks Rippy!
Man that's awesome, now they are finally truly big compared to guardsmen, like two heads higher! And a little smaller then Custodes too.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Vorian wrote:
But, importantly, they are intending to amend the game based upon feedback each year.

Sure, it's pretty impossible to balance something like 40k perfectly in one go - but after a few years of fixes? It'll be pretty tight

Then they'll do a new edition.

Yeah, that's probably my biggest fear with this whole thing, that after all this work GW has allegedly put into 8th they're just going to go right back to the same gak they were doing before...that whole model of making minor tweaks to the rules, not to improve upon them, but simply to shake the meta so people must constantly keep re-buying half their army and hundreds of dollars worth of books to keep playing at all. Even the planned annual revisions have me worried.

I would much prefer it if "New GW" chooses this time to sustain itself on model sales, since it always did claim to be a "model company" first, and not through planned obsolescence with the game that they (used to) pretend that no one really plays anyway.

FunJohn wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.

Thanks Rippy!
Man that's awesome, now they are finally truly big compared to guardsmen, like two heads higher! And a little smaller then Custodes too.

I think it goes to show, that the stance of regular marine really let them down. The deathwatch marines looks appropriate compared to guardsmen to show a marines stature being larger than that of a guardsmen.

The primaries are huge, so huge I don't think they can justify custodes as being superior to them if they were to replace normal marines, I think normal size marines are staying for long term.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

FunJohn wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.

Thanks Rippy!
Man that's awesome, now they are finally truly big compared to guardsmen, like two heads higher! And a little smaller then Custodes too.

I think it goes to show, that the stance of regular marine really let them down. The deathwatch marines looks appropriate compared to guardsmen to show a marines stature being larger than that of a guardsmen.

The primaries are huge, so huge I don't think they can justify custodes as being superior to them if they were to replace normal marines, I think normal size marines are staying for long term.

Yeah take the top of the golden bananas and they are most likely the same size as Restartes and leave Minimarines looking pretty silly. I dont think your going to be able to mix old and new together without it looking like Minimarines are child soldiers it's going to be like Infinity.

The only plus I can see is that if they have helmet less heads they might size ok with custodes to get rid of the gakky Blanche looking helmets.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am glad I own a decent pile of fortifications now!

Also, since fortifications are T10 I wonder if the landraider will have the same (since they share armor values)

They aren't keeping the toughness of vehicles in line with all vehicles of same previous armor value from what we've seen.

Toughness has been consistently AV minus 5. There are other rules needed to cover the remaining durability for some. I expect T9 on the LR. Not sure if it will be 2+ or 3+ though...depends on the wounds.

Thought we heard Raiders were T6 though....

T5 Raiders and Land Speeders would be lame as heck.

Leth wrote:T5 or 6 wound be about what I would expect. I hope for T5 for sentinels, land speeders, etc because they really are fragile.

I expect a lot of light vehicles are going to make it or break it over the armor save. If land speeders and IG sentinels are T5 with 3+ armor, they would be fine. But if you made them T5 4+ but made them cost less, I would be totally fine with it.

 Rippy wrote:
Added Primaris Marine size comparison to OP, shamelessly stolen from a general thread.

So they're Custodes size.

Custodes Marines confirmed?

Thanks for the size comparison. Very informative!

I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.

So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.

 theharrower wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lockark wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.

Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.

On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.

But entirely possible it's different.

I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.

Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.

I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.

In stronghold assault one of the strategims is an escape hatch: it means your models in the building only die on a 1 rather than 1-3. Might roll over for transports too but for now it's confirmed for buildings.

 theharrower wrote:

I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.

That would be really terrible for expensive elite units.

 theharrower wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lockark wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.

Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.

On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.

But entirely possible it's different.

I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.

Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.

I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.

So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.

In AoS, if an Arkanaut Ironclad is destroyed the embarked models are only removed on a roll of a 1 and not a roll of 1-3.

 Ghaz wrote:

 theharrower wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lockark wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
you know, when the articles started dropping, I was a little curious about how they were gonna stretch them out to the rumored release date. Then, they go and do an article for large models, vehicles and then transports, and I was complaining about wanting them to push the vehicle and transport articles together. I see what's going on now.

Now, the official confirmations and rumors are getting to be confusing for me. Have we not had rumors so far that basically said disembarking and assaulting in the same turn is a thing? The Tyranids article confirmed assaulting out of reserves/deepstrike, so it would be super inconsistent if that was allowed and assaulting out of transports wasn't.

On current understanding, you can assault out of a transport.
Disembark in the movement phase, then assault later.
That would suggest you can't assault from a vehicle after it charges because if the vehicle charges you're too late to disembark.

But entirely possible it's different.

I forgot vehicles are gonna be able to charge. I wonder if charging units with rhinos and then disembarking the next turn is going to be any better than just assaulting with actual infantry.

Very likily tho that if the vehicle is destroyed and you have no room to disembark, the unit is lost. Judgeing by the fact you lose models in deep strike if you can't place them.

I read or heard it somewhere that if a vehicle is destroyed with troops in them, you roll a D6 for each model and they are removed on a 1-3. I believe it was on the Frontline Gaming podcast.

So charging a vehicle into close combat and disembarking troops next turn will be a thing. It'll just be dangerous if you lose the vehicle.

In AoS, if an Arkanaut Ironclad is destroyed the embarked models are only removed on a roll of a 1 and not a roll of 1-3.

I could see this being the case going forwards. It makes vehicles equally hazardous for everyone, while not being crippling in how dangerous they are.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/21/new-warhammer-40000-transports-may21gw-homepage-post-4/

Transports

So a few things I noticed:
- hopping out before the transport moves lets you multi-charge the unit and the transport (unit gets to act as normal)
- using transports as a bullet soak is not only a good tactic for assault armies but one that apparently even GW has taken notice of (hello Rhino Crush)
- T5 vehicles exist.

Charging from a transport is in!

omg KHORNE IS HAPPY


edit: ah they get out before it moves! bloody had to keep reading didnt i

Ok, so things in transports die on a roll of one if the vehicle is destroyed. I really hope that characters have some protection against this...

8th edition may be known as the road rage edition thanks to all the reason you have now to run things over.

Yes but you can't charge from a moving transport, so none of this 12"+ move, disembark and charge from a Rhino.

Which actually I'm okay with.

Interesting

So you can move and shoot normally with OT vechicles - guess just the -1 for Heavy weapons

Just don't roll a 1 for the character on baord when it blows up

No rhino rush though. You need to get out at the start of your turn.

 Latro_ wrote:
Charging from a transport is in!

omg KHORNE IS HAPPY


edit: ah they get out before it moves! bloody had to keep reading didnt i

It's still a good change. Hopping out, charging your Khornate tank into the enemy to reap some skulls and soak some Overwatch followed by sending your Berserkers in is a perfectly viable, and useful tactic.

to be honest its an amazing change, thinking about all the times i'v had a transport popped and then the unit inside is limited to not charging always felt so ugh.

bones a lot of transports and armies over a bit like landraiders for one
ork truks, raiders etc... no 6" move, 6" get out then 2d6 charge anymore... effectively all those transports have lost 6" off the charge... i guess the tactic is you get the unit out and ploguh the transport into CC who should easily make it what with its increased move to hold up the unit and your transported unti goes after something else or catches up next turn to the held up unit

lots of new tactics in this game