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.

A 4 by 4 board would be pretty stupid without updating shooting ranges.

A lot of things the game need an overhaul, but board size really wasn't one of them.

I don't think it's necessarily a terrible change in the abstract, but in practice it'd require tweaking a lot of game values on almost every datasheet, or at a minimum redoing points costs to account for what you've thrown out of whack.

Seems a really weird choice to do for a .5-style edition update that isn't intended to change things dramatically.

Really the only 2 main-rule-book changes i feel are needed are cover and morale. Morale is too easy to ignore for some and far far too punishing for others, theres very little if any middleground. And cover can easily be fixed by reverting back to previous editions of a fixed save and per-model basis with the choice to "target those not in cover" if you want.
The other issues in 8th are codex-bound, which an edition change probably wouldnt even affect.

Smaller board would be crazy.

It would throw so much out of whack. It seems like that size (4x4) works well for small games, but not at 1500.

Terrain-related stuff (including LOS) is the really obvious thing, it's inexplicable how much it's been ignored in 8th given the massive impact it has on the game.

I agree morale is a mess but I'm not sure that's something that can easily be fixed in a .5-style update.

Falling back is another thing that needs a big rework but again it's not the sort of thing for a minor update.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:
Smaller board would be crazy.

It would throw so much out of whack. It seems like that size (4x4) works well for small games, but not at 1500.

Especially with the bigger base sizes. Like a 1750 boyz horde army on a 4x4 board...you could credibly fill almost the whole board with models.

And it'd make DS almost impossible without extensive chaff clearing. It's already easy enough to bracket off large portions of the board from DS...on a 4x4 board it'd make it easy to bracket off the whole thing aside from a tiny corner somewhere.

Falling back is mostly codex-bound, the only core rule for it is Fly - which admittedly should be nerfed a bit too.

Im fine with units being allowed to fall back and fire, but it really should be at a penalty. It always bothered me in old editions that you couldnt just "fall back" even at a severe disadvantage.
Something like the engaged unit gets 1 attack per model would make sense, slightly tapping back to Sweeping Advance but nowhere near as disgustingly stupid.
Falling back from chaff like that grot mob that you somehow failed to kill off wouldnt really be a problem, but falling back from a squad of Nobz could easily kill you if you were in a weakened enough state or their weapons hard countered you. Disallow this for Titanic unless its a Titanic unit thats engaged with you, so they can walk away from any infantry/vehicle/monster without titanic just fine and no fear.

But thats all hypothetical stuff i highly doubt GW would think of that in-depth. I just hope to god they dont bring back sweeping advance....man i hated that rule so much....random single marine sergeant somehow didnt get hurt by my Meganobz (bad hit rolls), mananged to poke it for 1 damage, SWEEP manz is dead. So fething dumb.

edit: Also, smaller board size and games would massively limit what you can bring. 8th edition is very obviously geared around 2k points right now, every time i field less than that the game feels lacking and Titanics feel even more ridiculous. Its too easy to kill one problem unit or the counter for your problem unit so there needs to be multiples most of the time, which i struggle with at 1500pts currently.
Hell, even at 1500pts i think orks would struggle to even put everything on the board! Any idea how many 2k games ive played where i had to put a unit on the far side of my deployment simply because i had nowhere else to put them? lol

Yeah, Deep strike would be almost pointless. It would allow you to charge the front of their line which I guess is fine, but people would just offer you screens so that tactic probably would become useless.

I would just start hunkering down and giving my gak as much defence as possible (KFF, FNP), and march up the board.

It's hard to believe even GW could look at the current state of the game and say: "You know what we need to buff? Castles that sit in the middle of the board and abuse auras!"

But it's GW, so you never know.

I can't see 1500 points and 4x4 tables being a thing at the same time knights and daemon primarchs exist.

1500 points being the new standard isn't a terrible idea I suppose, I think 1750 is fine because 2k is starting to get incredibly generous IMO. Then again, if GW continues to drop points costs all the time and almost never bring anything but the most egregious up in cost then 1500 maybe isn't too small?

Also, Emircana, that's still the definition of a rumour I'm sorry to say. You knowing someone who's aware of the rules and updates to a new edition and has relayed them to you is still very much an unverified account. You might know this to be true but zero evidence has been brought in to corroborate, no official statement has been made etc. That's a rumour.

Edit: But yeah, a 4x4 board would be crazy. Imagine 2 horde armies facing off against each other, there legitimately wouldn't be any board space left to maneuver.

And it's also hard to see GW looking at the current state of the game and saying: "You know what the problem is? People can't shoot and fight each other early enough in the game! Let's make the game board smaller so even more games last one or two turns!"

But again, this is GW. They work in strange and mysterious ways.

https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/psychic-awakening-ork-review

I wrote a thing, though Nick scrubbed my pictures referencing "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrel and Mark Wahlburg in the opening paragraphs so my creativity has been tarnished forever.

Overall I think you've hit the nail on the head with that article (and removing The Other Guys references should be illegal) but I'd argue Mek Guns are durable because they're in units of 1 as soon as they've dropped. Smasha guns become durable since they're so cheap but there's also a real risk of overkilling said unit. If killa kanz are ever going to be a thing again I imagine it's through buffing large-ish units of them, which incidentally almost makes them less durable than smasha guns. a 3+ or av 5+ save are worlds apart, or at least they were pre-SM codex 2019, now most things that are firing at T5+ are fairly high AP it seems and that 6+ invuln might not be substantially worse (if at all) than the normal kan save.

I, like many other Ork players, have quite a few kanz accumulated from over the years and I'm real eager to try the out but unfortunately real life seems to have come in the way of that. It'll be interesting to see if a pretty mature Ork meta evolves throughout the quarantine days despite people not being to playtest much, if at all.

Kanz just have so many drawbacks it's really hard to see them being competitive, even with all the changes. They kinda combine all the weak keywords and attributes in 8th edition, which just adds up to a bad package, almost no matter how much you tweak the stat-line.

Melee Kans, going down to a 3+, seem more interesting to me than Shooting Kans.

The problem is that Smasha guns are just too efficient per point. They average 16.5 points per shot for a MUCH better weapon. KK get 1 shot at BS4+ at 39 points (KMB) or 42 points (Rocket).

BS3+ helps with the kustom job, but they still suffer from a 24" range vs the 48" of a Smasha.

Melee Kans on the other hand are as cheap as 35 points, w/ Tin Heads hit on a 4+, down to a 3+ with a Waaagh banner, and can get a 9" move and a 2 die advance roll. They are basically weird, bulky MANz in combat, except they get flat 3 damage instead of d3. Also potentially +1 attacks, toughness, +2 wounds.

Seems fun for a lark.

 Emicrania wrote:
I was talking with a friend of mine that works with the FAQ team. They leaked some news so his ndr Is not threatened ATM.

They should announce 9th soon enough (tomorrow maybe?), What is gonna change is:

- Smaller boards (4'*4' ?)
- Suggested army size 1500
- Terrain rules like 5th edition - ish
- Tournament rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not a rumor, is a fact, the only thing is when is gonna happen, given Nurgle year

Calling BS on this - there's so many companies that have a direct involvement in the rules now and that also, conveniently, have a vested interest in selling certain sized mats (6x4 as they're more expensive).

I know and I feel you, but I´m 99.99% sure it's gonna be smaller than 6´x4´. Which is why Frontline gaming has been doing sales the last month on battlemat.

I get it it sounds nuts, but I seriously suggest to refrain on buying mats for a while until this gets cleared out.

They could do an alternate ruleset for less than 1500pts that uses specifically 4x4, but above 1500pts uses 6x4 still.
As of right now i dont think 40k even has 4x4 rules in the normal game.

 vercingatorix wrote:
https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/psychic-awakening-ork-review

I wrote a thing, though Nick scrubbed my pictures referencing "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrel and Mark Wahlburg in the opening paragraphs so my creativity has been tarnished forever.

I liked the article, do you think would it be possible to play a heavy vehicle list again with ghazzy as a centrepiece?

I think you forgot to call Nick "cuz", that is why.

 Emicrania wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:
https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/psychic-awakening-ork-review

I wrote a thing, though Nick scrubbed my pictures referencing "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrel and Mark Wahlburg in the opening paragraphs so my creativity has been tarnished forever.

I liked the article, do you think would it be possible to play a heavy vehicle list again with ghazzy as a centrepiece?

I think you forgot to call Nick "cuz", that is why.

Damn, next time I'll remember to call him that.

Also, I definitely think so. I've tried a few renditions and managed to win both games, one against nick. However, the risk it feels like riding variability rocket to the moon with so many fewer tough wounds and a 5++ as your main defense in most cases.

 vercingatorix wrote:


Damn, next time I'll remember to call him that.

Also, I definitely think so. I've tried a few renditions and managed to win both games, one against nick. However, the risk it feels like riding variability rocket to the moon with so many fewer tough wounds and a 5++ as your main defense in most cases.

I think the vehicle spammy list has potential, because at least it leans into his new 4 wound a phase rule to protect your other vehicles. He's a distraction to keep your buggies, gorks, wagons (etc) alive.

The Goff boy spam list makes no sense to me. We could do this with old Ghaz, and the only difference was re-roll 1s is gone, it's 50 points cheaper, and the opponent couldn't touch him so wasted all of their anti tank... and no one did it. It seems to me this new iteration is *worse* than the old one.

I'd rather take this strategy with Da Biggest Boss, and I reckon it would do better, as I have 30 more boys on the board.

 vercingatorix wrote:


Damn, next time I'll remember to call him that.

Also, I definitely think so. I've tried a few renditions and managed to win both games, one against nick. However, the risk it feels like riding variability rocket to the moon with so many fewer tough wounds and a 5++ as your main defense in most cases.

I don't feel that any list with new Ghaz' can be competitive. He's just too expensive and too easily ignored/screened out. What did you play against, what did you take? How did you deal with screens? Why did Ghaz' perform better than a Big Killa Boss with Killa Klaw? Why didn't Nick just plonk his stuff in ruins?

I'm not even sure you can leverage the max 4 wounds per phase thing - the wasted damage is likely to be minimal and why is any opponent firing at a model that shouldn't see combat?

bout the only way i see the max 4 damage thing actually being a factor is if an opponent splitfires to try and avoid overdamaging Ghaz and your 4++ blocks everything so hes forced to fire at ghaz again.

I think you could make Ghaz work, but any list that can make him work could do so with better options, like a couple of Dreadz and a Big Warboss.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
bout the only way i see the max 4 damage thing actually being a factor is if an opponent splitfires to try and avoid overdamaging Ghaz and your 4++ blocks everything so hes forced to fire at ghaz again.

I think this nails down the problem.

So, at least in the vehicle spam list, the AT they use on Ghaz is not being used your other stuff. They split fire and you heal him up with a painboy.

But if they just ignore ghaz, do they win? Sure he may get there with 8-12 wounds, but does that even matter? Is he dangerous enough if he gets there?

I would be surprised. I figure people just learn to ignore him, shoot your other gak, then bog Ghaz down in chaff, or lure him into a bad charge, then smite, shoot, and counter charge him to 1 round him.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
bout the only way i see the max 4 damage thing actually being a factor is if an opponent splitfires to try and avoid overdamaging Ghaz and your 4++ blocks everything so hes forced to fire at ghaz again.

he does have the advantage of being the only model in the game which can simultaneously be overkilled and survive!

I can see GW doing smaller boards recommended for smaller games, s more people can play at home instead of needing a big space. They would want to make it more accommodating for people with little space.

I would like to see it go to smaller armies on bigger / same size boards. I always enjoyed the smaller points games, they tended to be a little more tactical than "I can see everything, so what do I shoot"!

I have no idea why they would do it but I can see a point in tournaments.
There is a goldmine waiting to be dug out: streaming.
Watching a 3hrs match with hundreds of models on a 6*4 board is not engaging to watch and not appealing as might be a smaller table with more detailed rules about terrains.
Given how much GW Is getting interested in expanding on the net, I can immagine twich Is gonna be the next Big thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is my personal reasoning without any knowledge of the why of when

 Emicrania wrote:
I have no idea why they would do it but I can see a point in tournaments.
There is a goldmine waiting to be dug out: streaming.
Watching a 3hrs match with hundreds of models on a 6*4 board is not engaging to watch and not appealing as might be a smaller table with more detailed rules about terrains.
Given how much GW Is getting interested in expanding on the net, I can immagine twich Is gonna be the next Big thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is my personal reasoning without any knowledge of the why of when

That does make a lot of sense.

Oh yeah for sure if theyre trying to make the game more tournament friendly than downsizing is a must.

Nevermind the massive imbalance in the game or severe douchyness of people gaming the system and not playing (so-to-speak), but the sheer time involved....usually after a 2k game im done for the night for gaming period. I just revert to watching tv/youtube for the rest of the day, so theres no way i could handle 3-5 games in a day lol