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.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Scatter and templates didn't really slow games down though

Someone has never played against multiple Wyverns!

Easily spammed blast weapons needed to be taken out back and shot through the head a long time ago.

Indeed. And that doesn't take Scatter into account either. Area attack weapons hitting single units and doing multiple wounds should cut down on a lot of that. Want to space your dudes 2" apart and slow the game down? Fine, you still take 9 wounds on the unit.

Oh I have and yes it was slow but going back to my original point it took twice as long with the Wyvrens having the ability to reroll the scatter ever time. Miss with scatter, reroll, miss with first flip, reroll, msecond flip "nah" reroll and on and on, that's what mades the times ive played Wyvern squadrons tedious. Just from my experience anyway. To me the issue of games slowing due to scatter is limited but the abundance of rerolls in the game is crippling. It may not seem much to reroll something as it only takes a second or two but over 5 turn of rerolls in shooting to hit and wound for a bunch of units, and some charaters reroll psychic, and then fleet and reroll saves and jink and zeolot and hatred and preffered enemy in combat for two players it all stacks up in time and really bores me and also does away with half the chance in the game because half the time if you or your opponent does unusually badly on a roll he can have another go... why not just remove die and just give us a set %ages based on mathhammer.... sorry mini rant over but rerolls have become the bane of my games recently

What I've seen so far has me very optimistic. Looks like 8th will be my return to 40k.

What a lot to take in. Just caught up on last 12 hours. 8th is looking to be perfection.

Is this video up on the new site? I'll watch when i'm not at work.

Think of the Wyvrens potential future now. An 8 shot 48" range weapon that hits on a 4+ and wounds on 4+ (both rerollable) that can target units it can't see, and has a rend of -1 with 1 damage. Quick and easy as hell to resolve that won't do much to armoured targets whilst still retaining it's infantry murdering capabilities. No more fiddling about with templates.

Yeah, this is going to be sweat.

Pr3Mu5 wrote:rerolls

I totally agree, rerolls are pretty frustrating.

However as a Tyranid / GSC player, what makes me happiest about templates going away is not feeling guilty over bringing units of gaunts. No more carefully repositioning ~30 models at a time every movement phase to ensure you take 5 hits instead of 7. Definitely won't miss that!

Backfire wrote:

 kronk wrote:

On topic: they did say that all 5 (!) faction books are available on release; right? Is something going to be limited print? Core rules?

I understand they meant that 5 armies will get codices at launch, other will get AoS type conversions at launch and full codices later.

From the way it was said:

There will be 5 books at launch. They didn't say Codices, they didn't say Army Books, they didn't say anything like that.
The statements were 5 books, that would be affordable, and have rules to cover all the armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Spoiler:

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Oh I have and yes it was slow but going back to my original point it took twice as long with the Wyvrens having the ability to reroll the scatter ever time. Miss with scatter, reroll, miss with first flip, reroll, msecond flip "nah" reroll and on and on, that's what mades the times ive played Wyvern squadrons tedious. Just from my experience anyway. To me the issue of games slowing due to scatter is limited but the abundance of rerolls in the game is crippling. It may not seem much to reroll something as it only takes a second or two but over 5 turn of rerolls in shooting to hit and wound for a bunch of units, and some charaters reroll psychic, and then fleet and reroll saves and jink and zeolot and hatred and preffered enemy in combat for two players it all stacks up in time and really bores me and also does away with half the chance in the game because half the time if you or your opponent does unusually badly on a roll he can have another go... why not just remove die and just give us a set %ages based on mathhammer.... sorry mini rant over but rerolls have become the bane of my games recently

Think of the Wyvrens potential future now. An 8 shot 48" range weapon that hits on a 4+ and wounds on 4+ (both rerollable) that can target units it can't see, and has a rend of -1 with 1 damage. Quick and easy as hell to resolve that won't do much to armoured targets whilst still retaining it's infantry murdering capabilities. No more fiddling about with templates.

Yeah, this is going to be sweat.

I wouldn't expect any Rend on the Stormshard Mortars.

Interesting stuff.

 davou wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Power Swords being to situational was one of the down sides of present AP system, true.
However I am afraid what Armour Save modifier system does to Terminators. There probably will be tons of Rend on the battlefield...

But terminators have sucked since... wait, no, they've never been good. In Rogue Trader they were too frail, in 2nd Edition they lacked any kind of real punch for the point cost (firing their storm bolters and producing a hail of jams was always fun!), 3rd Edition and beyond they were too damn frail to compete against the proliferation of AP2 weaponry that has continued for four straight editions.

ASM or no, Terminators have needed a ground up re-work since Rogue Trader and none of the previous reworks have made them worth taking beyond a short stint in 4th (a very short stint).

I'm not so much worried about Terminators as I am wondering if this will be an edition where they are finally worth taking (and I say this as a stalwart DW lover since Angels of Death dropped). If they still suck, then it is business as usual, if they're good, well that will be a sight to behold.

That may be a nice side effect of the bespoke rules thing; they can make it so that terminator armor can never be modified by rend? Or even just down the cost of the unit

They could always go back to the 3+ on 2D6 armour save they had in 2nd ed, that way they get a huge bonus vs save mods.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Spoiler:

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Oh I have and yes it was slow but going back to my original point it took twice as long with the Wyvrens having the ability to reroll the scatter ever time. Miss with scatter, reroll, miss with first flip, reroll, msecond flip "nah" reroll and on and on, that's what mades the times ive played Wyvern squadrons tedious. Just from my experience anyway. To me the issue of games slowing due to scatter is limited but the abundance of rerolls in the game is crippling. It may not seem much to reroll something as it only takes a second or two but over 5 turn of rerolls in shooting to hit and wound for a bunch of units, and some charaters reroll psychic, and then fleet and reroll saves and jink and zeolot and hatred and preffered enemy in combat for two players it all stacks up in time and really bores me and also does away with half the chance in the game because half the time if you or your opponent does unusually badly on a roll he can have another go... why not just remove die and just give us a set %ages based on mathhammer.... sorry mini rant over but rerolls have become the bane of my games recently

Think of the Wyvrens potential future now. An 8 shot 48" range weapon that hits on a 4+ and wounds on 4+ (both rerollable) that can target units it can't see, and has a rend of -1 with 1 damage. Quick and easy as hell to resolve that won't do much to armoured targets whilst still retaining it's infantry murdering capabilities. No more fiddling about with templates.

Yeah, this is going to be sweat.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea getting rid of templates, I am really happy I wont have to deal with idiots arguing over placement and who's under on what level blah blah. Just to me, the rerolls on Wyverns made the template issue more annoying and rerolls all over the place are in every phase now. I'm really hopeful for this new edition and I am really happy with some of the changes that we are getting but it's GW and I know that even if rerolls have gone on release day, in a few years when GW want to sell their shiny new kits sooner or later one will get rerolls and then something else will and the snowball will be careering through army lists again....
....but like I say... ....hopeful

 perplexiti wrote:
They could always go back to the 3+ on 2D6 armour save they had in 2nd ed, that way they get a huge bonus vs save mods.

Sadly, the 2d6 armour roll is too slow for a buckets'o'dice kind of game. It means either having coloured dice for each separate pair of dice or rolling each save on its own to avoid overlap.

A re-rollable save ala Epic Armageddon would be a good compromise though. Sadly with a 1-to-6 randomizer range, re-rolls and "layered" rolls (i.e. roll to hit, toughness, save, FNP, etc.) are a necessary evil to vary dice results beyond that set range.

It will heavily depend on what we see in terms of save modifiers as well. In 2nd Edition they ranged from a very common -1 on just about everything from a lasgun up, to as high as -6 on things like a LasCannon.

Ideally, ASM's will be rarer and be from a slightly smaller range of values (or alternatively GW will have armour saves better than 2+ to create buffer zones).

Still far too many unknowns to know the shape of things to come.

Does new vehicle rules mean that we can charge our vehicles in to things for assault? I imagine they will patch this potential oversight? Can someone with social media access ask them please

 Rippy wrote:
Does new vehicle rules mean that we can charge our vehicles in to things for assault? I imagine they will patch this potential oversight? Can someone with social media access ask them please

You mean like ramming/tank shock?

I would much rather a system where a vehicle can "attack" in combat than that cluster of a rule.

 Rippy wrote:
Does new vehicle rules mean that we can charge our vehicles in to things? I imagine they will patch this potential oversight? Can someone with social media access ask them please

you mean perform a ram? How is that a bad thing? It actually makes it so you don't need a separate system for tanks to interact with enemy infantry? Now, if they get CC attacks, that might be weird.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
Does new vehicle rules mean that we can charge our vehicles in to things for assault? I imagine they will patch this potential oversight? Can someone with social media access ask them please

You mean like ramming/tank shock?

I would much rather a system where a vehicle can "attack" in combat than that cluster of a rule.

I mean ramming and then tying up in close combat.

 Rippy wrote:

I mean ramming and then tying up in close combat.

We're not certain that "stuck in close combat" is a thing any more. It's not a part of AoS.

Hey everyone rush out and buy all the 'legacy ' GW codeci and FW IA books for FULL PRICE!

2 steps forward one step back.

I'd imagine, if it were me, I'd allow attacks on the charge, but allow them to move away freely, maybe allowing some sort of free strikes if they do. Then you avoid the immersion breaking of a tank fighting in close combat (but the impact damage of driving over stuff is represented) and introduce an element of risk/reward in that if you don't finish off whatever you try and roll over, it's going to hurt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SickSix wrote:
Hey everyone rush out and buy all the 'legacy ' GW codeci and FW IA books for FULL PRICE!

Or, you know, don't, in a fully informed purchasing decision.

Or, if you bought one in the last 2 months, get credit back for it if you no longer feel it's worth it.

Hyped for this new expansion! Think it really will address a lot of the issues I have with 40k right now.

I just hope they manage to keep the flavour the rules gave some factions intact (I remember the generic, less than steller, 3rd edition replacement army lists in the back of the rule book).

I think it will really get me back into playing, can't wait (and if it is rubbish I have hoarded previous editions to play anyway).

Although I must say, the people saying this will make all options viable/stop some units being auto includes, are being more than a little naive.

 Grinshanks wrote:
Hyped for this new expansion! Think it really will address a lot of the issues I have with 40k right now.

I just hope they manage to keep the flavour the rules gave some factions intact (I remember the generic, less than steller, 3rd edition replacement army lists in the back of the rule book).

I think it will really get me back into playing, can't wait (and if it is rubbish I have hoarded previous editions to play anyway).

Although I must say, the people saying this will make all options viable/stop some units being auto includes, are being more than a little naive.

Even in AoS not everything is viable. The Fyreslayers being one of the notable ones. I also hear pure Beastlcaw Raiders don't do well either in tournaments. Granted I am always looking and thinking about this from a tournament perspective. Local meta varies as always.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:
Hyped for this new expansion! Think it really will address a lot of the issues I have with 40k right now.

I just hope they manage to keep the flavour the rules gave some factions intact (I remember the generic, less than steller, 3rd edition replacement army lists in the back of the rule book).

I think it will really get me back into playing, can't wait (and if it is rubbish I have hoarded previous editions to play anyway).

Although I must say, the people saying this will make all options viable/stop some units being auto includes, are being more than a little naive.

Even in AoS not everything is viable. The Fyreslayers being one of the notable ones. I also hear pure Beastlcaw Raiders don't do well either in tournaments. Granted I am always looking and thinking about this from a tournament perspective. Local meta varies as always.

Although with AoS, the specific way it rolled out didn't help. If they are being earnest about this version being widely tested alongside it being built with points in mind from the beginning then it may end up being more balanced because of it.

But as always, balance has never really been a GW strong suit, at all. So that will be another thing to watch for.

And so long as the "Black Codices" (for lack of a better catch-all term) this edition covers all the units, then it will be miles ahead of the drek we got in 3rd Edition. Part of the issue with the 3rd Edition lists was that they were so bare-bones and that they upended 2nd Edition unit formations. The 2nd Edition Black Codex was far better as a "get you by" set of lists. By at least pledging to cover all the released units thus far, it should mean they avoid the problem of things feeling utterly bare bones when the edition drops. At least that is the hope, I'll remain cautious either way.

I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

 Lorek wrote:
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

Good point, I was wondering what they meant by that comment, but I think you have nailed it.

some people however may want a codex for the background info. at which case yeah it's their ;ast chance

 Lorek wrote:
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

At the same time though we've seen the transport rules for aos just killing 1/6 models and taking none of that statline into account if thats any indication of the direction of 8th. Furthermore, with gw's moving away from having a physics engine/terrain/pathing rules we're likely losing a lot of detail to come in at 12 pages of rules.

Speeding up the game at the cost of detail and context isn't really the improvement I want. I don't really want to have to make terrain rules everytime I play an opponent or suffer land raiders on top of buildings syndrome.

...That's not really the point I was making.

 Lorek wrote:
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

Something I had not even considered until I read this. Good point, here.

 Lorek wrote:
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

Yeah, before it ended up being covered in a lot of extra cruft, 2nd Edition's base system was a damn fine platoon-level skirmish game and it allowed for a lot of variety just from the base stats, before rules got in to it.

Part of the issue with GW's special rule proliferation is that many of these special rules were created to create more nuanced stats after 3rd Edition got rid of a lot of the basic stats that did a lot of heavy lifting in the game. Things like Instant Death, Rending, Fleet, the various unit types, all ended up in the game because the basic system and statline wasn't as expressive as it used to be. Hell, they even started using less varied stats after 3rd Edition dropped.

Having a robust and descriptive statline with solid base system interactions can do a lot to create its own variety. No need for Fleet of Foot on Eldar when they can be M5 compared to a human's M4. No need to create things like Rending (or that gods awful old Choppa rule they created when they realized the all-or-nothing system didn't allow for slightly better close combat attacks) when you can accomplish similar things by varying Strength, ASM, or WS to get better odds in combat. Using basic modifiers instead of creating a bunch of different saves to represent dodging or the like is also a lot cleaner (certainly cleaner than granting a cover save to a unit and then modifying that cover save based on further special rules). In some ways, making the base system a bit more complex and making the basic rules do more of the lifting creates a solid foundation that requires less special rules to properly differentiate units.

Here's hoping that they go with this. 2nd Edition with less useless and overcomplicated cruft (especially equipment) would be a breath of fresh air at this point.

 SickSix wrote:
Hey everyone rush out and buy all the 'legacy ' GW codeci and FW IA books for FULL PRICE!

2 steps forward one step back.

Weird thing is they just announced a voucher for codexes or current rule book (if you bought it within 8 weeks of the announcement, IIRC).

 privateer4hire wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Hey everyone rush out and buy all the 'legacy ' GW codeci and FW IA books for FULL PRICE!

2 steps forward one step back.

Weird thing is they just announced a voucher for codexes or current rule book (if you bought it within 8 weeks of the announcement, IIRC).

Yeah, I don't think they're going to honor anyone buying them beyond last Saturday.

Seeing as how they all got moved to the "Last Chance to Buy" section at my local GW.