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.

 Jeff Tracy wrote:

As for vehicles, if you look at the rules for the Kharadron Overlord airships, you can see how they incorporate wounds and saves, as well as reduced capability as wounds are taken. And being able to fire all of the vehicle's weapons (after having moved it's unique move stat) at multiple targets would make some vehicles (LRs, for example) suddenly feel worth taking again.

Main issue for me is whether vehicles are interesting and challenging to play. Basically it looks like vehicles will be like MC's, no facing, no firing arcs, fire everything when moving. This, for me, is boring as heck.

One chief problem with 40K is lack of maneuvering. Or rather, there is maneuvering but it is very linear: you either move towards enemy or objective, or away from it. Vehichles and their different AV values was one of the few things which made flanking maneuvers meaningful in the game and instilled modicum of lateral maneuvering. Now even if this is going away, what have we left to PLAY in this game? Because as things look like with the information we presently have, emphasis will be even more on list-building and then throwing loads of D6's.

 xttz wrote:

Oh so they're phasing legion rules completely out in 8E? As opposed to updating them and adding a new legion like all the news says?

the news say formations are gone and every model get rules
so if there are no Alpha Legion models around, don't expect to get rules for them

and of course one of those 14 org charts will fit the Alpha Legion theme, but Legion rules as we know them are not confirmed and likely to be gone

Backfire wrote:

 Jeff Tracy wrote:

As for vehicles, if you look at the rules for the Kharadron Overlord airships, you can see how they incorporate wounds and saves, as well as reduced capability as wounds are taken. And being able to fire all of the vehicle's weapons (after having moved it's unique move stat) at multiple targets would make some vehicles (LRs, for example) suddenly feel worth taking again.

Main issue for me is whether vehicles are interesting and challenging to play. Basically it looks like vehicles will be like MC's, no facing, no firing arcs, fire everything when moving. This, for me, is boring as heck.

One chief problem with 40K is lack of maneuvering. Or rather, there is maneuvering but it is very linear: you either move towards enemy or objective, or away from it. Vehichles and their different AV values was one of the few things which made flanking maneuvers meaningful in the game and instilled modicum of lateral maneuvering. Now even if this is going away, what have we left to PLAY in this game? Because as things look like with the information we presently have, emphasis will be even more on list-building and then throwing loads of D6's.

Who said facing is going away? They could port facing of vechicles over to different Toughness or Save characteristics.
Same for limited movement or firing arcs. This could still be in.

I want 40k to focus on smaller forces with dozens instead of hundreds of minis in Apocalyps-lite. Templates, 2D6 saves, etc. wouldn't be bad for the game *I* want, so I'm biased towards them. I like dropping flamer templates.

I also really like WarmaHordes 2D6 system. That'd be too much for even a game between 1.5 platoons of guuardsmen vs Nids, but leaving the single D6 behind offers so much more. At least the full range should be used, like knights in old editions of Fantasy having a 1+ (or less!) save, with 1 still being a fail, and to hit charts that have people hitting a swordsmaster on a 6 or even 7+ unless they are a vampire or assassin. No 3-5 "spread" anymore, please.

I don't play 7th, so this is a chance to get me into a current edition for GW, but it has to be good.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Jeff Tracy wrote:

As for vehicles, if you look at the rules for the Kharadron Overlord airships, you can see how they incorporate wounds and saves, as well as reduced capability as wounds are taken. And being able to fire all of the vehicle's weapons (after having moved it's unique move stat) at multiple targets would make some vehicles (LRs, for example) suddenly feel worth taking again.

Main issue for me is whether vehicles are interesting and challenging to play. Basically it looks like vehicles will be like MC's, no facing, no firing arcs, fire everything when moving. This, for me, is boring as heck.

One chief problem with 40K is lack of maneuvering. Or rather, there is maneuvering but it is very linear: you either move towards enemy or objective, or away from it. Vehichles and their different AV values was one of the few things which made flanking maneuvers meaningful in the game and instilled modicum of lateral maneuvering. Now even if this is going away, what have we left to PLAY in this game? Because as things look like with the information we presently have, emphasis will be even more on list-building and then throwing loads of D6's.

Who said facing is going away? They could port facing of vechicles over to different Toughness or Save characteristics.
Same for limited movement or firing arcs. This could still be in.

yea we literally know nothing the damage table could incorporate attacks from facings e.g. plus x on the chart if the attack was from the rear

Core rules implies a functional rules set and that implies the unit rules are included, so that you can actually play a game with said core rules.

Otherwise, what's the point?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're missing the point.

Waiting 9 years to get you Legion rules back only to have them invalidated 6 months later is a kick in the teeth.

yeah, I'm holding my breath on that one. That said if they DON'T give chaos marines legion rules from the get go in 8th edition, I'd say the claim they listened to their players is gonna ring pretty hollow.

little tweeks to allow flavor for subfactions is something that has always been one of the most requested things.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Core rules implies a functional rules set and that implies the unit rules are included, so that you can actually play a game with said core rules.

Otherwise, what's the point?

That's not been the case for GW games for a loong time, the core rules were what was in the BRB but you still needed to buy the codexes/armybooks.

 kodos wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Oh so they're phasing legion rules completely out in 8E? As opposed to updating them and adding a new legion like all the news says?

the news say formations are gone and every model get rules
so if there are no Alpha Legion models around, don't expect to get rules for them

and of course one of those 14 org charts will fit the Alpha Legion theme, but Legion rules as we know them are not confirmed and likely to be gone

I guess all Legions will return sooner or later with own Codex-like Books. They said focus will be on Imperium vs. Chaos and that CSMs will get more care.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Who said facing is going away? They could port facing of vechicles over to different Toughness or Save characteristics.
Same for limited movement or firing arcs. This could still be in.

Of course they could still model Facing, but then what would be the point of change? The new system then has so many exceptions and add-on rules that it is if anything more complicated than AV system.
If the issue was that Vehicles were too fragile, then the fix would have been trivially easy - go back to 5th edition Vehicle rules.

Backfire wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Who said facing is going away? They could port facing of vechicles over to different Toughness or Save characteristics.
Same for limited movement or firing arcs. This could still be in.

Of course they could still model Facing, but then what would be the point of change? The new system then has so many exceptions and add-on rules that it is if anything more complicated than AV system.

How do you know?

 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.

Ugh! I have a buddy that plays IG and he loves his Wyverns. We constantly give him about how long they take to resolve all their shooting! We were playing a 3000 point team game and he brought two full units of them. We timed him and it took over 15 minutes for him to resolve his shooting JUST from those two units.

Totally had to Exalt your post by the way

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Core rules implies a functional rules set and that implies the unit rules are included, so that you can actually play a game with said core rules.

Otherwise, what's the point?

In this case 'core rules' implies nothing of the sort (atleast for now). AoS has officially stamped core rules and separate unit rules. Even GW's representatives have stated that the 'core rules' for the new 40k are about 12-14 pages long.

Edit:
The point would be that if you like the new core rules which you can see for free you'll be able to buy your new faction rules. Otherwise you could revert to playing an older version. I agree that without a dummy warscroll or stat explanation included in the new rules it would be impossible to make an opinion, but for now the choice of words in feeds and official statements speak nothing about free unit rules. On the contrary - they've explicitly said that you'll be able to buy them for relatively cheaper price on day one.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Land Raider with 500 wounds confirmed.

But again, this raises a question - what is the point of this change? If the idea is that everything can hurt everything, then it is watered down to that weakest units do not have realistic prospect of hurting powerful units, then why just not waste everyone's time and do away even with that remote chance?

edit. Presently, killing a Riptide requires on average 250 conscripts.

Backfire wrote:
But again, this raises a question - what is the point of this change? If the idea is that everything can hurt everything, then it is watered down is that weakest units do not have realistic prospect of hurting powerful units, then why just not waste everyone's time and do away even with that remote chance?

Because there are middle ground cases where it is going to matter. It's not all going to be land raiders vs lasguns. It's not only extreme or all or nothing situations that need to be resolved by the rules.

 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.

With their drastically lowered points in the teaser rules for GHB2, Fyreslayers are actually viable and this is exactly what we'll see now in 40k: a yearly rebalance that will endeavour to make every unit viable.

Also that keeps you rolling dice to see what happens and that is one of the design cornerstones of Warhammer. IMO keeping you engaged by constantly rolling dice is one of the major design paradigms of GW.

CoreCommander wrote:The point would be that if you like the new core rules which you can see for free you'll be able to buy your new faction rules. Otherwise you could revert to playing an older version. I agree that without a dummy warscroll or stat explanation included in the new rules it would be impossible to make an opinion, but for now the choice of words in feeds and official statements speak nothing about free unit rules. On the contrary - they've explicitly said that you'll be able to buy them for relatively cheaper price on day one.

The Q&A said that they'd charge for the printed books, but that there would be electronic versions released on launch day. While they haven't yet explicitly said that would be free, they did exactly this for AoS launch day.

Backfire wrote:But again, this raises a question - what is the point of this change? If the idea is that everything can hurt everything, then it is watered down to that weakest units do not have realistic prospect of hurting powerful units, then why just not waste everyone's time and do away even with that remote chance?

So that when you're facing that Knight army get them down to the last 1 or 2 HP and lose your last Missile launcher, you don't have to pack up and go home because killing them is impossible.

Backfire wrote:
But again, this raises a question - what is the point of this change? If the idea is that everything can hurt everything, then it is watered down to that weakest units do not have realistic prospect of hurting powerful units, then why just not waste everyone's time and do away even with that remote chance?

edit. Presently, killing a Riptide requires on average 250 conscripts.

Hm maybe, that a otherwise useless unit, can maybe strip one or two lp of it, before getting wiped?

 frozenwastes wrote:

Because there are middle ground cases where it is going to matter. It's not all going to be land raiders vs lasguns. It's not only extreme or all or nothing situations that need to be resolved by the rules.

So what are these "middle ground cases"? They already stated that killing a Rhino (relatively weak vehicle) takes an absurd number of lasguns. So it doesn't sound Lasgun is going to be good at killing Vehicles. Present system already handles most "middle ground cases" - it is possible for S4 guns (most common) to damage or kill light vehicles like Trukks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darksider wrote:

Backfire wrote:
But again, this raises a question - what is the point of this change? If the idea is that everything can hurt everything, then it is watered down to that weakest units do not have realistic prospect of hurting powerful units, then why just not waste everyone's time and do away even with that remote chance?

edit. Presently, killing a Riptide requires on average 250 conscripts.

Hm maybe, that a otherwise useless unit, can maybe strip one or two lp of it, before getting wiped?

There is already a method for that, a much more cinematic and heroic method - grenades.

 xttz wrote:

The Q&A said that they'd charge for the printed books, but that there would be electronic versions released on launch day. While they haven't yet explicitly said that would be free, they did exactly this for AoS launch day.

First off, there was no official info for AoS pre-release on which to base our comparison. Second, they only mention in the FAQ that you can buy the unit rules and in a separate paragraph that the available free rules won't be the complete full rulebook which you can also buy. I've been posting exact statements from the stream and faq and these speak nothing of free unit rules-only of free core rules which are about 12-14 pages long and of Grand Alliance books available to buy on day one. (Sorry ,got you mixed with another person)

Look, as much as I want them to release free rules (and think that this is the right way as the relative financial success of AoS has mostly been based on the free aspect rather than on the quality of the rules themselves) the reality is that they've been asked twice until now about unit rules and in both cases the answer was a paraphrased "All unit rules will be available for purchase on day one for a relatively cheap price". If someone feels like it they can drop a question on the FB page (and probably receive the same answer IMO), but until then the possibility of free unit rules is still just a possibility and not a confirmed fact while purchased rules have been confirmed twice. I don't feel like repeating myself for a fourth time so I think I'll be dropping the subject here and now.

Backfire wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Because there are middle ground cases where it is going to matter. It's not all going to be land raiders vs lasguns. It's not only extreme or all or nothing situations that need to be resolved by the rules.

So what are these "middle ground cases"? They already stated that killing a Rhino (relatively weak vehicle) takes an absurd number of lasguns. So it doesn't sound Lasgun is going to be good at killing Vehicles. Present system already handles most "middle ground cases" - it is possible for S4 guns (most common) to damage or kill light vehicles like Trukks.

Yeah, but keep in mind that S4 is a Bolter, which is a miniature rocket launcher. They SHOULD kill light vehicles.
And S3 is a weak Lasgun or Autogun. There is no middle ground between them NOW, but if characteristics are not locked at a maximum of 10, maybe there finally will be.
Autogun S3, Lasgun S4, Bolter S6 and suddenly you have a lot more diversity, your Bolter equivalents can shred Rhinos in, idk, 10 hits but Lasguns would require 40.

Lasguns aren't exactly weak, either.

Backfire wrote:
So what are these "middle ground cases"? They already stated that killing a Rhino (relatively weak vehicle) takes an absurd number of lasguns. So it doesn't sound Lasgun is going to be good at killing Vehicles. Present system already handles most "middle ground cases" - it is possible for S4 guns (most common) to damage or kill light vehicles like Trukks.

They were talking Land Raiders... you know, one of the currently AV14 Tanks. Not a Rhino.

So much Doom & Gloom here when e.g. vehicle rules have barely been glanced yet. I'd wait for more substantial details before passing judgement on the rules.

I know GW doesn't have a great track record at making rules and balancing things. However GW didn't have a reputation of listening to their customer base and taking input on rules and other issues. But look how have things turned around.

Have to say I'm liking this "new GW" and I'm really excited about this new edition. 7th edition has all but killed my and our group's interest in 40k. I'm confident it cannot possibly be worse.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Because there are middle ground cases where it is going to matter. It's not all going to be land raiders vs lasguns. It's not only extreme or all or nothing situations that need to be resolved by the rules.

So what are these "middle ground cases"? They already stated that killing a Rhino (relatively weak vehicle) takes an absurd number of lasguns. So it doesn't sound Lasgun is going to be good at killing Vehicles. Present system already handles most "middle ground cases" - it is possible for S4 guns (most common) to damage or kill light vehicles like Trukks.

Yeah, but keep in mind that S4 is a Bolter, which is a miniature rocket launcher. They SHOULD kill light vehicles.
And S3 is a weak Lasgun or Autogun. There is no middle ground between them NOW, but if characteristics are not locked at a maximum of 10, maybe there finally will be.
Autogun S3, Lasgun S4, Bolter S6 and suddenly you have a lot more diversity, your Bolter equivalents can shred Rhinos in, idk, 10 hits but Lasguns would require 40.

The big thing for me with this change is that in 7th the Bolter Marines I have to take to get access to a Melta gun can't do anything against most vehicles so they end up just standing there. If this change happens in 8th then I will always try rolling the Bolter Marines along with the Marine holding the Melta, and every so often the Melta Marine will fail to do anything but the Bolter Marines will take out the vehicle, far more satisfying for me.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

Yeah, but keep in mind that S4 is a Bolter, which is a miniature rocket launcher. They SHOULD kill light vehicles.
And S3 is a weak Lasgun or Autogun. There is no middle ground between them NOW, but if characteristics are not locked at a maximum of 10, maybe there finally will be.
Autogun S3, Lasgun S4, Bolter S6 and suddenly you have a lot more diversity, your Bolter equivalents can shred Rhinos in, idk, 10 hits but Lasguns would require 40.

Well, it would make no sense for Rhino to be killed that easily. Why would the Space Marines drive a vehicle which is so vulnerable against one of their main enemies common weapons? I am fairly sure that all small arms fire with exception of Gauss guns and maybe Pulse rifles is going to be equally hopeless against even light Vehicles, ie. similar to shooting Riptides nowadays: you might get lucky sometimes but usually no effect.

One thing I wonder is how powerful Autocannons will be? If they get Rend -1 (seems likely as they're AP4), then they will be effective even against AV14 equivalent (which they aren't today).

 Carnikang wrote:

Backfire wrote:
So what are these "middle ground cases"? They already stated that killing a Rhino (relatively weak vehicle) takes an absurd number of lasguns. So it doesn't sound Lasgun is going to be good at killing Vehicles. Present system already handles most "middle ground cases" - it is possible for S4 guns (most common) to damage or kill light vehicles like Trukks.

They were talking Land Raiders... you know, one of the currently AV14 Tanks. Not a Rhino.

They had similar answer about Rhino earlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Looky Likey wrote:
The big thing for me with this change is that in 7th the Bolter Marines I have to take to get access to a Melta gun can't do anything against most vehicles so they end up just standing there. If this change happens in 8th then I will always try rolling the Bolter Marines along with the Marine holding the Melta, and every so often the Melta Marine will fail to do anything but the Bolter Marines will take out the vehicle, far more satisfying for me.

If you're on Meltagun range, you are probably on charge range...

Backfire wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:
The big thing for me with this change is that in 7th the Bolter Marines I have to take to get access to a Melta gun can't do anything against most vehicles so they end up just standing there. If this change happens in 8th then I will always try rolling the Bolter Marines along with the Marine holding the Melta, and every so often the Melta Marine will fail to do anything but the Bolter Marines will take out the vehicle, far more satisfying for me.

If you're on Meltagun range, you are probably on charge range...

If they change the rules again on number of grenades in assault then that would be my preferred follow up, but my typical tactical squad doesn't have great odds of tearing up a vehicle in assault even if I give them melta bombs with just one attack.