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.

This is my first comment about 8th edition.

I've swayed back and forth on my opinions. Some things I like, other I don't, others I am on the fence about.

I started playing in 3rd edition, so after 17 years of gaming this will be the first major shake-up of the game sequence for me. Completely learning the rules from scratch wasn't something I've been looking forward to.

On the other hand, trimming the rules down to 14 pages does make it easier to teach others, which is a major positive. My wife didn't want to learn to play back in 5th edition because it was WAY too complicated for someone that only occasionally plays. This is also helped by trimming down the time required to play.

I do like that they are solving the vehicle/monstrous creature power gap by making them the same thing. Something that only a major rules rewrite could have done. That being said, I still hope there will be the equivalent of armor facings, even if this means monstrous creatures get it too.

The thing that makes me the most excited is the claim that this was extensively playtested by both GW and external sources, and that it will be a somewhat living game that updates things to fix holes. No more "tyranids suck" for a decade, or "Tau are stupidly OP" for an entire edition.

I think the idea for the eldar prince might be that due to his speed it would be difficult for the orks to get off a charge unless he is placed out of position. With movement values if Orks move 5" and the prince moves 8", he should typically get the charge, unless he has moved to engage another unit. We also don't know how to hit will work as far as modifiers. Maybe orks will strike first but have a hard time hitting, or as others have said maybe he will "always strike first" I think in general until we know what the rules actually are it is hard to know how good or bad anything will be. I will say I trust the groups that playtested the game to have done a good job.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

No D weapons seems to be a natural outgrowth of the system, so that's good.

No shooting in/out of combat and the S/T system are minor disappointments, but then 40k is a much shootier game than AoS. That smacks of something that was adjusted from playtesting reports.

No random turn Initiative is fine given that we also don't have alternating combat activations, and with Command Points encouraging more active turn-to-turn engagement.

I'm surprised the rules are that long even without the battleforged/FoC stuff. When I heard it I assumed that the 14 new FoCs accounted for a lot of the new page count.

Apparently this thread's obsession takes more mod posts to kill than the hypothetical tank does lasguns...

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I will miss the WS, but fixed To Hit means theres only one table to consult.

Hopefully there's a good design mechanic that eliminates any tables to consult. I am hoping, if S>T, need 3. S=T need 4. S<T, need 5. The end.>

If they follow the AoS template, it'd be:

A successful To Wound roll is 4+. For every point your attack's S is higher than the opponent's T, add +1 to the roll; for every point the T is higher than S, subtract -1. Unmodified rolls of 6 are always successful, unmodified rolls of 1 are always failures.

Errr, that's how 40K already works?

You've never really needed the SvT table, you just needed to figure the relationship out, which is what you describe, and the threshold where things couldn't wound.

theocracity wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I look it more like this. I have a tactical squad with 4 bolter marines and a melta gun. Right now I don't shoot those bolter marines at the land raider because they don't do anything, now at least there is a chance they might.

so Bolters are still useless against the LR, but because there is a chance people think it is different than before
my idea would be to let different weapon groups chose different targets to solve this problem instead of giving the Bolters a pointless chance.

And if they have no other target? The issue with your solution is that if the opponent brings only squads in land raiders I have a lot of entirely useless weapons. With having some ability (however small) to hurt them, I increase the likelihood of getting squads out, it also means I never have units that can do nothing on their turn. Even if all they do is put 2 wounds on it all game, that is better than nothing.

ok, looking at a standard game, your enemy is a tank company, you gave only brought Bolter guys

old edition, you can try to get in the back for a lucky shot, but trying to kill them is pointless, so ignore them and aim for fulfilling the mission targets

new edition, no need to get in his back as you can try your lucky shot from the front, but it is pointless trying to kill them, so aim for fulfilling the mission targets


so adding the rule just for people to believe they can do something and/or make it possible that some guy with a lucky dice roll (the 10 bolter guys rolled 20 6s and killd one Raider each round) is pointless, as a different rule would improve the game by adding a valid option instead of just adding a rule that the devs call "pointless" before the game is out

So the effects cause essentially the same game play situation (it's best to ignore them and play to objectives), but since they no longer need to spend page count explaining how vehicle armor and facings act differently than regular armor they can fit the core rules in all of the codexes and we don't have to drag around a separate book anymore.

Seems like a win to me.

who said that facings are gone?


and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok

I just see that GW did not really learn anything from the past, and streamlining or making rules easier means for them replacing a not needed in game mechanic with different not needed mechanic but the new one will be harder to balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Errr, that's how 40K already works?

You've never really needed the SvT table, you just needed to figure the relationship out, which is what you describe, and the threshold where things couldn't wound.

For sure, I was just rewording it to be more in line with the current system of "roll, plus modifiers" rather than "consult this table."

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Apparently this thread's obsession takes more mod posts to kill than the hypothetical tank does lasguns...

HA


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something I thought of but nobody mentioned, it seemed only a year or two ago a lot of people were complaining about GW's belief that they were a model company that happened to have some rules.

It's really refreshing to see that turned on it's head, it's clear they've put a huge amount of effort into the gaming side of things, and trying to please their gaming base.

Hurray!

Agreed, it seems like GW is really trying, at the moment. It's left me feeling cautiously optimistic.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/25/warhammer-40000-unit-profiles/

Fixed hit rolls in shooting and melee, but S and T remain. And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?

Yeah that is great to see. They are called Gamesworkshop after all.

Did anyone find out if mortal wounds will be a thing in 40k?

TonyL707 wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/25/warhammer-40000-unit-profiles/

Fixed hit rolls in shooting and melee, but S and T remain. And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?

Nice, good to see confirmation on some of the game elements.

I like the call out that super heavy vehicles are no longer homogenous. Let's go Gorkanauts!

So it's fair to assume ongoing assaults now don't include strikes back from the engaged opponent, else we'd still need an I stat.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So it's fair to assume ongoing assaults now don't include strikes back from the engaged opponent, else we'd still need an I stat.

Nah, we just use movement stat as the old initiative

They finally did it terminators with 2 wounds

Surely poor old termies should have 3 or 4 wounds? :(

Initiative's completely gone eh? That's got some big implications for some armies.

TonyL707 wrote:
And dreadnoughts with 8 wounds. How many lasguns is that?

Ah, man... we're going to be hearing this all the time now aren't we? It's the new "scatbikes". Whenever a new unit comes out, it'll be "how many lasguns to kill? hurr hurr..."

Yes, thank you for revealing the stats!

I would have thought that a regular marine would have 2 wounds and a terminator 3 but I'm still happy anyway.

I love that Guilliman has one more wound than the Adamantium-armored walker.

Loving this article, nothing but good things!

I'm literally watching things that I have to explain to new players in my group fall away, genuinely excited!

 kodos wrote:

who said that facings are gone?

and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok

Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?

Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.

D weapons were fine until some genius ported them over to regular 40k instead of keeping them in Apoc where they belonged.

Also, 2 wound termies!? Dare I dream?

Backfire wrote:

 kodos wrote:

who said that facings are gone?

and yes, if replacing one picture in the book (of course this one picture was the only reason for the rulebook to need more than 12 pages....) with another in-game factor that need to be considered during balancing (which was already to complicated for GW) that don't add any benefit to the game is a win for, this ok

Many assume that facings will be gone, as MC's don't have them and they have combined MC and Vehicle profiles. Also, if implemented the new system would not be any simpler than the old one, so what would be the point?

Dread with only 8 wounds and 3+ save? That seems more fragile than I thought.

As opposed to now, where I hit it on front AV with a krak missile, then roll a five and a six and it dies instantly?

Not sure how I missed fixed to hit rolls for melee and shooting.

Not sure how I feel about it.

I'm guessing those rolls can still be modified though, somehow?

And yes - wow! Terminators with 2 wounds! (They must have a lot going for them, amirite?!?)

EDIT:

Yes:

though you can expect modifiers to both of these stats from in-game effects.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yes, thank you for revealing the stats!

I would have thought that a regular marine would have 2 wounds and a terminator 3 but I'm still happy anyway.

That's what I guessing would happen too. Still, it will hopefully be enough to make Terminators good.

Interesting that Terminators have a better armor save than Dreadnoughts.

Nine stats is good. Nine is a nice round number. I like nine.

God I'm so excited about all this!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
That's what I guessing would happen too. Still, it will hopefully be enough to make Terminators good.

Interesting that Terminators have a better armor save than Dreadnoughts.

Oh good spot! I didn't even see that! Maybe it's to leave room for venerable and contemptor patterns?

Girly man looks like a beast, and he's not even the 'fightest' primarch.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yes, thank you for revealing the stats!

I would have thought that a regular marine would have 2 wounds and a terminator 3 but I'm still happy anyway.

That's what I guessing would happen too. Still, it will hopefully be enough to make Terminators good.

Interesting that Terminators have a better armor save than Dreadnoughts.

I bet Ironclad dreads with have a 2+ save and/or T8

 Alpharius wrote:
Not sure how I missed fixed to hit rolls for melee and shooting.

Not sure how I feel about it.

I'm guessing those rolls can still be modified though, somehow?

And yes - wow! Terminators with 2 wounds! (They must have a lot going for them, amirite?!?)

EDIT:

Yes:

though you can expect modifiers to both of these stats from in-game effects.

We already had fixed rolls for shooting People were fine with that. Fixed rolls to hit should be fine.

Stats are about what I expected - apart from LD7 Marines - that seems odly low for AOS battleshock system - maybe they still have a special rule...

I am surprised that they kept S vs Toughness but should be ok.

 Alpharius wrote:
Not sure how I missed fixed to hit rolls for melee and shooting.

Not sure how I feel about it.

I'm guessing those rolls can still be modified though, somehow?

Yes, according to Warhammer Community:

You can also see that WS and BS are now standard rolls (Ballistic Skill sort of always was), though you can expect modifiers to both of these stats from in-game effects.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ok, moving on from lasguns and landraiders



The Eldar prince has been around for say, 5000, years, is highly skilled in fighting, and fought in hundreds of battles etc etc

Which means diddly if he was reading a book when the ork jumped him, or perhaps shooting at something else and directing his underlings

In order to balance the game, the Ork' gets an extra attack for charging to represent the ferocity and momentum of the charge, -1 to hit the Ork if the Eldar fires at him (to reflect the Eldar reaching for a sword or something in a hurry) and of course the Ork's T4 is hard for the Prince's strength of 3 to wound.

It stands to reason that if chargers strike first, the extra attack from charging wont make it across the 7-8 gap.

I'm happy with that system, I think that's reasonable and balanced.

It was most certainly not ballanced... Not by a long shot, and you're never gonna be able to convince a nid player of this.

Yes, I sympathise with Ork players who want their Ork army to be good at close combat again, but frontal attacks like the situation above, should not allow the low initiative attacker to strike first.

If there is a mechanic for it then sure; a speedy, well trained character should be able to decide to be ready for the assault... but it should come at the expense of their other actions. It makes no sense that they get to move on their turn, run, shoot (perhaps run again (then perhaps trigger ynaari stuff for another shoot) and then still have the attention required to properly prepare to accept some kind of charging assault. If you forgo you shooting, then yes, I am all for you getting to hit first, but as it stood it made no sense in fluff and broke the gameplay for assaulty armies.

Should slow shambling zombies strike first against a greater Deamon just because they charged?

Yes if the prince was doing other things when they got to him.

I have zero problem with an Ork striking first if he did a flank or rear charge, catching the prince by surprise.

Then the prince shouldn'e be doing other stuff on his turn to represent that.

But striking first on a frontal attack with lower initiative? Not for me

Being nimble of quick means diddly when you're blindsided. IN the real world and now in the game too.

If you want to bring your godlike reflexes, incredible skills and aeons of experience to bear against a charge, then dont be spending those skills/abilities/resources elsewhere when you get charged. A 'set defence' token or action would solve this, but chargers striking first makes a TON of sense and is a much needed bone for armies that have spent a VERY long time suffering