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.

Marines had LD 7 in 2nd edition.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

But the really importent question is: will people who bought this in the last 8 weeks get the voucher?

Black sharpie will do the trick: cross out the I, put an M at the start, throw in a couple more pluses...

 Hollow wrote:
Marines had LD 7 in 2nd edition.

No. Not in Codex: Army Lists and in none of the codices. Scouts had, yes - but even their Sergeant had Ld 8.

 Jambles wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

But the really importent question is: will people who bought this in the last 8 weeks get the voucher?

Black sharpie will do the trick: cross out the I, put an M at the start, throw in a couple more pluses...

So that's why the staff has a holiday ban...

Hmmm. Having both toughness and multiwound weapons is somewhat inelegant, unless it is done with great care. If they've made the mistake of allowing wound allocation shenanigans they're going to have a big problem. Given how often GW design screws that up, I'm a bit concerned. The "500 lasguns to kill a landraider thing is fine (hey, they discovered statistics), the problem is that unless they've done the design really carefully (and continue to do so), they'll wind up with "10 scatterbikes boosted by X psychic power kill anything"

Pete Foley has been answering a lot of questions on Twitter.

-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities, but often they cannot come in within 9" of an enemy, which is a good tradeoff in my book (but I play DS Stormcast lol)
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying. Good, since Zooming/Hover/Swooping was too generic for the various different flyers out there imo.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing (yay cards!)
-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though. Guess the systems will still have some differences

 kestral wrote:
Hmmm. Having both toughness and multiwound weapons is somewhat inelegant, unless it is done with great care. If they've made the mistake of allowing wound allocation shenanigans they're going to have a big problem. Given how often GW design screws that up, I'm a bit concerned. The "500 lasguns to kill a landraider thing is fine (hey, they discovered statistics), the problem is that unless they've done the design really carefully (and continue to do so), they'll wind up with "10 scatterbikes boosted by X psychic power kill anything"

If characters don't join units any longer then you don't have to worry about mixed armor saves and you can then 'pick a model and apply wounds until it is dead; repeat'.

But that would make characters in transports problematic...

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

Just going off what he said. Maybe it's both? Or someone is just wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

Maybe cover and concealment will be two different mechanics? Probably not since they're trying to trim down the rules.

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

I'm not going to get into people who like AoS's core rules, because that's a huge argument and neither side is capable of comprehending one another.

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

Also I mained Necrons for years and never cared I went last, because that's part of the army's character. It was only a problem for Orks because they're a poorly balanced army.

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

I'm not going to get into people who like AoS's core rules, because that's a huge argument and neither side is capable of comprehending one another.

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

Also I mained Necrons for years and never cared I went last, because that's part of the army's character. It was only a problem for Orks because they're a poorly balanced army.

Never heard anyone say this about AoS before you. It's a great tactical mechanic that engages the opponent in your turn by giving them decisions to make, and also gives you some very tough desicions to make too. I'm very excited to see it come to 40k and also excited that 40k will have a slight variation in that charging trumps player activation.

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.

Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...

So... not very close, then.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Marines had LD 7 in 2nd edition.

No. Not in Codex: Army Lists and in none of the codices. Scouts had, yes - but even their Sergeant had Ld 8.

I stand corrected. My shoddy brain had convinced me.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
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..."

Anything the Lasgun does the Tau Pulse Rifle should do better. Theoretically speaking of course. The problem is there is a large chunk of the tournament scene play testing the rules and a huge amount of people hate the Tau even existing so likely tone us down way more than they should. Eldar probably safe though. I hope I'm wrong. I'm fine with Riptide, Stormsurge, and other Tau nerfs as long as everything else that is currently way more powerful and actually winning tournaments is toned down equally and fairly. I just doubt it will happen.

Yeah given some dubious faq's from the fans designing this game I am a little worried about some of the prejudice shown previously.

Sounds good .

Never heard anyone criticize the alternate combat activations... Most common complaints I hear are related to movement (no flanking), shooting (into/out of combat), fixed to hit/to wound and the random turn roll. Alternating close combat is one I've seen very little controversy about.

 Bottle wrote:


Never heard anyone say this about AoS before you. It's a great tactical mechanic that engages the opponent in your turn by giving them decisions to make, and also gives you some very tough desicions to make too. I'm very excited to see it come to 40k and also excited that 40k will have a slight variation in that charging trumps player activation.

Yep i'm calling BS on his statement as well.

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

It literally self describes itself...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at the stats, I'm wondering if some of the baselines have also changed. A Space Marine with Ld7 would seem downright heretical to most people, but maybe the scale for that stat is different. A Dreadnought under the old AV paradigm should be analagous to T8 with AV12, but is shown now as T7 in the new rules, does that represent a new scale or is it just a rebalance for including 8 wounds and a 3+ save?

Interesting stuff.

A Space Marine with leadership 7 is not a problem if a Guardsman has leadership 5 or even 6. It's all relative

It is when they have mob rules ask ork players, unless they keep and they shall ignore most rules.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It literally self describes itself...

So... er... in movement round, I move "one unit", then my opponent moves "one unit"... alternating till you/opponent can't move?

Then, repeat in shooting/assaulting/etc...

O.o

Odd system...

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).

Didn't they say in the Q&A that cover was going to be a modifier on your to-hit, a la Shadow War?

If cover gives a modifier to hit what will that do to ork shooting?

It means we snap fire all the time and don't give a crap about having to

better get into CC instead

 whembly wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

You pick a unit to go, then your opponent picks a unit to go. Lowers verisimilitude, lowers variation between armies, lowers tactics by making things less reliable.

Defenders of the concept every time it's brought up claim it's -more- tactical rather than less because it's a decision to be made.

As to the about six people saying they've never heard of this complaint: I can assure you I've seen it around a lot, only slightly less than the alternating turns complaint. I kinda suspect if you haven't you've been focusing more on the wailing and gnashing of teeth complaints about AoS rather than the "I dislike specific thing X for Y specific reason" discussion.

 insaniak wrote:

Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.

Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...

So... not very close, then.

Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.

 whembly wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)

No that's bad, really really bad. That's one of the core reasons that AoS garners so much hate on a rules level rather than merely a fluff/replaced rank and file level.

Every AoS player (including converted 40k players) that I talk to love it, so that seems kind of anecdotal.

I still think it's better than "sorry Necrons/Orks/Anyone without grenades, you go last because screw you".

Amongst those who hold the "I'm cool with simplified rules, but those are really bad simplified rules" camp, that's one of the top criticisms.

You're literally the first person I've ever heard this from, even haters, unless you're the only inhabitant of that camp. But well...

As a purist 40k'er... how does "Alternating Unit Activations" work?

You've got three units in CQC, opponent does too and it's my turn. I go, he goes, I go, he goes, I go and he goes. Then it's his turn: He goes, I go, He goes, I go.
If I killed a unit before it would be: He goes, I go, He goes, I go, Igo.

 insaniak wrote:

Q&A wrote:
A: Looking forward to reaction to the finished product. We want to see how close we got to what people were asking for.

Warhammer Community wrote:Don’t worry though – stuff still dies quickly, ...

So... not very close, then.

It is if EVERYTHING dies quickly. In AoS, even landslide games end with most units taken off the table.

40k feels unfun when only one side is killing things and the other side can't do damage because Invis/Toughness boosts/2++ rerolling/etc.

 whembly wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
It literally self describes itself...

So... er... in movement round, I move "one unit", then my opponent moves "one unit"... alternating till you/opponent can't move?

Then, repeat in shooting/assaulting/etc...

O.o

Odd system...

It's quite common, outside of the GW ecosystem. There's variations (Bolt Action isn't strictly alternate, dice are drawn, X Wing has a stat which determines activation order, so dependent on list construction, Guild Ball is strictly alternate) but quite common nonetheless.