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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
-WW exclusive commands tanks are getting rules.?

They've had rules since they became available.

Yes, but Pete Foley confirmed that they will be getting rules in the new edition.

hopefully this means eventually those command tanks will be made avaliable to the general public.

I'm glad to see chapter/legion tactics aren't going away, hopefully GW will expand this to other deserving armies

I asked them about the WW tanks before and they said there were no plans to release them worldwide. I got mine off eBay, so Pedro Kantor has a nice ride. I do hope they give them a wider release though. I would love a set for my Blood Angels as well.

I agree on Chapter Tactics. I am really hoping that they move toward Dark Angels and Blood Angels using the same units, but gaining chapter tactics like the other SM armies (SW and GK are top off the wall to pull that off, IMO). Deathwatch could maybe be done that way as well. Maybe we will finally get official rules on how to run Blood Ravens. I wouldn't mind seeing all the Forgeworld Chapters getting an update either, especially given how popular many of them are.

Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Giving a to hit penalty would be equally beneficial to everyone. Basing it on armor creates a huge benefit for some and none for others (orks being shot by -2 rending for example) - that can be compensated with game design, but I still don't like it.

This doesn't follow. A to-hit roll and an armour roll are both d6 roll-over situations. A penalty to one or the other will have varying effects depending on who gets hit with it.

Orks eating a -1 to-hit are now missing half their shots (6+ to-hit) while a unit with a hypothetical 2+ BS is now hitting on 3+'s (barely any change). This change gaks on lower skilled armies, and worse, if they implement further negative to-hit mods then we are suddenly getting in to territory where those 7+ to-hit rules need to be called on more often.

That is fair, I was simply talking about the side being shot at. However, orks aren't the only case, you have Dark Eldar at BS 4, 5+ save who are clearly better off. This is part of the reason they got rid of modifiers in the first place back in the day (at least, that is what I thought) since these issues always come up. Cover saves (at least in their early form) worked pretty well IMO. If you had armor, you didn't need cover.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?

Also, does Objective Secured exist anymore? What units can score?

I also think it is odd that they kept S vs T while giving things huge numbers of wounds. If we are going to have to keep track of all these wound totals, why not eliminate the toughess check altogether and just give high T models more wounds and high S weapons more damage?

 kestral wrote:
If you had armor, you didn't need cover.

I'm not a fan of cover that is miraculously useless depending on how much armour you have at the time you hide and depending on what you're being fired on with.

Marines still need to hug cover because everyone and their dog has AP2 toys that make a mockery of their armour, but being in cover does sweet all to mitigate incoming small arms fire. They're hiding behind a thick plascrete wall but apparently reducing their exposure only matters when a weapon that can melt through TDA is being fired at them. Normal bullets will pass straight through as if they were standing in the open.

Meanwhile armies that rely on vast numbers of ill-protected folks on the cheap basically don't need armour in the first place. Everything ignores their armour save (why do they even have it?) and cover is all they really need.

For the latter, cover basically always works the same, for the former cover evaporates if they are being hit by weaker weapons. This is inconsistent and it all over verisimilitude. Works fine as an abstraction in a game about lightly/un-armoured Napoleonic troops firing at each other with muskets. Adding in tank-armoured supermen to the mix and cover seems to flicker in and out of existence based on what is getting fired at them.

At least a modifier provides a consistent bonus or malus.

To me, marines making proper use of cover is fluffy, and a cover system that acts consistently is just good design. Cover saves were a neat idea, but they just never worked with what GW was trying to go for and I honestly think they ended up more complex than the modifiers they sought to replace.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?

Also, does Objective Secured exist anymore? What units can score?

That is another one where a lazy sentence of two of game design makes a big difference. Transports/vehicles in general scoring or not is something they should get a clear handle on and design accordingly. I'd prefer it a unit's entry clear said "Scoring" or "Not Scoring" in it's rules. That would eliminate many issues.

 kestral wrote:
I lavish a lot of care on my terrain and I agree it is critical that it have a key role in the game. Terrain modifying armor save is *probably* dumb depending on how exactly they do it. Let's say it adds +1 to save. Marines go from 3+ to 2+, halving their casualties. Orks go from 6+ to 5+, reducing their casualties by, what, 16%? That is bad design and the opposite of how it used to be be. How does AOS handle terrain? I've heard it doesn't slow movement. Also how does AOS do casualty removal? If it is closest model we're going to see lots of stupid record keeping and argument. "NO, that WASN"T the Ogrynn you shot last time, and BTW that lanraider has 17wounds now not 16". Don't see that as a plus, but again good design could mitigate it.

Well, this is true but your also not considering the fact that marines have been getting fethed by the rules for 20 years now. Consider the fact that if I shoot 30 heavy bolter shots at a squad of marines in ruins or in the open they have a 3+ How the hell does that make any sense and how is that fair when I fire 30 heavy bolters at ork boys in a ruin and they get a 4+ save when in the open they get none. Hell, even when a marine dives for cover and goes to ground in ruins his save doesn't ever improve until he is shot at by a stronger weapon. Think about that for a minute, a marine that has gone to ground in a ruin has the same 3+ against anything ap 4 or greater as he has in the open. It makes sense that a marine in ruins would be half as likely to die to small arms fire. Its not lazy, its actually very eligant. Whats bad design is the current rules which suggest a marine gone to ground in a ruin is just as likely to die to las gun fire as a marine standing upright in the wide open.

In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.

Marines still need to hug cover because everyone and their dog has AP2 toys that make a mockery of their armour, but being in cover does sweet all to mitigate incoming small arms fire. They're hiding behind a thick plascrete wall but apparently reducing their exposure only matters when a weapon that can melt through TDA is being fired at them. Normal bullets will pass straight through as if they were standing in the open.

A marine firing out of a gap in a wall probably offers about the same vulnerable target area to a lasgun as one standing the open - about a square foot at most. Personally, I think you should be able to go to ground in cover and be completely immune to small arms at least at long range. That is the kind of major change to the game I'd like to see, since it would mean you could no longer shoot an enemy off the table from a static position. Kind of sad that we DON"T see any major changes of that sort, just tweaking on the process of killing enemy units. A meaningful suppression mechanic (that wasn't too awful for the one being suppressed) would also please me. It is possible they might give some kind of "covering fire" ability to some units which would be OK too, but it certainly doesn't look like we'll be seeing any of that sort of thing in the core rules.

For this to work, do we need 1+ to be a thing and an auto success (as I believe was the case in WHFB, dunno if it still applies in AOS?)

Well, this is true but your also not considering the fact that marines have been getting fethed by the rules for 20 years now. Consider the fact that if I shoot 30 heavy bolter shots at a squad of marines in ruins or in the open they have a 3+ How the hell does that make any sense and how is that fair when I fire 30 heavy bolters at ork boys in a ruin and they get a 4+ save when in the open they get none. Hell, even when a marine dives for cover and goes to ground in ruins his save doesn't ever improve until he is shot at by a stronger weapon. Think about that for a minute, a marine that has gone to ground in a ruin has the same 3+ against anything ap 4 or greater as he has in the open. It makes sense that a marine in ruins would be half as likely to die to small arms fire. Its not lazy, its actually very eligant. Whats bad design is the current rules which suggest a marine gone to ground in a ruin is just as likely to die to las gun fire as a marine standing upright in the wide open.

Again, a marine has only a few small vulnerable points to a bolter. In cover they still only have a few small vulnerable points. Shooting a marine in the eye is equally hard when they are standing in the open and in a window. One of the things I immediately liked about cover saves was that Armor gave you more freedom to move in the open, but unarmored troops had to use cover to stay alive, much like the last 100 years on earth. I saw this as a boon for armor really.

In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.

That is a relief!

I've just realized I'm debating in a news thread and maybe shouldn't, so I'll stop.

I hope Infiltrating will actually be a good tactic for melee units (a la Flayed Ones, Kommandos) in 8th edition.

 Azreal13 wrote:
For this to work, do we need 1+ to be a thing and an auto success (as I believe was the case in WHFB, dunno if it still applies in AOS?)

In 8th WHFB, a 1+ was not an auto-success. You still failed on a 1. However, a 1+ armor save was still good, because it meant that your armor was reduced less by stuff that could penetrate your armor. So you were still at +2 armor save even with a "-1 Rend".

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
For this to work, do we need 1+ to be a thing and an auto success (as I believe was the case in WHFB, dunno if it still applies in AOS?)

In 8th WHFB, a 1+ was not an auto-success. You still failed on a 1. However, a 1+ armor save was still good, because it meant that your armor was reduced less by stuff that could penetrate your armor. So you were still at +2 armor save even with a "-1 Rend".

Yup, I always tried to aim for a 0+ re-rollable on my Dwarf Lord. If I wasn't ever going to get the charge, I was damn well going to survive it.

 Red Corsair wrote:
In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.

1. Anywhere?
-OR-
2. Anywhere within range?
-OR-
3. Anywhere within LOS?
-OR-
4. Anywhere within range and LOS?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In regard to AOS, you put wounds onto wounded models first until they die and casualties are removed from anywhere the owning player wants.

1. Anywhere?
-OR-
2. Anywhere within range?
-OR-
3. Anywhere within LOS?
-OR-
4. Anywhere within range and LOS?

From theAoS rules:

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/warhammer-aos-rules-en.pdf

After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding
the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they
see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When
inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating
wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated.

Did..did someone just ask a rules question about a GW game, and then get a clear concise response quoted from the rules that completely and unambiguously answered said question?

*falls off chair*

Fisher-Price: Baby's First Wargame wrote:...the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit...

I would hope that a game where shooting is more the focus would not have such simplistic rules.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Has anyone heard about OOP models getting rules? Getting worried for my Plague Hulk now.

Their language seemed carefully chosen. "Everything we currently sell will get rules." It is quite likely that some select OOP stuff might not make the cut.

This is what is making me nervous


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?

Also, does Objective Secured exist anymore? What units can score?

Good question, well asked


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Fisher-Price: Baby's First Wargame wrote:...the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit...

I would hope that a game where shooting is more the focus would not have such simplistic rules.

Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(

It is wrong that I am enjoying the tears of Eldar players crying because now they actually have to worry about non-Elder units charging them?

 Rippy wrote:

Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(

That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fixed To Hit for HTH combat seems a bit odd though. Presumably Mr. Bloodthirster will have something that makes him less likely to be hit than regular Marines. Won't make much sense if his much-vaunted martial prowess is matched by lesser beings. Some sort of bespoke rule that makes him harder to hit because of the sheer reality-warping awesomeness (or vileness) of his presence.

I've been saying that for years. Always wondered where it came from.

I've always wondered how he's able to parry things that are barely up to his ankles.

Man, no I am worried my Destroyer Tank Hunters, Lightning, and Salamander Scout won't ever see rules again.

I'm actually surprised about the Salamander and Destroyer. Those were two relatively popular IG tank kits, I wonder why FW hasn't updated them?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Man, no I am worried my Destroyer Tank Hunters, Lightning, and Salamander Scout won't ever see rules again.

I'm actually surprised about the Salamander and Destroyer. Those were two relatively popular IG tank kits, I wonder why FW hasn't updated them?

Do Salamanders and Destroyers have large shoulder pads and power armor? If not, they ain't getting an update.

 Rippy wrote:

Requizen wrote:
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

I am getting more and more excited about 8th!!!!

Will they be using the same cards as 7th?

For me, having cover save the same number of Marines (2) as Orks (2) from death is fair. Why should it save more Orks? Certainly not because they are cheaper than Marines.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(

That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.

I am confused, wouldn't that increase micromanagement? Because there is a lot more at stake if you make a mistake. At the moment if one dude pops his head out by accident, or is easy flanked, one dude dies, in the other way you lose a whole unit potentially.

To me the only way to have comprehensive terrain effect is to keep on second edition: modifier on to hit test. Nevertheless I believe limitating it to -1 and never having better than 2+ to hit is enough to really matter (2nd edition was too complicated is what I mean). Same should apply on saves. -1 on D6 test is a huge modifier

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(

That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.

Agreed. It makes things run smoothly, removes nit-picking and is a good game mechanic. I do understand the concern regarding one guy in a squad being visible, therefore allowing 9 Heavy Bolter shots from a heavy weapons team to smash the whole unit.

Normally you can avoid that situation if during the movement of the unit you ask your opponent if they can still see them.