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.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Chikout wrote:
Apologies if this has already been shared but Pete Foley has said on twitter that due to the large amount of questions, they will do a second live FAQ.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Haven't seen this!!!!

Here is the tweet.
https://twitter.com/geekjockpete/status/857272174238986241

Pete is a answering questions on Twitter constantly so definitely worth a follow if you want info from the horses mouth.

Here's what concerns me about those weapon stats:

"Bespoke rules"

So are bolters going to differ from army to army? From unit to unit? Those are the Flamer rules, but are they the Flamer rules, or the Adeptus Astartes Tactical Squad Flamer rules? Is a unit going to have a Flamer that's called a Flamer, but it does D6+1 hits because of some bespoke rule the unit has?

The less you centralise (like an armoury), the more things you have with the same name but different rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.

An absurd criticism because there is a specific mode of play (two actually, IIRC) where you don't have to use them. The points are there for people who want to use them. They are optional.

I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!

 Hollow wrote:
It's funny how people bitched and moaned about the previous GW policy of keeping tight-lipped and then just dropping something out of the blue. Then commenting that they aren't dropping a dime because they have been told that a new release is coming out soon.

What's funny about that? Not wanting to waste money on something that may or may not turn out to be useless in a short amount of time is precisely one of the reasons people objected to the previous release secrecy.

One think I was thinking was that if they want to speed up play, they should get rid of rerolls. Since we are going from the ground up, lets remove them. They certainly take more time, and you already have to roll 3 times to try and hit, wound, and save. As each of those could be rerolled, that is easily 6 rolls per attack. So if they just get rid of rerolls I think that would be a good idea.

For example: Twin-Linked. +1 to hit
Fell No Pain +1 to save
Etc.

Another thing I think would speed things up is to get rid of the psychic phase (says the Tau player). Just make Psychic powers like weapons or special keywords that take effect during either movement or combat. Witchfire powers are pretty easy to do that with. I would assume other things would work too. I would further love it if it is one power per phase so you can't rack up crazy psyker combos. But that could just be me...

Another thought I had would be to make a major change and just give every model two actions. An action could be move, fire, etc. (Do we really need any full phase type actions besides move and fire?) So if you want to run, you take two move actions on your turn with that model. If you want to lay down some serious fire, take two fire action. Maybe add a close assault action or a psychic action too.

Just some thoughts about ground up changes they could make. I hope the game plays as fast as they claim. I was reading old battle reports and 1,000 point games would take 3 hours for a causal player like me. Ugh.

Thanks,
Duncan

Thing is, removing rerolls in a D6 system removes just about the only tool that allows jumps of less than 16%.

For that reason, they're probably staying. Less frequent and with greater limitation on scores (no 2+ re rolls) would be great, but no rerolls is too restrictive.

For Strength vs. Toughness, maybe they could be taking a hint from LOTR rules? (The only GW game I played, fwiw)

That table had strength from something like 1 - 20 and defence from 1 - 20. For each intersection, a roll to wound was specified and expanded out for the very most edge cases.

For example, a Strength 3 attack against defense 20 could be 6/6, requiring two rolls of a 6 to wound.

In this way, every weapon can damage everything, but the odds are much better spread out.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
It's funny how people bitched and moaned about the previous GW policy of keeping tight-lipped and then just dropping something out of the blue. Then commenting that they aren't dropping a dime because they have been told that a new release is coming out soon.

What's funny about that? Not wanting to waste money on something that may or may not turn out to be useless in a short amount of time is precisely one of the reasons people objected to the previous release secrecy.

Also it's a little bit different, releasing information like this isn't reducing demand, it's penning it up. They'll see a huge explosion of demand as soon as 8th drops because of the hype they've generated, the issue is balancing it so that the purchase gained through hype are mroe than the purchases lost to 'wait and see'

I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

 vadersson wrote:
One think I was thinking was that if they want to speed up play, they should get rid of rerolls. Since we are going from the ground up, lets remove them. They certainly take more time, and you already have to roll 3 times to try and hit, wound, and save. As each of those could be rerolled, that is easily 6 rolls per attack. So if they just get rid of rerolls I think that would be a good idea.

It's a nice thought, and by all means getting a re-roll on every roll should be rare as .

But when you're working with the venerable d6, re-rolls (and layered rolls like shooting and melee) are what are required to create probabilities that aren't all %16.67 apart. Remove to many rolls and even a handful of re-rolls and suddenly things get swingy fast (this was part of the problem with everything and its mum ignoring low-end armour saves in old editions).

So by all means, limit re-rolls, but the mechanic is far too useful in a d6-based game to excise completely. Like many things, moderation is key. There is only so much flat modifiers can do (and overdoing that leads to its own problems).

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

Really?

You don't see how the efficacy of a miniature in game dropping in an edition change might make someone who considered themselves a gamer first feel they'd rather bought something else?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, removing rerolls in a D6 system removes just about the only tool that allows jumps of less than 16%.

For that reason, they're probably staying. Less frequent and with greater limitation on scores (no 2+ re rolls) would be great, but no rerolls is too restrictive.

This.

I have always believed that in a rule system that has the D6 as the random number generator, there are 3 approaches to help build flavour, and also help the bell curve of averages. Re-rolls, Modifiers, and Weight of numbers. How these are applied is a way to strengthen an armies feel, are they limited elite troops with the best gear, re-rolls. Are they highly skilled but more numerous troops modifiers. Are they sub par troops who just use weight of numbers.

I am sure that all 3 types will remain in 8th edition.

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

Hmmm... I'm my "How to forge the Narrative in 100 easy steps by Tom Kirby™" theres nothing about that thing you call... gaming piece...

I think you are confussed, is Games Workshop's Miniature Exposition the Wargame™ we are talking about here!

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

While this is very true, it does highlight how the rules played a big part in the way models with options were built. For example I adore the Carnifex with 2 sets of Scything Talons. In the current rules set, that model is a joke, where as one with 2 sets of Twin-Linked Devourers is a solid option!

If the rules over shadow how I construct my models for the purpose of enjoying the game, the rules need to change, which thankful they are!

I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.

 Hollow wrote:
I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.

Because it is possible to enjoy something whilst simultaneously being aware that it is flawed and holding a desire that it improve.

People are complicated like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It could definitely be better balanced too, which is what most people are asking for.

I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.

 Alpharius wrote:
I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!

How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.

 Hollow wrote:
I understand the concept. As you said, it's not that complicated. I've just never understood why people who are consumed by balance and gaming even play Warhammer. It's obviously not a game that could ever be properly balanced.

You don't have the be 'consumed by balance' to not want to bother using worthless options.

I'm not a particularly competitive gamer. I still like to have an army that isn't completely useless, though. So without getting overly math-hammery, I avoid options that are obviously sub-par (and if I'm noticing that they're sub-par, then that generally means they're pretty dire) ... and so this close to a new edition, I would be thinking twice about new purchases, unless they were just for something that I really wanted regardless of its rules, because outside of those models that I'm buying because I love them, I don't want to waste my limited hobby budget on something that I'm not actually going to use.

 Hollow wrote:
I understand gaming, (I've been playing GW games for nearly 20 years) I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance when perfect balance in a game like this is impossible.

Ah right, so because perfection is impossible we just give up on getting any better at all?

Nobody's demanding perfection. For years, all people were asking GW to do was try.

 Hollow wrote:
I just don't get this continual push and demand for balance ...

... perfect balance ...

Those aren't even remotely equivalent. "Balance" and "perfect balance" are different concepts.

One is the push to improve things to a state where they are considered good, the other is an unattainable concept, a platonic ideal that does not exist in reality.

When people push for balance, they aren't pushing for perfect balance. To think they are excludes a vast swathe of options in between.

Don't assume that someone pushing for 40k (or any game) to be more balanced has some unrealistic view of the term. To assume there is only imbalance or perfect balance is incorrect. It is possible for an imbalanced game to become more balanced without ever attaining perfection. And most GW games? Well, let's say they have a lot of room for growth. Hopefully GW make the claim to want to improve and stick with it this time (if not, at least the rules were free).

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.

 conker249 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!

How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.

In 3rd edition the psychic power listed what phase it would be used in (or sometimes it was before your movement phase, enemy shooting phase, etc.). Your psycher could then manifest the power by taking a leadership test and passing it. If it was a shooting psychic power it would replace your ranged weapon (unless you were allowed to shoot both). There was no dedicated psychic phase and the only way to block a power was by using a psychic hood, which (I believe) nullified any power on a 4+ if it was within 24 inches. Tyranids made using those powers much more hazardous.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.

Did I miss something that made the Vindicator invalidated in 8th edition? You are making me nervous.

 conker249 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I really hope we don't go back a 3E style Psychic Phase - that was a massive over-correction to the 2E Psychic Phase, and it went way, way too far!

How did it work in 2nd/3rd? Was it effective? I have never played 2nd or 3rd so I have no experience even watching it play out.

2nd had a lot in common with 7th, except you rolled to see how many cards were dealt from a deck, and then used those cards in turn to cast powers (or nullify.)

It was a whole mini game where the inactive player had to decide whether to use their nullifies when a power was cast, or hang on in case the opposing player was actually going to try something worse later on.

3rd incorporated powers into the rest of the game turn, so witchfires were cast in the shooting phase, blessings and maledictions specified when they needed to be cast etc. All that was normally needed was a successful LD test, and chances to dispel were more limited.

On the topic of Psychic powers, with Ld scores set to reduce due to the new morale system, I can't help but think the oldish way with a Ld test will work well anymore. At the very least, it may well be quite a bit riskier than it once was if Ld 8-9 are considered high.

I'm of two minds, I also like the 2nd Edition card paradigm (I was actively excited to see a pseudo-return to psyker cards in 6th), but it was also a huge slow-down in play. And as a WFB dwarf player, I also appreciate the nuance that a phase in which some armies are utterly excluded can be a bit of a downer (at best) and an outright balance issue (at worst).

So it will be interesting to see how all these changes affect psykers. They are inarguably a core part of the 40k mythos and handling of them from edition to edition has usually been shaky at best, often going between too strong or too weak with no in between. Here's hoping they have a good solution in mind.

I think psykers will have their powers, what they do and how/when they are cast on their data cards, and that'll be that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Bringing points back, officially, was a mistake in my mind.

An absurd criticism because there is a specific mode of play (two actually, IIRC) where you don't have to use them. The points are there for people who want to use them. They are optional.

Try getting games with Open or Narrative Play that don't involve doing the absurd amounts of negotiation/planning that people accused AoS requiring.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I just think it's funny is all. I find it hard to wrap my head around the mentality that someone would describe the purchase of a miniature as a "waste of money" due to rules.

If you're buying that miniature specifically as a gaming piece, then the rules changing that miniature from being something that you want to use to something that you don't want to use make it a waste of money.

It's not really all that complicated.

Hell, it even makes modelling miniatures that are already owned into a gamble. I am asking myself with everything I have "What can I build that won't possibly be invalidated as a legitimate option in the new rules?". So far, that has been a Vindicator and two Drop Pods. I might make the bodies of many of my Skitarii walkers (Donkeytank and Ironstriders), but I will have to freeze once the weapon options would go on. I have two Stalker tanks to build as well, so I guess I won't be gluing their tops on in case the Hunter suddenly outclasses them significantly. But infantry building is pretty well completely off the table for the time being. And that really stinks because those are the things I actually want to work on right now. I could build my two Venerable Dreadnoughts since all their weapon options short of the Flamer and Storm Bolter pop on and off anyway. I might actually field them now too.

Did I miss something that made the Vindicator invalidated in 8th edition? You are making me nervous.

No. The Vindicator only really has one option as far as I am concerned, whether or not to have a Storm Bolter. So I am not worried about the Vindicator because there really is only one way to build it. And I think it is probably going to have some pretty awesome rules (maybe 24" Heavy 2d6 Str 10 W1, which would be pretty sweet). It was one model that I felt safe assembling.