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.

Caedes wrote:
So much for the whole "gw not turning 40k into AOS"

Everything I've seen says that's exactly what happend. And gathering storm was "the end times"

Personally I have zero interest in the new rules or system and think it's a bad idea. Time to get the eBay account up and running.

Bye


In real news, I can't wait for tomorrow's info. I hope we consistently get Warzone: X books with lore and Narrative missions.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Classic?! mate they have been out 5 years of 30, hardly classic, especially when they altered them for 4 of those 5.

In the crunch yes, but they have consistently been in the fluff for decades. And while 3-5 E powers could at lest be fluffed as specific powers from classic disciplines favored by certatin factions, gak like "interromancy", "phantasmancy" or "geomancy" were pulled out of the ass trumping thousands of pages of the established fluff for no other reasons but to boost sales.

Right, because we all know once you create a lore and setting you can NEVER expand upon it while running a business or else we can be SURE the motives are a money grab... Dude, your straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon with these claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Mezmerro wrote:
So they dump 5 classic disciplines, instead give every army specific discipline (which fluff-wise only makes sense with Chaos, Orks and Nids) and dumb down Psy phase to AoS level...

- Have you dumbed down 40K?
- Not at all.
- Why should I trust you?
- You really shouldn't. Also we lied to your previous question.

Army specific powers have been in the game longer than BRB powers, no?

But I suppose it is time to get mad again.

No, they haven't. Rogue Trader had a set of universal psychic powers in the main rule book and when it was released there was no such thing as faction specific powers.

Yes they have, he said longer not what was first.

I was responding directly to this line: "Army specific powers have been in the game longer than BRB powers, no?"

And the answer to that question is certainly: "No they haven't. Army specific powers did not exist when the first Big Rule Book (Rogue Trader) was published.

I don't think you understand the concept here.

By your logic 12 sided dice have been existed in 40k for over 20 years now.

That is a false equivalency. The sentence I responded to was a comparative: "A" has been in the game longer than "B." Your 12 sided dice statement has no analogous point of comparison.

I get that you're arguing that longer and first are not always equivalent values. But in this case, I choose to interpret the original sentence to mean "have existed longer," despite the poster saying "been IN the game longer." English, being an imprecise language is always subject to such interpretation. In which case BRB powers have existed longer."

It would be pretty damn difficult to determine how long each type of psychic power was part of a current edition, because so much of that time is concurrent. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Thanks

RIP, that would have been nice.

Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.

No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Thanks

RIP, that would have been nice.

Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.

Does it have to benefit specific armies in order to be considered a good mechanic?

I'd personally like to have the option of risking friendly fire to take down that very important enemy unit. Granted, it's not really a deal breaker, but I see little reason why we shouldn't be able to do it.

Well, I can't really say how I feel about the Psychic phase. It looks like the game may have sped up a little, but it is hard to say. I might be taking my Librarian out of storage for my Crimson Fists and possibly my Blood Angels. It all depends on what they can accomplish.

I am really disappointed to see Mortal Wounds. What that will likely translate to is D Weapons remaining in the game, just not in name. And you can bet that Eldar will still be able to spam them through Wraith Constructs. It would be different if every army had the ability to throw down Mortal Wounds, but I doubt Space Marines will be getting access to that ability (they didn't have D in 6th or 7th, I doubt they will now).

Overall, the past two days have been less hopeful for me than the rest. I strongly suspect that CC is still going to suck since units can just back up out of combat rather than stay locked in. So what if they can't shoot or whatever, they just opened up the other unit to be shot by the lines they just hid behind.

But, of course, the silver lining is if CC does, indeed, suck, the new rules format means we're not saddled with it continuing to suck for the next 3-5.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Thanks

RIP, that would have been nice.

Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.

No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.

That's how I felt with my Wood Elves at the outset of AoS.

My tune changed after the first time I ran my Waywatchers. They were consistently underperforming in WHFB 8th but just mean as all get out in AoS.

Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.

And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)

 Bobthehero wrote:
No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.

This is kind of the thing with a piecemeal reveal of rules. Many players are apt to fill in the bits they have no context on with a) pure supposition and b) however it works as of now, simply modified with the new information (and a healthy dose of point a).

If you're the kind of person who looks at things zoomed in like this and is prone to nitpick individual changes without being able to see the whole, then GW's chosen process of hype building is going to drive you nutty. This is especially true since a lot of the missing context will be, say, stats and point costs for your armies let alone the complete ruleset. At the end of the day, a lot of problems with balance are very much down to a lot of minutiae in a particular edition, and folks have proven to be pretty dire at predicting the shape an edition will take without the context of having all the rules in front of them.

So while it might be hard, your sanity will probably thank you if you don't try and build an image of this edition like a jigsaw puzzle being pulled from multiple boxes at random. There may yet be real doom and gloom on the horizon, but it's basically impossible to predict given the info we have.

This isn't the kind of thing where building a pro/con list will work until you can sit down with the whole thing. What's more, no real reason to sweat it yet. The rules are free after all, and as someone that GW has burned innumerable times, even with all that I see in here that I like, I'm not leaping in to a pre-order before I get the full picture.

It will be hard to tell exactly what shape the new meta will take once the rubber hits the road, and it's too late to change it, but too early to start worrying.

 Kanluwen wrote:
My tune changed after the first time I ran my Waywatchers. They were consistently underperforming in WHFB 8th but just mean as all get out in AoS.

This is where I think many of us are hoping things will go.
The neglected models that were not the latest hotness now will have a "place" in things.
If a real attempt at balance was figured out, no particular model should be garbage.
Tall order compared to what we were used to with GW...
We are even looking at Kharadron AOS models as a means to revive Squats... heresy I know.

a) pure supposition and b) however it works, simply modified with the new information.

I've honestly been semi seriously considering proposing that these two things be temporarily considered a sanctionable offense for the life of the edition change.

what i said was said better above.

Or prudent pessimism

 Galas wrote:
Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.

And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)

Unless your army is on of those still on the launch pdf 2 years later then your getting diddly squat.

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Thanks

RIP, that would have been nice.

Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.

Are you actually questioning that a lot of players don't think in exactly in that manner?

 Bobthehero wrote:
Or prudent pessimism

Hey various kinds of Guard armies have had their moment in the sun in several editions of the game. You can come back and talk to me about prudent pessimism when you've been a Deathwing nut since '96. I'm still waiting on my army to have been good at least once.

At least nothing will ever be as bad as 52 point terminators without an invulnerable save co-existing in the same game as 3rd Edition Craftworld Eldar (why no, I don't miss you at all early 3rd Edition).

 Bobthehero wrote:
Or prudent pessimism

Don't even pretend what you're doing is 'prudent'; you're doomsaying based on nothing. You're making up things to be sad about because GW hasn't come out and said 'Bobthehero's faction is guaranteed to win every game and have the best fluff forever.'

Even then you'd probably still complain about release windows or something.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Thanks

RIP, that would have been nice.

Seriously here; is the only way for you to think a chance is positive for it to be an active benefit to one of the armies you personally play? Cause it seems like you don't want a game and instead would just like to have other people line stuff up for your to flick at.

No, but two nice things would be nice, so far its heading towards a very bad place for my armies.

Hows about the fact that they can no longer be locked in combat? Or that they can no longer be swept when they break? Or the fact that you don't have to space them out to avoid templates/blasts? The fat that you're going to get updated balanced rules? That the broken psychic combos will be gone? Heavy weapons will all be retooled to have a use, instead of having some that are considerer not worth taking? Command points will let you do interesting things with your squads out of sequence and you will get more of them for following fluff, thats not a good thing?

You're massively negative, and have responded sharply against anything thats not a direct buff to shooting/your armies

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Or prudent pessimism

Hey various kinds of Guard armies have had their moment in the sun in several editions of the game. You can come back and talk to me about prudent pessimism when you've been a Deathwing nut since '96. I'm still waiting on my army to have been good at least once.

None of my armies ever had their time under the sun, really, and now things are towards the few things that made them not 100% terrible/interesting are going to toned down, or removed.

ERJAK wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Or prudent pessimism

Don't even pretend what you're doing is 'prudent'; you're doomsaying based on nothing. You're making up things to be sad about because GW hasn't come out and said 'Bobthehero's faction is guaranteed to win every game and have the best fluff forever.'

Even then you'd probably still complain about release windows or something.

Uh? Where did I say I wanted to win every games without lifting a finger, I'd like my armies to be doing what they're doing right (perhaps a bit better, because they're kinda bad), and it seems 8th is not going that way. But please, keep telling me what I think and what I am doing, I enjoy conversations with my external brain very much.

 davou wrote:

Hows about the fact that they can no longer be locked in combat?

That rarely, if ever happened, I have at best 10 guardsmen with WS4 and Carapace armor, having them in CC means they usually died on the charge.

 davou wrote:
that they can no longer be swept when they break?

See above, I used to joke around that Kriegsmen never, break, they die, because I so rarely had to make LD in CC because they would get wiped out the second they entered CC

 davou wrote:

Or the fact that you don't have to space them out to avoid templates/blasts?

I guess that's decent, I'll give it to you, but I really don't mind removing Kriegsmen in hordes, its what they do best, after all.

 davou wrote:
That the broken psychic combos will be gone?

That's a good thing to everyone, not just my army, but yeah, that's nice

 davou wrote:
Heavy weapons will all be retooled to have a use, instead of having some that are considerer not worth taking?

Between fearless VS shooting and the Quartermaster FNP, I've always been happy with my HWT, people had to wipe them all out instead of relying on low LD to break, but there was always the threat of artillery to take away most S6+ shooting. So between the Aegis and the FNP, others would a bit more firepower than what they'd normally use for run of the mill HWT.

 davou wrote:
Command points will let you do interesting things with your squads out of sequence and you will get more of them for following fluff, thats not a good thing?

Kind of like orders? So nothing much has changed, really.

 davou wrote:
You're massively negative, and have responded sharply against anything thats not a direct buff to shooting/your armies

Responded sharply to forseeable nerfs towards what made two not very good armies not terrible. Shooting does not need buffs, but Scions and Krieg don't need nerfs. Furthermore, my biggest gripe with the new ediiton so far (low rend values) apply to both shooting and melee.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But, of course, the silver lining is if CC does, indeed, suck, the new rules format means we're not saddled with it continuing to suck for the next 3-5.

The addition of the disengage makes me think GW doesn't understand the problems with CC in the first place. And only a year for rules to change? So if CC does indeed suck, it will only be eight years or so as being crap.

The best I am hoping for is for units being able to prevent disengage. Either flat out not allowing it(some units like Khorne BBerserkers are not going to let stuff leave a fight) or by making the disengaging unit have to roll to even attempt a disengage. It should not be free. It needs to have ways to prevent it.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Forget all about your armies. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

What will make your armies OP or UP, to the ones that are worried about that, will be the "warscrolls" and sinergies between units. So, with this small snipings of the basic ruleset no one should be worried about their army sucking.

And as Azrael13 said, at least if you suck, you will be buffed in less than a year! (Look at Fyreslayers in AoS for reference)

Unless your army is on of those still on the launch pdf 2 years later then your getting diddly squat.

Actually, no. Tomb Kings are a compedium army and they where nerfed because they where strong (In my opinion the nerf was to hard but well). I don't know if others Compendium factions will be nerfed/buffed in the GHB 2.0
But I doubt they are gonna do the same with 40k. The factions like Wanderers and Freeguild and Greenskins (My primary army) are leftovers from the Old World. They are here if they want to do something with them, but is obviously that they aren't part of the newest fluff and they will be passed in the long run. But 40k hasn't had the same threatemend to his universe.
And ,even if all of the factions we have now just don't receive new models in the next iteration of 40k, well. They are factions big enough I think.

I'll be honest. I prefer that all of my Tau units are viable in one way or the other that new units in the next years!

In the disengagin factor: CC is boring. Yeah yeah, not the movement, the charge, the planification. The actual CC stage is boring. Is just roling dice with 0 capacity to the player to do anything. In the moment two units engage, they enter auto-mode. This new mechanic gives the player a choice to make more tactical decisions. Thats a good thing in my book.

This is sounding suspiciously like a particular nasty brand of pessimism:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
- George Orwell"

(Oh look it has a video)That time is past now right?
Entering the time of Pink Fluffy Unicorns Dancing on Rainbows.I can also think we can dispense with the negative waves:

We all find each other "amusing" as we speculate and can pretend we knew all along what the final product would be like prior to release.
Wait for release.
Play the darn thing straight-up and repeat with a different army.
Give meaningful feedback, GW is in a good position to act on that feedback and update since the document is live and not paid-for paper.
Think of it the same as a newly released game on Steam: work to iron out the bugs with the developer and it just may turn out ok.

 Galas wrote:

Caedes wrote:
So much for the whole "gw not turning 40k into AOS"

Everything I've seen says that's exactly what happend. And gathering storm was "the end times"

Personally I have zero interest in the new rules or system and think it's a bad idea. Time to get the eBay account up and running.

PM me the links of the Ebay auctions when you post them please!

Me too!!

Seriously, I get the 'Prudent Pessimism' and 'Cautious Skepticism' - we've all been burned by GW in the past. And, for the most part, they are fairly deserving of some skepticism, but lets get real here. Many of these changes, are necessary for the game to continue. Had 8th ed simply lumped more band-aids on top of the pile they've been applying since 4th ed, the system simply would have collapsed under its own weight. To be fair, I'm not a big fan of the Mortal Wound mechanic, sounds like a way to sneak "D-Weapons lite" into the rules. Also, random run distance, even if it is applied directly into the move phase, is still bad. But threatening to sell off armies (but, please, PM me first if you do!), complaining that your army is going to be ruined, decrying the end of civilization as we know it, simply based on a weeks worth of leaked teaser rules and profiles? That's a little extreme.

Lets at least give GW enough rope to hang themselves, should this edition turns out to be a clustserfeth.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
That's a LOT of stuff in the starter for that price.

Skeptical...

Starter sets tend to be priced fairly low compared to individual contents, is it really that hard to believe?

Assuming those are all full squads, that's more than I've seen in a starter for a long time.

If true, I'll be doubling down!

It's likely whatever the bare minimum size will be for the units.

It is of course a very salty rumour. But a quick comparison of the AoS starter box contents with the individual kits(kinda rough as several of the models in the box still have no direct equivalent) gets £261 of models in a £75 box. A similar rough comparison of the Dark vengeance contents gets £190 worth of models in a £65 box. So with mono pose models in a starter set that's intentionally priced lower its not imposible.

Reading faeit ya'll need a healthy dose of:




At this point, you can make educated guesses.

1) we know 8ed is around the corner...
2) past history suggests a starter box is forthcoming
3) w/o direct input from GW peeps, take everything with .

Ignore, fat fingers.

 keltikhoa wrote:
I have it on good authority they are renaming the game to
"Warhammer 40000: Age of Cautiously Optimistic"

Source: about every third post in any forum on the topic of 8th

Cassius Li Optymystic will be a featured Inqisition character in the new edition.

Apparently there's people already planning to do Future Battles: the Eighth Age. Wonder how hard will be their crash.

The new rendition of the game sounds very interesting so far. Having not played for 2 years, and almost getting into 40k a few weeks ago, I (for one) will wait to see what new miniatures are released and how game play is actually being received by other gamers. If it falls short, imho, than I can go do Team Yankee or something else.

I mentioned this a few pages back since the news about mortal wounds in 8th but things were moveing prety quick, so would like to bring in up agien. I do still wounder if they might be replacing the Insta-death mechanic in the game. It would make the armour modifier of the lascannon make more sense. Ageist a T4 terminator the D6 wounds would become mortal wounds and kill him outright as expected. But ageist a T7 tank with a +2Sv, said tank would get a +5Sv ageist the lascannon.

If Strength of Toughness can now go over 10, but everything always caps out at your +2 and +6 on the chart it means the higher numbers exist only for the purpose of causing insta-death/mortal wounds. It would also mean that a Strength 15 Titan Weapon is meant to interact with other titans very differently then it would with T3-T7 units with not needing the extra rules for D weapons/super heavies/gargantuan creatures to exist like now. The same profile can now represent these units with out the need for extra rules. If this is what they decided to do, that would be genius on their part.

Just my personal speculation.