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.

 Mezmaron wrote:
What does the term "bespoken" mean in the new rules? I keep hearing it being used, but can't find it anyway on the GW website. Is it a new class or type of rule? Mez

it means the rules for the unit are on the datasheet for the unit, instead of being in the BRB.

Going with the Kharadron approach to how a tac squad could easily be written below. Assuming they'll use a General's Handbook approach that would give a unit's max size, too.

A tactical squad has 5 or more models. The marines are armed with boltguns. For every 5 models in the squad, 1 can be instead armed with a flamer, meltagun or missile launcher as a special weapon. A tactical squad may not have duplicate it's specific special weapon choice (e.g., you may not take two flamers or two missile launchers for a 10 marine squad).

Random thing that popped into my head: now that characteristics are no longer capped at ten, do you think they'll change how characteristic tests are taken? E.G. On 2D6?

 Red__Thirst wrote:
.

It covers shooting out of combat. You HAVE to shoot the closest model or models which, if you're locked in combat, will be the models you're locked in combat with. You won't be able to shoot a squad of Ork Boyz advancing toward the ongoing scrum consisting of a squad of Assault Marines and Gretchin led by a Runtherd. You'd have to fire your pistols at the Gretchin and their Runtherd as they're the closest models to you (Base to Base contact) and then attack them in your assault phase (or assault activation) and hope another unit can deal with the on-rushing Boyz squad.

That's how I read it, anyway.

Personally, Red, I took it the other way. The wording is:
"Models with these hand-held firearms can shoot at the closest enemy target in the Shooting phase, even if they themselves are locked in combat!"

I just think that if they meant you got an extra shot (ahem) at hurting the unit you're locked with, they'd have put it more like "...even the enemy you're fighting!". So effectively it's an anti-bubble wrap/tarpit measure. We'll see in a few weeks, anyway!

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Random thing that popped into my head: now that characteristics are no longer capped at ten, do you think they'll change how characteristic tests are taken? E.G. On 2D6?

If AoS is an indicator then characteristic tests will no longer exist.

 insaniak wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
OK, I am down with unit specific bespoken rules.
How will unit upgrades be handled, then?
Purely in the bespoken fashion, i.e. per the war scroll for the unit in question, add X points for A upgrade, Y points for B and so on?

Given that points only exist in one of the three game modes, probably from an armoury in the relevant book.

In the non-points-costed game modes, it will either be 'as per the scenario' or 'put all your models on the table and have at it'.

Actually no, there are regular points, just like current 40k, for Matched play, and a second, simpler points system (a la AoS) for narrative play, where you don't pay for unit upgrades etc.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Random thing that popped into my head: now that characteristics are no longer capped at ten, do you think they'll change how characteristic tests are taken? E.G. On 2D6?

If AoS is an indicator then characteristic tests will no longer exist.

That would be a poor indicator, given that WH40k is confirmed to have the sort of characteristics subject to characteristic tests (S & T) that AoS lacks by virtue of its more limited statline.

(No Leadership tests in AoS? I don't play, so I don't have good knowledge one way or the other...)

Right before the last thread was closed I noticed something concerning cover. As it is just a save modifier, could there be negative (bad) cover? Standing in a river or near some kind of radioactive material could hurt your armor. Marines could go from a 3+ save to a 4+ save.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Random thing that popped into my head: now that characteristics are no longer capped at ten, do you think they'll change how characteristic tests are taken? E.G. On 2D6?

If AoS is an indicator then characteristic tests will no longer exist.

That would be a poor indicator, given that WH40k is confirmed to have the sort of characteristics subject to characteristic tests (S & T) that AoS lacks by virtue of its more limited statline.

(No Leadership tests in AoS? I don't play, so I don't have good knowledge one way or the other...)

Indeed; while Initiative is gone, strength and toughness are staying and hose were the big three that got tested generally.

As for leadership and AoS; they have 'bravery' which is equivalent but morale is not a binary pass/fail test; you roll dice and compare casualties vs the characteristic to determine how many dudes run away. This is apparently being ported wholesale to 8th edition 40k though.

I should have worded that more clearly; I meant to convey some uncertainty with that statement due to reasons mentioned above. I would say there's decent odds of them being eliminated but far from certain.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Right before the last thread was closed I noticed something concerning cover. As it is just a save modifier, could there be negative (bad) cover? Standing in a river or near some kind of radioactive material could hurt your armor. Marines could go from a 3+ save to a 4+ save.

This is what you were talking about
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/30/new-40k-shooting-phase-apr30gw-homepage-post-4/

There has been nothing to hint that terrain will lower your save.

 Rippy wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Right before the last thread was closed I noticed something concerning cover. As it is just a save modifier, could there be negative (bad) cover? Standing in a river or near some kind of radioactive material could hurt your armor. Marines could go from a 3+ save to a 4+ save.

This is what you were talking about
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/30/new-40k-shooting-phase-apr30gw-homepage-post-4/

There has been nothing to hint that terrain will lower your save.

What I am getting at is that the mechanic for it is actually there, something that was impossible before. Even if rules for such terrain aren't in the core rules it would be super easy describe terrain as having that effect. And honestly, I think some terrain would definitely warrant it. This kind of thing has shown up in the Dawn of War games.

Really well done first post, Rippy!

Warhams-77 wrote:
Really well done first post, Rippy!

Thanks! Pretty happy with formatting (you might tell I am a bit OCD with how many edits are on OP already!)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
"One Space Marine can be armed with a special weapon instead of a boltgun. He could bring the flame of the Emperor to his foes with a Flamer, crush his foes with the force of a Grav Gun, turn the vehicles of his foul foes to slag with a Meltagun or strike the foes with a shot that contains the power of a miniature star with a Plasma Gun." Furthermore, one additional Space Marine can take to battle with a Heavy Weapon rather than a boltgun. With a fist-sized ammunition of a Heavy Bolter he can obliterate his foes. The immense power of the Grav Cannon will turn his foes to a fine paste under the weight of their own armour. The venerable Lascannon can pierce even the greatest of tanks armoured hide while the Multi-Melta can turn even the hull of Land Raider into a molten mess. If versatility is what is needed on the battlefield, then the Marine will take up a Missile Launcher as his heavy weapon of choice, turning his foes into a light red mist with Frag Missiles, hunting the iron bird of the sky with Flakk Missiles and blowing great hole in the side of vehicles and monsters alike with Krak Missiles.

I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

Uhh... none of this please. Keep fluff and crunch separate please.

I have to agree with H.B.M.C.

I like everything shown so far but I may be biased being one of people who liked AoS ruleset from the start (I still cannot like its fluff though). Hopefully Tyranid swarm armies with few bigger creatures/MCs and walking Tyrants (even without TG wall) will be seen again.

 Mezmaron wrote:
What does the term "bespoken" mean in the new rules? I keep hearing it being used, but can't find it anyway on the GW website. Is it a new class or type of rule? Mez

The word bespoke specifically means "made to order". It tends to refer to any goods (especially clothes) that are made to order (i.e. they are unique one-offs).

Basically in 40k terms, they are the opposite of a USR.

And in general, this can work, so long as the basic profile and rules interactions provide you ways to make things unique without making a special rule or exception.

In the 3rd-7th paradigm, if you wanted to make a unit faster than average then you'd use the Fleet USR to make them speedier. In RT, 2nd, and now 8th you can do that simply by muddling about with the move value.

In the 3rd-7th paradigm, if you wanted a weapon that was conditionally more effective against armour without ignoring it 100% of the time, you would use a universal rule like Rend to make it less all-or-nothing. In RT, 2nd, and now 8th you simply increase or decrease the save modifier based on the needs.

3rd-7th required a lot of universal rules because after the morass of rules 3rd created to describe things the rules simply couldn't handle within its own basic concepts. Its movement system had no fine-grained way of making some infantry (or what have you) faster than others, all-or-nothing armour meant that for something to be effective against armour without ignoring every save in the game you needed to make exceptions (Rend for the Nids, the special Choppa rule in the 3rd Edition Ork dex). By removing the concept of modifiers and other fine-graded ways of altering effects, they made it impossible to tweak things in certain ways without creating exceptions. So 3rd Edition was a big, messy mass of "bespoke" rules as each codex was left to solve system limitations on its own.

4th came along and tried to fix this with its so-called Universal Special Rules. This was great because there was no longer the issue of a ton of similar but different rules muddying the waters, but the reason it was needed in the first place was because 40k's base system didn't do a lot of heavy lifting on its own like Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition did. But despite this, it never really stopped the proliferation of special rules in armies and what we ended up with by 6th and 7th was a system that had a poor model for basic system interactions that needed a litany of universal rules to subtly modify it while also piling on a bunch of specific special rules to then further differentiate things.

This is part of what I love about 8th and why it feels like a return to RT and 2nd Edition. The statline really can perform a lot of heavy lifting that USR's and even full unit types used to handle in 3rd-7th. By internalizing these interactions and making them part of the basic rules rather than an additional layer of universally applicable exceptions on top of the base system you are now free to basically just use special rules to actual do exceptional things, whereas before special rules were being used to model quite mundane interactions without supplanting and replacing the need for unique special rules to distinguish units further.

40k already had a ton of "bespoke" special rules in addition to the USRs and this piling of exceptions on exceptions is what made it feel cluttered. So cleaning away the layer of USRs and creating a more robust, dynamic system that can handle more nuanced rules interactions means that we can have special rules that feel exceptional rather than like a list of rules fudges to try and bang the system in to the right shape to in order to handle a thing it can't just do by tweaking a couple of stat numbers.

So. After taking time to muse over the news about the shooting phase well at work some thoughts.

For starters the ability for pistol to shoot in CC in the shooting phase means any troop units with pistols got a decent buff in a extra attack they get to make if they survived your opponent's turn. This might actully make Slugga Boys more appealing then Shoota boys for once for some players. A Tac squad have abit more punch now in the 2nd round of CC if they choose to stay stuck in.

It's interesting that Smoke is a "to hit" modifier, but cover is a Armour Modifier. In Necromunda/SWA/2nd ed it was also a To hit modifier. The Snap Fire being replaced by a -1 to hit on the move is also very interesting. The Question now I guess is how these changes effect Jinx and Overwatch, if these are even still rules in the system.

We should find out about Overwatch with next update, Lockark: the Charge Phase

Back in the day, I started a Slaaneshi CSM army because I found it cool. Eventually, I found out that was a bad idea. Sure enough, I kept losing to my best friend's Flying Tyrant-led army all the time and getting obliterated at local tournaments. Primarily owing to the horrible, unbalanced post-5th-yet-not-quite-6th rules and points costs hampering me from building a strong thematic army for a few years. Over and over again, even after switching to the somewhat better-off DE, trounced by Gundam IK armies, Frankensteinian deathstars, unkillable Necrons and "game format + 300 pts. of free units" formations. Knowing that a brand new edition is coming with all the more or less positive changes so far described, I'm actually quite hopeful. Enough of Eldar plug-ins and shelving units that are subpar, time for thematic armies to become viable again!

Now, read the first letter of each sentence

BESPOKE!

 insaniak wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
OK, I am down with unit specific bespoken rules.
How will unit upgrades be handled, then?
Purely in the bespoken fashion, i.e. per the war scroll for the unit in question, add X points for A upgrade, Y points for B and so on?

Given that points only exist in one of the three game modes, probably from an armoury in the relevant book.

In the non-points-costed game modes, it will either be 'as per the scenario' or 'put all your models on the table and have at it'.

There's two points modes: narrative's powerlevel and matched play's.

 Rippy wrote:
BESPOKE!

Baespoyke™

When they are talking about bespoke rules remember that they are talking about the keyword system from AoS. It let's them be very specific about what rules interact with what units. AoS is able to be very peticulur about who benafits from what.

You don't seem to get the unintentional combos like you do in current 40k where you start stacking the difference bonuses from formations, special characters, and allies.

I feel this is a very good move on the part of GW.

Also all this talk of bespoke keeps making me think of this.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Random thing that popped into my head: now that characteristics are no longer capped at ten, do you think they'll change how characteristic tests are taken? E.G. On 2D6?

If AoS is an indicator then characteristic tests will no longer exist.

That would be a poor indicator, given that WH40k is confirmed to have the sort of characteristics subject to characteristic tests (S & T) that AoS lacks by virtue of its more limited statline.

(No Leadership tests in AoS? I don't play, so I don't have good knowledge one way or the other...)

AoS does sorta have characteristics tests, but it usually the attacker rolling for it, not the target. Like psychic scream in 40K.
They go on the "bravery" "to hit" and "to wound" stats, like the bladewind spell of the sorceress on black dragon. Throw 6 blades at the target, he rolls to hit with a melee weapon on each of these 6, for each miss he suffers a mortal wound.

Concerning pistols now being able to shoot in CC probably resulting in the rule for pistols counting as an extra CCW going away...except for Orks that is actually better than getting another CCW attack (methinks Orks will get another base attack to compensate), as shooting still happens before the close combat phase... so in multi-turn combat you can thin out your opponent's squad before they even get to hit you, in many cases with a better to-hit chance to boot. Especially potent if you are using plasma/flamer/melta pistols. Also a big buff to powerfist/claw models with a gun who didn't get any bonus attack to begin with.

With the new activation instead of initiative that's a pretty big deal, especially if your opponent then picks that fight and his troops swing first.

Also makes for an interesting tactical choice: Pull out of a melee combat and forgo shooting and melee or stay in the fight to deal extra shooting damage before the enemy gets to swing again?

Great buff for pistols in general and the new edition already looks so much better than the last one. They are sorting out problems and issues that have been with 40k since the launch of the 3rd Edition if not earlier.

 Lockark wrote:
It's interesting that Smoke is a "to hit" modifier, but cover is a Armour Modifier. In Necromunda/SWA/2nd ed it was also a To hit modifier. The Snap Fire being replaced by a -1 to hit on the move is also very interesting. The Question now I guess is how these changes effect Jinx and Overwatch, if these are even still rules in the system.

It definitely seems as though they're adding a distinction between the different origins of a traditional cover save. Physical obstacles that protect troops (like ruins and trees) can be overcome by sufficiently strong firepower, so it makes sense for them to modify the usual saving throw while also being negated by very strong weapons. However situations that make units much harder to hit (like smoke, holofields, moving very quickly, etc) ideally should have always been reflected in the To Hit roll, and it seems that now they will. This means that particularly well-trained marksmen will be more effective here.

I wouldn't be surprised to see units like Harlequins and Venomthropes benefit from a negative To Hit modifier rather than a better saving throw, while units like snipers and Vindicares get special rules allowing them to ignore a certain number of To Hit modifiers.

Hmm I might actually be mixing cultists and zombies with the pistol rules! If Zombies are still a thing in 8th of course...

Assuming that Bolt Pistols remain Strength 4 - this si good news for Sisters of Battle.

I assume you will just choose to use them in Close Combat, Seraphim will love it - twin Bolt Pistols, Hand Flamers and Inferno Pistols - nice.