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.

Backfire wrote:
And no, I would not play that edition.

You wouldn't play an entire edition because vehicle facing doesn't play out how you think it should? Really? EVERYTHING else could be amazing, but vehicle facing... thats a deal breaker. No way, no how, if how my miniature tank's facing isn't properly accounted for I'm out.... wow.

OP will be updated 5 hours late today sorry dudes, I need some sleep, and staying up to midnight every night to update is taking its toll on my weary old soul.

 Hollow wrote:

Backfire wrote:
And no, I would not play that edition.

You wouldn't play an entire edition because vehicle facing doesn't play out how you think it should? Really? EVERYTHING else could be amazing, but vehicle facing... thats a deal breaker. No way, no how, if how my miniature tank's facing isn't properly accounted for I'm out.... wow.

Except everything else we'we seed so far is NOT amazing.
Some steps are in the right direction, some are not, some are just flat out stupid.

Outside of 2D6 charges I've basically liked about almost everything that's been revealed thus far. So I believe they got the core rules nailed down pretty solid. So sign me up for happy camper group.

My only concern at the end of the day is balance, and that comes down to unit pricing which is still a complete unknown.

Backfire wrote:
If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.

...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?

As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.

 Hollow wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
to add to the calm

That kind of cretinous behavior is what turns companies off listening in the first place.

Looking forward to Morale. I'm guessing it will be similar to AOS, Although the LD 7 stat of the marines makes me doubt it a little.

For the record that wasn't me asking that question i pasted another twitter'er?

 Latro_ wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
to add to the calm

That kind of cretinous behavior is what turns companies off listening in the first place.

Looking forward to Morale. I'm guessing it will be similar to AOS, Although the LD 7 stat of the marines makes me doubt it a little.

For the record that wasn't me asking that question i pasted another twitter'er?

Oh I know man, I quoted the post and for some reason the screen-shot didn't up on it.

 Azreal13 wrote:

2d6 charge is absolutely fine. As covered well by an earlier post, it provides variation in order to simulate the fog of war.

So why is there nothing to simulate this fog for weapons firing clear across the battlefield? But only for situations where things are literally close enough to touch each other?

Wouldn't that be the to hit roll?

More likely, it would be the weapon range and various on-scroll abilities/powers (veil of tears).

Eyjio wrote:

Backfire wrote:
If I want a fast, unambigious gameplay, I would not play miniature wargames at all. I would play a hex game, or some totally abstract game like Chess. Miniature wargames are for me a visual experience, to simulate visual of battle being fought. This is why we have terrain, miniatures etc. in the first place. If vehicles no longer have facings, then not only we remove one of the last flanking aspect of the game, the game also becomes visually silly when tanks are put sideways to the enemy etc. And no, I would not play that edition.

...Do fast and unambiguous rules somehow make mini wargames less of a "visual experience" in ways I'm not seeing? Surely the opposite is true - having to argue over ambiguity throws the cinematic experience off because you're arguing over some artificial layer of abstraction? I don't understand this argument at all; there are literally hundreds of board games out there which have clear rules yet also feel involving and thematic. Why can we not ask for fast, clear AND fluffy rules?

As for placing vehicles sideways, you did play 5th, right? I mean, seriously, you literally had "parking lots" of sideways vehicles covering each others' rear facing and providing infantry cover. I can see that removing the tactical aspect to flanking a vehicle is a loss which you might prefer to remain, but in other editions we've had daft things like swiveling to the side on the edge of the deployment zone to gain inches with the free pivot - vehicles going sideways wouldn't be a new development.

That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory

You could add a random value in the range of every weapon to simulate fog of war? Yes you could. Would it bog down the game with a lot of rolls and measurements? Yes it would.

The random range is fine only on assaults, because they are critical moments of the match, so you can spend more time on it.

A good game allocates time to an action in relation to the effect that such an action has on the game. You don't spend 20 minutes to calculate the effect of an attack that could possibly remove an infantry model.

A couple quick things I'd thought of, seeing as the new rules will cut out USRs and streamline in other ways:

- Will Twin Linked anything even exist anymore? Will anything currently with this rule just double its shots? Or do you think a very small number of more essential extra rules such as TL carry over?

- Unless the rulebook gives a few rules for certain keywords, like vehicles, I guess that means vehicles will now assault/be assaulted like any other unit? Do they charge instead of tank shock/ram? Do they get overwatch? A non zero number of attacks? Do they have to lose a turn Falling Back just to be relevant again? So many questions that don't seem to have particularly clear answers yet. The only vehicle shown I believe was a Dreadnought, which already fights in CC as normal because it is a walker.

tneva82 wrote:
That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory

I mean, it's pretty hard to refute that when the only vehicles which saw mass use were either SM or Guard. DE, for the little play they saw, also did it when they played (also because side armour is the same) and so did Necrons (ditto). In fact, for the majority of vehicles which saw play, it was true that their side=front armour - the only notable exception was the chimera, which you'd want to face forwards anyway to use the front weapon (assuming some restriction on that is still present). I can't see that it'll be any different in 8th at all, with slight exception that rear armour MIGHT be shown more often if (and it's a big if) there's no penalty for doing so.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
A couple quick things I'd thought of, seeing as the new rules will cut out USRs and streamline in other ways:

- Will Twin Linked anything even exist anymore? Will anything currently with this rule just double its shots? Or do you think a very small number of more essential extra rules such as TL carry over?

It's pretty likely they go the AoS route where if you have one weapon it does what it says on the warscroll and if you have two of the same it gives an additional benefit such as re-rolling 1's.

People should stop using "but the community don't want!" or the inverse.
Is obvious that people are individuals with different opinions. So "I don't like this, and they should change it because ALL OF US think that way!" is not a valid argument in any shape of form.

Spoletta wrote:
The random range is fine only on assaults.

The random range is NEVER fine.

Eyjio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That was onlv for rhinos etc where side and front are same. Nobody would do that with russ but remove facings and it's basically mandatory

I mean, it's pretty hard to refute that when the only vehicles which saw mass use were either SM or Guard. DE, for the little play they saw, also did it when they played (also because side armour is the same) and so did Necrons (ditto). In fact, for the majority of vehicles which saw play, it was true that their side=front armour - the only notable exception was the chimera, which you'd want to face forwards anyway to use the front weapon (assuming some restriction on that is still present). I can't see that it'll be any different in 8th at all, with slight exception that rear armour MIGHT be shown more often if (and it's a big if) there's no penalty for doing so.

If vehicles work just like infantry only newbies and those who don't give a damn about efficiency don't keep sideways. No disadvantage, plenty advbntages

Morale is up!

It is as expected. I'm good with the morale phase. Curious to see how ATSKNF plays into it (probably a -1 or -2 to the roll).

Morale is copy paste from AoS.

Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.

Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

And since everyone's gonna ask anyway...

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at some new background and lore in the new Warhammer 40,000, and then on Friday, we’ll take a look at Battle-forged armies.

Nice! However, are SMs still immune I wonder.... I really hated that they seem to have exceptions to the majority of rules.

Daedalus81 wrote:
It is as expected. I'm good with the morale phase. Curious to see how ATSKNF plays into it (probably a -1 or -2 to the roll).

Won't be needed. Discipline 7 on low count squads means that you either get some penalties or you will not lose models many models to morale.

ATSKNF is probably roll two dice and pick lowest, immunity to morale penalties, or the white lions ability (4+ save against morale losses).

 DO IT TO IT wrote:
Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.

Melee armies have guns, too. Transports will be effectively immune, but it makes me wonder if squadrons are a thing still...probably not any longer.

 nintura wrote:
Nice! However, are SMs still immune I wonder.... I really hated that they seem to have exceptions to the majority of rules.

Stormcast aren't...

I wouldn't expect SM to be immune, but to have heroes/characters that modify the value or potentially allow for them to be immune within a bubble.
They mention a Dark Apostle allowing for you to use his LD if models are from the same Legion.

 oni wrote:
Hey everyone... Just remember that 8th edition Tournament-Hammer has been play tested thoroughly by the most knowledg... errm, 'popular' tournament organizers in the whole community.

I mean... Surely these guys know what they're doing and aren't in the least bit bias to their organizations for-profit events.

[/sarcasm]

Love it or hate it... GW put a whole lot of credence into these tournament organizers to speak for ALL of us. And will seemingly continue to do so. While I'm sure that the guys at FLG and behind Nova and Adepticon are great individuals, I'm rather upset that they seemingly had such a strong influence on 8th edition. To me it really does feel like Tournament-Hammer.

I'm just glad they asked anyone. Please explain why their input makes you upset.

Spoletta wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
It is as expected. I'm good with the morale phase. Curious to see how ATSKNF plays into it (probably a -1 or -2 to the roll).

Won't be needed. Discipline 7 on low count squads means that you either get some penalties or you will not lose models many models to morale.

ATSKNF is probably roll two dice and pick lowest, immunity to morale penalties, or the white lions ability (4+ save against morale losses).

Yea there are lots of ways to cut it. I'm curious to see what is still "fearless". AoS kind of just makes stuff LD10 for those types.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 DO IT TO IT wrote:
Sounds like more punishment for melee armies for the first 2 turns of the game that shooting armies won't have to deal with? Unless I'm missing something.

Melee armies have guns, too. Transports will be effectively immune, but it makes me wonder if squadrons are a thing still...probably not any longer.

Vehicles will have discipline 10, so in a squadron of 3 you can lose 2 vehicles, roll a 6 and still don't lose the last vehicle.