40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**Tannhauser42**

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

Didn't a previous article show SMs to be Ld7? If so, you'd have to lose two models throughout the turn just to have a chance at losing one more in the Morale phase.

**Sydrian**

Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

**Alpharius**

That’s it! No units falling back, no regroup tests – all that is gone.

This isn't a selling point for me.

Plus, I'm starting to see how '12 pages' is going to be it...

Still, I'll give it a whirl - it is GW's last chance to get me back into 40K after all!

**Spoletta**

Sydrian wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.

**ZebioLizard2**

Sydrian wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

I wonder what else they're not tossing out, I mean while it sounds simple it does seem like we're only getting pieces of it.

Not that I mind this though, it works well enough in AoS.

**Eyjio**

Well, that morale phase post was disappointing. I mean, I like the system... but we already knew everything other than 1 test per turn. I guess 1 test per turn is good because assault armies get to do combat before they lose models to morale shock via shooting? Anyway, I was more hoping for things like pinning to be shown (or even say whether it exists at all). It's good though, leadership is now actually a meaningful stat at least, and elite units are okay in that they expect to take fewer casualties and have higher leadership, whereas hordes will presumably get mulched.

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.

Interesting. What do you dislike which has been shown so far?

**Sydrian**

Spoletta wrote:
Sydrian wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.

Again, I hope so. I would think so. But it's not what they said. Otherwise it's way too punishing.

**Ghaz**

Spoletta wrote:
Sydrian wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.

It is, because that's what the article says:

The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.

**Daedalus81**

Let's see how many people who were hating on the "swingy" results of a 2D6 charge hate on this, because it isn't swingy like the old morale.

**Sydrian**

Ghaz wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Sydrian wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Morale is copy paste from AoS.

I HOPE so. The article worded it as way more punishing. The article says " You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, that many models are lost." In Sigmar it's the difference between Morale and the roll. As worded if I had a Ld of 7, and rolled an 8, I would have 8 models flee. In AoS I only lose 1.

Almost surely they meant that you lose the difference, not the whole roll.

It is, because that's what the article says:

The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a dice, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.

Hah, they updated the article to fix the bit I quoted. it originally said "that many models". I cut and pasted that line from the original article.

**Voodoo_Chile**

I hope they keep the rules from Age of Sigmar granting a +1 to Bravery for every 10 models in the unit. (not to mention an Inspiring Presence type stratagem)

Also if they keep the Greentide (100 Boyz formation) in some form then you could be looking at a unit with +9 Bravery

**Daedalus81**

Voodoo_Chile wrote:
I hope they keep the rules from Age of Sigmar granting a +1 to Bravery for every 10 models in the unit. (not to mention an Inspiring Presence type stratagem)

Also if they keep the Greentide (100 Boyz formation) in some form then you could be looking at a unit with +9 Bravery

I can see that being in. I can also see a potential max size for units being added, too.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I do like Battleshock as a mechanic over the current/old (deleted depending on when you read this) 'all or nothing, and usually nothing' mechanic.

And I suspect that much like AoS, there'll be various way to boost and otherwise play with that part.

**Jambles**

Alpharius wrote:
That’s it! No units falling back, no regroup tests – all that is gone.

This isn't a selling point for me.

Plus, I'm starting to see how '12 pages' is going to be it...

Still, I'll give it a whirl - it is GW's last chance to get me back into 40K after all!

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this either. I've liked a lot of the changes so far but I'm a little sad to see these things go.

I get what they're going for by paring down the morale phase... but that part of the game was the source of a lot of flavour for me, personally. Especially cause I play Orks

**Breng77**

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.

For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.

**silverstu**

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.

Deep striking, being ridiculously fast.. there are ways round it. Plus from my limited knowledge of AoS some armies have specific mechanics that allow the, to deep strike and redeploy across the battlefield - plenty of things to mitigate casualties on the way in but probably only visible when we get the unit and faction specific rules. I wouldn't worry too much just yet.

**Future War Cultist**

A copy and paste of battleshock is perfect! I love that system and it'll work good in 40k too, provided that the +1 for every ten models in the unit remains.

**CthuluIsSpy**

So everyone has demonic instability now? Do not want. I liked it when models ran away.

**Jambles**

Breng77 wrote:
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.

For-Profit tournaments ahahahahahaha....can't tell if you were serious but that sure is funny. But seriously how can you be mad that they actually involved people in play testing an edition. Like it or not I can't see it as a bad thing, especially given the multiple ways to play meaning there will be "tournament hammer" as well as non-tournament hammer. Also remember it is easier to house rule for casual play than organized play.

Yeah I'm not sure what the argument is, here. The game is going to be somehow worse specifically because people who play it all the time are providing input on the new rules? Like you said, their style of play is the one that's more restrictive in any case - even if GW wasn't trying to account for both styles, which they are, you can mend your play experience with ease.

And oh my goodness, 'for profit'... I don't think you could say their motivation is money from any point of view... just saying, if you start an FLGS or a hobby gaming convention/tournament in the interest of walking away rich, you're gonna have a bad time!

**Plumbumbarum**

text removed.

Reds8n

**Meade**

New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.

**v0iddrgn**

God, I hope they use Mob Rule for an actual benefit against Morale this time!

**KTG17**

I am glad to see so many others complain about the 2d6 for charging. I thought I was one of the loners on that.

**Mezmerro**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Go read AoS rules. Come back when you've played a few games.

Thanks, but no. I need at least a 1-foot pole to touch that thing, and I left mine at my DnD group.
I don't see how it does not punish big units without a solid leadership bonuses for numbers - if you focus-fire a big unit it takes a lot of casualities and now must take a morale test with a massive penalty, but if that unit is split into small units you limit maxumum LD penalty and focus-fire just pipe out one unit and leaves the rest intact without the risk of loosing models in others to morale tests.

On a side not it adds out-of-phase bookkeeping as you now must track the number of casualties each unit sustained during entire turn.

**Bulldogging**

I didn't see where they addressed single models with multiple wounds, like Carnifexen for example.

How does AoS handle that?

**gungo**

Meade wrote:
New morale rules... hmm, if done right, they will massively speed up the game, won't frustratingly take an expensive unit out of participating in the game (instead just kill a few models). If done wrong, they will skew army construction in such a way that will favor certain sizes of units like MSU or massive blobs under some sort of umbrella.

This
It's also a massive dumbing down of the phase even if most armies ignored morale but it's needed since it added way to much time to games for armies like orks.

I still think run moves should be a set amount like 1/2 movement rounded up but that's because I think it's another needless die throw.

**Breng77**

Bulldogging wrote:
I didn't see where they addressed single models with multiple wounds, like Carnifexen for example.

How does AoS handle that?

As it reads they would be immune to morale.

**Requizen**

Bulldogging wrote:
I didn't see where they addressed single models with multiple wounds, like Carnifexen for example.

How does AoS handle that?

They never run away. One of the big selling points of big monsters in AoS.

**Plumbumbarum**

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.

That miniature tank might as well be a guy with a gun then... what's the difference really. Bad for suspension of disbelief.

You don't need to set it up according to targets and predicted opponent's moves. Bad for game depth.

The game gets another step closer to a computer rts from the 90s, select your blob and click an opponent's blob, look out for sth in the blob not being close enough so everything shoots at once! Bad and backwards for games in general.

**Pilum**

Slightly disappointed that more isn't being done with leadership in terms of suppression/pinning mechanics and such like, but I suppose that it does fit with the 'faster-play, less long-term bookkeeping' ethos, and I must confess that the 2-3 games of Sigmar I've played have gone much quicker than equivalent WFB-sized games (which the passing of time has sadly put a premium on!) so not unexpected.

I dare say that such things could well be special rules for individual units on their data cards, like mortar barrages, sniper teams and the like, but it's not the end of the world if they don't; the game's chugged on without such things for a while now.