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.

**EnTyme**

NamelessBard wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

You know what isn't "far better for everyone involved"?

When one of the "3 ways to play" becomes the de facto way to play because everyone assumes it's the most balanced.

Even when it clearly is not.

You're not making any sense whatsoever. Balanced rules are better. Full stop. You can't try to make up some reason that they're not.

I'll be playing both Narrative and Points based depending on how I feel in the day/week.

Read some of his posts in the AoS forum. Kan is on a crusade to prove everyone who plays Matched Play eats live puppies and kicks kittens.

Spoletta wrote:
Anyway, AoS morale rules don't sit well with casualties taken from the front and with ICs in units, so i can think we can safely assume those rules are not in 8th.

I believe both of those have been confirmed in either Facebook or Twitter responses. Hopefully we'll see them in a community preview soon.

Kirasu wrote:Sounds like the best armies will be the ones that pack the most weapons into minimum units. Such a terrible way to go, who wanted 4th Ed no retreat applied to every morale test?

Isn't that already the case, though?

angelofvengeance wrote:I hope guys like Chaplains have like battle prayers .

Any reason to break out my Chaplains is okay by me.

**Galas**

About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both mindsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.

An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.

And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...

There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.

**Daedalus81**

Spoletta wrote:
The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.

How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?

**casvalremdeikun**

Spoletta wrote:
The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.

Or it could just say make a d6 check against the highest leadership in the unit fr the get go.

Make a d6 against the unit's leadership.

Or

Make a d6 against the highest leadership score in the unit.

Oh lordy, how ever will they be able to fit all that extra wording?!

**jhnbrg**

Galas wrote:
About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both minsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.

An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.

And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...

There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.

What happens when even your best, most elite units have the same crappy Ld? Flash gits for example?

**Orthon**

No more challenges?

No sweeping advance.

Chaos Space Marines smile.

**Yodhrin**

Smellingsalts wrote:
Having read the reactions to the new morale rules, my impression is that many who are offended by them have not played AOS and seen them in action. I am just going by what I see as the trend, but if 40k is going to be like AOS, then several other things need to be accounted for. The changes in AOS army building from Warhammer Fantasy army building were drastic. WHFB had a tournament standard of 2000 point armies.These armies could have upwards of 300 or more miniatures. AOS tournament play stands around 2000 to 2500 points. But your points buy you far less. As a result, you have fewer units to activate. If this happens in 40k, then yes, you could totally plaster a unit to make it take a morale test, but every unit would have fired at the one. Now before I get all of the replies of "oh yes you can take a lot of models in AOS", a second factor is that they have under-costed the big monsters. Monsters are the real damage dealers in AOS. Typically, units that you can take in large numbers have low stats, especially armor saves. So a large monster wading into such a unit will kill off so many that it will vaporize the unit in the morale phase. For this reason, large monsters are the target of early shooting (because their effectiveness degrades with damage), and tend to get charged by other large monsters. In this environment, you really are urged towards taking a large monster yourself because they kill more than they cost. Also, armies tend to be homogenous. In the current tournament circuit a lot of the winning armies are mishmashes of several armies thrown together to get the best combination of abilities. In AOS, the rewards for sticking to your army list are just too strong to ignore. Most army lists stick to their book. In 40k units tend to be delivery systems for high power hand to hand characters, or psykers trying to hide behind a shield of troops (OR DOGS). In AOS characters don't join units. They just have abilities that effect units within a certain range. That means if you really want a character dead you can focus fire on him and kill him. So what you will probably see in the new 40k is an army consisting of troops pulled from one book and in a particular formation from that book, 1-2 Monstrous creatures or big tanks, 3-5 units of troops, and 2-3 heroes. The game should take about 1-2 hours. Now I am just describing tournament armies, nothing is stopping you from taking Apocalypse sized armies if you really want to. Even then, your games will be faster. All of this assumes they are using AOS as a model. I can't tell you how much they are taking from AOS.

So your response to people who think that the new Morale system will discourage hoard armies is to say they don't understand AoS then cite multiple ways AoS is apparently discouraging hoard armies...huh.

I can tell you that I live in San Diego and talk to the guys from Frontline all the time. Frontline is one of the groups who have been playtesting the rules for 40k. While no one at Frontline has told me anything about 40k, I do know that 1) Those guys are 40k fanatics, hence why they formed their independent tournament circuit, and 2) The whole staff have entirely switched from playing a lot of 40k to playing a hell of a lot of AOS. Now what might that tell you?

That GW wanted to AoS-ify 40K and it seems they picked people to give them the feedback they wanted to hear.

**tneva82**

labmouse42 wrote:
oni wrote:
I however prefer strong narrative play over tournament play and the new core rules feel as though they're heavily weighed towards tournament play, despite the "3 ways to play". So far all we know about narrative play is that it's just a simplification of unit points. I'm in part attributing the tournament feel of 8th edition to those entities that play tested and provided feedback to GW. I feel as though the feedback from FLG, NOVA and Adepticon may have been bias to their preferred style of play and that's upsetting to me.
There is a whole level of play designed for narrative play. "Bring the models you have and throw them on the table". There is another one where you buy units but not upgrades for ease of play. Both of those seem 'narrative' to me. Just because the rules are actually playtested does not mean they cannot be used for narrative play.

OF course narrative doesn't mean "bring whatever you have and throw them on table"...

**Galas**

jhnbrg wrote:
Galas wrote:
About the "Competitive vs Narrative" argument, I only want to point out that to me, the biggest differente in both minsets, is the things you have and the ammount of variety.

An example: The old rules for a Steamtank with all the Steam management system. Or the old loved Giant.
Those rules are ultra narrative and fun to use, but I don't think any tournament-style wargame should have never something like that. Infinity is a much more balanced game because every faction has the same equipement, but in different numbers and manners.

And, in the Morale rules, really. Is a copy paste from AoS, and in AoS it just work well enough for Horde Armies. They are more vulnerable to battleshock but have other advantages vs Small/Elite Units. Like the less vulnerability to mortal wounds, the bonus to hit and to wound for being bigger units, the fact that you cap objetives based in the number of models, etc...

There is no problem if Horde units are more vulnerable to battleshock. Thats their thing, chaff should be vulnerable to the "morale system". They have other advantages to cover it.

What happens when even your best, most elite units have the same crappy Ld? Flash gits for example?

That they probably will not have the same crappy LD in 8th edition. Or they will have their own advantages to other elite units. Being cheaper, more buff potential, etc... I don't know. Is very hard to really make a acurate judgement without the specific rules of untis and factions.

**Spoletta**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.

How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?

The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.

Edit: There again, we have already seen that the structure of the model profiles is different from AoS, so on a second thought sergeant profiles are possible.

**labmouse42**

Kirasu wrote:
Sounds like the best armies will be the ones that pack the most weapons into minimum units. Such a terrible way to go, who wanted 4th Ed no retreat applied to every morale test?

There is not enough info right now to make that assessment.

Do you get a bonus for being close to your warlord?
Do you get a bonus for being larger than 10 men in a squad (30 orks, 20 CSM)?
Can you use command points to get a bonus or auto-pass?

At this point it's all conjecture.

**Future War Cultist**

Don't space marine commanders have a rule that lets nearby units use their leadership? Rites of battle or something? Also, I imagine that 40k will also gain Inspiring Presence. Aura of disciple would be pretty now good. And if they have keep the bonus to leadership for every ten models in the unit then everything will be OK.

**Ragnar69**

Spoletta wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.

How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?

The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.

A veteran sergeant might simply give the same bonus as a standard bearer in AoS, especially as banners in 40k are more a company level thing and not a squad thing.
Besides, we will very likely see some units with mixed stats. I can't imagine Orks without Nobs...

**Spoletta**

Ragnar69 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
The fact that in a 12 page ruleset they would have to specify what happens when you start mixing stats.

How is it different from a banner that gives +1 to LD?

The fact that you don't have 2 profiles in the same unit.

A veteran sergeant might simply give the same bonus as a standard bearer in AoS, especially as banners in 40k are more a company level thing and not a squad thing.
Besides, we will very likely see some units with mixed stats. I can't imagine Orks without Nobs...

I agree, i edited my previous post when i remembered that the model profiles shown so far are different from the AoS profiles.
They are in a line, meaning that more than one can be listed in the same squad.

**Crimson**

This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)

**rollawaythestone**

Wow. Surprised there is so much hate today about Morale. It's been confirmed this is how Morale will work since Adepticon more than a month ago.

**Kriswall**

Crimson wrote:
This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)

If they go the AoS route, I could easily see Kastelan Robots being one unit and Datasmiths being a second unit. The Datasmiths would grant a benefit to the Kastelans if within X"... similar to how Seraphon Skink Herders give benefits to Salamanders, but you really take them separately.

**unmercifulconker**

EnTyme wrote:
angelofvengeance wrote:I hope guys like Chaplains have like battle prayers .

Any reason to break out my Chaplains is okay by me.

Bust the prayers out for the boys!

Should be some cool rules for the greatest model in Warhammer.

Maybe we will get something akin to when AoS first released were we get free rolls or something if we smash the table with our fist/home-made mace/flail and roar a litany of hate right into our opponents face. Spittle spraying the young child spectating next to you.

So immersive.

**Future War Cultist**

"The leader of this unit is the sergeant. Add +1 to the leadership of a unit with a sergeant."

See, this is easy!

**Daedalus81**

rollawaythestone wrote:
Wow. Surprised there is so much hate today about Morale. It's been confirmed this is how Morale will work since Adepticon more than a month ago.

Never fear. There will be enough hate for each individual change, daily. Until release! Yay!

**Jambles**

Kriswall wrote:
Crimson wrote:
This is not a straight AOS copypaste. Having different profiles in one unit is not a problem, and it absolutely has to happen with some units (for example, does someone really believe that a Kastelan robot and a Datasmith would not have separate profiles?)

If they go the AoS route, I could easily see Kastelan Robots being one unit and Datasmiths being a second unit. The Datasmiths would grant a benefit to the Kastelans if within X"... similar to how Seraphon Skink Herders give benefits to Salamanders, but you really take them separately.

Wow, really? So, you could take an army of just Salamanders? Might be time to re-visit AoS

I hope this isn't the case for 40k. The implications are strange and unwieldy. What would they do, take the Nob part of the Ork Boyz sprue out of the box? Take the Runtherder out of the Grotz box? What about armies like Thousand Sons where their unit leaders are psykers?

**Gordon Shumway**

I really don't think independent characters attaching to a unit is going to be a thing any longer, just buffs to units nearby.

One great thing that will likely come about is no more infinite rules debates in the forums.

**Formerly Wu**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
One great thing that will likely come about is no more infinite rules debates in the forums.

[Always Sunny in Philadelphia title card]

The Gang Gets Into an Infinite Rules Debate

**Tyel**

I don't mind this change.

I feel horde armies are not effective in AoS but don't feel this is down to battleshock.

**insaniak**

Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

**Desubot**

Tyel wrote:
I don't mind this change.

I feel horde armies are not effective in AoS but don't feel this is down to battleshock.

Could of sworn the current hotness for AoS was tons of rank and file dudes.

its probably going to be different with more available shooting.

**Galas**

Desubot wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I don't mind this change.

I feel horde armies are not effective in AoS but don't feel this is down to battleshock.

Could of sworn the current hotness for AoS was tons of rank and file dudes.

its probably going to be different with more available shooting.

At first, the enviroment was more about big models and elite units. Then, the nation of the Mortal Wounds attack. Now, you are seeing in the enviroment more horde armies because they just ignore the mortal wounds. Thats something I have never seen in warhammer or 40k in years. A competitive enviroment that changes, not with editions or nex codex, but with the tactics and list peoples uses.

**Future War Cultist**

insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

Personally I perfer to be playing the game rather than reading books, arguing over definition of rules or moving retreating models backwards slightly only to regroup them.

**axisofentropy**

insaniak wrote:
Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

I laughed

but short games means we can play best 2 out of 3, or different opponents

**Eyjio**

Orthon wrote:
No more challenges?

No sweeping advance.

Chaos Space Marines smile.

Did anyone like challenges? I don't think I saw any non-Chaos players do them in 7th, and in 6th they were mostly just really game-y ways to abuse the assault mechanics. Likewise, sweeping advance has always been awful - you either had to take units which ignored it, or units which would die before it mattered. I'm not sad to see either go.

Galas wrote:At first, the enviroment was more about big models and elite units. Then, the nation of the Mortal Wounds attack. Now, you are seeing in the enviroment more horde armies because they just ignore the mortal wounds. Thats something I have never seen in warhammer or 40k in years. A competitive enviroment that changes, not with editions or nex codex, but with the tactics and list peoples uses.

Eh, I'm not sure it's a good thing. Mortal wounds seem like a degenerate mechanic which I'm none too happy with - they make the game into an arms race which always terminates in either more dudes or some broken way to bypass mortal wounds/hordes.

insaniak wrote:Here at Games Workshop, we understand that your favourite part of playing Warhammer 40000 is finishing your games quickly so that you can be not playing Warhammer 40000 anymore. And so we've changed the morale rules to allow you to pack your models back into their case faster than ever before!

I get your point, but did you like the previous editions' versions of morale where it was 95% pointless? Units falling back usually turned into a game of babysitting enemy units as they walked off the board even when it was actually relevant. In the grand scheme of things, this change is only really going to affect hordes - small units will probably continue to be shot to death so you aren't relying on a failed Ld test; no changes there. I'm not going to begrudge any mechanic which slightly speeds up the game, even if there were arguably better ways to do it.

Speaking of which, I'm going to go on a limb and say there will be a balancing factor for MSU. They've said that they want armies to be rewarded for being fluffy, and I can't imagine for a moment that min-maxing with MSU wasn't considered - especially considering the backgrounds of the testers, who would all be more than familiar with it. Morale looks bad for hordes, but there could be many other things in their favour which we're unaware of yet.