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.

 insaniak wrote:

My actual complaint here though isn't about the existence of special rules. It's about the purpose of those special rules. Having a special rule applied to Ork armies that gives them a bonus against the standard morale rules is fine. That's part of adding character to the army. Having a special rule on Orks because without it they are unduly hampered by the standard morale rules? That's poor game design.

Orks have had morale special rules that helped them overcome unduly punishing morale rules since 3ed. I mean without them a couple casualties and you could have easily lost an entire 20+ mob had they not had their special snow flake rule. So just curious if you found those adding character or making up for poor game design?

So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

 Frankenberry wrote:
So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

I think most people are past that since they found out you can loop in other units without them being able to overwatch in the fight phase.

Morale rules look great. Big lift after overwatch and assault nonsense.

Well I finally met someone who likes pulling wounds from the front because it's more "cinematic", yet pulling wounds from the back in WHFB wasn't "uncinematic" despite having the same rules justification: people step forward to cover the gap.

So apparently some people DO really like the current rules that nerf assault and that makes me rather confused. But the game has all kinds of fans I guess...

 Frankenberry wrote:
So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

Multi charges will be more common than in 7ed because you cannot come within 1" of units you don't intend to charge. In 7ed in assault the 1" zone is waived so it was possible to charge 1 unit among a mess of multiple units without a multi charge.

v0iddrgn wrote:


Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?

Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.

Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.

 Frankenberry wrote:
So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

It's two things:

1 - if you fail the charge or are killed in overwatch, that unit gets to fire again, and again, and again. It's very rare in 40k that a unit gets to fire multiple times in the same phase. 8e overwatch hands this ability out like candy.

2 - The fear of Tau getting it with ALL of their army for every charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:


Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?

Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.

Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.

And the whole idea of fluffy orks killing themselves immediately after the other player killed them, multiple times per phase (in multiple phases per turn.) If an army is going to remove itself from the table, it should be dirt cheap. 7e orks aren't cheap.

I really think that 8th edition is going to be the definitive version of 40k. The information regarding morale mentioned so far ticks all of the boxes as far as I'm concerned.

It's simple and streamlined but it also makes perfect sense thematically. Hordes of low LD cannon fodder run (or take their own lives) when put under pressure and high LD grizzled veterans take far more punishment before considering doing one.

Daedalus81 wrote:

They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?

No, not the entire line forever, though popular recently models where the mold broke, yes. Are you just trolling here with that response?

gungo wrote:
And what have you done the last 4-5 editions worth of unupdated rules?

Not all of them have un-updated rules for 4-5 editions, and some of their rules still do work from a few editions ago. Things like the Plague Hulk of Nurgle will not work in 8th, there is nothing wrong with wanting rules for him.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

It's two things:

1 - if you fail the charge or are killed in overwatch, that unit gets to fire again, and again, and again. It's very rare in 40k that a unit gets to fire multiple times in the same phase. 8e overwatch hands this ability out like candy.

2 - The fear of Tau getting it with ALL of their army for every charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:


Did you ever think that maybe they gave Orks a poor Ld value was so they could have a fluffy rule like Mob Rule give the army character?

Yes? That's exactly what mob rule was for.

Low LD isn't the problem. Cascading wounds as a result of that low Ld is the problem.

And the whole idea of fluffy orks killing themselves immediately after the other player killed them, multiple times per phase (in multiple phases per turn.) If an army is going to remove itself from the table, it should be dirt cheap. 7e orks aren't cheap.

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else? I'm not a fan of the current Mob Rule. I'm merely stating that they created Mob Rule to benefit LARGE numbers of Orks because that's fluffy and I understand that why they would want that translated onto the table top.

 Rippy wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

They...are out of print...do you want them to go back through their entire catalog and add those, too?

No, not the entire line forever, though popular recently models where the mold broke, yes. Are you just trolling here with that response?

No. They have to draw a line somewhere. AoS had models carry over, because they were legitimate and being sold before the switch. Asking for rules to models that people can hardly get a hold of is not a great idea. They did throw Marbo into Shadow War, so maybe it will happen, but don't hold your breath.

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?

Because it adds character to the army.

Again, that's not the problem.

Daedalus81 wrote:


No. They have to draw a line somewhere. AoS had models carry over, because they were legitimate and being sold before the switch. Asking for rules to models that people can hardly get a hold of is not a great idea. They did throw Marbo into Shadow War, so maybe it will happen, but don't hold your breath.

I beg to disagree here.
Some people actually own these models and as stated above a lot of them has been
made out of the catalog only a few weeks or months ago.
Most of them have rules right now, period.
Oh, and a lot of them actually costed a lot of money to get by the way, which I believe
is also a reason to take them in consideration.

Customer support.

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?

Because it adds character to the army.

Again, that's not the problem.

It is in all likelihood, and has been stated multiple times, that units will get +1 bravery for every 10 models in the unit. As a core rule.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?

Because it adds character to the army.

Again, that's not the problem.

It is in all likelihood, and has been stated multiple times, that units will get +1 bravery for every 10 models in the unit. As a core rule.

That is really not going to be enough though, for a unit that has crap base leadership and wears t-shirts for armor. +1 / 10 does nothing for units that are expected to remove handfuls of guys at a time. Every wound suddenly starts turning into (essentially but not actually) two wounds; one inflicted and the other removed because morale rules are terrible. Orks have ld 7 base. 30 orks go up to 10, sure but if I lose 10 (which isn't exactly hard), I'm guaranteed to lose more, not the least of which because my leadership dropped for losing 10 dudes (so I'm almost automatically losing another since my LD dropped). I'm not saying there won't be rules to "fix" this. I am saying it's a pretty crappy system to just lose dudes, with absolutely no recourse, because losing dudes is basically part of the army I play.

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?

Because it adds character to the army.

Again, that's not the problem.

Character in the way an army plays is a big draw to this game for a lot of players. I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.

So crappy leadership and practically no armor aren't going to be problems to you. Got it.

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else? I'm not a fan of the current Mob Rule. I'm merely stating that they created Mob Rule to benefit LARGE numbers of Orks because that's fluffy and I understand that why they would want that translated onto the table top.

Yes, the negative parts of the fluff were in the rules, and it's great that they were in there.

But an ork boy costs 1 or 2 points more than a guardsman. The fluff would put them at 2 or 3 points. This part of the fluff was omitted on the tabletop.

 streamdragon wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The question is why would Orks have such a rule if they could just have decent Ld stats and be like everything else?

Because it adds character to the army.

Again, that's not the problem.

It is in all likelihood, and has been stated multiple times, that units will get +1 bravery for every 10 models in the unit. As a core rule.

That is really not going to be enough though, for a unit that has crap base leadership and wears t-shirts for armor. +1 / 10 does nothing for units that are expected to remove handfuls of guys at a time. Every wound suddenly starts turning into (essentially but not actually) two wounds; one inflicted and the other removed because morale rules are terrible. Orks have ld 7 base. 30 orks go up to 10, sure but if I lose 10 (which isn't exactly hard), I'm guaranteed to lose more, not the least of which because my leadership dropped for losing 10 dudes (so I'm almost automatically losing another since my LD dropped). I'm not saying there won't be rules to "fix" this. I am saying it's a pretty crappy system to just lose dudes, with absolutely no recourse, because losing dudes is basically part of the army I play.

And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?

 streamdragon wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.

So crappy leadership and practically no armor aren't going to be problems to you. Got it.

Well, considering that bolters and likely most other infantry S3/S4 weapons that used to be AP5/6 no longer ignore their armour save, Orks do have more armour than before, at least against small arms.

Daedalus81 wrote:

And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?

And this.

It's all relative to the statline and points.

Most AoS orcs are surprisingly 2 wounds each and have enough fluffy bravery boosts to make them very resilient.

If 40k doesn't have similar profiles they will then be cheaper per model. Or have some characer synergy.

In the end the orks will likely play like they always have and you won't have to feel ashamed for buying a 'naut.

Complaining that they didn't make those buffs a core rule borders on the absurd, because this system lets them write whatever fits the mold of the army instead of shoe honing an army to a special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point...

Morale buffs from:

Being in cover
Being in combat
Being in the opponents deployment
Banners and leaders
Sacrifice
Being near a certain number of friendly units

...all have a bearing on how you use the unit and/or the army, without needing to create several paragraphs in the main rules to cover it all and doesn't limit future rules ideas.

I find it absurd that people are labelling bespoke special rules that will most probably pop up in future codices as a sign of a broken rules system.

I appreciate the fact that people are wary of potential bloat, however, I think that it's clear from what we have seen from the rules so far that the core system is much cleaner, clearer and simpler than before. This mean that the addition of special rules can be used for what they should be used for... to add flavour to various factions.

Having "mob rules" for the likes of Orks makes perfect sense. It does not mean that the core morale system is broken.

 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?)

Grots and herder?-)

 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.

Just because it's been known doesn't make it any better.

 streamdragon wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
I personally like the new Morale rules and I don't think Orks will have a tough go at it even without Mob Rule.

So crappy leadership and practically no armor aren't going to be problems to you. Got it.

Sounds like you know all the rules for 8th edition orks! Got it.

Again, the primary benefit to big squads is pilling on the bonuses from things like spells and command points.

Your big boobs of Orks ALL getting to move extra distance, gaining bonuses to saves, getting immunity to morale tests, bonuses to leadership, and more than likely bonuses to their damage capability will all be an option.

This isn't a weakness of the game, it is a way to help create you own playstyle. Taking big boobs of regular Boyz or several smaller squads of 'ard Boyz in truck will grant you bonuses that are all of an orky variety as opposed to a generic, core rules specific bonus.

That is a strength in the system, not a weakness.

 Galas wrote:

They aren't special rules if everyone had them. They are just rules. Units have individual rules now, is not that big of a deal really. Obviously, if you like a strong core ruleset like WHFB was, this is a totally different game desing phylosophy.

Special rule is special rule whether it's located in rulebook USR section or unit card.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Until they feth that as well and release the remaining Legions on AoS-style 8th Ed rules, leaving you with a system that has no end, and a new system with no beginning.

Something has been already confirmed. I feel sorry for BA/DA/White scar players who would have wanted to keep 7th ed version going on. Never official rules for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

v0iddrgn wrote:
If a MSU unit (5) takes 2 casualties then rolls 2 over their Ld they are down to one model. How does this mean they benefit more from the new Morale? The larger blobs of infantry are designed to shrug off the loss of guys and largely remain combat effective. MSU are not.

Larger unit has also lost same 2 guys. But what happens if you roll 4 over LD? MSU loses last member but big unit loses 2 more models. More dead guys! Combined with possibility of overkill since rule encourages pouring fire to one unit rather than lots of 1-2 dead to multiple units and MSU reliability is even bigger.

Another example which is even clearer: 2x5 models, 1x10. You suffer 5 casualties. MSU you lose one model and that's it. 10 sized loses half and with d6+5 check could easily lose more including all! Nevermind another benefit of MSU. Unit suffers 6-9 casualties? MSU laughs at the overkill. 10 sized squad keeps suffering casualties which just adds to chance of losing rest on battleshock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

v0iddrgn wrote:
Sure but those units are ALWAYS expensive in points. i.e. Terminators, Centurians, Obliterators, etc... Losing even one of those is going to hurt.

Yeah well those all are armed with big gun. So every model is going to hurt whether you are 10 or 5. With MSU you lose less of those valuable guys though than with one big unit so casualties hurt less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
So a unit of 5 guys loses 2 models and they're morale/courage/bravery stat is 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 more guys and the unit is destroyed completely.

A unit of 10 guys loses 2 models and has the same courage state of 5.
They roll a 6 and add 2 for the lost models. Their roll (8) minus their morale state (5) loses them 3 ore guys and there are now 5 dudes left.

You forgot that the MSU has also another 5 guys so both sides have same number left. Difference comes when you would lose more than 3 guys to battleshock...Say extra casualty from shooting so big unit would now be 3 left vs MSU 5 left.

OBVIOUSLY you don't compare 10 vs 5. You compare 10 vs 5 and 5.

Also, fielding MSUs seems that you increase the chances of morale tests since the loss of a single model forces a roll.

If opponent splits fire then good! Battleshock encourages you to concentrate fire to one unit as every casualty will basically result in extra casualty in battleshock(assuming any casualties happen) automatically. If you split fire you cause less casualties with battleshock than if you had concentrated and increase chance of 0 battleshock casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bleak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Well, if you knew AoS rules then you would have known that for every 10 models, a unit gets an additional bravery, and like many said, units get bonuses for getting more models. Maybe you could try reading a 4 page rulebook and play a couple of quick AoS games and see how that goes since you are ok with games that are long and tedious anyway.

Or you could consider possibility that people actually have played and don't automatically love it.

Also the +1 bravery for 10 guys doesn't really compensate difference. MSU still rocks over horde in terms of battleshock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:So the bit about people being upset about multiple overwatches...seriously?

If you multi-charge you should get shot by both units, why is that so wrong?

Unless I'm missing something here, this makes total sense. Multi-charges are supposed to be even more dangerous - and with how assaults/combat working now, there has to be a counter to it (even if it is annoying overwatch).

I think it's more of annoyance of: You charge firewarriors. They shoot at you, you fail charge. You charge same firewarriors, you get shot again, fail charge. You charge another unit, get shot again. While you can't shoot more than once on your turn now you got to shoot 3 times in overwatch...That feels wrong intuitively. Those charges would be in reality happening simultaneously so how firewarriors are shooting 3 times as often just because 2 charges fell short?

"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.

With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."

It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...

 Commissar Benny wrote:

"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.

With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."

It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...

All of those rules might not exist anymore, but I get the point; it would be nice for our expensive beloved models to get some rules.
Like you I could use them with counts as rules, but it's nice for your models to have their own rules.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

"We're still waiting for official confirmation on 8ed rules coverage on OOP miniatures. All decisions have to be made not only by FW management but also approved by GW, so the process can take a little longer to get to an official state we can confirm. So I'm afraid the answer there is 'we don't know *yet*'.

With specific regard to the Plague Hulk, it was a very popular kit and was withdrawn from sale when the moulds broke. We are waiting to hear back from the FW Studio (and a GW confirmation) on if they're going to remake the mould or even sculpt a new master model, it is being talked about but I suspect the final decision will be kept close to their chest until a release is imminent. But obviously if it is rereleased it will have 8ed rules."

It would be super awesome if most of the OOP models from Forgeworld got an rules update. Perhaps my salamander scout tank could finally have the "scout" special rule so it can outflank? It has scout in the name afterall...

I Agree. Well, From the Imperial armour Volume one, second edition, P81 and P82 the Salamander has the "scout" special rule.
Salamanders used by renegades does not have it (Imperial Armour Vol 13, P169).

That was my point:
These oop models are in army lists from the FW books, and should get the update they deserve,
even if they are not currently avalaible.
Remove all the oop models from the FW range and look at the holes we'll have in lists for the Imperial Guard, Renegades and Heretics,
Orks, Elysian drop troops, just to name a few.

That's ...