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.

Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting

you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...

that'd shake things up a bit.

I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO

The video is even more telling - Pete started by saying attaching (likely due to it being hard to switch from that concept after so many years) but realised he misspoke and corrected himself. That just screams no joining of units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting

you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...

that'd shake things up a bit.

And that's OK too, the rules in AoS for the flying Dwarves transporting stuff read fine to me.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I didn't see this in the thread or on the first post, but here's a summary of the Q&A that was on the 25th of April

Command Points – what do they do?
... One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.

Seems like Command Points will play a very important role in the game. If "interrupt" means that the charge phase just ends, that would be very strong against cc heavy armies.

"Interrupt" means "do a unit action out of sequence", not "can a whole phase".

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"Interrupt" means "do a unit action out of sequence", not "can a whole phase".

So you could charge yourself instead of getting charged?

MaxT wrote:
I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO

The video is even more telling - Pete started by saying attaching (likely due to it being hard to switch from that concept after so many years) but realised he misspoke and corrected himself. That just screams no joining of units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
Pure speculation but if that is the case it makes IC's and transports interesting

you'd assume an IC wouldn't just walk around on their own or ride in their own transport so perhaps transports might carry multiple units...

that'd shake things up a bit.

And that's OK too, the rules in AoS for the flying Dwarves transporting stuff read fine to me.

In that case the rules will not be able to handle nobs in ork mobs either?

BertBert wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"Interrupt" means "do a unit action out of sequence", not "can a whole phase".

So you could charge yourself instead of getting charged?

I don't have any specifics to hand, as I don't have the rules. More like "spend a command point to attack a charger first", instead of be attacked rather than move out of sequence, I'd guess, but who knows what unit rules might be?

MaxT wrote:
I'm just not seeing how IC's will join units in this system. The mix of toughness/wounds/armour has always caused a horrible mess of rules that by itself can take up a couple of pages. With only 12 pages to work with it just ain't gonna happen. And i'm fine with that. A rule like that wishlist of 'cannot target unless closest model or within 12" ' would be fine IMO

There is no need for IC to join unit, just that if he's within certain short distance he can both take Look out, sir! -rolls, and give some buffs for the unit. That would be best of both worlds - nearly all of IC advantages without complicated IC rules like we have today. As for transports, I see little reason why transports should be limited carrying only 1 unit.

ICs in units are ruled out by the morale system.

Oh look i killed 4 space marines and removed your librarian together with the unit!

I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

changemod wrote:
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.

changemod wrote:
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

Well this is already wrong, so it's clearly not that straightforward - not all special rules are shared. It's much harder to implement the concept of "joining" a unit than it is to just have rules protecting a character by going near a unit. The latter makes sense to me, as do area of effect abilities; I mean, why would only one unit become fearless from their leader if 2 were stood near anyway, right?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really wonder if Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear are even going to be a thing in 8th. It stands to reason to reason that Fearless would be an Auto-pass for Morale, but it should probably be hard to get. As for ATSKNF, I could see it being a bonus to Morale tests. Marines shouldn't be running from fights.

Way back in 2nd edition, ATSKNF meant that Space Marines who failed a Panic test didn't immediately break and run - they simply could not move towards the enemy until they rallied. They had to fail a second time to actually run. I could see something like that now ("When a unit with the Space Marine keyword fails their first Battle Shock test, no models are removed. Instead, the unit may not move in its following turn.")

BertBert wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I didn't see this in the thread or on the first post, but here's a summary of the Q&A that was on the 25th of April

Command Points – what do they do?
... One of the Generic abilities will allow you to interrupt charge phase of your opponent.

Seems like Command Points will play a very important role in the game. If "interrupt" means that the charge phase just ends, that would be very strong against cc heavy armies.

This sounds too me like it might be a carbon copy of the Might Point/Heroic Actions mechanic pulled straight from the Lord of the Rings sbg.

 jamopower wrote:

changemod wrote:
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.

It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.

And sure, Death Stars result from stacking a billion rules onto a unit, but buffing auras still apply those rules. There's not really any difference in brokenness between applying four characters rules to a unit by coherency and applying them by aura. Any fix to avoid too many of those buffs stacking up (key words, for example) can be applied just as easily to a joined character.

And no, saves and move values aren't complicated. Staying in coherency will naturally limit the unit to the slowest model, saves are rolled seperately.

Heck with AoS style wound assignment it's even simpler to resolve mixed saves: If owner picks who takes wounds, the attached character only really needs to roll saves after his entire bodyguard has died.

changemod wrote:
It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.

And the 12" might not be much of a protection with chance of cheap fast moving heavy weapons(say land speeders with multi-meltas...) to bust the 2-5 wound characters(if dreadnoughts etc have around 7 dont' expect tons of wounds on characters either).

Albeit maybe chaplains etc are more like land speeder price in future.

But btw separate rolling doesn't really help especially if owner picks. No thanks for ability for tough character inside unit tank shots at will like now(conveniently not when shot would have serious chance of hurting him).

changemod wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

changemod wrote:
I legitimately don't see why characters joining units is considered complex/a mess/causing issues? It's always been completely straightforwards to me: Stay within coherency, majority toughness and look out sir, apply any special rules the character shares with his unit or vice versa.

There was the hassle of the poorly thought out challenge system, but that effected non-independent characters equally.

There is currently almost a full page of stuff relating independent characters in the rulebook faq and I bet a lot more stuff in the codex faqs. In addition to the pages of rules explaining how you handle different saves, move values etc. Not to mention that many of the broken stuff in past years starts with adding a character to some unit giving it some special rule that it shouldn't have. Of course it could be sorted out, but having characters as a separate units giving benefits (i.e. orders) to nearby units is so much simpler, and if the eforementioned rule of needing to be within 12" to target is an actual rule, it shouldn't cause too much issues either. And there is some evidence as it works out well in the time of Sigmar.

It doesn't work out well in age of Sigmar. If the enemy has any major ranged capability you lose non-monster characters left and right.

And sure, Death Stars result from stacking a billion rules onto a unit, but buffing auras still apply those rules. There's not really any difference in brokenness between applying four characters rules to a unit by coherency and applying them by aura. Any fix to avoid too many of those buffs stacking up (key words, for example) can be applied just as easily to a joined character.

And no, saves and move values aren't complicated. Staying in coherency will naturally limit the unit to the slowest model, saves are rolled seperately.

Heck with AoS style wound assignment it's even simpler to resolve mixed saves: If owner picks who takes wounds, the attached character only really needs to roll saves after his entire bodyguard has died.

The major difference is your opponent can choose to try and take out the character giving the Aura rather than the unit receiving the benefit.

They said they are trying to eliminate Death Stars - so I am guessing we have considerable use of the Keyword and also no characters joining.

Yup.

AoS has of course potential deathstars - ways and means of buffing and buffing a single unit to the point of near godhood.

But, as characters struggle to hide in units, it's a lot easier for your opponent to deconstruct your synergy, negating or at least mitigating your efforts.

Of course, that's not to say it's actually easy to do it. That'd be dull. Just it's easier to cope with and counter than 'well my buff doods are standing at the back so you'll have to kill everyone else' that is the core principle of so many deathstar units.

For those still dubious, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by telling you you're wrong or throwing up mindless hypotheticals. I only strongly recommend you only make your mind up once you've tried the game - especially if you're not au fait with AoS.

There exists death stars in AoS, kunning rukk as the prime offender. They are counterable though, since with a bit of shooting you take down the heroes.

Also, an AoS style wound/save/damage sequence doesn't allow mixed saves.
You roll to wound, then the target rolls to save and only after the save you decide on which model you apply the damage. In AoS units have a save, models don't. All armor modifiers always apply to the whole unit. Take a look at the cover rules, if even a single model of the unit is not in cover, all the unit lacks cover.

If the character sniping is somehow made more difficult, I can't see much difference between characters as separate units or as parts of units.

Daedalus81 wrote:
And what happened when you lost sweeping advance with that glorious I2? Did you get to keep all those models?

Absolutely nothing, because my remaining 20 orks were Fearless and so didn't have to worry about sweeping advance? Now I stand to lose at least a handful of models?

Edit: and you're assuming the wounds were lost to CC. My example applied equally (if not more so) to being shot. A blob of 30 orks rarely loses CC by 10.

You've stood to lose more than a handful of models since the newest codex...

Not sure if this is new/been seen before, but here's the datasheet for Sly Marbo:

http://i.imgur.com/QZ9qOff.png

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You've stood to lose more than a handful of models since the newest codex...

I stopped playing orks when the new book dropped. I am really hoping the new edition will let me dust them off, which is why this new morale phase concerns me.

 jamopower wrote:
If the character sniping is somehow made more difficult, I can't see much difference between characters as separate units or as parts of units.

AoS works on TLOS. So a character in the midst of a unit can be singled out if you can see him, but will generally get +1 to their save. But that's still well better than 2+ or 4+ meatshields, at least to my mind.

Especially when you consider Mortal Wounds, which are confirmed for 40k. With those, unless you've got a spanglydoodad of some kind, as long as the attack hits, you skip To Wound and Save rolls. And as a decent chunk of Mortal Wounds do multiple damage, keeping your characters alive isn't especially easy. Doable. But not easy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
If the character sniping is somehow made more difficult, I can't see much difference between characters as separate units or as parts of units.

AoS works on TLOS. So a character in the midst of a unit can be singled out if you can see him, but will generally get +1 to their save. But that's still well better than 2+ or 4+ meatshields, at least to my mind.

Especially when you consider Mortal Wounds, which are confirmed for 40k. With those, unless you've got a spanglydoodad of some kind, as long as the attack hits, you skip To Wound and Save rolls. And as a decent chunk of Mortal Wounds do multiple damage, keeping your characters alive isn't especially easy. Doable. But not easy.

Well if it's only 12" where you can target the characters, it will most likely be more difficult. But that remains to be seen. 40k has more shooting, so there should be something.

ChrisB wrote:
Not sure if this is new/been seen before, but here's the datasheet for Sly Marbo:

http://i.imgur.com/QZ9qOff.png

I'm pretty sure this is for Shadow War: Armageddon though.

BertBert wrote:

ChrisB wrote:
Not sure if this is new/been seen before, but here's the datasheet for Sly Marbo:

http://i.imgur.com/QZ9qOff.png

I'm pretty sure this is for Shadow War: Armageddon though.

No Move value and an initiative value is abit of a giveaway that it's not 8th Ed.

BertBert wrote:

ChrisB wrote:
Not sure if this is new/been seen before, but here's the datasheet for Sly Marbo:

http://i.imgur.com/QZ9qOff.png

I'm pretty sure this is for Shadow War: Armageddon though.

No that's for 7th ed 40k. Lack of move, AP rather than modifier, no damage for weapons etc show it's not for shadow war. Similarly initiave discounts it from being 8th ed(well it also has USR's etc that 8t ed won't have)