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.

ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.

That said the game will NEED to be balanced in such a way thattheydon't go down like a sack of bricks thrown into the ocean when shot at.

I also personally hope that retinue units will return as upgrades so you can buy a unit to stick the ICs into to protect them if they can't join normal units.

Failing at if it's super broken we have a chance to push GW to make changes, but considering the response from those involved in the play testing I can't imagine it being as bad as we think it is right now.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

Ok, but why do I need to change my mindset over something that should never have been removed to begin with.

Are they going to be able to ride with units in transports? I don't know. But I do know I don't want to foot slog my terminator lord up the board.

To bad Belial can't deep strike with this Death Wing anymore, right guys? It's super unfluffy to have to join a unit that he was designed to be with, right?

Who is going to take any Dark Eldar Character if they can't take a transport? Not that anyone takes anything but a Lhamian now anyway because GW can't write a proper codex to save their life.

You really need to calm down.

Jervis had some things to say about the new edition in a Twitch stream (nicked from Natfka):

J on v8 :
- V8 was made broad and flexible (3 way of playing)
-Easy to play and start is a focus.
-Games are like a garden : tend to overgrowth and you need to « prune » it at some point. v8 is a good opportunity to do it.
-They learned from the past, enjoying playing the game is what they want.
-Games should be easy to tackle (easy to play hard to master?)
-They made all the armies at the same time so they have a good idea of mechanisms as a whole.
-The first International grand tournaments was JJ asking the studio managers money to organise it, so he could talk about the game with very invested players.
-JJ Love the way GW interact with us now, using the new media
-JJ loved american Football and wanted to mix it with warhammer.
-Favorite rules : Turn over rule in bloodbowl (3ed), his first game with conscious experience on game design. Invented in the bath ^^
-JJ vision of faction is skewed by his job. So he's always thinking is this right or ok ?. Exception is Bloodbowl he's back to be a coach now and enjoy the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
All armies made at the same time gives me renewed hope for balance. Less creep should have snuck in that way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.

They have already said that keywords are going to prevent abuse. Also that allied armies won't be able to wreck the game. Why would that necessitate removing the ability for ICs to join units if they can only influence their own armies.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.

They have already said that keywords are going to prevent abuse. Also that allied armies won't be able to wreck the game. Why would that necessitate removing the ability for ICs to join units if they can only influence their own armies.

Buff abilities could change from unit to a aura bubble around the model.

I get what you're saying but until I see the rules and know for sure I can't see this as a possible bad thing right now.

What I don't get is why all these 'awww it's gonna be broken; hordes are gonna suck and ICs are gonna die immediately every game awwww' people think that they've cracked some kind of code or seen solved some kind of super secret puzzle in figuring out the systems as described by the PR person who did the very vague write up have areas where a particular playstyle or unit type might be overly vulnerable?

If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?

There's so much special snowflake 'well I see a problem and because I'm so great there's no way that this problem could have already been solved in a way that's far more elegant than I would ever be capable of divining and there certainly isn't any amount of relevant information missing because this is how I think the game is going to be played.'

8th isn't going to be perfectly balanced, there will always be tiers of armies and certain playstyles will always be more efficient than others, and even small advantages will grow over time as players get better at exploiting them. That said, I think the age where a particular type of strategy being wholesale useless is gone. Not that it'll stop people from whining, the more balanced a game is the smaller the margin necessary to insight RAEG.

You really need to calm down.

I haven't insulted anyone, and however you are reading into my post, I guarantee I am calm.

I am however entitled to an opinion over a game which I have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars in.

I saw what they did to Fantasy, I don't want it to happen again.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ICs going away as a thing isn't a problem if it fixes the stupid desthstars that dominate games through rules exploits.

If they can still buff nearby units then deathstars wasn\t really fixed.

If they can't say with keywords doesn't really matter if they are in unit or not, deathstars got nerfed anyway.

Issue comes with preventing expensive ~3 wound models(if dreadnoughts, Guillimann etc have around 7-9 can't expect lowly chaplains to have many) getting sniped too easily. Even inability to target outside 12" as nafka rumour said wouldn't be much of a help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?

Who says they called in the shots though?

As I have said before: GW has utilized hardcode tournament players in playtesting before. IT'S NOT A NEW THING! Yet why it didn't result in perfection before?

It is concerning for humble ICs like Tau Etherials, but more characters may come with squads now, like IG captains.

Gotta say "we cleaned up and streamlined the game - here's the new tool you need to figure out who can fight in an assault" doesn't impress.

If a character can buff a unit but the same unit don't just become inmortal and make inmortal the own character that does the buff, then thats a nerf to deathstars.

The problem with deathstars now is that you can't negate the posibility of all the buffs. They just did it and you can't did nothing about it. Focusing the buffing characters of your enemy to negate them those synergies is a tactical choice to make during the game.

I agree that I don't want my characters to be sniped from 48" in turn 1, but we can't just want our characters to live all the game. Units have to die, if they find a good balance between making characters killable but not so much that is pointless to bring them, to me it will be fine.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!

Isn't that what we all do now anyway? Get's wounded and taken off the battlefield?

Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them?

It prevents breaking of rules, which is great.

Why are people so against characters joining units?

"Death stars!"

Fine. "Up to one Independent Character can be attached to a unit at any given time."

There. Done. No multi-character allies-shenanigan Death Stars, the former 'cause of the rule above, the latter due to keywords.

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!

Isn't that what we all do now anyway? Get's wounded and taken off the battlefield?

Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them?

It prevents breaking of rules, which is great.

Breaking of rules is prevented by keywords which prevent that multi buff. Without that they would buff units ANYWAY.

Difference is you can't expect your chaplains/librarians/commanders actually survive even one round of enemy shooting except when inside transport. The moment he's out he's almost certainly a dead guy. Leaves assault out of transport as only way they can actually do something.

Hopefully this is reflected in points so that they are dirt cheap though you can't still take many of them so they will have limited use anyway so would be cheapish fire magnet to protect your other tougher targets from enemy fire instead.

 Dutch508 wrote:
So, after about six years of being absent from wh40 and this forum I am back...

what's changed?

lol

Welcome to the "absent since the end of 5th edition because 40k became a clusterfeth an is now full of hope"-club ;-) *highfives Dutch*!

Dakka is a place full of negativity and cynicism, even more so than before, but still a very active place full of good comments and fast information delivery.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.

I don't think it has been said that he has any sort of ultimate authority, at least not de jure. He is 'just' one of the High Lords. I'm sure the other High Lords could oppose him if they had balls to do so

Well, we are talking about these shining beacons of proactivity and authority:


I doubt they put much of a fight when Rowboat waltzed in, grabbed the biggest chair around, put his feet on the desk and declared that "I am now in charge!".
That said I still doubt that he is now in charge or even control of the entire Imperium, the Mechanicus, Ecclesiarchy and Ministorum are each too gigantuan an institution for Girlyman to properly manage even if he dedicated his entire focus on it rather than going on a crusade far away from Terra, so they (especially the Mechanicus) will still do what they want even if they on the surface they give their agreement to whatever big G decides.
He likely is now effectively the Commander-in-Chief of the entire Imperial military though, so the high lords of the IG and Navy and Arbites won't have much say anymore. The Sororitas to some extend will likely do what he wants as well simply because he is the son of the Emperor and as a result going on a crusade with him is basically their wet dream, though the Ecclesiarchy might have a word to say in that as well.

So basically Girlyman will have control over the military aparatus and go on crusades somewhere in the middle of nowhere while the rest of the high lords still do their thing on Terra (so basically scratching their butts and getting nothing done, which means the Imperium will remain the gakky place it has been for most of the human population for the last tenthousand years).

Fluff discussion aside, the best thing that will hopefully come out of it now, is lost but alive primarchs like Vulkan and Russ popping back up now that GW has created a precedent and it won't interrupt the perpetual stalemate, especially the Wolves need it desperately now that they lost a big chunk of their manpower and most of their recruitement ability.

ERJAK wrote:

If you and I can see that gak in like 5 seconds do you really think frankie, reece, the adepticon guys or the Nova guys missed it? Do you really believe that players who are genuinely incredible at the game, who have gotten a chance to stress test these rules, who find breaking the system to be the most fun part of the game missed something that people on Dakka forums picked up?

Who says they missed it?

The fact that GW are using outside playtesters is in no way proof that everything the playtesters flag as an issue is acted upon.

 Rippy wrote:
Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them? .

The difference is in survivability.

Characters in units tend to live longer. Characters by themselves, unless you prohibit them from being targeted at all, tend to not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why are people so against characters joining units?

"Death stars!"

Fine. "Up to one Independent Character can be attached to a unit at any given time."

There. Done. No multi-character allies-shenanigan Death Stars, the former 'cause of the rule above, the latter due to keywords.

I don't think anyone is against character joining units. Is more a sentiment of "Meh, I don't care" that anything else. The Deathstar thing as you say can be just fixed with the use of keyword.
If they implement some style of "look out sir!" if the character is next to a ally unit of the same type (Infantry, vehicle, etc...) in a range of 2" or less, and let different units and characters go inside the same transport, really it will be basically the same as characters joining units, at least to me.
To some people, X rules are dealbreakers. Thats totally fine. But to others it just doesn't matter. Is not a fact of you love it or hate it. The mayority of the players (The silent mayority!) will just shrug their way throug the rulebook, as always.

I hope they take their time and slowly move the Primarchs back in... 1 or 2 a year would be great... Sanguinus clearly is coming back from the dead, Dorn can, Ferrus... not so much, so that's 7 more to go... so 5 years of pacing it out would be awesome. Though it seems right and proper that at least one refuses to come back. A dissenting opinion just seems right

As far as ICs go... just like just about everything else people are getting their panties in a bunch about... we don't know how anything works in its entirety... so all the pointless (probably disingenuous) ultimatums about you walking away from the game because of rule leak X can probably stop

 Lobukia wrote:
I hope they take their time and slowly move the Primarchs back in... 1 or 2 a year would be great... Sanguinus clearly is coming back from the dead, Dorn can, Ferrus... not so much, so that's 7 more to go... so 5 years of pacing it out would be awesome. Though it seems right and proper that at least one refuses to come back. A dissenting opinion just seems right

As far as ICs go... just like just about everything else people are getting their panties in a bunch about... we don't know how anything works in its entirety... so all the pointless (probably disingenuous) ultimatums about you walking away from the game because of rule leak X can probably stop

I feel like Khan has earned a little time in the spotlight somehow

tneva82 wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!

Isn't that what we all do now anyway? Get's wounded and taken off the battlefield?

Though for real, what difference is there between a character joining a unit, or just marching with a unit in the sense of being with them?

It prevents breaking of rules, which is great.

Breaking of rules is prevented by keywords which prevent that multi buff. Without that they would buff units ANYWAY.

Difference is you can't expect your chaplains/librarians/commanders actually survive even one round of enemy shooting except when inside transport. The moment he's out he's almost certainly a dead guy. Leaves assault out of transport as only way they can actually do something.

Hopefully this is reflected in points so that they are dirt cheap though you can't still take many of them so they will have limited use anyway so would be cheapish fire magnet to protect your other tougher targets from enemy fire instead.

This is speculation at the moment, we don't know how shooting at characters is going to work yet. If they can be shot from anywhere by anything at anytime with LoS, then I will change my mind. My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.

Well, I'm looking forward to dusting off my space mans for this. A good revamp was desperately needed. I wish they'd gone full unit activations rather than just in one phase, but I'll take what I can get. Interested in how my LotD turn out.

I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

 Sarigar wrote:
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

Like it does in Sigmar probably. Lay your dead guys down or place dice next to a unit to show missing dudes from that turn (non-d6 or special color so they don't accidentally get picked up).
You only have to track the dead from a unit each turn so it's not a huge admin deal.
You already had to do similar junk to figure out if you'd achieved x% casualties due to shooting in previous editions.

 Sarigar wrote:
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

I was thinking this exact thing. It will be difficult or impossible to remember all of the deaths from the psychic, shooting, and combat phases for all units on the table.

I'm thinking about getting some matching D20s (I play orks, so 20 may not even be enough) to mark each unit.

On second thought, they don't have to all be D20s. Elites can get away with D12s, or even D8s for the tiny units

 Sarigar wrote:
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.

I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.

 Rippy wrote:
My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.

Which was missing the reason that people are complaining. The issue isn't that people are worried their characters will be lonely. The issue is that removing the ability to join units means characters die.

Surely you just put the models that died together, seperate from ones killed in previous turns? Seems straight forward enough.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
My point was more about people getting upset about their characters not being in a unit, when for all intents and purposes, they are by walking next to them.

Which was missing the reason that people are complaining. The issue isn't that people are worried their characters will be lonely. The issue is that removing the ability to join units means characters die.

You're assuming there won't be some protections for characters. There is still a lot we don't know about 8th edition.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

You're assuming there won't be some protections for characters. We don't know that.

No, I'm assuming there will be some protection for characters, but that unless it's a flat 'You can't target characters' it is likely to be as ineffectual a protection as it was in 4th edition.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.

I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.

I guess I'm hoping this will be intuitive for opponents. I'm a big fan of using markers/tokens which helps considerably. I've have multiple occasions playing against folks who do not do these kinds of things and it creates in game challenges. Some examples: morale, psychic powers in effect, flat out moves, wounds on models, soulfire, broken units, MSU armies and remembering which units already fired, damage effects on vehicles, etc... It's not anything intentional trying to mislead players, but these things come up.

Not overly challenging to overcome, but I'm thinking how this will actually play out on the tabletop.

Clearly those folks haven't played much AoS, then. Characters usually have ample wounds, excellent saves AND benefit from special rules on top of that. They're not enough to base the whole army on, but you get your points worth from the games we've played and watched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarigar wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
I remember playing against so many folks who forget which units suffered 25% casualties for morale purposes. Soon, we will need to track how many models were removed from a unit each turn for morale purposes. I am curious about how well this mechanic will play.

For AoS I simply lay the model down next to the unit. After battleshock is resolved I moved the dead to the dead pile. It works fine in actual play.

I'm sure someone will comment next how it is the stuff of nightmares.

I guess I'm hoping this will be intuitive for opponents. I'm a big fan of using markers/tokens which helps considerably. I've have multiple occasions playing against folks who do not do these kinds of things and it creates in game challenges. Some examples: morale, psychic powers in effect, flat out moves, wounds on models, soulfire, broken units, MSU armies and remembering which units already fired, damage effects on vehicles, etc... It's not anything intentional trying to mislead players, but these things come up.

Not overly challenging to overcome, but I'm thinking how this will actually play out on the tabletop.

It works just fine in AoS. Honest.