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.

**spiralingcadaver**

re: blackfang

Degrading WS can still allow swingy efficient rounds, while lowering attacks means you're just as likely but a lower cap, so there is nuance there.

However, yeah, probably GW doesn't have such a fine mechanical control to have mechanical justification, and it's instead because it feels fluffy to keep track of more things.

**Cryonicleech**

Azreal13 wrote:

FOC and points will hopefully limit a lot of smaller vehicles, to stop choking the table with cheap trukks or whatever, but at least nothing will be rendering elements of your list redundant by using a different damage mechanic.

And making said elements useless through said mechanic (I.e. S5 Heavy Bolters vs a Monolith). While the argument that a balanced "take all comers" list being the best option still holds true, it's an nice way to reduce skewed lists and difficult mismatches.

The degradation is as many expected I think, as a straight port from AoS. What interests me is what will/won't degrade. Will transports be included in this category, or is there a possibility we don't see degradation on everything? Drop Pods? Carnifexes?

I think that tomorrow's topic is more interesting though, as it's something many are curious about and I would wager can make or break people's perception of the game.

**tneva82**

Azreal13 wrote:

We know that GC/SHV have lost a lot of their special rules, so we don't know if they'll have retained split fire, and if not, that's a very limited number of opposing units you can engage each turn.

Or if everybody basically gain split fire by 40k going the way of AOS. So far don't think GW has said anything conclusive either way.

**v0iddrgn**

amanita wrote:
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.

Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?

I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.

Then I guess this just isn't the war game for you.

**Ragnar Blackmane**

You guys are arguing about all sorts of stuff like facing which gave reason to a whole bunch of heated debates (because having rule arguments with people about vehicles at a 90 degrees angle was so much fun: "The majority of the Chimera that my model is facing is clearly side armour! My missiles will penetrate on 3+!" - "No, that's clearly still the front armour, you are penetrating my Chimera on 5+!" - not to mention a player thinking he'd angled his vehicle sufficiently and then a judge decided his chimera was getting hit on side armour after all, I heard that argument at the other end of the tournament hall), not to mention balance concerns (because monstrous creatures and models carrying a frickin' assault shield like Bullgryns didn't have facings either - muh realism!), and are looking past the truly new information in that article:

This makes them almost infinitely survivable against small arms fire, but means that high-power weapons that can take chunks of wounds off at a time (lascannons, powerfists, battle cannons, etc) can take them down relatively quickly when brought to bear in force.

Battle Cannons and powerfists being heavily implied to deal multiple wounds of damage similar to the lascannon.

**ERJAK**

amanita wrote:
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.

Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?

I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.

The movement phase was the single most important phase in the game in old 40k, it's the most important phase in Sigmar, it'll be the most important phase in nuhammer.

Think about it and be honest with yourself, when was the last time you got side or rear armor with a unit that moves less than 12 or didn't come out of a drop pod? Is fanning out so you don't place templates over your own models really that much more tactically complex than just getting within 8 inches? Or is it just less fiddly? And is their really that much more bookkeeping than the shaken/stunned/immobilized chart?

I'm sorry you feel like these changes aren't for you but it does seem a bit like you've got your rose colored glasses on. Try instead of thinking about everytime you got an awesome 10+ man template hit you got, think about all the times you were bored out of your skull because your opponent had to space his models exactly 2 inches or lose huge bricks of guys.

**GreenPlum**

Nice to see that (Morka/Gorka)naut's BS actually does not decrease as its wounds go down - Ork dakka's superior! :-) I wonder if more shooty equivalents for other factions will enjoy the same mercy...

Also with improved Movement stat it might be quite interesting to push orky heavies far into enemy's direction - supported by mobs of boyz they will provide both distraction and threat to gunlines.

But wait, there's more: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/07/faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/

**torblind**

I'd expect imperial, especially space marine, technology to be more resilient towards damage than ork machinery, and degrade less (and of course be more expensive), perhaps dreadnoughts won't degrade after all. Higher quality tech would better isolate and neutralize incoming damage or something along those lines.

**Charax**

No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence

All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler

**streetsamurai**

amanita wrote:
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.

Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?

I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.

Agreed that the vehicule rules are really dissapointing and boring thus far. Removal of facings and lineard degradation are big negatives in my book.

These, along with the terribly shallow psychic phase, are my biggest gripe with 8th edition thus far.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:
No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence

All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler

Agreed that this was a waste of a time of an article

**Zatsuku**

They definitely should have given more info in that CSM article, at least a unit profile or two and some more specific changes. As is it is a completely pointless article that tells us nothing at all.

**Asmodai**

So, Chaos Space Marines continue to exist.

Anything else that can be taken away from that?

**v0iddrgn**

I guess what they are trying to do with that article is reassure Chaos players that they got some things they've been wanting over the last decade or so. The fact that this guy is a renowned TO is supposed to lend creedence to his statements.

**Ssgt Carl**

streetsamurai wrote:
amanita wrote:
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant. That is a shame, especially for something posturing as a wargame. I always thought assaulting a vehicle and always using its rear armor was stupid, but instead of allowing units to move along the hull to attack the weaker side, GW just hamfisted the rule to say you had to charge the nearest facing instead. And count it as the rear. Because.

Now it doesn't matter anyway because vehicles have wounds, even though hull points were stupid. Instead of adjusting the vehicle damage table to make things more reasonable, now we can take a lesson in bookkeeping while every unit on the table is nothing more than a glorified bean counter of different strength. I think some of the excitement will wain once people realize how little fun it is trying to take out enemy vehicles. But hey, that's what the community wanted, right?

I found some of the early changes mentioned intriguing but I don't see anything yet we will port into our version of the game. Some things we already do (like allow pistols a single close combat attack) but for the most part it seems like another lateral shift. Hope it works out, regardless.

Agreed that the vehicule rules are really dissapointing and boring thus far. Removal of facings and lineard degradation are big negatives in my book.

These, along with the terribly shallow psychic phase, are my biggest gripe with 8th edition thus far.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charax wrote:
No mention of Oblits and Mutilators in the CSM focus, which doesn't fill me with confidence

All together it's really just a lot of vague "This stuff is gonna be great! but we can't tell you yet, teehee" stuff, if the other factions follow suit it's just going to be filler

Agreed that this was a waste of a time of an article

While it makes perfect sense to use the weakest armor rate in a charge, I agree the loss of facings for shooting does seem like an unnecessary oversimplification. That said 40k has never been a realistic tactical simulation. I think I can live with the idea that "it's a game" and still hope for a little bit of depth (not bloat) in whatever generals handbook type thing comes out.

As far as the article it certainly appears to be mindless hype yesterday. Either we will get a lot of that OR the release is very close at hand.

**CoreCommander**

The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...

**Charax**

CoreCommander wrote:
The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...

That, and all the typos/grammatical errors:

So, basically, he know’s his stuff.

We’ll be back in a few days to here from Reece about the Astra Militarum.

So...yeah, paragon of GW Writing

**Zognob Gorgoff**

For people disappointed by the chaos article its just a tease article and as much a way of them showing off the people that have tested the game, give credence to the testing and some face time to the testers. Its not like your being mislead. All rules are out day one so not long and you can get it all. Maybe message on facebook and ask for a bit more meat 'nicely' and just maybe they will provide it or allow more in the future posts.

**Platuan4th**

Ghaz wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.

Since the Blue Horrors are a separate unit from the Pink Horrors they split from, you do pay points for the unit of Blue Horrors.

Re-read the Blue Horrors unit entry. It specifically States you can reinforce an existing unit from nearby Pink unit splitting. You don't pay points for reinforcing an existing unit in the GHB.

**BroodSpawn**

Considering it's a guest writer I'd not claim it's a paragon of GW writing, least not when you compare it to every other article they've done over the last month for example

**tneva82**

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess what they are trying to do with that article is reassure Chaos players that they got some things they've been wanting over the last decade or so. The fact that this guy is a renowned TO is supposed to lend creedence to his statements.

Too bad GW is known for this "everything's great" market speech that's always full of BS.

The fact it's from playtester means pretty much zero. Not like it wouldn't go through editing. Who knows what he ACTUALLY wrote that got edited into what it is...

Would be bit more belieavable if it wasn't standard marketing speech GW has been writing like decades! No difference in text between him and GW's marketing department's writing.

Boring article. I could have read havoc's, chaos marine, berserker and daemon engine store entries and got same information.

**Charax**

BroodSpawn wrote:
Considering it's a guest writer I'd not claim it's a paragon of GW writing, least not when you compare it to every other article they've done over the last month for example

So Frankie wrote the sentence that introduced Frankie?

**ERJAK**

Platuan4th wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
The way it works in AoS, you only pay for NEW units. Splitting Pinks can reinforce an existing Blue unit for absolutely no cost.

Since the Blue Horrors are a separate unit from the Pink Horrors they split from, you do pay points for the unit of Blue Horrors.

Re-read the Blue Horrors unit entry. It specifically States you can reinforce an existing unit from nearby Pink unit splitting. You don't pay points for reinforcing an existing unit in the GHB.

With the caveat that it can't go above the unit size you payed for.

**tneva82**

Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
For people disappointed by the chaos article its just a tease article and as much a way of them showing off the people that have tested the game, give credence to the testing and some face time to the testers. Its not like your being mislead. All rules are out day one so not long and you can get it all. Maybe message on facebook and ask for a bit more meat 'nicely' and just maybe they will provide it or allow more in the future posts.

That the article is 100% like GW marketing department had written it makes it MORE worrying. Far from giving credence to the testing effect is opposite...

And annoyingly this means there's 0 reason to wait for these faction focus articles. It's so useless marketing speech that no point waiting for. Unlike say today's big model article it was something to look forward as it _actually gave some info about new edition_. This article? Nothing. Only thing it told is that mentioned units won't dissapear from rules but that was already given so...

Give something concrete and not just marketing speech. If not actual unit entries etc howabout description of kind of armies the playtester ACTUALLY ran? Like "lord, 3 units of chaos marines in rhino's, havocs with 4 lascannons, dreadnought"...even that kind of little information would add something of value to the article.

Out of all the articles about new 40k this was weakest one by far. Hopefully it was just a hickup and next faction article is more interesting(poor chaos again then though

)

**Mr Morden**

GreenPlum wrote:
Nice to see that (Morka/Gorka)naut's BS actually does not decrease as its wounds go down - Ork dakka's superior! :-) I wonder if more shooty equivalents for other factions will enjoy the same mercy...

Also with improved Movement stat it might be quite interesting to push orky heavies far into enemy's direction - supported by mobs of boyz they will provide both distraction and threat to gunlines.

But wait, there's more: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/07/faction-focus-chaos-space-marines/

Cool really Looking forward to the Dark Eldar and Sisters ones

**ERJAK**

Charax wrote:
CoreCommander wrote:
The latest article on CSM is a paragon of GW writing. It is heart warming to see how much written material the human brain can come up with without actually saying something factual...

That, and all the typos/grammatical errors:

So, basically, he know’s his stuff.

We’ll be back in a few days to here from Reece about the Astra Militarum.

So...yeah, paragon of GW Writing

Leave frankie alone. His writing is usually a bit flawed, he's not a writer so that makes sense; but he is one of the best 40k players in north america(among quite a few) and certainly worth listening to...most of the time.

The article is disappointing in content sure, but making fun of frankie for his writing isn't cool.

**Galas**

People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.

Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints

**Fragile**

LOL, not much content, but I love how he bashed Abbadon in that article though.

**GreenPlum**

Yeah, I think the input from the Frontline Gaming guys must have undergone some edits before being published. At least direct links to GW shop were inserted back then and possibly some form of NDA 'censorship' took place - they've mentioned in one of their recent videos that they obviously know a lot about new edition but have to keep silent and only comment on the revealed information.

Whole thing seems a bit hasty, missing entire paragraphs and written as loose thoughts and not a coherent text - wonder if those are summed up impressions testers had to send as part of their feedback and not as complete article...

Next one up is Astra Militarum, here's hoping they've started with the weakest text and the quality will eventually improve.

**Azreal13**

Galas wrote:
People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.

Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints

Surely you've noticed the pattern by now? The jumping on anything and making it the end of everything is as much a hobby as war gaming for some!

**streetsamurai**

Galas wrote:
People, you are so exagerated about the Chaos article. Yeah, is marketing filler, but you are jumping on conclusions and making a world out of it.
As other people said, if you don't like it, write to GW in their facebook asking for more "crunch" in their next faction article. I'm gonna do it.

Or just don't and keep whining in a forum without doing nothing to change the reason for your complaints

IIRC GW said that they now read some forum, and since Dakka is the biggest one AFAIK, they'll hear our complaints. But anyway, I didn't see anyone being outraged by the article, only people pointing out that it is only filler